NL-This letter was sent out to the US Dept of Heath & Human Services, The CA Health Office & The CA Health Inspector. ( I wonder why not to OSHA also ?)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
- Adult Time Shares Its Top 10 Most Satisfying Scenes for December 2024 @adulttimecom @bsgpr
- Vanessa Vega, Luna Lovely Headline New Inked Vixens XXX Releases @InkedvixensXXX @Vanessavegax @pornstarinkxxx @Lunalovelyx @Got_tattoosxxx
- Olive Glass Scores Two 2025 XMA Awards Nominations @glassolive @pornstarinkxxx
- Sedona Reign Scores First XMA Nomination @SedonaReign @pornstarinkxxx
Headlines
This letter doesn’t specify which STDs have allegedly risen in porn, provides no numbers and fails to compare that with the general population.
Since this letter is coming from AIDS Healthcare Foundation, they should know that the size of HIV retrovirus particles is microscopic. The holes in condoms, like that of a screen netting, are much larger.
Even The Pope (Vatican) says that condoms can not effectively protect against HIV.
STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can.
Latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called “voids.” Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through.
To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, just imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop.
A variety of studies have also found that condoms have an “annual failure rate” of 10% to 36% when it comes to preventing pregnancy. Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy.
STDs are frequently passed through “skin to skin” contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
The point is, there are risks in anything. Everytime you get into your car to drive, you are taking a risk that you may get in an accident or even die (there are 40-50,000 driving deaths every year in the U.S.).
The bottom line, just like going to the gym, you sign a waiver that if you get hurt, they are not liable.
Enforcing condom use is entirely dumb. It will only serve as the final body blow or knock out punch to the porn industry. Porn still provides a lot of tax revenue to California, so keep your hands off our privates!
Also, to answer your question, Cindi, as to why AHF hasn’t sent a letter to OSHA, is because even AIDS Healhcare Foundation knows OSHA is a fucking joke!
Dear Sirs,
AIDS Healthcare Foundation is a California non-profit corporation (Bullshit! There’s no such thing as a non-profit corporation) whose mi$$ion is to provide cutting edge (cutting edge??) advocacy (ie: propaganda) and medicine (toxic pills and cocktails)
for people with HIV (testing for HIV is still based on Eliza. How’s that for “cutting edge”?), regardless of their ability to pay (If you can’t afford Merck’s sky high priced “medicine”, we’ll make sure you get some so you can get sick and eventually die and thus provide AHF with important AIDS death statistics so they can justify the continuence of money making for their “non-profit” corporation).
(Just my opinion, anyway…)
If you click on their website’s “pharmacy customers” section, you’ll read a prescripion bottle which reads “May cause overhelming feelings of humanity”, although their services also state they can also give patients ‘ a fresh start’ if they are experiencing problems or are overwhelmed by their medications.”
If they’re so “cutting edge” why don’t they pursue other effective options besides drug$, and look at the controversy in regards to HIV, AIDS and treatment for AIDS?
They also advocate “full-course antiretroviral treatment for all expectant and breastfeeding mothers worldwide, in place of short-course therapy.”, which invariably causes birthdefects or retro-active abortion, due to the highly toxic effects of their “medicine”.
Mr. Steele,
Your analogy to the waiver at a health club is seriosly flawed. The gym does not give personal iformation about you or your health status to any third person, as does AIM.
And more improtantly, the gym is not your employer, and that is who AIM is giving your results. The law is crytal clear regarding to whom a doctor may give your personal info. The law states that anytime a doctor gives your personal info to a third party, their must be a specific waiver for every disclosure, and that waiver must includde he name of the specific person to whom the results are being given. AIM does not do this.
Your car driving analogy is also severly flawed. While it is certainly true that driving has inherent risks, there are safegurds that must be followed by the auto manufactures to minimize those risks, and drivers areREQUIRED to have insurance, to pay for any damage you do to someone else. The porn industry has no such safegaurds for any employee who is injured while working.
And you would certainly agree that NOT using condoms is certainly not safer than using condoms at. Condoms do minimize risk, but not 100%.
And I am also very confident that TTBoy doesnt think OSHA is a joke.
And your final paragraph seem to indicate that the
state of california should ignore the health and safety issues because of the tax revenue for the state. Like councilman Yaroslovsky recently said, “let them leave”.
Jerry, is sex safer with or without condoms? Your recitation of condom failure rate in std protection pales in comparison to the failure rate of bareback sex. Condoms are not perfect…true. Bareback sex is many times more risky than condom sex.
And your statement that stds can infect anywhere inthe genital area is not complete. Gonnoreah and chlamydia are easlty transmitted in the throat and anus, but the urine test used by AIM is worthless in detecting thse diseases in these areas. HOw can this industry say they have a comprehensive testing program when they dont even test for these diseases.
in the throat and anus, where gonn/chalm can thrive for long periods and remain unsymptomatic for months.
Mr. Steele, did you know that the urine test used by AIM is 100% worthless in detecting these diseases in the throat or anus? Considering how prevelent oral and anal sex is in the porn biz, Do you think AIM should tell performers that the test is not good for detectin throat and anal stds?
The above is an absurd, self-serving diatribe. The poster should be ashamed. Repeated studies have confirmed that the correct use of a latex condom is highly effective at inhibiting the spread of HIV. And even if condoms were only 50% effective at preventing HIV (the real number is closer to 98%); the use of a condom still provides enormously better odds to the participant than would be the case without the use of a condom. No honest, reasonable person can question that assertion.
Even the Pope says condoms don’t prevent disease transmission? Wow, then it must be true. Imagine that, the head of an organization opposed to the concept of recreational sex would seek to discredit an artificial means of reducing the consequences associated with recreational sex. Next thing you know, the Pope will trying to discredit population control as a means of reducing resource scarcity.
While condoms don’t inhibit the spread of all STD’s, the STD’s that they are less effective at preventing: herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, ect., tend not to be life threatening (there may be some exceptions). And, furthermore, drawing attention to the inadequacy of condoms at prevening those other STD’s just makes a case for porn to be banned altogether. HIV is bad enough that, even if condoms were used exclusively for HIV prevention, condom use would still be a worthwhile precaution.
As for whether performers should be permitted to work without condoms if they consent; that’s a separate issue. I think ultimately, should there be another HIV outbreak (the last one made national news), the state may step in and make the decision for them. While I generally favor personal freedom to undertake risk; in this instance I see a strong possibility for exploitation. I would have to think it over more. But there is no question as to whether condom use provides additional STD protection to the performer–that much is clear.
Mr. Steele,
Is it also ‘bullshit’ that AIM is a 501c3 non profit corperation? And shouldn AIM tell its patients that the test they use for gonn.chlam is WORTHLESS in detecting anything in the throat or anus?
Joe said:
“waiver must includde he name of the specific person to whom the results are being given. AIM does not do this.”
What’s your point?
“The porn industry has no such safegaurds for any employee who is injured while working.”
That is correct. What do you propose?
When I say Osha is a joke, I mean they have been proven over and over to be corrupt and not protect people. Yeah, they fined and fucked TT Boy, I know. That’s a different issue.
Condoms may minimize risk, but not of AIDS. Reread what I wrote. That’s like having a screen window who’s holes are larger than the flies that can fly through it. It’s illusory. Abstinence is the best way to reduce risk of STDS. Why don’t you propose that? And one of the best ways to promote abstinence is to promote porn because it causes more people to sit at home and jerk off rather than go out and potentially catch or spread something.
My point is there are risks in any profession. When one signs a waiver they are accepting those risks. If they don’t want to risk their health in any degree then they should not do porn. If they want to reduce the risk of getting hurt or killed driving or riding they should take the bus.
I was not writing to criticism AIM. I don’t think g/c tests are worth the paper they’re printed on. Tests don’t seem to stop g/c at all, but if you get it, you take antibiotics and/or a shot and then you go on with your life. AIM has stressed that porn companies should do less ass to mouth scenes if they want to reduce g/c and I agree with that.
Sorry goldbear, I disagree and the facts as said, are that microscopic HIV retroviruses can easily cross through the voids in condoms.
The bottom line is it should be up to the discretion of the performers. Some jobs are risky but people do them anyway, such as coalmining or artic fishing. Mandatory condom use will only destroy the industy in exchange for the possibility of increased safety or, at worst, just the illusion of.
Joe said:
“Mr. Steele, Is it also ‘bullshit’ that AIM is a 501c3 non profit corperation?”.
Yes, but hardly in the way other “non-profit” organizations are. Mitch and her employees have a certain set salary. The vast majority of profit goes to the labs charging high rates for their testings.
–jeremiahsteele
You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. H20 is smaller than HIV, yet water doesn’t pass through latex condoms. Provide a source for your outrageous claims–no doubt, should you even try, it will come from Focus on Family or one of those AIDS denialist sites. No credible scientific source supports your position. What you’re saying is nonesense.
Mr. Steele,
Where do you get this bullshit that the labs are charging AIM some “high rates for testing.” You are obvioulsy ignorant of the FACT that AIM only pays 50 dollars for the pcr test,while the regular price at every major lab in the united states is between 250 and 300 dollars for the same test.
When you make statements like the one above, about a subject that you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about, you truely make yourslf look like a fool.
Do a google search of LABCORP and Quest Diagnostics and see how much they charge for pcr testing. Then compare that to the 50 dollars that AIM pays for the same test. You have no clue what you are talking aabout in regards to the test prices, but that never stopped you before from making yourself look like an idiot.
Steele, Did you know how much AIM pays for their tests before being told here? Save your breathe, the answer is NO.
MR. Steele,
Every other job that has inherent risks also provides remedies for employess who take those risks. When a crab fisherman or a coal miner gets injured, the EMPLOYER pays the costs, not the employee. So, whats your point in making this very flawed analogy?
ANd talk about illusion of safety, what do you call the current protocol of the adult industry?
Mr. Steele,
Perhaps you could tell us of the conspiracy among the the porn complanies to hide the real facts about stds, and to keep th e performers believing that testing is as good as condoms. And then you can tell us about the meetings that VIVID, Hstler, and few others have been having with OSHA lately to come up with a plan to put little companies out of business with burdensome health regualtions that only the ‘big boys’ will be able to afford.
I’m more than willing to admit I’m wrong or foolish if that be the case. Where can you provide the data
that “AIM only pays 50 dollars for the pcr test” and that the rest of the 130 is non-profit profit?
Like I said, you want to push mandetory condom laws for porn, you’re killing the business. If people want to risk their lives for whatever potential profit, it’s their free choice, or it’s supposed to be, at least.
And just for laughs Mr. Steele, maybe you could tell us what “ELIZA” means in regards to medical testing?
(This ought to be good)
Please show me where i said i want mandatory condoms. And the price AIM pays is publc knowledge. It has been mentioned in articles on AVN and XBIZ several times. Do a little research yourself, isnt that what you tell everyone to do? Look at an article in the archives of AVN entitled “Rob Spallone Questions AIM.” ITs all right there.
Now, can you tell us what you based your statement about the high prices on, or was that just bullshit you made up yourself? I think you just made that bullshit up yorself thinking that nobody would call you on it. So where did yuo get that MISINFORMAITON that you tried to pass off as truth here?
And do you think race car drivers should have the choice to use helmets and seat belts?
Steele “Even The Pope (Vatican) says that condoms can not effectively protect against HIV.”
WTF
Come’on Steele, the Catholic Church has a bigger record of corruption than half of New Jersey! The Pope (Benedict XVI) also stated homosexuality is a ‘disorder’ and in 2009 made the case for massive global redistribution of wealth! So excuse me if I have a hard time believing the Vatican’s theories on HIV/AIDS (especially in light of how they went after Galileo, only in the past 60 odd years slowly coming around to sanity, for believing Copernicus’s crazy theory that the Earth and the planets revolve AROUND THE SUN and not that the Earth is the center of the universe).
Yet now you’re citing the based-on-strict-religious-orthodoxy medical theories of one the world’s most corrupt organizations whose current leader is on record as being a proponent of a ‘New World Order’?!
EVERYBODY REACTS POSITIVE
ON THE ELISA TEST FOR HIV
By Roberto Giraldo
Continuum Midwinter 1998/9
For the last 6 years I have been working at the laboratory of clinical immunology in one of the most prestigious University Hospitals in the City of New York. Here I have had the opportunity to personally run and get to know in detail the current tests used for the diagnosis of HIV status, namely, the ELISA, Western Blott and Viral Load tests.
1. Diluting the serum for the ELISA test.
The ELISA test is a test for antibodies against what is supposed to be the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV. To run this test, an individual’s serum has to be diluted to a ratio of 1:400 with a special specimen diluent. According to the test kit manufacturer this diluent contains
0,1% triton X-100, Bovine and Goat Sera (minimum concentration of 5%) and Human T-Lymphocyte Lysate (minimum titer 1:7500). Preservative: 0.1% Sodium Azide (1).
This extraordinary high dilution of the person’s serum [400 times] took me by surprise. Most serologic tests that look for the presence of antibodies against germs uses neat serum [undiluted]. For example, the tests that look for antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus, syphillis, hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of them, use straight serum [undiluted]. However, to try to prevent false positive reactions some serologic tests use diluted serum; for example this is the case with tests that look for antibodies to measles, varicelia and mumps viruses which use a dilution of 1:16, to cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20 and to Epstein-Barr Virus [EBV] 1:10.
The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that the test serum nedds to be diluted 400 times?. And what would happen if the individual’s serum is not diluted?.
2. Testing the ELISA test without diluting the serum.
To answer these questions I ran an experiment in a medical laboratory in Yorktown Heights, New York. I ran it using the same test kit reagents that are usually used to run the ELISA test in most clinical laboratories worldwide (1).
I first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution, tested negative for antibodies to HIV. I then ran the exact same serum samples through the test again, but this time without diluting them. Tested straight, they all came positive.
Since that time I have run about 100 specimens and have always gotten the same result. I even ran my own blood which, at 1:400 reacts negative. At 1:1 [undiluted] it reacted positive. I should mention that with the exception of my own blood, the patient samples all came from doctors who requested HIV tests. It is therefore likely that most of the blood samples that I tested belonged to individuals at risk for AIDS.
According to Abbott Laboratories, the absorbance value [yellow color intensity]
develops in proportion to the amount of antibodies to HIV-1 which is bound to the bead (1).
What I noticied is that the absorbance values of the specimens that tested negative when diluted [1:400], but positive when undiluted [1:1], had lower values than the samples that, diluted, react positive on both the ELISA and Western Blott tests. This would probably mean that the blood that is negative when diluted but positive when undiluted has a lower level of antibodies than the diluted blood that is doubly positive and, therefore, may probably test negative on the Western Blott test. However, I have not had the opportunity to check this hypothesis.
The graphic below ilustrates how blood that reacts negative for HIV at 1:400 ratio always turn positive when run at 1:1 [undiluted].
Run of ELISA test for HIV with two different concentrations of the person’s serum.
(a) Results at 1:400 (b) Results at 1:1
9112324b G5 0.076 — 9112324b G5 0.262 reactive
9112325b H1 0.081 — 9112325b H1 0.259 reactive
9112326b H2 0.071 — 9112326b H2 0.329 reactive
9112327b H3 0.060 — 9112327b H3 0.401 reactive
9112328b H4 0.073 — 9112328b H4 0.345 reactive
9112329b H5 0.062 — 9112329b H5 0.343 reactive
9112330b J1 0.060 — 9112330b J1 0.234 reactive
9112331b J2 0.077 — 9112331b J2 0.306 reactive
9112332b J3 0.067 — 9112332b J3 0.248 reactive
9112333b J4 0.086 — 9112333b J4 0.222 reactive
Column (a) shows 10 specimens reacting negative at 1:400 dilution.
Column (b) shows the same specimens reacting positive at 1:1 dilution.
It is important to note that the Western Blott antibody test for «HIV» also needs serum to diluted. Although it too has an usually high dilution, here the individual serum is only diluted at the ratio of 1:50 (2). I have not yet had the opportunity to run this test with undiluted [1:1] specimens.
3. Discussion.
The following are three possible explanations for why undiluted specimens of blood always react positive at the ELISA test:
3.1. Everybody has HIV antibodies.
It is accepted worldwide that the ELISA test for HIV detects antibodies against what is known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (3-4-5-6). And the pharmaceutical company that commercialises the ELISA kits states that
Abbott HIVAB HIV-1 EIA is an vitro qualitative Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in Human Serum and Plasma (1).
Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens.
This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the virus that is believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react positive even at a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the highest level of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people -the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum [1:1]- would have had a lower level of exposure to HIV.
3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection.
It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts positive for antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is infected with a deadly virus that causes immunodeficiency (3-4-5-6). Therefore, the positive reactions of all undiluted sera would mean that everybody, or at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, infected with this «deadly» virus. The ones that react positive at a ratio of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of «deadly» infection than the «deadly» infection has by the ones that reacts positive only with undiluted serum.
3.3. The test is not specific for HIV.
The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been explained previously (7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14). In this case, there would be reasons other than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV (7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14).
The scientific literature has documented more than 70 different reasons for getting a positive reaction other than past or present infection with HIV (7,10,11,14,15). All these conditions have in common a history of polyantigenic stimulations (15,16).
Even Abbott Laboratories is well aware of the specificity problems with the ELISA tesst. This is why they state:
EIA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of the reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is present
and
Although for all clinical and public health applications of the EIA both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting the test, these correlations are impefect. Therefore, in most settings it is appropiate to investigate repeatably reactive specimens by additional more specific or supplemental tests (1).
Interestingly, there are countries like Great Britain where the diagnosis of HIV status is based on the ELISA test alone. No Western Blott or any other test is needed there.
The only proper way for establishing the sensitivity and specificity of a given test is with a gold standard. However, since HIV has never been isolated as an independent purified viral entity (17-18-19), there cannot be a gold standard for HIV. The sensitivity and specificity of the antibody tests for HIV have instead been defined based on the assumption that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In this way,
The Abbot studies show that: Sensitivity based on an assumed 100% prevalence of HIV-1 antibody in AIDS patients is estimated to be 100% (144 patients tested).
and
Specificity based on the assumed zero prevalence of HIV-1 in random donors is estimated to be 99.9/o (4.777 random donors tested (1)).
At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors (1).
[Emphasis is mine].
Since there is no scientific evidence that the ELISA test is specific for HIV antibodies, a reactive ELISA test at any concentration of the serum would mean presence of nonspecific or polyspecific antibodies (20). These antibodies could be present in all blood samples. They are most likely a result of the stress response, having no relation to any retrovirus, let alone HIV (21,22). In this case, a reactive test could be a measure of the degree of one’s exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents (15,16).
The inevitable conclusion is that all positive reactions for antibodies to HIV are simply false positives. If nobody is positive for HIV, then people who react positive on the ELISA test do so due to something other than HIV.
4. Proposal to find out the real meaning of the «HIV antibody» tests.
To uncover the meaning of these tests I propose a simple experiment: Take blood from three groups of a people and run the tests highly diluted, undiluted and at a wide spectrum of dilutions in between. The first group would be a group of healthy people of many age groups; the second group would be a group of people from the conventional AIDS «risk groups»; the third group would be a group of people with clinical conditions both related and unrelated to AIDS. All groups would be subjected to both the ELISA and Western Blott tests.
Additionally, all blood samples could be subjected to «the viral load test for HIV».
The results of such an experiment could determine whether these test measurements bear any relationship to an individual’s level of exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents. If so, the tests could be salvaged as a measure of an individual’s level of intoxication.
Let us find the economic support necessary to run this experiment. In the mean time, since people are reacting positive on tests that are not specific for HIV, let’s please stop labeling them as «HIV positive».
Acknowledgments.
I want to thank Mr. Albert Padovani, Director of Yorktown Medical Laboratory for permitting me to run the experiments reported here in his laboratory and for providing the reagents for the tests. Also I thank Tom Di Ferdinando Executive Director of Health Education AIDS Liaison (HEAL) in New York City for editing the manuscript for this article and for his valuable suggestions.
Roberto A. Giraldo, MD. Physician, specialist in internal medicine, infectious and tropical diseases. Member of the Boards od Directors of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis and Health Education AIDS Liaison (HEAL). Independent AIDS Researcher. Author of the book AIDS and Stressors, New York City. E-mail: rgiraldo@cdiusa.com.
References.
(1) ABBOT LABORATORIES. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1. FUVAB FffVI EIA. Abbott Laboratories, 66-8805/R5, january 1997:5.
(2) EPITOPE ORGANON TEKNIKA. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (fuV-1) . I-UV-1 Western Blott Kit. PN201-3039 revision number 6.
(3) FEINBERG MA & VOLBERDING PA. Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus. In: COHEN PT, SANDE MA and VOLBERDING PA. The AIDS Knowledge Base. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1994: section 2.
(4) PINS MR. TERUYA and STOWELL CP. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Testing and Case Definition: Pragmatic and Technical Issues. In: COTTON D and WATTS DH. The Medical Management of AIDS in Women. New York. John Wiley & Sons, 1997: 163-176.
(5) METCALF JA, DAVEY RT and LANE HC. Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Serologic and Virologic Tests. In DEVITA VT, CURRAN J, HELLMAN S, et al. AIDS: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention. 4th Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997: 177-196.
(6) WEISS SH. Laboratory Detection of Human Retroviral Infections. In: WORMSER GP. AIDS and Other Manifestations of FUV Infection. New York: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:175-200.
(7) PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS, E., TURNER V. & PAPADIMITROU JM. Is a Positive Western Blott Proof of HIV Infection?. Bio/Technology 1993; 11:696-707.
(8) PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS, E., TURNER, V., PAPADIMITROU JM. & CAUSER D. HIV Antibodies: Further Questions and a Plea for Clarification. Curr Med Res Opin 1997; 13:627-634.
(9) HODGKINSON N. Science Falls the «AIDS Test» In: AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science. How a Virus that Never Was Deceived the World. London: Fourth Estate, 1996:232-262.
(10) JOHNSON C. Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results; Zenger’s, San Diego, California, september 1996a:8-9.
(11) JOHNSON C. Whose Anitbodies Are There Anyway?. Continuum (London) . September/october 1996b; 4(3) :4-5.
(12) TURNER VF. Do Antibody Tests Prove HIV Infection?. Interview by Huw Christie Editor of Continuum. Continuum (London) Winter 1997/1998; 5(2) :10-19.
(13) SHENTON J. Positively False: Wrong Tests and Long-Term Survivors. In: Positively False: Exposing the Myths around HIV and AIDS. London: I.B. Tauris, 1998: 238-239.
(14) GIRALDO RA. Milking the Market. Will Mothers Dish Out the W.H.O. Formula?. Continuum (London) 1998; 5(4) :8-10.
(15) PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS E. Reappraisal of AIDS – Is the Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause?. Medical Hyphotesis 1988; 25:151-162.
(16) GIRALDO RA. AIDS ans Stressors U: A Proposal for the Pathogenesis of AIDS. In: AIDS and Stressors. Medellín, Colombia: Impresos Begón, 1997: 57-96.
(17) PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS, E., TURNER, V., PAPADIMITROU JM. & CAUSER D. The Isolation of HIV: Has it Really Been Achieved?. The Case Against. Continuum (London) 1996; 4(3) :S1-S24.
(18) LANKA S. No Viral Identification: No Cloning as Proof of Isolation. Continuum (London) 1997; 4(5) :31-33.
(19) DE HARVEN E. Remarks on Methods for Retroviral Isolation. Continuum (London) 1998; 5(3) :20-21.
(20) WING MG. The Molecular Basis for a Polyspecific Antibody. Clin Exp Immunol 1995; 99:313-315.
(21) SNYDER HW and FLEISSNER E. Specificity of Human Antibodies to Oncovirus Glycoproteins: Recognition of Antigen by Natural Antibodies Directed Against Carbohydrate Structures. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1980; 77:1622-1626.
(22) BARBACID K., BOLOGNESI D. & AARONSON SA. Humans Have Antibodies Capable of Recognizing Oncoviral Glycoproteins: Demonstration that These Antibodies are Formed in Response to Cellular Modification of Glycoproteins Rather than as Consequence of Exposure to Virus. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1980; 77:1627-1621.
www . virusmyth . com/aids/hiv/rgelisa . htm
Title of article: EVERYBODY REACTS POSITIVE
ON THE ELISA TEST FOR HIV
points of article:
The ELISA test is a test for antibodies against what is supposed to be the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV
Everybody has different levels of HIV infection
The test is not specific for HIV
It’s worth reading….
To answer your question Joe, Sharon Mitchell told me you can verify through her that she and her staff get a certain salary and the labs get most of the money.
When I said that “even the Pope says it”, there are a couple of ways of seeing it:
a. Addressing the highest of the high of many people’s faith
b. Addressing those who say “even an idiot like that knows that condoms don’t protect from microscopic hiv”.
goldebear Says “Provide a source for your outrageous claims”
here: http : //www . ct4women . com/hiv_aids . html
Condoms Do Not Prevent HIV Virus
Dr. CM Rowland, Ph.D., editor of the journal Rubber Chemistry and Technology, on why condoms are not a protection against acquiring the HIV virus. He shares “that electron micrographs (pictures taken with a very powerful microscope) reveal voids (holes) in the condom that are up to 50 times bigger than the HIV particle.The analogy would be that of throwing a marble at a tennis court fence and expecting it to stop the marble from going through.”
As somebody who was a active performer and close to one of the biggest outbreaks the industry has ever seen, this does not surprise me in the least, here’s the rub, they will continue to have outbreaks every 2 or 3 years, they will quarantine, the performers who become infected will be forgotten(with the exception of only 2 I know of), tests will be faked, and can be, internet porn wont test, neither does amateur, they don’t test for syphilis, so take your chances, that’s why most contract performers have a short list or work with a spouse, oh yea, I forgot Hep C! I was very lucky and still got asymptomatic clhaymidia and wouldn’t have caught it if I hadn’t been vigilantly going to Planned Parenthood for screening. Eventually you will get something and the companies could care less because when all is said and done talent is only worth about 50 cents a release to them. The general population doesn’t care either or they would buy condom movies. So enjoy the next outbreak because it will happen.
Mr. Steele,
Sharon Mitchell NEVER told you that the lab was charging ‘high” prices for the tests. Of course a large portion of their money goes to pay for the tests. That is what they do you moron, they are an std clinic. Of course they have to pay for the tests.
But my questionn was, Where did you get the idea that they were paying “HIGH” prices for the tests? d Andont say mitch told you that, because she didnt!!!
Like you said,”Can you provide the data to back up your idiotic, moronic, and outright false claim? Come on Steele, where does your info come from, or is it ust your imagination. Whats your source? Put up or shut up.
jeremiahsteele:
LOL!!!!
Ct4women.com, which you cite from, is a Christian “right to life” site. Of course you couldn’t find a objective source for your nonsense. As for the turd of a study you dug up, it was based on unsubstantiated research performed in 1998. Dr. Rowland never actually tested whether viruses could pass through the rubber film he examined–instead he apparently relied on flourescent beads.
When UCLA researchers (among many others) repeated the tests on latex condoms using viruses as well as flourescent beads, neither penitrated the rubber.
Another study performed by Dr Ronald Carey, of the US Food and Drug Administration, found “that about one HIV virus could get through during the use of 200 condoms. And without condoms, the recipients would have been exposed to about 600,000 HIV viruses. The amount they found was very small, and when [Dr. Carey] tried to interpret this in terms of real risk, he decided it was about 10,000 times better than actually not having a condom at all.”
Review this link and educate yourself.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm
Help, I’m being beaten down like Rodney King (it’s not always good to be King…)
Gentlemen, I have it from what I consider high sources regarding both my claims of condom reliability and lab rates. I’m more open to suggestion that I may be wrong on the latter than the former.
What about this goldebear?:
http :// hivskeptic . wordpress . com/2008/02/10/condoms-and-hiv-what-everyone-knows-is-once-again-wrong/
Could someone provide a link as to how much profit AIM’s non profit foundation makes and how much the lab gets of the $130 talent spends per month?
Mr. Steele,
You have NO source as to the claim that AIM pays high rates. the lab charges AIM $50 for the HIVPCR and $25 for the gonn/chlam combo. The hiv price is mentioned in the article I referneced above. You shoudl reconsider who you claim to be a reliable source because your source is 100% wrong about the prices.
But we all know your source is bullshit and you were just making that shit up and you got caught. You are a clown Steele, and I like your sources for your HIV theory. A right wing chrisitan site LOLOLOL
jeremiahsteele:
I’m not going to even bother opening a link with the word “hivskeptic” in its title. As I predicted earlier, the only sources you could find in support of your position are either Christian or HIV denialist, and you’ve proven me correct. I don’t know whether you are simply ignorant of the facts, or have an agenda to obfuscate the truth. I hope the latter is not true. If condom enforcement comes to porn, it will have been percipitated by people like you.
Joe who knows but won’t say says:
“The hiv price is mentioned in the article I referneced above.”
What article?
What are you afraid of goldebear?
HIV skeptics include people with advanced degrees and nobel prizes. The guy who said HIV=AIDS, Gallo now admits that HIV does not cause AIDS without co-factors. He was also found guilty of “Scientific Misconduct” in his research. It’s his work which is the foundation of the whole AIDS “non profit” Empire!
Don’t be afraid. You may be surprised, and even learn something!
And now Jerry, AIM pays 75 to the lab out of the 130. Then they have to paly employees, rents, electrical bills, phone bills, office supplies, and workers comp insurance, health insurance(unlike the industry, AIM also provideds health insurance to its employees. Do you know how expensive workers comp insurance is for a medical facility? Then pay the leagal bills, and other costs associated with running any business, and their PROFIT is zero.
You are truely a fucking moron. ANd then you ask, “Can someone provide a link” Why dont you look for it yourself since YOU are the one who claimed they pay high prices, you fucking moron.
I don’t know why you are so fucking angry, joe. I was never lashing out at AIM.
And I WAS mistaken to say the labs charge a high amount IF you base it on a case by case basis. But since AIM supplies blood samples in bulk go figure the lab is going to give a discounted rate. The labs are still making the profit in the “non-profit” equation. Isn’t that what I originally said? If not that’s what I meant.
Go ahead and call me “moron” a few times more if it makes you feel better. We all make mistakes, but my intentions are honorable.
You are still WRONG moron. The lab is not making any profit off of AIM. They give AIM a special price that they barely break even on. They do it because they are honorable people who were approached by AIM years ago to provide a service to a group of exploited people. YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Now tell us where you get the bullshit information that the labs are making a huge profit off of the “non-profit” Do you have any clue as to the costs associated with runnig pcr tests? Do you know how much the patent fee alone is for any lab to run a single pcr test? Do you have any clue the cost of insurancde a lab must have in order to even run the most basic tests?
I dont call you a moron to make myself feel better, I call you a moron because you are a moron>
We’re all morons sometimes. When you’re done calling me moron could you please simply supply the data that shows the lab is making no profit at all?
I found something on the net which advertises DNA PCR HIV tests for 199.00, that’s $69 more than the price of the lab you say makes no profits.
Sincerely,
A. Moron
Steele,
The “place” on the net you found, is it a physician ordered center, or a self refferal direct lab. A price of $199 indicates to me that it is a self refferel direct laboratory test. On the other hand, if it is a physician ordered, on line only, no brick and mmortar office, they are probably paying their lab around 100 to 120 for the test and they are making about 70 to 90 dollars profit without ever seeing the patient. Tell me what place you found and I will be glad to explain to you what type of facility it is.
ANd 199.00 is 145 dollars MORE than the labs AIM uses. The company that charges more makes more profit.(just in case you didnt know that)
https : //testing . requestatest . com/hiv-tests . aspx
Btw, if it’s true as you say that the lab AIM deals with makes no signficant profit with the 1000s of testings per month, I sincerely apologize. However, I still find it hard to believe although I always prefer to not believe anything if I can instead know something.
If I am at times wrong (or a moron), my intention is to get to the truth and I’m sure that’s something at least a few of us would appreciate.
I’ve heard accusations that Sharon makes a lot of money off of AIM but then I was told it was the lab that makes the profits.
Once again could you please supply the data that shows that AIM’s lab is making little to no profit at all? If that’s true, why do they agree to do all that work in the first place?
What’s interesting is that Kary Mullis won the nobel prize for his PCR invention, yet he says there’s no proof that HIV causes AIDS. Pretty ironic!
I’ve read that “DNA testing utilizing PCR can be performed in a matter of hours”. Usually the results are picked up at the end of the day and then ready by the afternoon of the next day.
Hey, “joe know”, what makes you the expert? What are YOUR credentials, little-big-mouth? Fill us all in, aye.
While you’re at it, troll sport, crawl down from your high horse before you fall off the ass end and land in that pile of horse shit you left behind.
Nobody cares about AHF, that has been proven because they haven’t accomplished anything they have dreamed up, nor will they. Do they actually do anything other than act as media attention whores? Apparently not because they are wasting a lot of resources on the porn industry.
AHF stands for “AIDS Hysteria Fraternity”.
AIDS receives more Government research money than all other illnesses combined. AIDS research allocation is not just huge, it’s hugely disproportionate. AIDS is the official cause for 83,000 Americans dead in nine years. Heart disease kills that many every six weeks! Not only does AIDS have a monopoly of grant money, it is the only disease which has a monopoly of diseases under it’s umbrella, all old diseases which are collectively defined as being AIDS diseases.
It’s true that AIDS is probably overfunded relative to other diseases which kill more people and are less preventable. We do not have an AIDS “crises” in the United States, we have an AIDS problem. AIDS never hit the heterosexual, middle-class population like scare-mongers in the 90’s led us to believe. Even most poor people are at a low risk of infection. Nevertheless, sex workers are at a greatly increased risk of exposure, and anyone in their right mind who participates in that line of work will use protection (when not working with a spouse or regular partner).
By definition AIDS is not a disease but a new syndrome (historically speaking) allegedly caused by one of 29 old diseases. Can someone explain to me how this is not a scam? Old diseases supposedly caused by a “new” (retro)virus? And, if the (retro)virus is not new, why did it never kill us before? It used to be a specific virus would cause a specific disease unique only to that virus. The only difference between pneumonia and AIDS pneumonia (the latter treated with a death sentence and repeated administration of toxic drugs) is the latter has the presence of what is called “HIV”. Have we, as part of the collective indoctrinatied AIDS Hysteria Fraternity, missed the basics, here? If someone at the CDC announces tomorrow that you can jump off a 3 story building and fall upwards should we believe it, spread our wings and jump? Can someone enlighten me, or are we all in the dark?
How Immunoassays Work: The Curious Case of AIDS Denialist Roberto Giraldo and his Ignorance of the Basics
by John P. Moore, PhD
Roberto Giraldo is employed as a laboratory technologist in the molecular diagnostics laboratory at the New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York. He is not licensed to practice medicine in New York. He has no medical appointment at the Hospital. Again, Giraldo is employed at the Hospital as a technician, not as a medical doctor or a professional academic. Giraldo has no appointment at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, an institution affiliated to but separate from the Hospital.
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/denialists/giraldo-immunoassays
On his website Giraldo writes (the link to the info on post #17 by Steele)
http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/EveryoneTestsPositive.html
Goldenber “We do not have an AIDS “crises” in the United States, we have an AIDS problem. AIDS never hit the heterosexual, middle-class population like scare-mongers in the 90’s led us to believe”
Why is it that simply because good information got out to the population, thus PREVENTING a crisis…somehow that’s ‘proof’ that the ‘experts’ were wrong? Perhaps it’s simply that, through the use of proper information and the application of rational safety measures, that a potential crisis was averted?
Speaking for myself, I much rather have a crisis averted, than deal with a crisis that COULD OF BEEN averted…
Is “joe know” a sock for “the general”? I kinda respect the general. I agree with some of what he’s saying–AIM testing is NOT adequate protection.
But “condom-only” is an industry killer. There have to be other proposals that mitigate safety concerns while accommodating commerce. I know, to the layperson, mentioning commerce and STD prevention makes me sound like a douchebag but we have to remember that the basic concept of adult film-making should be outside the realm of onerous government regulation. The fact that we are talking about people’s bodies cuts both ways and why should the government tell consenting people what they can or cannot do sexually?
Prostitution is illegal in this country (and we can debate whether that is an appropriate stance) but Adult is different. This is a stylistic industry that provides artistic and entertainment services in an erotic fashion for MASS VIEWERSHIP.
I agree with your critical stance in the sense that I think the Industry is over-extended–forcing the labor structure to model prostitution. Most female performers, for example, work incesantly with content demands (Anal, gangbangs, DPs, BDSM) taking a physical (and possibly psychological) toll. Partly as a result of the constant stream of newcomers which are aggressively marketed by talent agencies, content production ramps up without clear indications of product profitability. The large talent pool and limited profit margins decrease performer wages causing the heavy individual work schedule in which many performers are not concerned with providing an stylistic representation of sex for consumers but simply going through motions to get paid. A vicious cycle. The lack of occupational focus erodes the concept of “talent” and adult scenes become little more than privates with a camera and crew.
The Industry needs to shrink for the safety and profitability of performers, the profitability of producers and distributors, and satisfaction of consumers. Content production needs to slow down in order for value to go up and for performers to make a living without killing themselves.
Joe know, I agree that safety is an issue but why don’t you focus on the source of the problem. Shrink the Industry. Get rid of irrational business practices and personal decisions and go after CRIMINALITY like the drugs. Just stop trying to hide your ideological opposition to pornography under the guise of “performer protection”.
I’m in moderation, but joe know is a sock for the general. Read my comment above.
I’m in moderation but joe is a sock for lil G. Gotta respect some of his viewpoints, though. AIM is kinda a joke. Read my comment above.
Sammy Glick, you ignorant slut… Why have you simply ignored everything I last wrote? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Gallo says in his own book “Virus Hunting” p.199 that HIV and progression to AIDS DEPENDS ON SOME CO-FACTOR, POSSIBLY SOME KIND OF venereal disease (p.199) OR a new human herpes virus (p.252) OR PERHAPS HHV6 (p.254-255)
In other words, in order for HIV to cause AIDS, maybe it’s this, maybe it’s that, that is needed. This is a joke to call what we’ve been brainwashed to believe as scientific proof! Again, this is the same man who was convicted of
scientific misconduct after he got rich and famous off this bullshit.
http :// hivnotaids . homestead . com/AIDSbooks2 . doc
They used to say “Silence = Death”. But they don’t want to engage in any open dialogue on the subject. They also say ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is only bliss until the shit hits.