> [...]
> >> As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago.  

> but not in your favor.  

Your memory is atrocious.

> > the UK. Such tests are not required other than in highly exceptional
> > circumstances.

> such as a request for a policy over 50-60,000 pounds?

Wherever did you get this idea? Just making it up, I suppose.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> > Now just calm yourself and think about it. Actually it is not so
> > much the social habits of the test subject, but what they *say*
> > about those habits to the doctor or clinician that triggers the
> > different testing procedures. "Risk group" data is entirely
> > voluntary. Gays or IVDU who choose not to confide in their doctors
> > are in NO danger of receiving a positive "HIV" test result, as our
> > data here confirms. You provided some interesting excuses about
> > why test results should be interpreted differently acccording to
> > "risk group" membership (which you like to think of as representing
> > high or low prevalence populations). Recent information has shown
> > that target group blood is "cooked" longer than others, resulting
> > in higher levels of the cellular debris wrongly believed to be
> > linked with antibodies to "HIV". So if you just put all the pieces
> > together calmly and sensibly you will see how it all works out.

> Rubbish.  Blood that goes to a clinical laboratory is handled uniformly.  
> In many cases the handlers are blind to the clinical information.  You
> quote a recently posted second hand source totally out of context.

The context is apt. The source is excellent. It contradicts you
on several important points, which you don’t refute.

"HIV tests" are totally meaningless chemical procedures, which
are coerced into providing results conforming to the prevailing
prejudice. If blood is no longer labelled according to whether it
came from an acknowledged homosexual subject or not, and not cooked
to produce more "antibody debris" if it was, the distribution and
extent of alleged positivity is likely to be vastly different.

You might well find your so-called "prevalence of HIV infection"
coming down to our low figures. I think we can now see exactly
how the uniquely huge death toll the US has generated from "Aids"
has come about. The picture is clearer than ever.

 John
—  
"The Western Blot is a non-standardized, expensive, laborious
 technique of subjective interpretation which provides an
 appreciable number of undetermined results."
  V. Soriano, et al. Medicina Clinica, Vol 100, Num 15, 1993.

>> himself wrote:

>> > Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
>> > unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?

>> Considerably.  If you say they are not likely to have positive tests
>> returned for them you are speaking only of those who have tests sent.  

> No meaning discernable anywhere in this comment.

I give up.

>> As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago.  

but not in your favor.  

> the UK. Such tests are not required other than in highly exceptional
> circumstances.

such as a request for a policy over 50-60,000 pounds?

> Now just calm yourself and think about it. Actually it is not so
> much the social habits of the test subject, but what they *say*
> about those habits to the doctor or clinician that triggers the
> different testing procedures. "Risk group" data is entirely
> voluntary. Gays or IVDU who choose not to confide in their doctors
> are in NO danger of receiving a positive "HIV" test result, as our
> data here confirms. You provided some interesting excuses about
> why test results should be interpreted differently acccording to
> "risk group" membership (which you like to think of as representing
> high or low prevalence populations). Recent information has shown
> that target group blood is "cooked" longer than others, resulting
> in higher levels of the cellular debris wrongly believed to be
> linked with antibodies to "HIV". So if you just put all the pieces
> together calmly and sensibly you will see how it all works out.

Rubbish.  Blood that goes to a clinical laboratory is handled uniformly.  In
many cases the handlers are blind to the clinical information.  You quote a
recently posted second hand source totally out of context.

> himself wrote:

> > Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
> > unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?

> Considerably.  If you say they are not likely to have positive tests
> returned for them you are speaking only of those who have tests sent.  

No meaning discernable anywhere in this comment.

> [...]
> Rest assured that if you need a blood transfusion it will be tested, even
> if you insist that it need not be. (You would, of course cheerfully
> accept some untested blood, wouldn’t you?)

Untested for "HIV"? Of course. Does that surprise you? I think not,
unless you have developed a Harris-like ability to forget what has
been said and written.

> As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago.  If you want
> a sizable policy you get tested.  Don’t make us go back to the archives
> again for such rubbish.

Oh dear, you have indeed developed such a disability! The outcome
of our discussion on insurance (precipitated by the press release
from the Association of British Insurers downgrading the overall
risk of mortality from "Aids" in the face of undeniable proof that
the long-touted "epidemic" is a delusion) was that life assurance
could easily be contracted without the need for an "HIV" test in
the UK. Such tests are not required other than in highly exceptional
circumstances. This was barely a year ago; your memory is
deteriorating alarmingly.

> You appear to be saying that the tests are interpreted to suit the
> social habits of the testee.  Rubbish! Rubbish! Rubbish!

Now just calm yourself and think about it. Actually it is not so
much the social habits of the test subject, but what they *say*
about those habits to the doctor or clinician that triggers the
different testing procedures. "Risk group" data is entirely
voluntary. Gays or IVDU who choose not to confide in their doctors
are in NO danger of receiving a positive "HIV" test result, as our
data here confirms. You provided some interesting excuses about
why test results should be interpreted differently acccording to
"risk group" membership (which you like to think of as representing
high or low prevalence populations). Recent information has shown
that target group blood is "cooked" longer than others, resulting
in higher levels of the cellular debris wrongly believed to be
linked with antibodies to "HIV". So if you just put all the pieces
together calmly and sensibly you will see how it all works out.

 John
—
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish
than sensible."                          Bertrand Russell 1872-1970

>>The reason this figure is relatively low compared to other countries is
>>probably because the UK has been quite successful in controlling the
>>transmission of HIV through sharing injecting equipment, so we don’t
>>have a large pool of infected (ex)drug users able to transmit HIV to
>>their heterosexual partners.

>I’d still like to hear an explanation for why HIV prevalence is so low
>in Italy, a country with a large gay population, and where condoms
>were/are? difficult to come by.

I don’t know what you mean by low.  Cumulative reported incidence of
AIDS in Italy is 689 cases per million.  That may sound low to most
readers of m.h.a in the USA, but it’s the fourth highest in Europe,
after Spain, France and Switzerland.

Check out http://hiv.net/hiv/epidem/epidem.htm for an analysis of the
HIV/AIDS epidemic in Europe.
—
Hilary Curtis, Executive Director, BMA Foundation for AIDS
http://www.bmaids.demon.co.uk
Tel: 0171 383 6315 Fax: 0171 388 2544
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP, UK

"Aids cases" can be as healthy as our own James Scutero, or the
thousands of people associated with Continuum, HEAL groups, etc.
It is a totally meaningless diagnosis. If these people continue
to avoid "HIV medication" there is no reason for their health to
differ in any way from anyone else’s, as they are discovering
everywhere.  

"Aids" deaths, which are overwhelmingly the medical poisoning of
healthy people, do differ vastly from place to place. The US, with
its historical gullibility to medical claims, and eagerness to
consume pharmaceuticals, has generated "Aids" deaths at about ten
times the rate of European countries, and continues to encourage
large numbers of unncesssary deaths by this method.

The answer to the poster’s question, why Italy should have so
little "Aids", is of course that the artificial phenomenon known
as "Aids" is not infectious. Condom campaigns, needle exchanges,
disinformation propaganda, etc. are all irrelevant to the "Aids"
phenomenon, except that by misdirecting scarce resources into
preserving and protecting the myth of "Aids", its beneficiaries
keep alive (for the basest of personal reasons), this dangerous
delusion.

(But not for much longer, it seems safe to predict.)

 John
—  
"Meanwhile, let us hope that the country is not confronted with a real
epidemic in the near future: after the disinformation the government
has told us about Aids, who would believe it?"
                 Andrew Neil, editor, The Sunday Times, 23 June 1996.

>Jon

One of the primary vectors of HIV transmission is through the use of
contaminated drug injecting equipment. Sterile syringes and needles are
readily accessible to injection drug users in Italy. Sterile syringes and
needles can be obtained through pharmacies and needle exchange programs
there. In some Italian cities, there are vending machines which will
exchange a sterile needle and syringe set for a used one when a person
deposits the contaminated equipment into a slot. This can explain why HIV
seroprevalence is low in Italy.

             james m. scutero, original proponent of misc.health.aids

                     the newsgroup of acquired immune deficiency syndromes
                                    o_) *
                             ”    _/\  
                                    /(
       misc.health.aids homepage`- http://www.panix.com/~jscutero

surfin’ with aids.                                    * (hot ascii surfer)

> [...]
> So you didn’t mean it when you said there was *no* heterosexual
> aids in UK, only that there was no epidemic?

How clear do I have to be? Here is a quote from the programme:

  FROM BBC ‘FINE CUT’ DOCUMENTARY "THE END OF INNOCENCE".

 "In Britain, heterosexual Aids has probably never existed," is a  
  conclusion of the BBC "Fine Cut" documentary programme "The End of
  Innocence", which was shown as part of the Red Ribbon series marking
  World Aids Day, on the 5th December 1995.

Notice they don’t say, "an epidemic of hererosexual Aids has probably
never existed". That is too obvious. They then produce and analyse
figures which lead them to conclude that even the tiny numbers of
otherwise unaccounted for "Aids" cases actually belong in other
groups, and that heterosexual "Aids" has never existed in Britain.

[ Of course, in making that observation, they completely routed the
suggestion that "Aids" is infectious; a far more important deduction.]

> > As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
> > they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
> > reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
> > orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
> > by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.

> More confused expression.  Surely you mean that because heterosexuals
> are not in a "risk group" they are unlikely to have HIV tests.  

Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?

> And just as surely this is not true in as much as the blood donors are
> all tested, and worried heterosexuals get tested and (contrary to you
> thread a few years ago) heterosexuals getting insurance may be tested.  

I am not sure exactly what happens with blood donors now, but I don’t
think the situation is anything like as simple as you claim. And of
course heterosexuals are never required to get tested for HIV for
insurance in the UK. You seem to be hallucinating well today.

Worried heterosexuals are most unlikely to get tested in the UK, so
I don’t know where you got that idea from. Even if they wanted to,
they would most likely be specifically discouraged from doing so by
doctors or other health workers. They are not the group to which
"HIV" and "Aids" diagnoses are attached.

> The idea that there are lots of heterosexuals out there in UK with
> false positive tests just waiting to happen is more rubbish.

Well, it’s your own rubbish. I have never said anything like that.

The only way they will get false positive tests is if they tell the
doctors they are gay, and invent some lurid sexual phantasies to
ensure their blood is good and cooked by the time it is tested,
and the result assumed to be an under-estmate. You know the method.

 John
—  
"The Western Blot is a non-standardized, expensive, laborious
 technique of subjective interpretation which provides an
 appreciable number of undetermined results."
  V. Soriano, et al. Medicina Clinica, Vol 100, Num 15, 1993.

But on careful analysis, this figure evaporates completely, as the
BBC Fine Cut documentary film makers found.

> The reason this figure is relatively low compared to other countries is
> probably because the UK has been quite successful in controlling the
> transmission of HIV through sharing injecting equipment, so we don’t
> have a large pool of infected (ex)drug users able to transmit HIV to
> their heterosexual partners.

Total balderdash. The reasons why this is such a silly explanation
have been posted here on too many occasions to need repeating again.

 John
—
"`HIV’ is not a virus, but a collection of gene products that can appear
when immune cells are chronically stimulated in the body or drastically
manipulated in the laboratory. No two identical `HIV’s have been isolated,
even from the same individual."
      "AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science" by Neville Hodgkinson

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

himself wrote:

> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:

> > [...]
> > So you didn’t mean it when you said there was *no* heterosexual
> > aids in UK, only that there was no epidemic?

> How clear do I have to be? Here is a quote from the programme:

>   FROM BBC ‘FINE CUT’ DOCUMENTARY "THE END OF INNOCENCE".

>  "In Britain, heterosexual Aids has probably never existed," is a
>   conclusion of the BBC "Fine Cut" documentary programme "The End of
>   Innocence", which was shown as part of the Red Ribbon series marking
>   World Aids Day, on the 5th December 1995.

> Notice they don’t say, "an epidemic of hererosexual Aids has probably
> never existed".

What I notice is the qualifier "probably" which is consipicuous by its
absence from your citation.

> > > As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
> > > they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
> > > reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
> > > orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
> > > by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.

> > More confused expression.  Surely you mean that because heterosexuals
> > are not in a "risk group" they are unlikely to have HIV tests.

> Both. They are unlikely to take tests, and the results are even more
> unlikely to come back positive. Can I be any clearer?

Considerably.  If you say they are not likely to have positive tests
returned for them you are speaking only of those who have tests sent.  

> I am not sure exactly what happens with blood donors now, but I don’t
> think the situation is anything like as simple as you claim. And of
> course heterosexuals are never required to get tested for HIV for
> insurance in the UK. You seem to be hallucinating well today.

Rest assured that if you need a blood transfusion it will be tested, even
if you insist that it need not be. (You would, of course cheerfully
accept some untested blood, wouldn’t you?)

As to the insurance issue, it was resolved a few years ago.  If you want
a sizable policy you get tested.  Don’t make us go back to the archives
again for such rubbish.

> The only way they will get false positive tests is if they tell the
> doctors they are gay, and invent some lurid sexual phantasies to
> ensure their blood is good and cooked by the time it is tested,
> and the result assumed to be an under-estmate. You know the method.

You appear to be saying that the tests are interpreted to suit the social
habits of the testee.  Rubbish! Rubbish! Rubbish!

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <845970187…@blackdog.demon.co.uk>, j…@blackdog.demon.co.uk (himself) writes:
> holzm…@mcrcr6.med.nyu.edu "ROBERT S. HOLZMAN" writes:

>> john@blackdog:
>> > Unfortunately for this fine and principled stand, the evidence from
>> > here (UK) clearly reveals that there is NO "heterosexual Aids" at
>> > all.

>> NONE?????  Not one?

>> Rubbish.  However would you know?  Surely you mean to imply that there
>> is no *epidemic* of heterosexual aids in UK.

> It is the position of Edward King and the BBC "Fine Cut"
> documentary team who made "The End of Innocence". The figures on
> which that analysis is based were presented during the programme.
> They make sense. There is obviously no "epidemic" of anything
> like "Aids" in the UK, in any group or people. It is an obviously
> artificial definition.

So you didn’t mean it when you said there was *no* heterosexual aids in UK,
only that there was no epidemic?

> As heterosexuals are not theorised to be in a "risk group" (provided
> they don’t admit to their gay affairs or drug habits) there is no
> reason for a positive "HIV" test result to be returned for them, in
> orthodox "Aids" thinking. Only the target groups get the diagnosis,
> by methods that are becoming clearer all the time.

More confused expression.  Surely you mean that because heterosexuals are not
in a "risk group" they are unlikely to have HIV tests.  And just as surely
this is not true in as much as the blood donors are all tested, and worried
heterosexuals get tested and (contrary to you thread a few years ago)
heterosexuals getting insurance may be tested.  The idea that there are lots of
heterosexuals out there in UK with false positive tests just waiting to happen
is more rubbish.