Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Liberal Bias at Wikipedia? Cou... | In Cold Blood »

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Lady Looks Like a Dude

posted by on July 25 at 8:29 AM


A 27 year-old, HIV-positive, and under-arrest dude.

Darren Garcia offered an undercover officer a blowjob in exchange for $30. Getting a blowjob from an HIV-positive person—for free or for money—puts the recipient at practically no risk of HIV infection. That seemingly relevant fact isn’t mentioned anywhere in this rather hysterical report from the Rocky Mountain News. The paper does let us know, however, that Garcia was wearing an Avalanche jersey at the time of his arrest.

RSS icon Comments



Posted by Mr. Poe | July 25, 2007 8:41 AM

better story in Oregon where they have charged two 13 old boys as sex offenders for slapping girls at school on the ass (AOL News)

Dan, time to take on the prudes, silly crap. A lecture by the bad ass vice prin. would have been good - criminal charges are absolutely insane

post it, think your Sloggers will respond.

Posted by Freddy | July 25, 2007 8:58 AM

I am not seeing the hysteria in the report. I agree the charge is overblown but the reporting seemed pretty level headed.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | July 25, 2007 9:04 AM

Ah yes, the vice sting. Keeps us all safe from the murder, car theft, armed robbery and general mayhem.

And, 30 buck blowjobs, what corner is that? For the next time I travel...

Posted by Gold | July 25, 2007 9:06 AM

Also, with those looks? $30 must have been a negotiation of some sort. Start high, and then just take what you can get.

Posted by Mr. Poe | July 25, 2007 9:09 AM

Did they card him when he bought the five cans of silver spray paint?

Posted by monkey | July 25, 2007 9:12 AM

Go Avs!

Posted by technically on topic | July 25, 2007 9:19 AM

I'm not seeing the hysteria in the article, either.

I really wonder if people know what the hell they're talking about though...

27-year-old man who was posing as a woman when he was arrested by Denver police during a prostitution sting has been charged with prostitution with knowledge of being infected with HIV or AIDS.

He allegedly told detectives he was infected with AIDS

Last time I checked, you can't be infected with a syndrome.

This is the obvious result of NOT starting the article with the words, "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS". Now I understand why the NYTimes puts that in their "AIDS" articles. Lots of confusion can ensue when that phrase is missing.

Posted by BalllardDan | July 25, 2007 9:23 AM

I see the hysteria in the headline: Male prostitute held in HIV case.

It's not an HIV case, it's a prostitution bust. And the implication is that all of Denver -- well, all of Denver's half-blind johns -- were placed at risk by an out of control, HIV-positive male prostitute. How hard would it have been to toss in, "the act Garcia offered to perform presents little risk of communicating the AIDS virus."

Posted by Dan Savage | July 25, 2007 9:33 AM

Interesting that this made the news at all. Must have been a slow news day.

Posted by monkey | July 25, 2007 9:40 AM

"Practically no risk" of an incurable wasting illness. How reassuring.

What do you reckon is more likely, Dan -- I mean statistically speaking -- getting HIV off a blowjob or being killed by a falling Blue Angel?

As long as we're talking hysteria here.

Posted by Judah | July 25, 2007 9:43 AM

Of course it made the paper- the Rocky Mountain News is a fundie supported outlet- hence the hysteria and, while sadly I'll bet the report thought it was balanced and level headed, it wasn't really

Posted by Nelbot | July 25, 2007 9:51 AM

Judah: We can't live without blowjobs, but we can live without the Blue Angels.

Posted by Dan Savage | July 25, 2007 10:01 AM

What test was the drag queen given to prove infection?

Does anyone know? Does anyone care?

Do you know that the tests have no standard - no reference standard for interpretation? That's a fact, jack.

So what happens is, this drag queen is "considered to be at high risk for Aids", says the medical authority.

The non-specific test results are then considered to have a "higher positive predictive value", because of the sexual orientation of the victim, (and he/she is a victim of a scam).

If you want to understand what "hiv" testing is, you can do so by reading, and then doing some reading, and then, doing some reading, also, you'll have to think and consider.

Believing, on the other hand, has to be put on hold.

Here's some fun stuff on testing:

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that “68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results.” (NEJM – New England Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, “there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations.” (Lancet 339; 1992)

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater “the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results.” (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

And for the "Viral Load"

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that “a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive.” (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study “identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity,” saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR, November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem.

The title of the article really said it all. “Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load.” (J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:

“The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test….is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.”

And then the lack of any standard for testing:

In 1986, JAMA reported that: “no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people.” (JAMA. July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that “The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program.” ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: “the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or ‘gold standard’ test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated:

“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood.” (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that “2.9% to 12.3%” of women in a study tested positive, “depending on the test used,” but “since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate…” (AIDS, 14; 2000).

The 2006 Abbott Lab "hiv test" reads:

“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

And a little more, to read, (or ignore, as Dan Savage likes to do), as you look into 'hiv testing':

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the Viral Load test is nearly worthless for diagnosing Aids.

The study shows that these tests are unable to predict T-Cell loss (used to define “Aids”) in patients, the very job they are used for.

Patients’ T-Cell levels only relate to high (positive) Viral Load test response 4% to 9% of the time.

From AIDSMap

* “Plasma HIV RNA (viral load) measurements predict no more than 9% of the rate of CD4 cell loss in untreated HIV-positive individuals….

"Viral load measurements [should] play a diminishing role in informing decisions regarding when to start antiretroviral therapy.”

The Viral Load test is used by Aids, Inc. to “diagnose HIV infection”. But it only predicts that thing that defines Aids, at most, in 9% of cases. So “HIV causes Aids,” we’re told, but only about 9% of it.

So, what's the standard for interpreting these non-specific tests?

There is none.

Because there is no standard, We must be very careful about Who we test:

“Plans to test low-risk populations for HIV antibody generally ignore the possibility of false positive results…"

"How many engagements should end to prevent one infection? How many jobs should be lost? How many insurance policies should be cancelled or denied?"

"How many fetuses should be aborted and how many couples should remain childless to avert the birth of one child with AIDS?" (“High Frequency of False Positives…” Ayub Medical College, Pakistan, 1999)

From the journal AIDS Care:

“Counseling people at low risk requires paying particular attention to false positives, that is, to the possibility that the client has a positive HIV test even though he or she is not infected with the virus."

[Where have you ever heard this in an "Aids" public service announcement? When have you heard it from Dan Savage?

But it's there in the medical literature, all right].

"…If clients are not informed about this fact, they tend to believe that a positive test means that they are infected with absolute certainty….

"Emotional pain and lives can be saved if counselors inform the clients about the possibility of false positives…"

(“AIDS Counseling for Low-Risk Clients”; Max Plank Institute/Aids Care, 10, 1998 )

Sure, emotional pain And LIVES can be saved, if patients are told that the tests are absolutely meaningless pieces of interpreted garbage.

But don't worry about the drag queen, Mr. Savage. She's just collateral damage.

So, no standards - the tests are only considered "accurate" for certain groups.

Now, why in the world would that be?

I would be more than happy to argue this on the front page of the Stranger, if Mr. Savage would get off his lazy ass, and actually begin to understand some of the frailties and complexities of his favorite whipping horse.



Email me through my website, if you would like to talk about the many problems with the HIV tests, Dan.

I'll be happy to hear from you.

Posted by Liam | July 25, 2007 10:07 AM

I would be more than happy to argue this on the front page of the Stranger

Sounds like a great idea. How about it, Dan?

Posted by BallardDan | July 25, 2007 10:20 AM


Are you saying that the designation we all use "HIV+", doesn't necessarily mean a person is infected with the deadly virus? How can this be?

I don't understand the other gibberish in your post.

Posted by Ben Gorman | July 25, 2007 10:44 AM


To the part one of your question:

First, Please re-read my original post. Please read it carefully. Re-read it. Do a search on the web for "positive predictive value".

Do a search for "hiv test" and "gold standard".

Do a search for "hiv test" and "false positive".

Search for the citations in my post. Find the medical research on hiv testing.

You will have to ask yourself, why does the medical literature, year after year, decade after decade, make a constant fuss and reference to the lack of a gold standard in testing? To the number of 'false positives'?

To the fact that the tests Must be "interpreted " for "risk groups"?

Why? Because they test for nothing, specifically, but a bias.

As the manufacturers and med. lit. will tell you, time and again, the tests do not test for "infection" with any particular, standard, purified particulate entity.

They look for reactions against engineered fragments, proteins, genetic material, drawn from a variety of places - a wide and disparate variety of places -

none of them being a purified, standardized, particulate reference particle.

More than that though, the tests are testing for a supposition, that certain people are 'at risk' for 'aids'. And some people aren't.

The tests and med. lit. will tell you, unequivocally, that 'aids' is a 'clinical diagnosis', not in the least bit reliant on 'hiv testing'.

Look up "cut-off value", look up "arbitrary, hiv test, cut-off value". See what you get.

Do some reading, and don't stop until you get your questions answered.

In the meantime, I will be awaiting Mr. Savage's polite invitation to debate the issue in a public forum.

Part two -

I don't see any gibberish in my post, so I can't help you with that.


Posted by Liam | July 25, 2007 10:59 AM


No need to get snotty. I have read some, and will continue to read. But you seem to be questioning the HIV test. Do you also question pregnancy, pap smear and PSA tests?

I thought HIV tests detect antibodies to a fatal virus. What more do you need?

Posted by Ben Gorman | July 25, 2007 11:15 AM

everyone knows that avs fans the HIV positive cross-dressing prostitutes of the NHL. in fact, i bet if you washed that makeup off the dude would have a striking resemblance to patrick roy.

Posted by go wings! | July 25, 2007 12:14 PM

Shut your mouth when you're talking about Saint Patrick.

Posted by PdxRitchie | July 25, 2007 1:53 PM


Shut the fuck up.

Posted by stanley cup | July 25, 2007 1:55 PM

Wow, I was expecting the AIDS nutter, but not the hockey fans.

Posted by Fnarf | July 25, 2007 3:09 PM

personally, i blame the December 2, 1995 game for roy's downfall. i would have thought getting shelled 12-1 (and getting traded soon after) would have been rock bottom, but as this post shows, one can always dig a little deeper.

Posted by go wings! | July 25, 2007 4:16 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).