Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Pine-Fresh Stink of Lohan:... | Mark Penn's Perspective »

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Effective HIV/AIDS Education

posted by on October 10 at 10:30 AM

Too bad you’re unlikely to see it on American television…

Some gay bloggers, according to Queerty, are calling this ad “fear-based,” which is what folks always call ads that touch on the reality of HIV/AIDS and don’t just hammer away at vapid “safe sex is hot sex” messages that most gay men tune out. I wouldn’t call it “fear-based,” more like “reality-based.” This is what it’s like when you do something stupid and then have to go get your ass tested—you worry, it’s scary, and you decide, sitting in that chair in the HIV/AIDS clinic, that it wasn’t worth it. Why shouldn’t this be part—part, not all—of the safe-sex message?

Via Queerty.

RSS icon Comments


scary scary scaaaaaaaarrrrrrrry!

Posted by adrian! | October 10, 2007 11:00 AM


Posted by Mr. Poe | October 10, 2007 11:07 AM

That... was a brilliant ad.

Posted by J | October 10, 2007 11:48 AM

How could anybody possibly have a problem with this ad? How could any gay man do ANYTHING but totally identify with this situation?

As somebody diagnosed with HIV in the last two years (came out early, pflag parents, risk-aware and not an idiot... I promise), this ad rings painfully true and familiar and I hope to see more like them. There's nobody to blame but myself for the fact that I sat in that same chair under those same circumstances half a dozen times (okay, maybe SOMETIMES an idiot), but ads like this and the fact of their truth couldn't have hurt.

The same people saying these ads are fear based are the same people that welcomed me into the HIV community. I appreciate not being treated like a leper, which I'd feared, but I do not appreciate feeling like I've won a fucking prize because I let a handsome drug addict buttfuck me and now I can't switch jobs or my health insurance will be too jacked for me to live another decade. You're only treated like a leper or an outcast by the HIV community if -- for one instant -- you question your decision to get sweet, sweet AIDS.

Posted by boiseben | October 10, 2007 11:54 AM

On this subject, did anyone in the UK catch Stephen Fry's 'HIV and Me'? An excellently done program, and *very* scary.

Posted by Rebecca | October 10, 2007 11:55 AM

Oh, and my parents who were super supportive of their gay 14 year old son are still supportive of their gay 24 year old son with HIV, but MAN were they pissed, and that's not something I'm able to talk about with anybody with HIV because if I bring it up, my 'rents are being totally "fear based" or whatever.

Posted by boiseben | October 10, 2007 11:57 AM

Oh my gawd. It's brilliant.

Can ads like this be shown on basic cable in the United States?

Posted by Boomer in NYC | October 10, 2007 12:01 PM

Not only will the gay community benefit from ads like this one, but the whole country. Gay and Straight audiences need to see what an individual goes through when no thought was observed over ones behavior.

Posted by Jorge I. | October 10, 2007 12:04 PM

@6 I'm with you. The AIDS community is a scary thing.

I've had HIV for 15 years. For many of those years I made myself sick about it, having contracted the disease (stupidly, just like in the ad) at a time when it was mostly agreed upon to be almost always a fatal disease. Eventually, through the amazing advances that have been made in those fifteen years, I expect to live to old age. My beloved Doctor Huffbauer at the equally amazing Country Doctor Community Clinic basically told me to stop worrying about AIDS, quit smoking, and lose some weight like a "normal" man of my age. Guess what? That was the fucking armful of roses at the end of a long dark tunnel.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 10, 2007 12:32 PM

(and the guy in the ad is such a pussy when his blood is drawn. He'd better get used to that real quick.)

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 10, 2007 12:34 PM
11's a good ad and i'd like to see it here in the i'm just wondering why the stranger gets so annoyed with the current meth campaign...which is very scary and seems realistic too (what is the difference?). Plus there is a huge connection between the spread of hiv and substance being honest about the horrors of meth might help gay men and decrease hiv spread...

Posted by uhmmm | October 10, 2007 1:04 PM

can't you get an HIV test with a cheek swab?

Posted by konstantConsumer | October 10, 2007 1:05 PM

God, I hate that "don't make me feel bad" BS. Of course HIV ads are a bit fear based: that's the point of cautionary tales/warnings/Caution: Slippery When Wet signs: you don't want the negative thing to happen to you.

Great, great ad.

Posted by torrentprime | October 10, 2007 1:11 PM

The issue of prevention ads being "fear-based" has nothing to do with whether something is scary or what people should be afraid of.

It's a studied and proven fact of behavior change education that fear has a short term effect. They might reduce their risk for a brief time, but fear does not motivate people for long term, significant behavior change. You can't stay scared forever.

It's not a bad ad, it just can't be the only ad in a safer sex campaign. A variety of messages will have a greater effect. That's what they mean when they complain about "fear-based".

Posted by Robby | October 10, 2007 1:19 PM

Nope, it's not a great ad, but yes, something like it definitely has a place in a larger education campaign (not that something like that would ever happen). My negative reaction is because it makes getting tested look like a more intimidating process and is therefore likely to increase resistance to getting tested (especially among those who haven't been through the experience). Any prevention/precaution message is also weak and gets lost in the testing imagery (there's no context as to why he's gone in till the very end, and that's based on being able to read the text).

Posted by usagi | October 10, 2007 1:25 PM

uhmmm @ 11 asks why this ad might be good and the meth ads running in local papers aren't and then implies that they are "being honest about the horrors of meth."

Yeah, except those meth project ads aren't honest. They present the media-hysteria absolute worst case scenarios. They imply that this is what happens with all meth users.

This is simply not true and anyone with half a brain knows it's not true. Just as we know that not everyone who drinks turns into George Bush or street drunk and that not everyone who does coke turns into Paris Hilton or the stereotypical crackhead.

So the ads end up backfiring. Badly

Posted by gnossos | October 10, 2007 2:10 PM
17 it NOT scary to get HIV? it's not like the ad is showing hiv wasting and ks lesions...and yes, you can get a rapid hiv test with a cheek swab...

Posted by uhmmm | October 10, 2007 2:13 PM

i heard meth was super addictive and had many horrible side effects...i didn't realize it was a media hyperbole? thanks for the scoop...

Posted by uhmmmm | October 10, 2007 2:16 PM

@ 9/10- yeah, he's a total pussy. And since when do you get a FEAR BALL when you get your blood drawn?

14/15- I don't think you're necessarily wrong, scary ads, done badly, have the opposite effect of seeming tsk-y and making danger more exciting. At least for me. Done right, though, who knows? In the situation that introduced HIV into my life, I was definitely analyzing risk in small ways before I shrugged my shoulders. Mostly, I was going on what I knew about Pedro Zemora and happy facts I'd read on the internet during previous HIV scares. Anyway, the problem is that the people who hate these ads cannot possibly be being honest with themselves and they're angry that "you're better off without a disease" is part of the conversation. It's not a death sentence, I'm happy to know now, but it's definitely inconvenient, and worse, it may some day kill me.

By the way, It's Mark Mitchell, you should have your own column in this paper. I've been reading this blog for months and you're one of a handful of posters who consistently make sense.

Posted by boiseben | October 10, 2007 2:22 PM

@18: lots of things are addictive and have lousy side effects...that doesn't mean that they affect all folks the same ways. Presenting the absolute end-stage worst case scenario of drug use as a prevention message just doesn't work.

Alcohol kills far more people in this country than meth does and probably results in more economic harm, yet no one seriously pushes for prohibition any more because its negative effects are relatively concentrated.

Posted by gnossos | October 10, 2007 2:30 PM

@15 -- did you have the sound on? there was definitely context for why he was there.

Posted by Alan | October 10, 2007 2:50 PM

@20 i heard meth was SUPER addictive with HORRIFIC side effects...and no one has ever said it compared to alcohol in it's effects. i see your point about lots of things being addictive with lousy side effects...i just honestly assumed meth was so much worse than others (ie. pot, alcohol, lsd, exctasy)...i wonder what would make a better meth ad?

Posted by uhmmmm | October 10, 2007 3:13 PM

@20 - Uh, nice try. But I think the money involved just might have an eensy weensy bit more to do with the lack of a push for alcohol prohibition.

One of my favorite idiot phrases in the world - "drugs AND alcohol".

Posted by Wowza | October 10, 2007 3:18 PM

Wow. Needle porn. Something new for me.

Oh, and as part of a broader ad campaign, this seems fine to me.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 10, 2007 3:38 PM

@22: yep, that SUPER addictive part?

Part of the media driven hysteria. Years ago there were shitloads of stories about "Ice," which routinely referred to it as a "new" "super addictive" smokeable" meth. Virtually everything in those articles was hyperbolic nonsense spoonfed to a gullible media by government officials (Ice = not new [new name], not any more addictive than good old regular meth, and all meth is smokeable).

As far as the horrific side effects go? Not gonna quarrel with that so much. They can be friggin' awful. I would argue that's more a consequence of drug laws, however. But that's a post that is way too long to interest most folks.

Posted by gnossos | October 10, 2007 3:51 PM

I have some "simply experimental" firsthand knowledge of the effects and "side effects" of a lot of drugs.

Meth is a killer, as are most if used to excess. Meth seems to lead to excess awfully quickly and easily. I've seen people go from responsible, productive human to mad lab rat in record time with that poison. It's made of solvents and battery acid for godssake. What do people expect it to do? Make your skin pretty and your teeth nice and white?

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 10, 2007 4:06 PM

Alan (#21),
No, I'd missed most of the sound when I initially watched it. Yeah, that improves it a lot (and explains some of the timing I thought was odd), thanks for pointing it out. Now, how many people here watch unmuted commercials?

Posted by usagi | October 10, 2007 4:25 PM

Fear works more than anything else, and we are talking about HIV, so why not?

Posted by Vitamin.D.Deficiency | October 10, 2007 4:47 PM

@26 You're brillant. I agree that you should have your own blog.

@Gnossoss: There's a huge fatal flaw in comparing meth to all other drugs. Drugs by definition are addictive and have side effects-but the socially acceptable ones, ie caffeine and alcohol, can be consumed responsibly and in moderate (And morally I have a thing against pot, but it's a shrug about everyone else doing it.) But drugs like cocaine, meth, and heroine are scary, scary stuff. It isn't the media blowing it out of proportion-if anything, it seems the media isn't making the addiction scary enough. I really have no idea where your opinion is coming from because I have never known a meth user who used "in moderation" by any sane standards.

Posted by Marty | October 10, 2007 5:17 PM

I'm waiting for the straight girl version...same commercial BUT with a pregnancy test, too! The cherry on top would be the nurse coming back and telling the girl she's poz for both tests...and abortion has been outlawed. That way you could use it to warn people to practice safe sex and vote pro-choice.

Posted by Y.F. | October 10, 2007 5:36 PM

Ahh...the ritual...

and a very familiar old story...

Sin. Sexual Sin. The cost of sexual sin.

It's the new catholicism...better taste, less filling. But the same old story nonetheless.

The gay man is paying for his sin of having all-natural gay sex. That's all this is about. Nothing more.

He's "tested" much like a witch would be a few hundred years ago. The bias is written into the testing literature. Just by pointing the finger at him and saying "risk group", he's already condemned.

Idiots like Dan Savage refuse to see the inherent homophobia of AIDS...of the so-called "tests". People like him don't want to see that "risk group" IS homophobia. Oh well.

Lead the bold, mighty charge, Dan. Keep sending your gay brothers to their pharmaceutical Auschwitz's. And DON'T, don't question those tests. Actually, Dan, don't question AIDS at all. You'd end up looking quite foolish at this point.

At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood. From Abbott Labs EIA HIV test kit literature. Don't worry your pretty little head about inconvenient things like no standard. Just keep pushing the "testing" on your gay brothers.

Posted by BallardDan | October 10, 2007 6:25 PM

@31 says "Idiots like Dan Savage refuse to see the inherent homophobia of AIDS...of the so-called "tests". People like him don't want to see that "risk group" IS homophobia. Oh well."

So, uh, um, the BENEFITS of AIDS are...?

I was unaware that a virus was capable of homophobia, or sexism, or racism.

What, then are the "risk groups?" How exactly, BallardDan, do you propose we prevent AIDS? Discourage or prevent transmission of HIV?

Yes, we need to fight homophobia, but does that mean we cannot stigmatize a DISEASE (not the suffers, Dan, the DISEASE ITSELF)?

Posted by Andy Niable | October 10, 2007 6:36 PM

I think it applies to gay and straight. I'm going to send that to my friend. Thanks Dan!

Posted by sfartist | October 10, 2007 7:18 PM

You go Dan! Love it.

Posted by LS | October 10, 2007 8:32 PM

Yes indeed. "Aids" "Education."

Or, "It's never to early to start terrifying (and lying)to people about sex."


"[B]efore we screen low-risk groups for antibody to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), we should consider what the results would mean.

Serologic tests for HIV antibodies appear to be characterized by extra-ordinarily high false – positive results in a low risk screening setting of voluntary blood donation.

[That means, that the tests come up positive all the time, you dumb bunnies, but are only "counted" when the dumb bunny is a 'gay' bunny. (Or a brown bunny). Get it? That's fun with technology!]

“Furthermore, any increase in false positive rate could turn a screening program into a social catastrophe. A false positive result may label an infant, born to HIV positive mother, as HIV positive where as the same infant may actually be HIV negative.

The false positive result regarding HIV in a neonate can lead to very serious problems.”


“If we want to test each other, we should make a deliberate choice of the threshold probability of infection above which we will screen."

[Again, dumb bunnies, that means that the tests test for Nothing Specific, except the perception that you're a bunny "at risk" by virtue of who you screw, or the color of your skin. The tests do not test for anything, except a bias.]

"We should make explicit the trade-offs implicit in any testing program. 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?"

.... yes indeed. Aids education.

Posted by LS | October 10, 2007 9:06 PM

It's Mark Mitchell @26:

"Meth is a killer, as are most if used to excess"

Exactly. If used to excess. And you are spot on that "Meth seems to lead to excess awfully quickly and easily." That is the danger.

"It's made of solvents and battery acid for godssake." And this is a direct artifact of the war on some drugs. Prior 1989/90 virtually all meth sold in the United States was actually methamphetamine and was a completely different critter. Now virtually none of what is sold as meth is methamphetamine; it's a toxic soup.

Posted by gnossos | October 10, 2007 9:31 PM

Marty @ 29:

"socially acceptable ones, ie caffeine and alcohol, can be consumed responsibly and in moderate" (sic)


"I have never known a meth user who used "in moderation" by any sane standards."

The dominant myth in this country among laypeople is that drugs are illegal because they are bad. I think it is more apt to say that drugs are bad because they are illegal...that in fact most of the actual harm associated with drugs stems from their legal status.

By the federal govt's own best guess over 20 million folks in the US have tried cocaine. Yet only about 150,000 have problematic cocaine use. That means the overwhelming majority (99%) have used in moderation.

I don't have the numbers for meth handy (but will look for them). Last I saw it was worse than for cocaine, but not hugely.

You don't know moderate users probably because only the true crash and burners come to your attention.

Posted by gnosos | October 10, 2007 9:43 PM

I too, have been in that chair many times, and have been scared about the results. But to me, it seemed they focused more on the "scariness" of the actual blood draw than what that blood draw may reveal.

If there has to be fear - and fear is part of the equation for sure - I would have preferred a more contemplative fear.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 10, 2007 10:08 PM

@ 15
Getting tested IS intimidating. My friend was date raped last year, and she very nearly chickened out of getting tested at all. Thank god she did though, and thank god all she had was the clap.

Posted by Carrie | October 10, 2007 11:08 PM

Getting tested is nuts. Will you all just wake up and read!!

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

HIV is a lie and AIDS is a construct. There is no such thing in reality. It's all just a belief system...but as Dan said; let's all just keep pushing fraudulent tests and toxic medication on gay men and dark skinned poor people.

It is pathetic how everyone has been made a total ass over this AIDS thing, it's even more pathetic to see so many "so called" experts who just don't seem to realise that HIV has served so many political purposes and so many interests on all levels that it shames us to have to admit it.

AIDS is fear, racism, homophobia, politics, self-interest and a set of 30+ conditions that have exisited always, mostley caused bymalnutrition, drug abuse in all its aspects, just bad living in all it's glory.

Gay men have used it as it's easier to blame a virus rather than look at the huge ammounts of drugs that are consumed generally in the name of gay lifstyle. But no, hey it's a virus...LOL

It's pathetic, laughable and so so typical of the human race. Just as it is that no one seems to question this fruad. What a sham.

Posted by Manu | October 11, 2007 12:15 AM

great ad. reminds me of my first testing visits when i was a teenager.

Posted by josh | October 11, 2007 12:50 AM

Manu @ 40 - You claim HIV is non-existent, however, where is your scientific counterexample to disprove HIV's existence? An argument based on the label of a HIV Test kit disclaimer, is weak. I would refer people to read the entry on HIV test at Wikipedia ( Let me quote some:

"Other studies have confirmed the accuracy of current methods of HIV testing in the United States, reporting false-positive rates of 0.0004% to 0.0007% and false-negative rates of 0.003% in the general population"

"HIV tests have been criticized by a number of AIDS dissidents (people who reject the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS), including the Perth Group of scientists (led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos) who question the very existence of HIV. Their arguments rest on issues of specificity, standardisation, reproducibility, and validation.[20]"

"According to scientific consensus, the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR, which are widely accepted "gold standards" in microbiology.[21][22] While the AIDS dissidents focus on individual components of HIV testing, it is generally believed that the combination of ELISA and Western Blot used for the diagnosis of HIV is remarkably accurate, with very low false-positive and -negative rates as described above. The vast majority of scientists believe that the views of AIDS dissidents are based on highly selective analysis of mostly outdated scientific papers; there is broad scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS."

Your comments show a denialist attitude. Does it comfort you to assume there is no HIV? Why is that?

Posted by Pass-by | October 11, 2007 2:20 AM

oh good god, the crazies are yet again out in full force! HIV tests are just one big conspiracy against Teh Gays. There is no such thing. I'll be sure to tell that to my HIV+ friends.

I love this ad, it's fantastic. After seeing Stephen Fry's "Hiv and me" I wanted the old "AIDS-headstone" ad back. Fearbased? Well yeah. Quite rightly so. Because while things are a whole lot better than they were 10 years ago, living with HIV surely isn't fun and games.

Posted by G. | October 11, 2007 4:24 AM

Seriously, I HIV/AIDS deniers are so friggin' annoying! Let me just go dig up all the dead bodies and tell them they aren't really dead at all!

Posted by Kristin Bell | October 11, 2007 5:28 AM

re: the deniers --

Yes, my friends and lovers died because someone told them they had a non-existent disease.

Fuck. Off.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 11, 2007 7:22 AM

We need more fear...

say the AIDS-promoting fearmongers here.


What we also need is for gay men to hate and fear their power in this world, their natural sexuality.

Dan Savage, along with other loud-mouthed gay "leaders" (e.g. Larry Kramer) lead the bold charge into a world of pharmaceutical genocide and of fear and loathing of gay men's true power, their sexuality.

These bold gay men are there to keep us down. Keep us fearful. Disempower us.

They're the gay priests of the church of AIDS. Their faith is unshakeable. They will not question it. They harbor no doubts. AIDS is no different from other control and fear-based religions, and it's priests are far more faithful. Although...didn't Dan say "AIDS is over" a while back? Seems that his rational mind and intuition had a moment of clarity until fear and self-loathing came back in full force.

Dan, you have choices. You can continue to be a priest in this gay death cult, or you can retire, even renounce this religion. It's not too late.

Posted by BallardDan | October 11, 2007 7:25 AM

AT 46, and wherever else you're spouting your insane denial and conspiracy theories -- the pharmaceutical "genocide" you speak of is what's kept me alive. How do you explain that?

I'm disgusted with myself for even engaging with you and your quackery, but there might be someone reading this who's tempted to believe your ridiculous blather and take it to heart.

And decide to use their "power" and their "natural sexuality" to infect themselves with a serious illness.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 11, 2007 7:38 AM


we'll have to agree to disagree.

you say the drugs are keeping you alive. I wouldn't try to convince you of anything else in that matter.

But I see it differently.

I wouldn't touch those drugs for anything in the world. As far as I'm concerned, they're slow poisons. Although, back in the days of high-dose AZT, it was a much quicker poison (my dead friends are testament to that).

The drugs are our penance for our sin of having completely natural gay sex. They used to kill us more quickly, now it's a slower, more profitable death (drug companies LOVE AIDS...big money-maker).

It's an equation, and a ritual. First the sin (natural gay sex), then the "test", then the slow poisoning (euphemistically called "life-saving drugs).

Posted by BallardDan | October 11, 2007 7:59 AM

Wow, Ballard Dan.

Just wow.

That last paragraph explains it all.

You're in love with the drama of it all.

Go in Peace, bro.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 11, 2007 8:04 AM

Everyone needs AIDS.
How fabulous.

Get tested. Take medication...loads of it. It’s a virus it's a virus
Ha Ha bleeding Ha

At 43 I tell you all you are just in love with you dammed victim status. That’s what this is about. If you take away HIV from the victims what else have they got to live for?

Nothing...nothing nothing nothing nothing...

Who is in denial? Who? And conspiring? These two words denote panic and terror at being discovered. Those words mean only that. Use at you own peril.
There is nothing except the virus you have in your heads and worse of all you all know it but as you are all benefiting ion some way or another then you all defend this comic and pathetic sham.

Why should a collective death wish by some cost us all so much money? That's what I think is so unacceptable. Can't they be all finished off cheaper? if that's what they want.

The point blank refusal to look at facts, only leads one to believe that that is exactly what is behind this.

Posted by Manu | October 11, 2007 9:05 AM

Effective HIV/AIDS Education starts with not believing everything we've been told about HIV/AIDS for 25 years. What? You think I'm Wrong? Try Google search with these accredited professionals and journalists: Celia Farber - Liam Scheff - Matt Irwin - Peter Duesberg - Joseph Sonnabend - Etienne de Harven - helpforhiv

Posted by Carter | October 11, 2007 9:32 AM


If you continue to play the priest role in the gay death cult, your options at this point are to only become more fanatical and hysterical. It's a losing battle, as you can't control all of the gay men in Seattle and beyond (take a look-see at the thousands of "bareback" ads for Seattleites on the various bareback websites, for instance). The fear card can only be played so much before we all become immune to it.

The other option (if you continue the priest role) is to help criminalize homosexuality for once and for all. You see where this is all going, Dan? There's not much wiggle room left in the AIDS battle.

Of course, you could do the courageous thing and denounce your religion, and help to free gay men from this death cult.

Which do you choose?

Posted by BallardDan | October 11, 2007 10:01 AM

ORRRRR he could encourage people to wear condoms.
.... Which is not a bad thing.
Or are you so in love with your "natural" gay sex you're also willing to risk the other STDs beyond the AIDS you claim is just a conspiracy? Seriously, what is the big problem with wearing a condom? You can still have all the sex you want-or are you really just so delusional about your own pleasure?

And to Dan Savage and Mark Mithcell, hats off to your gentlemen.

Posted by Marty | October 11, 2007 2:32 PM

Pleasure-above-all-else freaks like BallardDan and Manu make me too afraid to have gay sex ever again.

Posted by ray | October 11, 2007 4:26 PM

Opinions from all levels of the HIV/AIDS debate.

I have gone the full gamut with HIV/AIDS and always chose to just get on with life. I knew at the very beginning (when getting tested) I would not ever be a victim. It was not scary for me to get tested, I went, I tested positive, I knew why it happened did not beat myself up over it and walked away from the test with a clear idea as to how I was going to deal with it and get on with life. I did not buy into every group that wanted to help me. I denied most help from social workers much to their dismay. If I had I would have wound up in every damn support group forming a pattern of victimization by constantly talking about my condition. Screw that and screw fear based AIDS adds. If you have to use fear to control yourself then you are living a screwed up life. I do not believe every person that goes to get tested is freaking out. I do believe some people are more level headed in some situations but that is never shown I guess because it has very little impact as an advertisement (does not make good TV).
But that is my "reality-based" message. It happened that way not in the way the ad shows.

How about an add showing someone not freaking out and one not showing the all evil needle. How about one where someone gets the information and comes to terms with it right at that moment and gets on with "living" with HIV in a positive way. I do my roommate does all the friends I have that are HIV do. It seems the only people showing the bad side all the time are people that are negative.

Where are all the fear based adds for just getting into a car because you are more likely to die from a car accident than HIV.
I do not think about my condition every day, in fact there are weeks that go by where I do not think about it I am busy getting on with life. Some might find that odd but it is who I am.
Pushing fear based information on people is not something I feel I need to do because approaching HIV from a fear based view point just creates more fear and a polarized world.
Most of this debate is about gay men and AIDS (typical). I never view AIDS and HIV as something I own as a gay man and can't stand gay men that feel they have to own the issue.
Now I have to get back to the great LIFE I have. and avoiding gay men that push the AIDS issue in front of me on a continuous basis. You can still talk about it but you don't own it. So back off and approach it differently.

Posted by -B- | October 11, 2007 5:57 PM

Before I start, the last post, by -B- is terrific. Ta.

I don't think that anyone here (including myself) pointing the to fallacies or limits of testing can be called 'denialists', unless you simply wish to discount any part of what they are saying.

"Hiv testing" is based on a limited technology. It's defenders will admit, when the screws are put to them, that it is an imperfect technology.

When you allow yourself to get beyond the defenders of the crown, and look directly at the machines that are 'hiv tests' (bird flu tests, etc), you come to understand the entire paradigm, the landscape, very differently.

It is not a mistake, or a joke, when Abbott laboratories (the NEJM, JAMA, and every other major journal) writes in and of the major brand test - for 24 years -

'This test has no standard. It comes up positive for many reasons. If you're in a 'risk group' and come up negative, we want to retest you. If you come up positive but are not in a risk group, you are a false positive.'

It's not a mistake. It is a definition of the use and limits of the test.

The tests do not test for specific material. If they did, they would not come up reactive (positive) for pregnant women, or drug users, or 22-month old babies, or dogs, or mice.

And they come up positive for all of these things.

The tests are for nothing in particular, except the perception that you are 'at risk', for some reason, for a moveable litany of illnesses or non-illnesses that have been sewn together over the years, across continents, with little rhyme or reason... except that people will believe it.

It's an easy sell: gay men, and black people have sex that carries a disease vector.

It's a belief. It certainly is that, even if you believe the major claims of the paradigm. That belief is still carried on culturally.

Aids is the most successful recapitulation of the negative aspects of, essentially, Levitican (Old Testament) dogma/philosophy since the Crusades.

It's easy enough to blame sex for poverty, and to convince yourself that drugging and testing, testing and drugging people - but only certain people - is somehow a reasonable thing to do.

Those who died, for a variety of reasons, many (or mostly) relating to the current medical treatments offered people with tired bodies, cancers, etc, are not honored in any way by the continuing victimization of generations of black people and gay men to the testing and drugging circuit.

It's not honorable. It's somewhat pathological. It's terribly sad, in so many ways, that the gay community has nowhere in the world to go, but to run to the medical minds that have for centuries either tried to kill them, invert them, or label them as mental-defectives and oedipal cases, because of their unchosen sexual proclivity.

It's a heart-breaker. Nothing more I can say about it tonight...

Posted by LS | October 11, 2007 10:40 PM

Dan & LS you are forgetting one thing here, that the needs to be victims, self-hate, and a wish for death are not just the dominion of poor Catholics, who made a big business out of it. This idea of profiting from a miserable status has been very successfully passed on to gay men too; well, to queers at any rate, as I think it's important to start making a clear distinction here.

Gays and Queers are two very different breeds of homosexuals. HIV worship is a totally queer thing, it is an imposition of the prevailing queer post-modernist ethic (if it can be called that) of: “blame anyone or anything but yourself”.

They have accepted “victimhood” as a way of life, and through which a truce has been struck with the rest of society and both sides of the political powers that be, who now, more or less leaves us alone, just as long as we stay sick and keep dieing.

In a way they have betrayed the cause and perverted the fight for equality in settling for this.

They get very pissed off at gay men who reject this dirty deal, and expose it as we do here. They hate to be shown for what they are and what they have done, which is a dirty deal with the powers that be, and big business to promote death for gay men in exchange for an easier life of false acceptance. This is what HIV & AIDS in our world are about. This is why it is guarded with such fierce religious like zeal by the queer establishment.

If we were not victims anymore than we will have to face up to a hideous fact; that we are still very very far from being treated as equals. What the queers have done is turn us into sick victims for eternity and hope that in this manner we bypasses the fight for acceptance and go straight for “social-sainthood”, which they think makes them untouchable. To keep this circus going they need HIV & AIDS, just as much as the Church needs its crucifix.

As gay men we are ordered by queer culture to take our cross (HIV) and bear it and accept that as our only salvation. They don’t even realise that idea is not even theirs but is a very old religious one. They actually believe that have given us a way forward, whilst what they have done is take us back to the dark ages.

This is why I don’t believe in debating them, but exposing them, and their culture (which is not mine) for the sham it is. It’s time gay men reclaimed back the power from the queers who in a quarter of a century have given us nothing but death, destruction, Nazi style pink triangles, and a social status based on shame and lies.

If they want HIV they can keep it, it’s theirs. We want no more part of this, and we will not be silenced or bullied into accepting it anymore. HIV is a lie and a scam perpetrated on all humanity and it is also treason to the cause of real equality for us.

A lie still remains a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated.

Posted by Manu | October 12, 2007 3:00 AM

For those of you are who are in the dark and wish to keep the one track mindset of HIV=AIDS.... it's time to come out of the closet again. What Manu says above is 100% true and one only needs to delve into the myriad of alternative views and read about what really is wrong with what we've been told.

There are works by Matt Irwin, which explains the "Voodoo Hex" Heal Toronto's section on "the AIDS Cult" has this and others. We all understand that AIDS is multi factorial and one needs to see that one major factor for death and dying in our community is a result of programming and our need to be scapegoats, which can possibly explain why so many of our friends and lovers are dead.

The virus hunters at the NIH/CDC created this, not out of thin air nor a conspiracy, mind you, but because like SARS and Bird Flue, it's BUSINESS AS USUAL... Why we bought into it is not hard to understand. What we need to understand about then is the AIDS cult and it's seroconverts and stop believing the orthodoxy which has one interest.... keeping the status quo and squelching anyone who questions.

Click on my name above for the healtoronto site.

Posted by Carter | October 12, 2007 7:28 AM

I am inclined to believe that these deniers suffer a terrible lack of education much beyond the sixth grade. One needs only look at the medical literature to see that their idiotic self-serving beliefs are sorely mistaken.

The numerous HIV viruses are characterized, imaged, and well understood. The replication process and how it destroys the immune system is well understood. In fact, there is no mystery or controversy at all in the scientific community, since the entire HIV cycle from start to finish guessed it...well understood.

If you CHOOSE to not wear condoms, that's fine. If you engage in sex with other people who PREFER not to use condoms, more power to you. Do not, however, try to fabricate or perpetrate the notion that this fatal disease does not exists, because the vast, overwhelming evidence proves you to be incorrect. It is irresponsible to try and rally others to your phantasm, since it will undoubtedly get people killed, which is criminal at best. If you've encouraged someone into this, then you should be prosecuted.

I strongely suggest that these blistering idiots have a chat with a microbiologist. A real one, not some quack who can't get published. Or an actual doctor.

Lastly, Ballad and MS, you very much remind me of the lunatic christians (lower case intended) who insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is all make-believe. There's nothing worse on this earth than a person staring at evidence yet choosing to remain willfully ignorant.

Posted by James H English | October 13, 2007 4:13 PM

“Lastly, Ballad and MS, you very much remind me of the lunatic christians (lower case intended) who insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is all make-believe. There's nothing worse on this earth than a person staring at evidence yet choosing to remain willfully ignorant.”

I will only take you up on the conclusion, as the rest is just science fiction based claptrap and propaganda not worth even arguing with.

Dan is far from a lunatic, he is extremely aware of what really is behind this whole AIDS game especially on the gay front.

That argument works both ways as it could be very easily put at your doorstep.

The Christians who believed that idea you mention were the huge majority; everyone in fact believed that because that’s what they were all told to believe. Just like the absurd idea that HIV causes AIDS (30+ pre-existing diseases and conditions all lumped together under a new name), when there is nothing yet in existence to even detect it with.

It was the majority view that time has discredited not the minority one. Just like the flat-earth one too.

Posted by Manu | October 14, 2007 2:10 AM

Sir English,

Well understood my ass!

HIV/AIDS research is riddled with end statements to the likes of; "we hypothisize, more studies needed, better data is needed, in theory, we believe, and so on.. and all predicated on the one and only unproven idea that HIV causes AIDS.... for example:

"Studies with longer follow-up and detailed metabolic and immunologic monitoring are needed to confirm these findings and assess their significance and mechanisms." Benigno Rodriguez, MD

"However, the application of PCR for monitoring the effect of treatment remains to be established." Laboratoire de Microbiologie, Hopital Raymond Poincare, Garches, France.

Then of course cd4 and viral load essays have no predictive value.........

"Plasma human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA level predicts HIV disease progression, but the extent to which it explains the variability in rate of CD4 cell depletion is poorly characterized. Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection." Benigno Rodriguez PMID: 17003398

The last thing anybody needs is your line of bull sh*t!

Posted by Carter | October 14, 2007 10:55 AM

LOL...right on Carter, Right on. They stil try and bully us into taking the HIV theology as science. it may ne cannon law but science never!!

And for Mr. English, as our greates poet put it:

"Lord, what fools these mortals be!"


Posted by Manu | October 14, 2007 11:11 AM

More quotes the apply to this farse

To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
--Friedrich von Schiller

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
--Martin Luther King Jr.

To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.
--Gustave Flaubert

And finally a scientist:

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
--Albert Einstein

Posted by Manu | October 14, 2007 11:31 AM

Mr. English is just another AIDS-promoter who thought he could squeeze in some last-minute fear and hysteria on this practically abandoned thread.

Posted by BallardDan | October 15, 2007 10:32 AM

Hey Dan

They abandoned the thread because arent you seeing the same thing I'm seeing? "AIDS - Schmades" It aint an infectious sexually transmitted disease and lot of people just dont give to shits anymore about it.

Posted by Carter | October 15, 2007 5:17 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).