|
Re: Other Side of AIDS, The (2004)
| | Added by Kelly Jon Landis (email, web) on 2004-10-12 05:19:46 |
I believe the film "The Other Side of AIDS" while raising some critical questions about the 'HIV/AIDS' theory or model itself, which I as an AIDS Dissident would normally welcome, nevertheless found the film to reveal glaring weaknesses in structure and content, recognized by reviewers including Variety. The question some AIDS Dissidents who also do not love the film have proffered, Is Something Better Than Nothing? And I'm not so certain. Certainly, in moral medicine, the desire is to first do no harm. Seperate from the dissenting scientific critique, the film takes the low road in making unsubstantiated generalizations about gay men and a supposed monolithic 'health-style' implied, without qualification, to have lead to illnesses attributed to or associated with what is called 'AIDS.'
This, when there are alternative explanations that go unexplored, such as the selective biasing of gay men in 'HIV' testing policy and procedure, who are said to be 'at risk' for who, and not how, we love. The original and very small subset of gay men who developed illnesses attributed to 'AIDS' were not sick from one cause, though were offered a one course solution. A homosexual pathology was assumed and then the 'HTLV-III' and 'HIV' testing and 'GRID' and 'AIDS' diagnoses were there to stygmatize and create the self-fulfilling, clinical conundrum. Which came first, though, does not address what came next or which caused which.
As a gay, sex-positive, AIDS Dissident, I differ with Christine and her husband Robin and some other AIDS Dissidents on the homophobia they portray in this film induced without further objectification than a few anacdotal interviews of self-loathing gay men on what life was like in the 70s, all the sex and drugs. A lot of people have had a lot of sex and done drugs but do not test positive. Beyond the dissenting scientific critique, some AIDS Dissidents offer various alternative explanations or theories about whether gay men are 'at risk' for who we love, whether semen is immuno-suppressive, etc.
All documentaries have to portend some balance or they're just considered propaganda pieces and aren't given much respect, unless you're someone like Michael Moore. As it is, the film is poorly made even with the socalled balance of providing the orthodox view because of the filmmakers own biased presentation of one view among AIDS Dissidents. As some reviewers have severely scolded, Robin Scovil's mistatement that he is unbiased at one point during the off-camera conversation with the doctor from Canada. He is hardly unbiased, being the husband of the primary subject of his film who is an activist and clearly has strong opinions on the topic. The "Other Side..." tends to rely more on testimonialism in presenting it's alternative theory or explanation rather than building a case of argument, fact and logic as it attempts more successfully in the critique of the accuracy and validity of the 'HIV' tests and 'HIV' theory of 'AIDS.' When it careens off on this conjectured collision course, offering an unsupported alternative theory of what 'HIV' positivity means or what causes 'AIDS' attributed illnesses, one is left with the forced conclusion that these are related to the health-style of gay men. Overall, one is left with many wrongly placed, biased questions than the rightly balanced ones.
First of all, I want AIDS activists and HIV consumers to know that not all AIDS Dissidents are homophobic and the panel should represent AIDS Dissidents that are gay sex-positive.
The filmmakers even have a disclaimer saying they encourage socalled 'safe-sex' and hypocrtically, unlike the filmmaker and the major focus of the film, his wife, have admitted in interviews they do not use condoms.
For these compelling reasons, I must, in principle, oppose the screening of this film without a balanced panel discussion, in which someone representing a gay sex-affirmative version of AIDS Dissidence, especially at gay and lesbian film festivals.
Healthfully and Hopefully,
Kelly Jon Landis
1317 Euclid St., #9
Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-319-5309
[email protected]
I formerly served on AIDS Project Los Angeles Spiritual Advisory Committee and as the Director of the InterFaith Project for Gay/Lesbian Concerns at USC, organizing "Coming Out To God" tabling during National Coming Out Week three years in a row representing many reconciling organizations and affirming congregations, also a peer mentoring and drop-out prevention program for gay and lesbian youth in five area high schools in connection with Project Ten. I am also the first open AIDS Dissident appointed to the Federation of Gay Games, Sydney 2002, "AIDS, Breast Cancer and Wellness Subcommittee" and have spoken to groups as diverse as Log Cabin Republicans.
Although I work with many persons of any or no faith, I am also the founder of DISSIDENT and SAINT, a faith-based social action which has engaged in direct non-violent action at the 2002 and 2003 Utah Pride Festivals, last year being denied our booth application after having paid our fee and standing in the 'HIV' testing line under threat of arrest, respectfully providing AIDS alternative resources and information, resulting in a number of persons getting out of the line. Our members include the former 'HIV' Prevention Specialist at the Utah AIDS Foundation, Rob Jones and founder of gayRMs, a social fellowship for gay Returned Missionaries.
READ MORE OF KELLY JON LANDIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE DISSENTING SCIENTIFIC AND ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE FREEDOM MOVEMENT:
...including testifying before a joint legislative hearing in Sacramento, CA representing the Group for the Scientific Reappriasal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and providing testimony to the White House Commission on CAM and many other organizations and individuals.
'NATURAL' ALLIES to AIDS DISSIDENCE
http://groups.msn.com/AIDSMythExposed/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1582&LastModified=4675445024672392681
Kelly Jon Landis
SMART BUGS ER SMART BOMBS?
HIV cannot be the cause or the sole cause of AIDS. Why would a virus infect 1% of the US population and 30% of some African countries? Why would a virus cause different symptoms depending on your age, gender, race or sexual orientation and geographic location? Why hasn't 20 years worth of research and billions of dollars spent created a vaccine or cure or safe and effective treatment? Why do the pharmaceutical companies, AIDS Industry and government agencies censor the scientists, doctors and laypeople that raise these critical questions and provide reasonable answers? AIDS Dissidents raise critical questions about the accuracy and specificity of the 'HIV' antibody tests and the redefinition and misdiagnosis of all the old diseases that are now lumped under the 'AIDS' catagory-- as well as the safety and efficacy of drug cocktails, condoms and lubricants. After more than 20 years and billions of dollars in research, there is still no proof that anyone has ever been infected with a retrovirus that is the underlying cause of all the old diseases now called 'AIDS.'
RETHINKING SOCALLED 'SAFE-SEX'
SLIDE EFFECTS AND CONDOMANIA [INDEX OF PAPERS]
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/safesex.htm
A LINK TO THREAD WITH OTHER ARTICLES, PAPERS ["CONDOMNATION"] http://groups.msn.com/dissident-action/condomnation.msnw
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
1) Many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, yet are not selectively biased under the PPVs or Positive Predictive Values formulary labeling gay men as 'at risk' for who they love. Prevention education programs focused on testing and retesting of all gay men which 5% population represented about 40% of all 'HIV' tests given. If they heterosexuals are tested, their results are more likely to be interpreted as cross-reactive or indeterminant because they are not in a 'high risk' group, so even if they would just as frequently test 'HIV' antibody positive they are not being tested proportionately. The 'HIV' non-specific antibody tests do not measure 'HIV' infection and with over 60 known cross-reactors, do not establish probable cause to live and love in fear.
2) Semen may cause minor antigenic stimulation or even immune supression, which also occurs, byt the way, in women who develop morning sickness upon conception to allow furtilization of the egg. It has not been established by Scientists as to the quantity or quality of semen that may be more or less antigenic stimulation or immune suppressive and this deserves further study. Human contact and certainly human physical and sexual intimacy is never 'safe' by nature. Yet gay men have been having anal sex throughout history, and most gay men who do practise anal sex are not testing 'HIV' non-specific antibody positive, yet with the added stress upon an emerging gay subculture and the widespread use of street drugs in the late 1970s, and other health-style factors that are important in all illness/wellness equations-- combined to contribute to aquired immune deficiencies among a certain sub-set of gay men. Yet, all gay men were assumed 'at risk' by the CDC in the 1980s because 'AIDS' was assumed to have a homosexual pathology or sexual transmission, even though there were many known health-style factors of the original sub-group of gay men, originally described as 'GRID'[Gay Related Immune Deficiency]. This, even though all of the CDC's official 29 'AIDS' defining conditions occur in those diagnosed 'HIV' negative and all have well documented causes and treatments unrelated to 'HIV/AIDS.' KS is one of the original defining condition, originally called the 'gay cancer' was first described in the literature in the 1800s and is seen today among middle eastern men. Today, KS is rarely seen in 'AIDS' patients and remains confined to gay men diagnosed with 'AIDS' though Gallo, the alleged 'co-discover' of the putative 'HIV' and other mainstream researchers admit KS likely has been correlated to amyl nitrites or "poppers" used by some gay men and another virus associated with it, HHV-8.
3) Anal health and hygiene, colon hydrotherapy, colonics, fasting, diet all are important illness preventives including reconsidering certain anal sex practises, fisting or rough, "unsanitary" sex. This might include the pull out method or accessing your partners general health while taking steps to sustain your own general health. Anal retentive focus on "bugs" or hypochondriacal sex-negativity are anathma to a holistic or multi-factorial, 'many-cause, many-courses' wellness promotion strategy. Where is the evidence that anal receptive partners or "bottoms" are the gay men testing socalled positive and the anal insertive partners or "tops" are the ones testing negative? This is the major impediment to the statement by even some AIDS Dissidents who propose anal receptive sex, without controlling for the amounts and quality of semen or seminal fluid which might be inherrantly immune suppressive.
4) Latex condoms and chemically carcingen-containing lubes role in immune suppression and the astronomical increase in anal cancer rates, from allergic to immunologic and even death, particularly among gay men. These products were never studied for internal (anal) use, were never approved for such and indicate for *topical use only* on package inserts.
5) Many STDs are not alleged to be spread through semen or seminal fluid, but sores and saliva. Condoms have not been shown effective in preventing most common STDs. Even if one 'contracts' these bugs, approximately 80-90% of those are said to be 'carriers' who do not develop chronic symptoms in their lifetimes, clear it from their bodies naturally after a short course of conventional antiboitic treatment or preferably through the more prophylactic use of alternative, non-toxic immune enhancing therapies-- thus calling into question the significance of the bug-seed versus the human host or organizms' role in immune sufficiency and sustainability.
===================================================
What are PPVs? Positive Predictive Values
===================================================
SERO-SUSPECT CLASS? SEX=DEATH?
ARE GAY MEN "AT RISK" FOR WHO WE LOVE?
PPVs or Positive Prediction Values. What are they and how can and does this statistical formulae effect the cummulatively estimated 'HIV' tests conducted world-wide?
The following is taken from UNAIDS and World Health Organisation(WHO) "Operational characteristics of commercially available assays to determine antibodies to hiv-1 and/or hiv-2 in human sera."
Report 9/10 Geneva 1998. Distribution limited. Page 11 WHO/UNAIDS: "The PROBABILITY that a test will ACCURATELY DETERMINEthe TRUE infection status of a PERSON being tested VARIES with theprevalence of HIV infection in the POPULATION from which the personcomes."
How can 'prevalence' of "hiv infection" in the population at largebe determined in the first place and then, by mathmatical extrapolation tothe individual from whom which the formulae was circularly and selectivelybased er biased? By other indirect, socalled surrogate markers, 'HIV'[non-specific]antibody positivity + PPV formulation + High Risk groupinformation ie: "status" or "membership."
To restate, how was this Positive Predictive Value [PPV] or the individuals socalled "high risk" status calculated, determinedand/or verified? By other indirect 'HIV' antibody test kits + PPV + High Risk Group Information or selective classificationor bias, circular and self-fulfilling by designation?
Page 11 continued: WHO/UNAIDS/Geneva/1998/Report9/10: "In general, the higher the prevalence of HIV infection in the population, the greater the PROBABILITY that a person testing positive is truly infected (i.e., the greater the positive predictive value [PPV]).
Thus, with increasing prevalence, the proportion of serum samples testing-false-positivedecreases; conversely, the likelihood that a person showing negative testresults is truly uninfected (i.e., the negative predictive value [NPV]),decreases as prevalence increases. Therefore, as prevalence increases, so does the proportion of samples testing false-negative."
There's FUNDAMENTAL FLAW here called SELECTIVE BIAS. It means UNAIDS/WHO's Positive Predictive Values [PPV] selectively bias gay men who do not represent a monolithic health-style. Some Dissidents say there is abundant evidence that ALL the "high risks groups" are far more likely to test *false* positive because they are far more likely to be exposed to one of the 70+ conditions that can generate 'HIV' antibodies in the absence of 'HIV' positivity such as Africans who may actually have TB (a very large number of 'AIDS' cases in Africa are TB or malaria cases and TB and malaria causesso-called *false* positives and/or malnutrition, wasting) or gay men who are theorized to have greater exposure to recreational drugs or anally deposited semen, assuming that were immune modulating.
Other Dissidents, such as myself, maintain there is insuficient evidence thatthese socalled "high risk groups" represent uniformely any inherenthealth risk due to gender identity, racial classification or sexualorientation. Whereas, the predonderance of 'HIV' positivity or "aquired immune deficiencies" in these groups are not comparable or correlative tothe general population because they are selectively biased.
Therefore, if you put any people under a microscope, in this case a moral and medical microscrope focused in a certain period, and announced, we found these microbes, germs, bugs, cooties, etc. and didn't really compare these socalled 'high-risk' groups, especially gay men which do not have any monolithic life orhealthstyle contrary to popular cultures' heterosexist conjecture, withthe general population, you wouldn't know what if any correlation existedand whether that established causation. So even if there was a correlation between 'HIV' positivity and gay men, showing they were far more likely tobe exposed to one of the 70 agents, factors, conditions known to cause so-called *false* positivity, it can only be said to mean they are more likely to be determined, "interpreted" as a "true" positive because you were selectively biased as 'high risk' because of the inherantflaw or circular construct the 'HIV=AIDS' theory is entirely reliant upon.While it was true that the original subset of gay men who were diagnosedat the start of the socalled 'epidemic' were all sick, they did not haveany direct sexual connection to one another, and all shared certain health-style factors that were ignored as co-causal agents of their illnesses. It was then extrapolated to say all gay men were inherantly 'at risk' because of the assumption that an outbreak of reported illnesses in gay men must be sexually transmissed. Many of these men were diagnosed as having STIs/STIs but also took prophylactic or on-going, regular antibiotics which are known to have immune suppressive side-effects.
There is not sufficient evidence to establish there are a disproportionate number of antibodies among selectively biased 'high risk' groups, specifically excluding gay men who have no single, monolithic life or health-style in common or if they have controlled for the disproportionate number of tests done on them. About 40% of 'HIV' tests in the US are done on gay men, which only represent about 5% of the US population. But then this information is transmitted to the lab anddoctor and the tests are interpreted as positive more often if you are preselectively biased as 'high risk.' So, it seems sort of a circular construct. And the evidence of the lack of any heterosexual epidemic after 20 years in the West where they actually do the 'HIV' tests, unlike mostAfrican 'AIDS' cases, does not fulfill the infectious model or it wouldhave spread to the 95% majority heterosexuals by now.
The original sub-group of gay men did have certain health styles in common, but thenthe initial socalled 'AIDS' cases was not confined to those 'health risk'groups with many known co-causal factors ignored, but it was extrapolatedto include all gay men, regardless of life or health style.
This is why I say that the mindset of 'SAME-SEXUAL=SIN=SICKNESS' lead to the unquestioned acceptance of 'HIV=AIDS=DEATH.' It was just ten years before the announcement of 'HIV' as the cause of 'AIDS' that homosexuality was removed as a psychiatric disorder by the APA because of cultural bias andreligious prejudices which lead to scientific presuppositions, predeterminations.
================================================
In science as in the law, the affirmative statement bares the burden of proof. The burden of proof is not upon AIDS Dissenters or Dissidents to prove a negative, that the putative 'HIV' DOES NOT exist and DOES NOT cause illnesses attributed to 'AIDS.' The burden of proof is upon the AIDS Apologists or HIV Protagonists who AFFIRM that 'HIV' exists and is pathogenic or disease-causing. If you or anyone takes to time to read the information below and follow the referenced links and then demand a response to every critique and challenge, you will have no choice but to conclude the 'HIV' theory of immuno-deficiency is sorely lacking of evidence. Correlation is not causation and there are many known co-causal factors to aquiring immune deficiencies. We don't act AS IF something were true until it has been proven to be true, especially when there are major life and love-affecting consequences to just going along with the 'HIV/AIDS' theory or model, if it were not valid.
What would it take for you to do the following?
Take away someone's human, civil rights.
Socially alienate someone.
Poison someone.
Condemn someone to death.
Criminalise someone for an act of love.
Destroy someone's marriage/family/relationship.
Deny someone basic, even life-saving, medical treatment.
The above actions happen every day in the name of HIV/AIDS and include taking children off their parents and forcibly testing and poisoning them. A huge amount of information, some of it in this e-mail, shows beyond a doubt that the source of all this misery and stigma, i.e. the establishment position that HIV is the cause AIDS, is flawed and has failed.
Alternative Medicine has long questioned the virus/germ mode or 'one-cause, one-course' drug-based model or theory of illness which is confirmed by the work of hundreds of AIDS Dissident Scientists, including Nobel Laureates, Members of the National Academy of Sciences and pioneers in their fields. Many often disconnect the alternative theories of diagnosis[PHILOSOPHY] from the alternative therapies of treatment[PRACTISE]-- in how Alternative Medicine differentially diagnoses the individual and treats using a holistic, multi-factorial or 'many-causes, many-courses' approache to illness. They treat the underlying causes of symptoms, not diagnosing/treating diseases and certainly not diagnosing/treating syndromes, which are a 'catch-all' of redefined classifications or catagories of conditions. And therefore, Alternative Medicine does not generally recognize conventional disease classifications.
"For disease, all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives."
"There are no specific diseases: there are [only] specific disease conditions
[or states of dis-ease]."
Florence Nightingale (Nursing Pioneer, Disease Dissident and Lesbian?)
The conflict between the virus/germ or 'one-cause, one-course/cure' drug-based model and the holistic multi-factorial, 'many-causes, many-courses/cures' model actually predates the modern AIDS Dissident Scientific era... "Beauchamp and Pasteur: Beauchamp, a contemporary of Pasteur's, differed with Pasteur on a number of theoretical models. Whereas Pasteur felt that bacteria["bugs"] were the "all" (primary and sufficient cause) in illness or dis-ease, Beauchamp felt that the inner terrain (biological or human host, interior milieu) was far more important in determining whether illness or dis-ease manifested or not." Although his theory of dis-ease was generally rejected in favor of Pasteur's, it was later adopted by Alternative Medicine.
Interesting that AIDS Apologists, or those who defend or defer to the affirmative statement or new theory, in this case the 'HIV=AIDS' hypothesis, often compare AIDS Dissidents with Flat Earthers, but Galileo was a Dissident, the Flat Earthers were the mainstream scientific establishment.
There is a famous story about Galileo, that is relevant here, I think. Galileo was in trouble with the Church authorities, for his observation of Jupiter's moons, through his telescope. (The four moons that he saw are traditionally called the "Galilean" moons, after their discoverer.) Anyway, he offered to let an influential member of the Clergy look through the telescope at these moons, so that said clergyman would see what Galileo had seen. This pious man refused, saying that as long as he did not look, his religious faith could remain intact.
Sadly, we are dealing with a kind of medical "church", regarding the HIV theory; its members do not want their faith shaken (or stirred! :-) )
Scurvy was thought to be transmitted by a microbe for 200 years even while Dissident Scientists were arguing it was a Vitamin C deficiency. The implication was that Seamen or Sailors engaged in 'buggary' were sexually transmissing a 'bug.' Homosexuality was deemed a psychiatric disorder by the medical and scientific establishment until 1973, a decade later the medical diagnosis of GRID-- Gay Related Immune Dysfunction was described in the literature.
BUG-CHASERS and BARE-BACKERS
Bug-Chasers have gotten more publicity of late with films like "The Gift" which discuss the small subset of gay men and subset of bare-backers. Bug-Chasers are those who fantasize the idea of becoming 'impregnated' or filled up with 'seed' and sero-converting to a socalled 'HIV' positive status. Bug-chasers are bug-believers in that they accept, consciously at least, that there is a bug or virus called 'HIV' that has been properly isolated and can be accurately tested for. Bare-backers, on the other hand, are those who, for whatever reason, do not use condoms or practise socalled 'safe-sex' at least part of the time. This is a much larger group than those who are socalled "bug-chasers" and include many gay men who are subconsciously rebelling against the puritan sex panic or health scare campaign of the condom nazis. Most bare-backers are not bug-chasers, though all bug-chasers are bare-backers. AIDS Dissidents, as bug dis-believers, are not included among the 'bug-chasers' though do include bare-backers and a growing number of the 'HIV' disaffected who are not *in [HIV] denial* but rather informed in their AIDS dissent, and subsequently do not accept the evidence for probable cause to live and love in fear.
|
|
|
Re: Other Side of AIDS, The (2004)
| | Added by terry on 2005-01-15 20:28:00 |
I too feel that The OTher Side of AIDS has its problems but is does serve as a good way to introduce the controvesy much like Michael Moore's film about 911 does. It does not tell the whole story but at least Robin is addressing the issue.
A virus does not know sexual orientation or race. So why are we to believe that Gay men and black African's are most infected by this virus? Looks like homophobia and racisim to me,
|
|
|
Re: Other Side of AIDS, The (2004)
| | Added by Paul King (web) on 2005-01-17 22:22:16 |
The Hidden Face of HIV � Part 1
"Knowing is Beautiful"
http://gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=1035
by Liam Scheff
As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and what�s explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we�re all at risk. We�re encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all that�s stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.
The medical literature spells it out differently � quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they�ll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they�re arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.
That�s quite a difference.
The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the US.
In 1985, The World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The results � African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986)
In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera."
"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.��
The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8% with sewage reclamation.
Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.
The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don�t know what we�re supposed to do with the information that 40 million people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn�t be interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But I�ve never heard such a thing mentioned.
The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite �"billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and "redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but plenty of condoms.
I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also state that the drugs don�t "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."
The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, and that African AIDS - water-borne illness and poverty - can be cured by AZT and Nevirapine. That�s good capitalism, but it�s bad medicine.
Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running "Know HIV/AIDS"-sponsored advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms � and we see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbows, where they�ve given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is beautiful. Get tested."
A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who�d been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasn�t able to eat, when I was sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, �Well, Jim, it goes with your condition.�
In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (that was the protocol at the Veteran�s Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."
In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.
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).
The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.
In the US, you�re tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, you�ll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? That�s just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, you�ll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that�s here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.
It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.
The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..."(Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).
"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious Disease Clinician of North America. 7; 1993)
"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).
"[U]npasteurized cows� milk�Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion. 1988)
Even geography can do it:
"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International. 56; 1988).
The same is true for the confirmatory test � the Western Blot.
Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).
"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct 2000)
Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).
This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.
In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% - overnight. UNICEF�s Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)
When these pregnant young women are tested, they�re often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There�s no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is suddenly HIV positive.
The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent."
They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."
But it�s not just HIV estimates that are created from testing pregnant women, it�s "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," all from that one test.
I�ve certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.
At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:
"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988)
And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).
The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There�s just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.
The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you�re positive; if you test below it, you�re negative.
So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC�s instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC-EIS "Screening For HIV," 2003 )
The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary�.Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)
A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one brand�s cut-off point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).
I�ve never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.
In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you�re positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time it�s read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you�re in and what kit they�re using.
The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural. 1988)
A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)
A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB�s differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)
In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?
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."
But that�s exactly how it is used � to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.
The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.
The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.
Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies aren�t specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patient�s blood.
You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That�s the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.
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).
If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patient�s blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They don�t do this, and they�re saying privately, in the medical journals, that they can�t.
That�s why tests are determined through algorithms � above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.
By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there�s no virologic gold standard, the world�s top AIDS researchers are saying that what we�re calling HIV isn�t a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.
And we�re suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.
But the fact is, you don�t need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS patient. You don�t even have to be sick.
In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.
In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you tested positive, but weren�t sick, you could be given an AIDS diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of all US AIDS patients. (That�s also the last year they reported those numbers). (CDC Year-End Edition, 1997)
In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you can be called an AIDS patient:
From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic fever." (Lancet. October,1992)
And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)
Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard - terms never seen in an HIV ad.
But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997)
If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:
"Warning: This test will not tell you if you�re infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you�ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you�re African. It will not tell you if you�re going to live or die; in fact, we really don�t know what testing positive, or negative, means at all."
|
|
|
Another Side of "The Other Side of AIDS"
| | Added by Kelly Jon Landis (email, web) on 2005-01-26 19:14:23 |
ANOTHER SIDE OF "THE OTHER SIDE OF AIDS"
LINK TO DISCUSSION THREAD ON AN AIDS DISSIDENT FORUM WHERE ONE AIDS DISSIDENT OFFERS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF "THE OTHER SIDE OF AIDS:" http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages/?msg=961.1
HERE IS ONE OF MY RECENT POSTS...
The problem with testimonialism, while it may seem easier for public consumption, sends the wrong message. That anacdotal evidence proves anything theoretically. It doesn't prove the drugs are safe or not safe, effective or not effective.You have the scientific ideas which are not well developed or explored in the nearly one-and-a-half hour film and a lot of other statements mixed in by consumers and advocates, too many of whom, it is later discovered are either not credible, or who offer generalized statements of a homophobic subtley. The things it should not do are beside the fact that it doesn't do other things I think it should do. For example, it would be nice to have compared the similiar dissenting scientific and alternative health/medical critiques to appeal to growing millions of Americans who share an alternative health care philosophy and/or practise. Peter Duesberg compared to my old doctor, Charles Farthing could have been examined a lot more closer on these points. Instead, the puritan anti-sex, anti-gay and pro-condom movements are left unchallenged really. Nothing about the extremely high percentage of carrier rates for most socalled STIs/STDs which do not go on to develop chronic symptoms or clear 'it' from their bodies naturally. Peter Deusberg is saying he does not accept that viruses or microbes have been shown to be chronically pathogenic or the primary cause of deaths and yet you have a number of testimonials of non-scientists, non-doctors who seem to refer to a sexually-transmitted gay 'AIDS.' I know many have expressed the disappointment that it does not delve into what 'HIV' positivity is and whether or usually it is a wake-up call or a crank call: as a surrogate marker for immune deficiency. I'm not so sure and if it was, when you would know it was resolved.
Mark Gabrish Conlan: Intersperses references to a tiny subset of gay men and then makes unsupported generalizations of most or all gay men at that time: "the very first cases were five gay men diagnosed... and what linked them was that they were in... the FASTLANE GAY LIFESTYLE... combing drugs much more than was the pattern for straight drug users." [...] "A HANDFUL of gay men were burning the candle at both ends" [...] "What they ['poppers'] were used for in THE GAY COMMUNITY is both the physiological effect of dilating the rectum so that receiving anal sex was easier and less painful." [...] Poppers use "became a mainstay of THE GAY SOCIAL SCENE in the late 1970s, were used by LARGE NUMBERS of people in the gay clubs and in the bathouses..."
Darren Main: "In the gay community, everybody tests all the time... it's sort of a right of passage." [gay man whose statements are not homophobic, and does mention selective bias, although indicates it is a gay ritual rather than being targeted for testing and retesting by a homophobic scientific and medical authority. Also, he is not an AIDS Dissident in that he still believes 'HIV' exists and in the definition and diagnosis of 'AIDS' though he is supportive of alternative therapies to treat 'HIV' and 'AIDS']
Michael Ellner [who is not gay] offers important testimony re: the psyhological aspects of the AIDS Zone.
Richard MacIntyre: "[drugs]... became a part of the way OUR SOCIAL LIVES were structured..." [...] "With gay men, the problem is EVEN WORSE THAN WITH HETEROSEXUALS BECAUSE OF ANAL SEX..." [...] "...organisms spread through anal sex" [...] "...you've got everybody having 200 or so partners per year" [...] "In many gay urban areas, we have third world like conditions." [...] "And I wasn't surprised because I knew we [gay men] had pushing things as far as our... sexuality."
Jeff Kishman: "I was treated for gonorreah... chlamydia... syphilis... anal warts... crabs like you wouldn't believe. Those [GAY] bathouses had crabs, crabs, crabs, crabs, crabs." [...] "I remember a number of [GAY] friends talking about diarreah, just diarreah all the time..."
Paul Philpott[a known homophobe]: "...they[CDC] were saying everyone was at risk for AIDS, they knew that wasn't true."
Mark Gabrish Conlan: "...this was a strategy [marketing of heterosexual AIDS MYTH] that had actually been developed ten years earlier by... people with a lot of PR experience who were also GAY... so there would be a massive program of government funding."
Edward Auger: "...all sorts of wild... anonymous sex." [...] "WE formed this little subculture where sex was... recreation."
Reginald Bielamowitz: statements are not overtly homophobic, though are brief and sliced in by the filmmaker to provide background that gay men were dying in a short period of time and the fear generated within the gay community that 'something' was spreading. does not examine the misplaced reasons for that fear, homophobia, both internalized and externalized heterosexism or whether 'something' or some bug was spreading in the gay community. He does not even indicate that he recognizes the fear was misplaced and no one offers a rebuttal to his experience of fear.
Leonardo Ramirez and David Fink's comments were spliced likewise to only give limited commentary on the use of drug cocktails. So, I can't say they were homophobic per se, however, neither were they allowed to rebut any of the other comments re: a supposed gay lifestyle, which is the films' fatal flaw, especially in appealing to a gay audience, for whom the producers have sought to promote this film.
Rex Poindexter: [A gay man and former AIDS Dissident who later, before the film was released, died after changing his mind and going on a drug cocktail that he said was killing his friends, which the filmmaker mentions at the end, even after using his testimonial. So, his credibility is questionable or the believability of his statements are questioned.] "I have friends... and they're chained to this idea that the meds are keeping them alive, but it's actually they're killing them."
Winston Zulu's statements wring hollow after he reversed his earlier position-- again going back to being an AIDS Apologist after he couldn't make a living as an AIDS Dissident. This is not footnoted by the filmmakers, and his testimonial is used anyway, even though he reversed the following position before the film was released. "I'm getting more and more to believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS." Now, Wiston doesn't seem very unconvinced, as he has been speaking out against Christine and AIDS Dissidence.
IF NO HETEROSEXUAL 'AIDS' COULD THERE HAVE BEEN OR IS THERE A HOMOSEXUAL AIDS EPIDEMIC?
Was it real? Beyond the original tiny subset of gay men, can it be extrapolated to include all gay men? Was there an homosexual 'AIDS' epidemic; an epidemic of immune deficiency or an epidemic of testing and misdiagnosing. Why were most of the gay men doing drugs and having lots of sex in the 70s and 80s NOT coming up 'HIV' positive? Even though a disproportionate number of gay men were being tested and coming up positive, it was still not a majority of gay men. The research is insufficient to establish what most or all gay men do or did in the 70s or today. Whatever they are doing, despite being disproportionately targeted for 'HIV' testing and 'AIDS' diagnosing, most gay men have not come up 'HIV' positive or with an 'AIDS' diagnosis.
Peter Duesberg: "But the majority of diseaes affecting us in the Western World, that is over 99% of them, are not caused by viruses and microbes." [...] "We are not indicting the most harmless viruses and the most difficult to detect, with technology that is designed to find a needle in a haystack, and blaming them on fatal... immune deficiency." [...] "If that were a cause of death [STIs/STDs]... we would all be in cemetaries or in intensive care units."
Charles Farthing: "Infectious diseases are really very simple. It ain't rocket science. You've got a bug. You've got to poison the bug."
Christine Maggiore: "The HIV test is well documented to cross-react with numerous non-HIV antibodies that can be found in normal, healthy people." [AND YET IN HER BOOK AND ON HER WEBSITE SHE CONCURS WITH THE PERTH GROUP RE: THEIR SEMEN AS OXIDATIVE STRESSOR THEORY AND THAT SOMEHOW GAY MEN ARE STILL PROPERLY TO BE CONSIDERED "AT RISK"]
[NO EXAMINATION OF HETEROSEXUAL SUBJECTS' HEALTH OR LIFE-STYLE PRIOR TO TESTING 'HIV' POSITIVE, INCLUDING CHRISTINE MAGGIORE OR KRIS AND WANDA "DOE" OR PAUL AND RACHEL "DOE" OR KATHLEEN TYSON]
Robin Scovill, the founder of Hazel Wood Productions and the filmmaker of "The Other Side of AIDS" is an 'HIV' negative man, and his wife, Christine Maggiore, founder of ALIVE and WELL AIDS ALTERNATIVES and who is an 'HIV' positive woman, have publicly acknowledged in several interviews that they do not use condoms although the film has a disclaimer at the end recommending proactively, not just leaving it up to the viewer, a recommendation to practise socalled 'safe-sex.' This is hypocritical.
==
ANAL SEX AND HOMOPHOBIA IN THE AIDS DISSIDENT MOVEMENT
Christine Maggiore and The Perth Group have said that because gay men are more likely to engage in anal sex and be exposed to semen, which they view as immune suppressive without question. They continue to teach the "risk group" hypothesis which includes all gay men, regardless of health-style.They fail to consider selective bias in whether gay men are really at risk for disproportionate 'HIV' testing and treatment, rather than an immune deficiency caused by anal sex. They ignore any consideration for the use of benzene-containing lubricants or latex condoms which were never approved for internal use and also correlate with the big push for socalled 'safe-sex' among gay men at the beginning of the AIDS era.This is why Christine and The Perth Group and some other AIDS Dissidents-- although none more than Christine who has unknowingly promoted her homophobia among those gay men who adore her as the Dissident Diva, they promoting her when they are unable to speak up for a healthy gay sexuality-- is a primary target of my criticisms, since she promotes herself to this group. The Perth Group also deserves their fair share of criticism and the unwillingness of Eleni to let go of her pet theory of semen as an oxidative stressor. At one time, I, like a number of gay men who are also AIDS Dissidents, and no longer devote our passion to her devotion, were mesmerized by her story. We even felt deep down inside that she was an "innocent" victim in all this, with no risk factors, she loves to tell. Now, I don't expect anyone to be perfect, because I'm not, and she and I have both contributed to the movement in our own way. I freely admit and that I don't much care for Christine Maggiore, even while I respect some of her efforts, because I don't like shameless self-promoters who don't allow room for new leaders within a movement or who profess loyalty to gay men while they attack in private many of those gay men involved in the movement. I could give many examples and so could others I know. I am not alone among gay AIDS Dissidents who share these views, they just don't always want to critisize her publicly.
==
==
REVIEW FROM DAILY VARIETY
VARIETY
June 28, 2004
By Ronnie Scheib
[...]
"Pic's weakest argument by far, advanced largely by lay persons, places the blame for the epidemic on the drug-taking promiscuity of the American gay lifestyle in the late '70s/early '80s, exacerbated by the use of amyl nitrate "poppers." This shaky theory manages to place the blame exclusively on homosexual behavior and conveniently leave Africa and the rest of the world out of the equation."
[...]
"The main proponents of this theory include... Christine Maggiore, who has lived healthily without AIDS medication since she was diagnosed HIV-positive in 1992. She now heads a large grassroots organization which militates against HIV drug treatments. She is also the wife of helmer Robin Scovill (a fact the documentary neglects to mention)."
==
==
ANOTHER SIDE OF "THE OTHER SIDE OF AIDS"
LINK TO DISCUSSION THREAD ON AN AIDS DISSIDENT FORUM WHERE ONE AIDS DISSIDENT OFFERS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF "THE OTHER SIDE OF AIDS:" http://forums.delphiforums.com/innocuous/messages/?msg=961.1
|
|
Add new comment
All comments are owned by their posters.
Please e-mail [email protected] with complaints.
|
