OMSJ on the Nadja Benaissa Trial

Martin Barnes writes on the OMSJ website about the German trial of the singer from No Angels, Nadja Benaissa. Martin covers the trial and fills in various details in the article and those points are worth reading. What made me pause and take a moment were his thoughts about what dissidents might take away from this trial:

"Perhaps another lesson is that questioning the existence of HIV, even though technically valid, is too much to swallow for the uninitiated, causing the casual observer to throw up his arms and laugh. The virologist expert spent more than two hours explaining the technical details of how he was able to detect the genetic sequences he said were from ‘HIV.’

What dissidents should be disputing is not the existence of the amino acid chains which are labelled HIV, or the reactions these chains cause in seropositivity tests, but what they actually are. All dissidents agree that these chains are not poisonous. Therefore, a more credible message dissidents could be promoting is ‘HIV is innocent!’ ‘HIV has been framed!’ ‘Free HIV!"

I am one who asserts that hiv and even aids do not exist outside of our ideas about them. It is true my opinion is not one that even sounds rational at first, it is as Martin suggests, "too much to swallow for the uninitiated...." Martin suggests that instead we should not dispute the "existence of the amino acid chains which are labelled HIV" and instead suggest that hiv is really the victim of slander, or at least defamation. "‘HIV is innocent!’ ‘HIV has been framed!’ ‘Free HIV!"

This is something I will ponder. On the one side, I see how this is vastly more accessible to the general public. It also allows anyone who has been labeled hiv positive to compare stories and realize that the vast differences of symptoms and progressions might not actually be hiv's fault, but completely different conditions. They do not ever have to ask themselves if hiv exists, what does an hiv test really test for, etc.

On the other hand, I am instinctively opposed to perpetuating misconception based on what amounts to be an homophobic label. Hiv means dead faggots and brown people, that's another accessible idea for the "unitiated." And that idea, sick as it is, is very palatable to many. Keeping Hiv, in any form, is very important to the West's moral status quo because it is provides a vast moat between the normal and good people and then the immoral people.

However, the war will not be won in one battle. It may be time for me to change my rhetoric and throw in a few new surprises.

Documentary Covering Pedo Priest and How the Church "Handles" the Situation

Deliver Us From Evil.

How's that for some family values.

And also an Al Jazeera interview addressing the issue. Bill Donahue, speaking to defend the Catholic church, asserts that homosexuals are the cause of the "wreakage" of the Catholic Church.

Are Christians Insane, or Just Damn Stupid?

The more self-respecting of us have probably not delved too far into this whole, Obama-is-a Muslim craze. Apparently, there are some Christians who are insistent that Obama is a Muslim, either because he is black, or maybe because he attended some Muslim school, or because his father was a Muslim--the evidence for any of these points is weak as far as I have been able to find. I don't know what the issue is really, even if he were a Muslim, except that Christians seem to think that they are morally superior to all others. The Christian way seems to be to attack others for anything and everything and accuse them of attacking the Christians even when they are simply trying to live their own lives or do their job.

Anyway, the shrill cries of these mad Christians are nothing more than sensationalistic BS. Take the latest claims by Kim Lehman, one of Iowa’s two national Republican Committee members, she says that Obama himself says he is a Muslim in a speech he gave in Egypt. Of course he said no such thing. He said that he had some experience with living in and around Muslims through his fathers side of the family and through living in more Muslim communities while he was a child in Kenya.

"Lehman said she objected to Obama’s speech because “it just had a sense of embracing or aligning with the Muslims. I don’t know. It was unnecessary the stuff he said. That’s the whole point.”

Really Kim? That's the whole point? I guess Obama stating over and over that he is a Christian and that he

"... believe[s] in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."

just isn't enough for Kim to believe him. Of course, as far as I am concerned, Obama-the-Christian is no more soothing a thought to me than Obama-the-Muslim, both stupid and silly cults seem to hate other people for being gay, odd, eccentric, different. As far as I am concerned, Christians and Muslims alike are bigots and haters. I guess it's to my benefit that they fight each other!

What Actual Christian Marriage Looks Like--By Betty Bowers

Revelations from the Reveal Rapid hiv antibody test.

Pro-aids people put a lot of faith in the test that supposedly tests for hiv antibodies. They claim that hiv tests detect antibodies specific to hiv, and that many strains of hiv are also detected by these tests.

To test this assertion, I selected at random one of the tests the FDA has approved as a hiv diagnostic test, the Reveal Rapid test and read what the manufacturer themselves had to say about their test. This test was approved by the FDA in 2003 and is manufactured in Canada.

This test, interestingly enough, does not give us any confidence in it's ability to detect antibodies to hiv. In fact, it says,

" A Reactive test result using the Reveal™ Rapid HIV -1 Antibody Test suggests the presence of anti-HIV-1antibodies in the specimen." [page 8 of the above-linked label]

If the test genuinely detected antibodies to hiv, and this ability to detect hiv antibodies were thoroughly scientifically validated, then there would be no need to say the test “suggests” the presence of anti-hiv antibodies. In fact, given that “dissidents” have criticized the “hiv test” for decades, I would imagine that the manufacturer would openly and loudly declare that the test absolutely detected anti-hiv antibodies. But no, this test “suggests.”

Though the manufacturer of the the test says its product merely, “suggests” the presence of anti-hiv antibodies, the FDA approved this test as a diagnostic test. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, labels are written by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA. So this language, and the word “suggests,” is approved by the FDA.

But there is more to see on the label for the Reveal Rapid test. Though this is an “approved diagnostic test” the label cautions :

" Results of the MedMira Reveal™ Rapid HIV -1 Antibody Test should not be used in isolation, but in conjunction with the clinical status, history, and risk factors of the individual being tested." [ibid]

Few people understand that one cannot be positive “for hiv” without the discretion and sanction of a doctor who has “approved” one’s clinical status, history, and “risk factors.” In other words, even a positive or negative result on the Reveal Rapid test is not meaningful until a doctor asks about sex, sexual orientation, intravenous drug use, condoms, and a whole host of questions that really should not affect the results of a blood test. Yet not only do the manufacturers of the Reveal Rapid state that these bits of information are useful, they state that they are required if their test is going to be used properly. Ultimately, the manufacturer declares the doctor is accountable for the result of the test.

The reason the manufacturers insist that sexual and drug activities be used to understand the test is partly because of this:

"The specificity of the Reveal™ Rapid HIV -1 Antibody Test for serum specimens in low -risk populations has not been evaluated."[ibid]

What this means is that people who aren’t “supposed” to get hiv, may still test positive! Not only will they test positive, but the manufacturer is saying they have no idea why a person in a “low-risk” demographic would light up their test. This is a clear admission that they are not really sure what triggers a “positive” result at all. What is also clear is that gays, blacks, the promiscuous, and the poor are all in pre-defined “risk-groups” and therefore will not be afforded the same consideration of someone not in a risk-group. The same “positive” result will result in a gay man being told he “has hiv,” while a Republican politician will be negative based on his placement in a “low-risk” demographic. The risk groups are pre-judged.

The Reveal Rapid test tells us exactly what is happening. It says that only people “at-risk” can accurately be tested with their product. For some reason, the test is a little wonky on everyone else, and heck they don’t know what it could mean for them, but it must not be important and it isn't worth studying.

Pro-aids people argue that these statements by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA are just legal disclaimers. Yet, the manufactures do not call these statements “disclaimers,” they call this section of the label, “Limitations of the Test.” It is a limitation that the test “suggests” the presence of anti-hiv antibodies. It is a limitation that it can only be used on people pre-defined as being likely to have hiv.

If people who stand by the Reveal Rapid test want to testify in court and swear under oath that these limitations are not obstructions to its ability to detect hiv in a person, I am sure they will be able to find a court case and face the attorneys at the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice, www.OMSJ.org. They have won several dismissals of hiv-related charges by asking the simple question: can the prosecution prove that an hiv test actually detects hiv? As we can see, the manufacturers are not very convinced that their tests can actually detect hiv (“…suggests!”). So far, the experts are not willing to testify in front of an informed defense team.

The Reveal Rapid test has been approved by the FDA as a diagnostic test. However an actual reading of the insert for the Reveal Rapid test shows that the test is not a diagnostic test. In fact given the published limitations of the test, they don’t really know what it tests for at all. Moreover, whatever result it does give, the doctor is free to just tell the patient whatever result she thinks is correct!

The Reveal Reapid antibody test does not, by their own admission, detect hiv nor hiv antibodies. It cannot be used to diagnose hiv infection in anyone. YET this test has been approved by the FDA as a diagnostic tool! Do not fall into the hiv lie my friends! Never test!

The Anti-Climax of Gay Marriage in Canada

In July 2005, Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act, Bill C-38. This bill clarified marriage as being "...the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.” Canada, a nation that has stubbornly refused to follow the US and Europe like a lemming off the cliffs of international fads, has also avoided a banking crisis, spoken against the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and maintained one of the best systems of socialized medicine in the world. Is gay marriage going to ruin their moral fiber?

According to the Catholic Church yes. The Catholic Church believes that children cannot be properly raised in a same-sex household and that "...Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalize polygamy and polyamory (group marriage).[sic]" [citation] But what has really happened in Canada?

I googled, "negative impacts of gay marriage in Canada" and received many hits...from 2004. It seems the opponent pretty much gave up lambasting gay marriage after the passage. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they were taking a "wait and see" approach. Well, it's been five years and what do we see?

Almost no noticeable change in Canada's existence as a nation. It's been an anti-climax. The haters have almost nothing to say. What is interesting though, is that gay marriages seem to be much more resilient than straight marriages. It took two years after the first gay couples were married before any divorces of gay couples took place, and they are still much more rare than Canada's average of 37% divorces per year.

Interestingly, the only ones trying to slide down that slippery slope the Catholics so fiercely warn about are the Canadian Mormons. These Mormons (belonging to the same church which has been found guilty in California of political malfeasance while supporting California's ban on gay marriage) are already practicing polygamy! Why is the Catholic Church not addressing this with the same vitriol? On the same Catholic website that accuses homosexuals of ushering in an era of moral decay, only a couple of articles about Mormons come up...neither says a word about the Mormon practice of polygamy.

Now, I realize that the Mormon church may well officially deny polygamy, but it does seem to be a recurrent practice among their laity. I guess it is just "easier" for the Catholic Church to pick on gay people than it is to pick on the fifth largest Religious cult...err...organization in the world. Way to stand up for the oppressed Catholics!

The fact is that being an open, defiant, and proud gay person is a revolutionary act. We become targets of all kinds of intolerance. Of course, we seem to be making equally revolutionary progress. But it is important to remember that there are large, old, wealthy organizations that want us "in our place." Not only do they want us to stay away from the altar, but they want us to suffer from our "unnaturalness."

In the context of aids dissidence, it is clear that gays are chased, hunted, and harassed by Churches, how hard is it to grasp that we are also being targeted for medical mistreatment and exploitation?

When is aids not aids? When a dissident says it isn't

As I see the dialog of dissidents, there are a few vital flaws that prevent us from liberating ourselves from the dogma of hiv/aids lies. Perhaps the first problem are attempts to redefine aids. Some dissidents wish to eliminate hiv, but keep aids. In other words, some are trying to use the idea of immune suppression and divorce immune dysfunction from hiv as a cause, while still holding onto the word aids. There are several issues with this.

The first issue is that aids already has a meaning. In common usage, aids means "hiv disease." Aids means an std. Aids means certain death. Yet, some dissidents insist that aids can mean general immune dysfunction. Why they insist on using the term aids when they mean autoimmune, or general immune disease is a mystery to me. This needs an explanation, or the practice should be discontinued so as to avoid confusion.

Additionally, if aids means general immune dysfunction for these dissidents, then why don’t they include in their attempts to explain “aids," a.k.a. general immune dysfunction, asthma, allergies, Rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus, Type 1 diabetes, Celiac disease, Multiple Sclerosis, etc. Instead, these dissidents focus solely on gay men with health issues. If what the dissident really means is a failing immune system, then why focus on a very small subset of people who suffer immune system failure?

It appears homophobic to hold onto a term that is already understood by most people as a horrible gay disease and then apply it only to gay men! At the very least, if they can suitably demonstrate that there is a specific brand of immune dysfunction that comes from gay sex (a big huge IF), then it MUST be named something that does not have connotations of gay hatred. Otherwise, there is no hope to change the dialog with doctors and the public. As long as people say aids, they are also saying, “Gay men are dirty, nasty sick individuals and nature is killing them for it.”

Furthermore, dissidents seem confused and fractured when they utilize "aids data." Even among those who seem to want to divide out people who actually have health problems from so-called, "false positives," they still confound data of those who are merely, "hiv positive" with those who have some symptom of immune dysfunction ("aids" in their view). The Perth Group does this relentlessly. In many of their articles, they co-mingle data and conclusions based on hiv positives with actually ill people. And these are the people that have done the best work on isolation and have shown how absurd hiv tests are in the first place! Their tendency is to place special emphasis on gay "hiv positives" and to dismiss those who are not gay.

The Perth Group, for instance, places special emphasis on receptive anal sex. By their definition, it is all but impossible for a straight man who doesn't use drugs to get "aids." However, the Padian Study, which they use to justify their view that a "positive antibody test and AIDS [are] sexually acquired but not sexually transmitted," mostly followed straight men who were "infected" and their female partners. Straight men with "aids!" So how does this study do anything at all to demonstrate that receptive anal sex among men causes aids? How did all those straight men get "the aids" in the first place? In reality, the Perth Group is attempting to redefine "aids" as a condition in which gay sex causes immune dysfunction so that "aids" becomes and remains an exclusively gay disease, yet, they are using data that has a completely different parameter. The Perth Group itself confuses their aids with orthodox aids.

Dissidents cannot have a discussion about aids at all, unless they are showing how it does not exist. If the point is to show that there may be a link between immune issues and receptive anal sex (for instance) then it will help to use a different term than aids. Whatever term they do use, even if they insist on using the term aids, the term needs definition. Explain the symptoms for instance. Show how your "aids" is not like the other "aids."