Comments on Gabriel Rotello vs. Andrew Sullivan

Gabriel Rotello says the sky is falling. Sullivan and Petrelis say it isn't.

Same old story...

gays just love their HIV/AIDS. Can't let go of it. Can't really blame them. AIDS is an integral part of gay identity.

No matter what the "numbers" are, we're duty-bound to keep up a culture of hysteria surrounding AIDS. There can be no let-up. We must be vigilant. Otherwise, we may accidentally let go of this important part of gay identity. Yikes!

Speaking of hysteria...

hey, Eli, what happened to patient zero and those "similar strain" guys in Seattle?

you crazy gay guys are crackin' me up again with your bitchy cat fights! saucer of cream, ya big queens?

sullivan is right, 1996 IS major and is seldomed recognized AT ALL by queers under 30...they will have no idea what happened in 1996. it makes perfect sense to mark this period. to remember what things were like before the cocktail came out...to honor the horrific plague most didn't live through. but rotello is right too, we need to also remember AIDS has not gone away...and to pretend like it has would be a lie and put our community in further jeopardy...it just seems like both things are important and far from being mutually exclusive...this seems like a battle of egos?

Remember the days of use a condom every time all the time? And the if you fucked without a condom you may as well put a gun to your head and pull the trigger: it would be a faster death. It is not about being scared it is about being responsible.

my guess is that bd @ 1 is not HIV positive. I am, and there is not a day that goes by that this thing is not on my mind. Not one.

"gays just love their HIV/AIDS". I can't tell you how angry that statement makes me feel. Why would anyone even make such a statement?

"AIDS is an integral part of gay identity". That statement I agree with, but it is out of necessity, not choice.

My meds are keeping me alive, and I am thankful for that.

Vigilence! If you are negative, STAY THAT WAY! It's easy to stay that way, and there is no going back once you have it.

... and have I mentioned lately that meth is bad? Because it is.

...gays don't see it as gun to the head because it's truly not...you can live with hiv long term...the drugs are way better, less pill burden (1 pill once per day = atripla), less food restrictions, less side effects...and i disagree, it IS about being scared, SOBER. most queers getting infected aren't sober enough when fucking to use a condom...if we stopped our friends from getting too intoxicated instead of saying things like "be safe" it would do more good, i think?...i dunno know the answer but i do think fear can be healthy and somewhat protective...just needs to be put into perspective...and i think when sullivan talks about how it was before the cocktail (1996) that gives us the perspective we are sorely missing and often time squelching...

uhmmmmm,

Good points. Just thinking of the friends, colleagues and PWA clients I knew and worked with who didn't live to see 1996 makes me physically ill sometimes. Some of my clients literally passed within a few weeks of the cocktail becoming widely available locally - that's how thin a margin it was between living and dying back then.

And I'm straight to boot, so I can only imagine what it must feel like to be a gay over-40 person dealing with that knowledge, regardless of their HIV status.

I've been told (which is my way of saying I having done the necessary fact checking 'cause I just buy it) that even as of today, more gay men die each year of AIDS in New York City alone than the number of people who died when the World Trade Center Towers came down - both around 3000 individuals.

Sullivan, Petrelis and Rotello are all individuals themselves; none of which have shown they can fully encapsulate what the AIDS crisis has meant or continues to mean or what is has done or continues to do that I buy what they say without doing a great deal of fact checking.

I've been told (which is my way of saying I having done the necessary fact checking 'cause I just buy it) that even as of today, more gay men die each year of AIDS in New York City alone than the number of people who died when the World Trade Center Towers came down - both around 3000 individuals.

Sullivan, Petrelis and Rotello are all individuals themselves; none of which have shown they can fully encapsulate what the AIDS crisis has meant or continues to mean or what is has done or continues to do that I buy what they say without doing a great deal of fact checking.

Ahh well, better to listen to them than this BD wormhole who first posted a comment on this. God, I'm glad I'm not you otherwise I might accidentally have to let go of huge gaps of reality so I can be a smug petty creep.

I am uneducated on the topic.

Aren't there side effects on the human body of taking retro-viral medication for years? Do we know what all of them are?

Has enough time lapsed since these medications have been introduced for there to be a confidence that contracting HIV, while financially disastrous, may not be physiologically intolerable?

I don't have enough faith in the pharmaceutical industry or in America's healthcare system to risk exposure to HIV.

If I do what I can to avoid HIV I don't have to live at the mercy of an industry that profits off of my illness or a govt that is ambivalent about my health - nor do I have to be the subject of arguments between men vying for legitimacy.

What test is used to diagnose HIV infection? Just wondering, because the one they're using actually diagnoses the flu:

New England Journal of Medicine, March, 2006

"[R]ecent inoculation with any brand of influenza vaccine was significantly associated with a false positive screening assay for HIV antibodies."

"Guidelines of both Johns Hopkins and the New York State Department of Health list influenza vaccination as a known cause of indeterminate results on Western blotting for HIV antibodies."

"Given the escalating international awareness of various influenza strains, it is very important to remind patients and clinicians that influenza vaccination may cause cross-reactivity with HIV antibody assays."

"The time course for such cross-reactivity remains uncertain."

Sullivan said: "San Francisco has led the way in reducing HIV transmission through sero-sorting. Marriage helps too, in channeling sex into love and commitment."

Is there some public health program in SF that I've never heard of? If sero-sorting is really happening in San Francisco it is purely by chance and not by design. Why should anyone believe a stranger/new sex partner's claim to be HIV negative?

Since when is marriage the key to fidelity? Marriage doesn't have to equal monogamy.

It's unfortunate that we continue to relive and recreate the traumas many of us lived through in the 80's and 90's. It's understandable, but it's unfortunate.

What drives us to recreate these past traumas?

Is there "survivor's guilt" happening in the gay community?

Are we afraid to let go of our traumas and fears...so we unwittingly keep recreating them through dubious "superstrain" and other scares?

Are we collectively experiencing a form of Stockholm Syndrome with the medical establishment/pharmaceutical companies?

What attracts us to AIDS?

Patrick @ 10; yes, the side effects of some HIV meds are horrific. Some are relatively immediate, some effects take much longer to appear, some go away when you stop taking the med in question, others don't. But, for the most part and for most folks (important caveats), they keep people alive. I'm with Comte...the thought of friends who didn't live long enough for the cocktails is just maddening.

LS @ 11...well no, it's not diagnosing flu. What the article says is that having recently gotten a flu vaccine can result in a false positive in a Western blot test for HIV antibodies. Western blot is a type of test...it used to be used primarily as a confirmatory test for another (cheaper) test called ELISA.

oh and Patrick @12...I am not sure what programs in SF are promoting sero-sorting, but a whole bunch of behavioral surveillance data from SF has shown that there is a fair amount of sero-sorting going on (apparently independently adopted) and it does appear to be driving a falling rate in new infections.

Sero-sorting for positives makes total sense...you know if you're positive and can reasonably assume that if your partner says they are positive that they are.

Personally, I would never trust sero-sorting among negatives. Just cause someone says they're negative doesn't mean they are. They could be lying (happens). More relevant, however, is that they could have been infected since their last test (which was when again? Yesterday, last month, six months, a year?).

But then again, I'm a wimp that way. Watching your very closest friends and ex-lovers die or watching others take toxic pills every day tends to have that effect.

LS @ 11...well no, it's not diagnosing flu. What the article says is that having recently gotten a flu vaccine can result in a false positive in a Western blot test for HIV antibodies. Western blot is a type of test...it used to be used primarily as a confirmatory test for another (cheaper) test called ELISA.

No,

it's diagnosing flu.

That's why the doctors are sending out warnings. The tests don't measure anything specific. The reaction is non-specific, thus the flu response.

They decide whether it's accurate or not by risk-group asssesment. If you're gay, black, a drug user, etc, then you're considered to be 'at high risk', and your non-specific test result is considered to be more accurate.

This is called the 'positive predictive value'.

Look it up. Positive Predictive Value.

Go figure, huh? The test works because you're gay.

This is from the Abbott labs 2006 Elisa, the standard.

Well, 'standard.' That's wrong, because the tests have no standard for interpreting their meaning.

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

They do not predict illness in people who are not already ill, morbidly impoverished, taking Aids drugs or street drugs.

* “The risk of an asymptomatic [not chronically ill] person with *a repeatedly reactive [positive]* serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known”

So, there's no standard. It's not the test, it's the interpretation of your risk group.

The Western Blot is the same thing, rearranged - same synthetic proteins, read differently from lab to lab. But, again, the most important thing is that you're considered to be at risk - ie, gay, black, a drug user.

For you, they'll say that a 'reactive' test is a 'true positive' instead of a 'false positive'. Or, a non-reactive test is a 'false-negative.'

The bottom line is, if they want you, they'll have you.

whatever...made the mistake of assuming you were serious. My apologies, I won't let it happen again.

BD, your post is very confusing to me...I don't think anyone under 30 is having survivor guilt...these young people were way to young to see the devastation created by AIDS in the 80's and 90's. Therefore, reliving all of this may be insightful...unfortunately, NO one is reliving on this blog...it was actually Sullivan who relived it and then got bashed by Rotello...anyways, your last sentence "what attracts us to AIDs?" is kind of a nice spin on things...could be used to open a forum on Gay men's health or something...

Patrick @10: "Aren't there side effects on the human body of taking retro-viral medication for years? Do we know what all of them are?"

Good question! No, we don't know... nobody does, because the disease nor the treatment have been around long enough.

In my own case, today I feel fine, and I have a low viral load and high CD 4 (T cell) count. But it's the uncertainty, the not knowing the long term effects of the meds, that keeps me anxious about it. Some poz people handle it better than others. Maybe I think too much.

But then again, I'm a wimp that way. Watching your very closest friends and ex-lovers die or watching others take toxic pills every day tends to have that effect.

Watching my friends die and take toxic drugs has the effect of getting me to question what the hell's going on. Rather than just being lead by the nose by the medical establishment, I question and research the AIDS phenomenon.

"In my own case, today I feel fine, and I have a low viral load and high CD 4 (T cell) count. But it's the uncertainty, the not knowing the long term effects of the meds, that keeps me anxious about it. Some poz people handle it better than others. Maybe I think too much."

Me too, Duncan, and I consider myself one of the very lucky ones. My doctor finally told me to stop worrying about the HIV so much and start concerning myself with my smoking (I quit after 30 years!) and cholesterol. Regular middle-aged man problems.

There is that huge gap in my resume to consider, however. I spent a lot of years in and out of serious illness and depression and wasn't exactly fastidious about work, finances, etc. I do kind of hate being ten years behind, career-wise.

But these are great problems to have, compared to all those who've died from the disease, and those who struggle with it still.

Sure "Gnossos",

Apology accepted. I can see you're a man of little intellectual courage, so I accept your apology.

Here's a little more on the test that tests for nothing:

http://www.wildirismedicaleducation.com/courses/191/index_mand.html

"Special Note for Washington State

To minimize the risk of false positive results, the Washington State Department of Health recommends that, whenever practical, whole-blood finger stick specimens be used for OraQuick Advance HIV-1/2 rapid testing, especially in populations with low prevalence (less than 1%). False positive means that the test result is positive but the client is not infected.

So, there's no difference in the actual test - it's the interpretation. If you're in a 'risk group' - gays, blacks, poor, you're test is more likely to be a "true positive" rather than a "false positive."

You're "positive" but "not infected" if you're not in a risk group. I mean, what's a "high prevalance area"? It's an area with a lot of gay or black people. Those are the CDC's risk groups.

Look up "risk group, hiv, cdc". Look up "positive predictive value" "cut-off" "false positives" "false negatives" "heterophile antibodies", see what you can find.
Here's more from the Washington State recommendations:

This recommendation is based on: (1) the difference between the sensitivity of OraQuick Advance testing of finger stick whole-blood specimens and oral fluid specimens (99.6% vs 99.3%, respectively); (2) the decrease in the positive predictive value of rapid HIV screening with low prevalence; and (3) the low prevalence of HIV in most populations in Washington State.

The low prevalence of HIV in Washington State means that most testing sites service client populations with less than 1 percent prevalence. In such cases, there is increased likelihood that reactive HIV tests will be false positives."

It's not the tests, it's the interpretation based on 'risk group.' If you're not in the group, your test is not considered 'accurate'.

They just say it, they don't hide it. Because that's the way it works.

False positive means that the test result is positive but the client is not infected.

This is called hidden in plain sight.

It's an oxymoronic statement, saying the result is positive, but the client is not infected.

What makes it a "false positive"? Not being in a so-called "risk group". It's a nazi-style way to get the results you want/expect.

Very simple question: What does the "HIV test" test for?

1. Does it detect the virus or not?

2. If not, why not?

My understanding is that the "HIV test" purports to detect antibodies, not virus.

Ok, well, how do we know that antibodies detected are unique and specific to HIV?

Clearly, if someone is going to be diagnosed with a fatal disease, caused by a virus, there should be absolutely no doubt, that, in fact, a virus is present.

Finally, What do people think about these "elite controllers". These are people that are HIV+, completely healthy, and don't take any of the medications.

Isn't possible that these people are healthy, because the test results are wrong?

@25 The HIV antibody test looks for unique antibodies that your immune system creates to defend against HIV infection. It takes approximately 3 weeks to 3 months for these antibodies to show up on the test (90% show within a month after infection), hence the "window period" involved in testing. The test is about 99% accurate, meaning that a small number of folks will show a false positive (the test thinks it is seeing protein pair sequences unique to HIV antibodies, when in fact it is not). If an antibody test comes back positive, then a follow up RNA test is done to look directly for the virus. If HIV is found, then the person is confirmed HIV-posivite, if not then they are a "false positive".

As for the "elite controllers", or "long-term nonprogressors" as they used to call them, that has to do with genetics. Everyone responde differently to HIV infection due to other health factors - including nutrition, exercise, age, weight, general health, etc. - and yes, genetics. Some people do not have the "ports" on their CD-4 cells that HIV uses to glom onto. Therefore, the virus will not be able to progress in their system as rapidly, or perhaps at all. Lucky them! This doesn't mean that they can't be carriers in the short-term if they are exposed, or pass it on to other during that time, it simply means that the virus won't be able to manifest in their system.

Also, there have been studies going on for years observing prostitutes in Kenya who are apparently immune to HIV. They show huge amounts of antibodies in their system, yet no trace of the virus despite constant exposure/re-exposure from their clients. These gals, along with the "elite controllers", are being studied to determine whether or not their genetic, natural defenses can be used to help in the fight against HIV.

Hope this helps!

Leo: Ok, well, how do we know that antibodies detected are unique and specific to HIV?

Emil: The HIV antibody test looks for unique antibodies that your immune system creates to defend against HIV infection.

Is that your answer, Emil?

No, Emil Garro, not to be snotty, but that doesn't help one bit. You are merely cutting and pasting someone else's words and/or thoughts.

I asked 2 very simple questions, which I will now condense into 1:

--Why doesn't any HIV "test" detect the actual virus?

If I were an AIDS patient, I would like to have CONFIRMATION that I was infected by the virus. What is the confirmation? Don't give me viral loads, antibodies all this indirect crap.

Here's some gobbledygook from test maker Abbott:

“The sensitivity and specificity of the Abbott HIVAG-1 blocking antibody procedure are not known, however, estimates can be obtained from the clinical data by applying the binomial distribution.”

What utter bullshit.

Emil,

we've got a bit of a quandry here. You see, without a standard for HIV tests, you've got a crapshoot at best.

@17:This is from the Abbott labs 2006 Elisa
At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood

No standard, Emil. Understand? It's quite simple.

Leo - "If an antibody test comes back positive, then a follow up RNA test is done to look directly for the virus. If HIV is found, then the person is confirmed HIV-posivite..." The viral loads and antibodies are not "indirect crap" - that's the infection.

Not to be snotty, but isn't it a shame that countless millions have died as a result of this "indirect crap" and "gobbledygook"? I guess I can tell my positive friends not to worry about it when their silly little viral loads shoot past the 700,000 mark, or their goofy little CD-4 cells drop below 300. And thank you, but my response wasn't cut, pasted or canned. However, if you'd like me to do that, I certainly can. Here ya go...

ELISA
The ELISA test, or the enzyme immunoassay (EIA), was the first screening test commonly employed for HIV. It has a high sensitivity.

In an ELISA test, a person's serum is diluted 400-fold and applied to a plate to which HIV antigens have been attached. If antibodies to HIV are present in the serum, they may bind to these HIV antigens. The plate is then washed to remove all other components of the serum. A specially prepared "secondary antibody" — an antibody that binds to human antibodies — is then applied to the plate, followed by another wash. This secondary antibody is chemically linked in advance to an enzyme. Thus the plate will contain enzyme in proportion to the amount of secondary antibody bound to the plate. A substrate for the enzyme is applied, and catalysis by the enzyme leads to a change in color or fluorescence. ELISA results are reported as a number; the most controversial aspect of this test is determining the "cut-off" point between a positive and negative result.

Western blot
In the Western blot procedure, HIV-infected cells are opened and the proteins within are placed into a slab of gel, to which an electrical current is applied. Different proteins will move with different velocities in this field, depending on their size, while their electrical charge is leveled by a surfactant called sodium lauryl sulfate. Once the proteins are well-separated, they are transferred to a membrane and the procedure continues similar to an ELISA: the person's diluted serum is applied to the membrane and antibodies in the serum may attach to some of the HIV proteins. Antibodies which do not attach are washed away, and enzyme-linked antibodies with the capability to attach to the person's antibodies determine to which HIV proteins the person has antibodies.

There are no universal criteria for interpreting the Western blot test: the number of viral bands which must be present may vary. If no viral bands are detected, the result is negative. If at least one viral band for each of the GAG, POL, and ENV gene-product groups are present, the result is positive. The three-gene-product approach to Western blot interpretation has not been adopted for public health or clinical practice. Tests in which less than the required number of viral bands are detected are reported as indeterminate: a person who has an indeterminate result should be retested, as later tests may be more conclusive. Almost all HIV-infected persons with indeterminate Western-Blot results will develop a positive result when tested in one month; persistently indeterminate results over a period of six months suggests the results are not due to HIV infection. In a generally healthy low-risk population, indeterminate results on Western blot occur on the order of 1 in 5,000 patients.

Not to be snotty, but isn't it a shame that countless millions have died as a result of this "indirect crap" and "gobbledygook"?

Yes, they sure have...
poisoned by AZT monotherapy, "hit hard, hit early", committing suicide after a "positive" test, being given a death sentence. The list goes on. You're right, Emil

give it up Emil. This is worse than arguing with flat-earthers or creationists. Thankfully, less people believe the denialists than believe that Adam and Eve walked with the dinosaurs. So even though they're infuriating, they're at least so marginal as to be irrelevant.

Emile wrote:

"The viral loads and antibodies are not "indirect crap" - that's the infection."

False. Viral loads and Antibodies are not the "infection." Viral loads count RNA fragments that may or may not be of viral origin. Antibodies respond to infectious microbes -- they aren't the microbes themselves.

Clearly, you don't understand what infection means.

Please stop cutting and pasting; let someone else answer my simple question:

--Why doesn't any HIV "test" detect the actual virus?

Thanks gnossos, you're right. I'll give it up now. I guess I am wrong. Clearly HIV doesn't exist, or at least not unless a doctor looks at a drop of your blood through a microscope and sees little green monsters wearing "Hello, my name is HIV" name badges tearing through your immune system.

And of course, I'm sure this will come as a great shock to everyone who had the bad sense to die from AIDS before (or without) the benefit of being poisoned by AZT and/or HAART.

Emil -- exactly.

Notice Emil's evasive dodge -- the Scooter Libby of the blog.

I didn't say HIV doesn't exist, doofus. What's important is whether it is infecting someone in sufficient titer to cause disease.

For example, I am not currently infected with the influenza virus, but I don't dispute that influenza exists. Surely, a man of your cutting and pasting abilities can fathom that simple concept.

Back to my repeatedly un-answered question:

-Why doesn't any HIV "test" detect the actual virus?

Emil,

Please offer an explanation for the reports, from the NEJM, and the Wash. State test protocol educational page, that:

1. HIV tests come up positive for flu vaccination

2. Are interpretted for risk group,

but are also specific to any particular thing.

The answer is, you can't, you'll quote the top end, the advertising end of the literature, but dig down and answer this question -

Why do the tests have no reference standard, as stated by the manufacturer?

The reason is that they test for no particular particle.

The proteins in the tests are synthetic, they are derived from bacterial cultures, or otherwise grown synthetically,

They are based, loosely, by consensus agreements, on proteins found in the leukemia cell cultures inhabited by cell samples taken from some 8 to 10 gay men in the early 1980s, who had swollen lymph nodes.

The proteins do not correspond in the literature to any purified particle. It ain't there.

That's why they have to write (and for 24 years to date): "At present there is no reference standard" that determines who is and who isn't infected - what does or does not constitute "the presence or absence of -- "

and here's where they absolutely tell a LIE -

"presence of "HIV" antibodies in human blood."

They don't know what antibodies they're testing for. They assume, and they'll tell you this, that the tests are "more accurate" for some people, and "less accurate" for others.

I've written above what to look up. This is a description of how the tests work.

Look up "strategies for interpreting hiv tests."

Go ahead, you'll find out that these things do not test for any particular thing. They must be interpreted for your presumed "risk."

IE - homosexuals, iv drug users, people in poverty, etc.

That means one thing - the test is not for any particular thing. It is a gateway to get you into the program.

And it seems like they've got you already, you know?

If you disagree, I accept that as your opinion, but interpretation based on presumption of 'risk group' is how these tests - all antibody tests, in fact - work.

The difference between this test, and a test for syphillis, for example, is that the syphillis test Does have a gold standard. That little squiggly thing that you can find in the syphillitic sores.

What you don't have with the "hiv" test, is any standard reference particle. You just have the synthetic, non-specific, poly-reactive proteins.

Hence, Flu, drug use, arthritis, alcoholism, vaccination, intestinal worms, you-name-it, oh, and pregnancy - not that you'd care - make these things come up positive.

The difference between "positive" and "negative" is the presumption of the test's accuracy for the individual (and their group).

It ain't the test, it's the gayness, blackness, or poorness.

But, enough about that. How about that Andrew Sullivan, huh? Imagine that, saying that the gay community can let go a little bit and relax.

Well, I'm sure that's not correct, because you must know that the only cache the gay community has comes from their rabid embrace of this bizarre ritual, by which you allow the government to monitor, test, validate and condemn your sexual lives and practices.

Funny stuff, huh? Go figure that people would actually stand for it, let alone demand this sort of invasiveness. Funny world.

Emil, 'gnoss',

In the end, it's going to be differing opinions. It doesn't bother me, personally, if you think these tests work. I can see, by reviewing the literature on and from the tests, that they don't work for shit.

But, in the end, that's my opinion. I think it's correct, and I've thought about it for a long, long time, and I've reviewed hundreds and hundreds of standard medical reviews of the things, but the libertarian in me does not mind if you disagree, or if we disagree with each other.

The conservative in me feels, however, that a test with no standards, that comes up positive for anything and everything, and is artifically rendered as meaningful based on sexual orientation or skin color - well, I think this is a crime. A real and genuine crime.

So, those are my opposing points of view on the thing.

Good luck in figuring it out for yourself.

LS

LS, on the "tests": They are based, loosely, by consensus agreements, on proteins found in the leukemia cell cultures inhabited by cell samples taken from some 8 to 10 gay men in the early 1980s, who had swollen lymph nodes.

The proteins do not correspond in the literature to any purified particle. It ain't there.

And from this, we continue to condemn people to a death sentence.

For the larger "gay community", we've allowed ourselves to be divided and conquered. We've handed over our sexuality (our very identity) to the medical establishment, the pharmaceutical companies, and puritanical, self-hating gay men.

As gay men, we've allowed ourselves to be poked, prodded, bled and drugged. We continue to submit to "guilty until proven innocent" in relation to the so-called "HIV tests". It's amazing.

I don't want to get sucked into any vitriolic debate here, but has anyone read this book by Henry Bauer, PhD.?

Based on statistical anomalies, Dr. Bauer makes a pretty provocative case that a viral epidemic that has hit hard gays, blacks, drug users, and prostitutes, yet somehow spares whites, straights, republicans and housewives doesn't quite fit the historical profile of past epidemics past.

In essence, he argues that there is something quite fishy with the numbers and/or the hypothesis for this to occur.

....There was a time in this country when getting HIV/AIDS was a death sentence. It was just before the "cocktail" came out in 1996. Sullivan describes the scenario well. I would recommend everyone commenting on this blog read it. People in the US are fortunate to have access to these life saving medicines and tests. The HIV denialist our entitled to their opinion but it is an ignorant and dangerous one. The star HIV denialist, Christine Maggiore, almost got arrested because one of her children actually died of an AIDS related oppurtunistic infection which was not treated. These people are your basic fundalmentalists, impossible to reason with...If you are uninformed about HIV, please do not listen to them or be extremely cautious...(see link below if interested)
http://www.natap.org/2005/newsUpdates/092705_02.htm

Uhmmmmm,

just the fact that Sullivan and Petrelis are asking for some let-up on the hysteria in the community is evidence that this nightmare is finally running out of steam.

The tests are shit, but unfortunately, the public has not been made aware of that all these years, as we boldly march into this modern, pharmaceutical version of the Nazi gas chambers.

You can continue to believe all the little things that make you happy about AIDS. It's your right. Those things don't make me happy. Seeing people being given death sentences without the scientific evidence to back it up, just doesn't make me happy. Maybe it makes you happy, though.

So, boldly march to get your "HIV" "test", then boldly take your "medicine". I won't, as it's a genocide program for gays, blacks, and whomever else society deems unfit.

BD,

tend to agree. What are the tests for.

If you want one, get one. But if you wonder what they actually measure, and you go to find out, you'll find the 'no-standards' game in full swing.

You either care about that, or you hand your life over to the medical authorities, which you'll know, if you read history at all, traditionally have done nothing but love and help gay men, and Africans.

Good luck, dude.

BD,

You seem like a fairly intelligent, even-keeled fella on this topic.

Have you seen this interesting article published at Gay & Lesbian Times in San Diego. It really did a nice sober job of looking at these important issues. I'd recommend it.

Leo