Disclosing HIV + positive status

[Varven]

Alright.. whose watched the news about the guy being HIV + and NOT having to disclose it to sexual partners in advance ? The judge ruled it as no effective crime.

What f#$king BS., just cause someone has AIDS, no reason to spread onto everyone else.

Ok so he used protection on the single sexual encounter, BUT he didn't disclose it to his gf of 4 months before they had unprotected sexual intercourse.

Slam his arse in prison for a good few years and wack on a chastity belt I say. People with HIV shouldnt be discriminted against but I sure as hell think it should be a legal requirement that they disclose it to sexual partners. Condoms are only 99% effective.

Boys and Girls, dont bungee without a rubber... shocking stuff out there.

[ExpensiveUrine]

Is this recent news?

I think I saw something like it way way back. It was about a guy coming to NZ with HIV and not telling authorities about it or something along those lines.

I think when you have HIV your whole view on the world changes drastically. That is, knowing that there's no cure for AIDS and the consequences that come along with it, might (and probably will) screw with your mind a little bit. Saying that, his objective was to get sex and while knowing that he has HIV he also knows that no sane person will take that chance to have sexual intercourse with him. So why tell them, right?

I agree with you, Varven. Then again, It's fortunate that I don't have HIV so I can't really say what the guy is going through.

[brock_solid]

It's sort of a half and half endevour for me, i always look at both sides of a story before i make an assumption. In this case i would look at it from the guys point of view, now imagine you had AIDS and having one sexual encounter got blown out of proportion and you were sentenced to court.

Then again i look at it from the females point and even considering having unprotected sex with an HIV person would be like having a bottle of Jim Beam and trying to drive from Wellington to Auckland. It's sort of a tricky situation because if i knew somebody had AIDs i would run a mile away from them because every second i spent with them i would be thinking of possible ways i could be contaminated. Then thinking about having even protected sex would scare the hell out of me or anyone for that matter.

So to my conclusion, he should have disclosed the information previous to the encouter and let the provocation settle before making any substationated endorsement.

[Varven]

EU this court case was on today.

Its a male who had a case lodged against him cause he didnt disclose his condition to a female who he found for casual sex off http://www.NZD.com(New Zealand Dating).

Before this he did not disclose his situation to his gf off 4 months BEFORE having unprotected sex with her. He is well aware of his condition and its implications.

The AIDS awareness groups endorse his actions.. on prime time tv... pull your heads outta yer asses folks unless u want an AIDS rate to rival Africa or Bangkok.

[Cornfed]

Given that there is no evidence that such an entity as the "HIV virus" even exists, in that no such virus has ever been isolated, crystallized, photographed with an electron microscope and shown to be infectious, and the whole AID$ industry is a money-making scam, this whole issue should never even arise. In this respect I suppose the ruling is partial progress.

[Ash]

Given that there is no evidence that such an entity as the "HIV virus" even exists, in that no such virus has ever been isolated, crystallized, photographed with an electron microscope and shown to be infectious, and the whole AID$ industry is a money-making scam, this whole issue should never even arise. In this respect I suppose the ruling is partial progress.

I've heard this theory a number of times before. Let me ask you two questions:

1. If HIV/AIDS isn't killing all those people, then what is?

2. Given what you've said above, would you have unprotected sex with someone who was HIV positive?

[tallulahangie]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story ... d=10348893

I would think twice about having sex with someone infected with the HIV virus...

If in doubt, don't have sex!

[jono]

i think this was a bad descision by the courts

[Growth]

I would think twice about having sex with someone infected with the HIV virus...

Think twice!!!??? I wouldnt go near them with a 10ft barge pole. I think its digusting that someone would have sex with another person knowing they have got HIV, weither the person knows or know.

Thats how its spreading for gods sake.

[tallulahangie]

But often there is more to sex than the act itself... If you are in love with someone it can make that decision a whole lot harder... But then again I would ultimately feel betrayed if I found out that someone I was in love with had kept a secret like this from me...

Trust and honesty...

[Cornfed]

I've heard this theory a number of times before.

Theory? As far as I know, I've stated an empirical fact. If I'm wrong and papers exist demonstrating the isolation of HIV, showing it to be infectious and demonstrating that it causes the set of conditions generically referred to as "AIDS", then why don't you simply remove all doubt by posting links or references to such papers? After all, if you are knowledgeable about the subject then you might well be able to rattle off the references off the top of your head, since they would be widely known and the researchers responsible would surely have won Nobel prizes. If you can't immediately bring the references to mind then I imagine it would take about 5 seconds to find them with an Internet search. That is, if they existed.

Let me ask you two questions:

1. If HIV/AIDS isn't killing all those people, then what is?

The AIDS construct was first invented to describe the condition of many promiscuous homosexuals and/or drug users in the 70s. There is really no mystery as to why such people suffered a lot of health problems - their lifestyle didn't agree with them. Specifically, it placed their bodies under a lot of oxidative stress. (Of course, once the HIV-AIDS hoax got going, quacks were able to greatly exacerbate their conditions with poisons such as AZT that brought about the very symptoms they were supposedly prescribed to treat, thereby facilitating the murder of thousands of socially unpopular individuals while making billions for the medical establishment).

To understand this further, consider the case of another group of people whose lifestyle does not agree with them - professional bodybuilders. There are many previously known medical problems common in the pros that are diffuse in the general population (colitis, liver and kidney problems, abscesses etc.). If we wished, we could give the tendency to suffer from some number of these conditions a name, say Bodybuilding Related Syndrome (BRS). Now, while it could be said that BRS as defined does actually exist, we would not regard it as a disease in the same way that typhoid is a disease - it is more of a linguistic construct. Just so, we would likely not find it necessary to postulate the existence of some mystery virus the pros were giving each other to cause BRS. Their lifestyle would be the obvious first suspect as a cause, as would be confirmed by observing the spread of BRS. Such should have been the case with AIDS, but unfortunately the drug and virology industries needed a boost at the time and money talks.

2. Given what you've said above, would you have unprotected sex with someone who was HIV positive?

"HIV positive" results might indicate that the person was under oxidative stress, and in general I'd be a bit leery about having sex with unhealthy people. However, how about the following arrangement: I have sex with a willing, otherwise healthy, clean living and unmedicated "HIV positive" person indefinitely at a rate of, say, once a month. You in return take a "theraputic dose" of AZT indefinitely, and also gift your assets to a trust to be turned over to me in the event that you choose to stop using the AZT. I doubt whether it would be possible to ethically and logistically arrange such a scheme, but if it is possible it would be very interesting to see which one of us dies "of AIDS" first.

[Ash]

Thanks for the reply Cornfed.

Can we agree on the following:

1. There are many people around the world who have been diagnosed as being "HIV positive" by whatever methodologies modern medical science currently employs for this purpose.

2. A substantial percentage of these people aren't promiscuous homosexuals and/or drug addicts. I would assume that a large proportion of the HIV/AIDS cases in Africa won't fit those criteria.

3. Large numbers of these people are dying. A google search for AIDS mortality in Africa will come up with some frightening figures.

So again I'll ask the question, if HIV/AIDS isn't killing them, then what is?

In the African example, there are obviously lifestyle factors that would contribute to health problems, extreme poverty and malnutrition come to mind immediately. However, these factors were there 30 years ago, so what's changed in the interim? Are they all being dosed with AZT?

My point is that I don't think that it's enough to say HIV/AIDS was created to line the pockets of the medical establishment without explaining these deaths somehow.

"HIV positive" results might indicate that the person was under oxidative stress, and in general I'd be a bit leery about having sex with unhealthy people. However, how about the following arrangement: I have sex with a willing, otherwise healthy, clean living and unmediated "HIV positive" person indefinitely at a rate of, say, once a month. You in return take a "theraputic dose" of AZT indefinitely, and also gift your assets to a trust to be turned over to me in the event that you choose to stop using the AZT. I doubt whether it would be possible to ethically and logistically arrange such a scheme, but if it is possible it would be very interesting to see which one of us dies "of AIDS" first.

No thanks! From what I understand, the chances of a male contracting HIV from a female partner without getting too kinky are very slim indeed (if I'm wrong, you'll no doubt correct me). Whether you're right about the virus existing or not, having sex once a month gives you a pretty good chance of getting away with it.

If you're so confident, maybe you can arrange to have a blood transfusion from an HIV positive patient? Even so, I won't be dosing myself with AZT, I'll just do my best to avoid sexual contact with HIV positive people until you're either proven right or the medical establishment finds a cure.

[bleat]

Alright.. whose watched the news about the guy being HIV + and NOT having to disclose it to sexual partners in advance ? The judge ruled it as no effective crime.

What f#$king BS., just cause someone has AIDS, no reason to spread onto everyone else.

Ok so he used protection on the single sexual encounter, BUT he didn't disclose it to his gf of 4 months before they had unprotected sexual intercourse.

Slam his arse in prison for a good few years and wack on a chastity belt I say. People with HIV shouldnt be discriminted against but I sure as hell think it should be a legal requirement that they disclose it to sexual partners. Condoms are only 99% effective.

Boys and Girls, dont bungee without a rubber... shocking stuff out there.

First off condoms are only as effective as stated on the packet when used under specific conditions- and really who does it like that anyway?

Secondly HIV+ and Aids aren't the same thing.

Lastly- Cornfed you're full of crap. Can you honestly say you would hold the same attitude if you caught a HIV+ person nailing your daughter/sister/whatever? Or you were diagnosed yourself? For lack of a better phrase it seems like a case of Fear Factor syndrome, it's easy to form an opinion on a situation that isn't in your face.

Seriously mate where do you get this shit from? Most peoples drive to be "unique" dies down when they're 15.

Bah it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, the fact remains that in the public eye it's a very real diease with very real implications.

"The evidence of health experts in the area is that the use of a condom for vaginal intercourse is sufficient for the prevention of the transmission of HIV and that this can be met without the requirement for disclosure"

^^ Basically the crux of the decision. Nice use of 'sufficient' in there.

"If you require people who know they are positive to disclose (their infection) there would be a disincentive for people who thought they were positive to be tested.

"It is important people are not discouraged from getting tested."

^^ Obvously dangerous enough to warrent testing.

"There was a one in 20,000 chance of being infected with HIV if a condom was used"

^^ I'll decided whether I like those odds thanks very much.

I have things to do now so can't finish how'd I like but I look foward to your next post.

[Cornfed]

Lastly- Cornfed you're full of crap. Can you honestly say you would hold the same attitude if you caught a HIV+ person nailing your daughter/sister/whatever? Or you were diagnosed yourself? For lack of a better phrase it seems like a case of Fear Factor syndrome, it's easy to form an opinion on a situation that isn't in your face.

Seriously mate where do you get this shit from? Most peoples drive to be "unique" dies down when they're 15.

Will some judicious moderator please ban this abusive troll.

[Pseudonym]

Will some judicious moderator please ban this abusive troll.

No, because he's not a troll, and only very mildly abusive. Perhaps now would be a good time to explain the criteria we use in determining this...

The forum rules state:

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE TOLERATED! Discussion and debate is encouraged, but we will not allow members to abuse each other.

Now the key word here (as you've picked up on, Cornfed) is "abuse". The dictionary definition of abuse is "a rude expression intended to offend or hurt". I'm not so sure about the "rude" bit. I think we can tolerate some rudeness, provided it's in good humour. So that leaves us with "an expression intended to offend or hurt".

As I've said, I think this particular instance of abuse is at the minor end of the scale, and intended more to add colour and emphasis to the argument, not to offend or hurt. So I won't be editing it.

However, I'd appreciate it if everyone could avoid personal comments completely in future, especially in a debate like this which is liable to get emotional.

Ta. 8)

[waxmistress]

Interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reapp ... erminology

I have a work colleague who is of the same opinion as Cornfed, so I'm doing a bit of research for myself.

[Cornfed]

Thanks for the reply Cornfed.

Thanks for yours, although I can't help notice you didn't simply resolve the dispute by posting the references and/or links that I suggested.

Can we agree on the following:

1. There are many people around the world who have been diagnosed as being "HIV positive" by whatever methodologies modern medical science currently employs for this purpose

Yes, although the methodologies vary from place to place and lab to lab. The stuff they are detecting in the tests has been proven on the basis of immunological studies to be of cellular origin. If undiluted blood were used for the tests, every human would test positive. Instead they dilute the blood 400-fold and then interpret the results on the basis of the population they are dealing with. Basically, what is defined as a positive test is designed to meet the expectations of the testers for the percentage of positive results within the population they are dealing with.

2. A substantial percentage of these people aren't promiscuous homosexuals and/or drug addicts. I would assume that a large proportion of the HIV/AIDS cases in Africa won't fit those criteria.

Yes, but it is important to make a distinction between those diagnosed with AIDS in the West and those diagnosed elsewhere. The vast majority of AIDS cases in the West are male homosexuals or drug addicts. Those elsewhere aren't. This alone should raise a red flag.

3. Large numbers of these people are dying. A google search for AIDS mortality in Africa will come up with some frightening figures.

So again I'll ask the question, if HIV/AIDS isn't killing them, then what is?

In the African example, there are obviously lifestyle factors that would contribute to health problems, extreme poverty and malnutrition come to mind immediately. However, these factors were there 30 years ago, so what's changed in the interim?

Nothing much has changed. Haven't large numbers of people always been dying? In fact, you have answered your own question and there is no issue here. People in the third world are dying of what they have always died of, and the populations of most parts of the third world continue to grow at the rates projected before the supposed AIDS epidemic. Thus in any third-world capital you get the surreal spectacle of Western charities trying to treat the impending decimation of the population from AIDS (which has been promoted as being just around the corner for the last 20 years but never seems to actually occur) working alongside other Western charities trying to treat the scourge of overpopulation. You've got to laugh, I suppose.

[Cornfed]

As I've said, I think this particular instance of abuse is at the minor end of the scale, and intended more to add colour and emphasis to the argument, not to offend or hurt. So I won't be editing it.

The troll is advancing the usual ad hominem fallacy that anything I say should be summarily dismissed on the basis of what the troll alleges my motivations to be. So if I'm not directly affected by "AIDS" then anything I say must be nonsense because I don't have any reason to care about the issue, whereas if I am affected then anything I say must be nonsense because I care too much and am in denial. Perhaps there is some kind of humour I am missing here, but otherwise I find this kind of thing highly offensive and I don't see why trolls like this should be given a second chance.

[Cornfed]

Interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reapp ... erminology

I have a work colleague who is of the same opinion as Cornfed, so I'm doing a bit of research for myself.

If you want to research the issue then here is a good summary article:

http://www.primitivism.com/yin-yang-HIV.htm

And here is a good site:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

As to the Wiki article, what you have to remember is that anyone can add pages to the Wiki and the AIDS-hoax industry has a lot of money to employ people to promote itself, so don't believe everything you read.

Now that I think about it, I've been looking into the AIDS issue in one way or another for the last 20 years or so, and you can take it from me that the AIDS industry is an absolute, unmitigated, outright scam from start to finish. If you think about it, no-one should be particularly surprised by this. I mean, doesn't our culture consist mostly of scams? There are infomercials that promise you washboard abs if you use their crappy device for three minutes a day. Those are scams. People go to the gym requesting a personal trainer and get some scrawny dweeb telling them to do micro-squats with a swiss-ball against the wall. That is a scam, as are the dweebs' training courses. George Bush tells a pack of outright lies in order to justify pillaging the Middle East to enrich some of his corporate cronies and then is returned to office in an election rigged by other corporate cronies. That is a scam. Given this background, wouldn't it be some kind of miracle if something like the AIDS gravy-train was not a scam?

[waxmistress]

That virusmyth website is my colleague's...

[waxmistress]

I'm not really into conspiracy theories. but each to their own. I just want to understand both sides of the argument before I start making statements either way. Know your enemy and all that...

[Varven]

Cornfed... I have one question.. all I want is an honest answer:

If I brought you a person who is HIV+... would you accept 1 liter of his blood and give him 1 liter of yours, twice a month, for a whole year ?

V.V.

[Cornfed]

^ What are you offering to do in return?

[Varven]

This is a purely Hypothetical scenario cornfed... Im just wondering if you would be willing to do so.. say for a sum of money... not a lot.. just enough to compensate you for the hasle.

Would you do it ? ...

or to prove a point ?

Maybe you can prove it to the rest of the human race that HIV , AIDS is a consipiracy by bravely swapping blood with a so called HIV+ positive person ?

[Cornfed]

This is a purely Hypothetical scenario cornfed... Im just wondering if you would be willing to do so.. say for a sum of money... not a lot.. just enough to compensate you for the hasle.

Would you do it ? ...

or to prove a point ?

If I were to participate in such a scheme as suggested then I would expect to be very well compensated, as the whole thing seems rather unhealthy and unpleasant. Having such a large volume of blood transfused would be very hard on the liver and kidneys (even though I assume this chap would at least have to have the same blood-type as me). What's more, if the chap were generally unhealthy or lived a high risk lifestyle or were on "HIV" meds with the resulting opportunistic infections, then I would be at risk of any number of serious heath problems from transfusions of his blood. The very suggestion seems rather silly to me.

A better idea would be, say, for me to drink the breast milk of an otherwise healthy and unmedicated "HIV+" woman. I understand the quack medical establishment regards this as a high risk behaviour - indeed such women have been prosecuted for breastfeeding their babies in some places. Hence if the quacks were right, I would stand a high chance of becoming "HIV positive" over the course of a year or so. Better still, such a scheme would not require a doctor's supervision of participation. So if someone would source a suitable volunteer and put, say, $100k into a trust fund to be transferred to me in the event that I did not consistently give positive test results after a period of two years or so, then I would most likely agree to such a proposition.

Maybe you can prove it to the rest of the human race that HIV , AIDS is a consipiracy by bravely swapping blood with a so called HIV+ positive person ?

The thing is that there are scores of thousands of people who tested positive years ago and have no symptoms of "AIDS", who test negative and have symptoms, who indulge in behaviour regarded as high risk and neither test positive nor develop symptoms and so fourth. One more person in one of these categories is not going to make any difference. Besides, most people are sheeple who will just believe whatever the mainstream media tells them regardless of the evidence.