It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


White House report: End state criminalization of HIV transmission

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:10 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

Looking again at the law, it's actually very dangerous.
It's telling the careless idiot, the fatalist or the sociopath:
"Don't test - what you don't know can't legally hurt you!"
Just assume you're HIV-negative and tell everyone that you are!
What kind of message is that?

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:17 AM
I looked into this and didn't want to waste time posting, but now I feel like it is necessary.

White House

Posted by Katelyn Sabochik on July 14, 2010 at 02:26 PM EDT
The National HIV/AIDS strategy focuses on three major goals: reducing the number of new infections, increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV and AIDS, and reducing health-related disparities.

President Obama committed to developing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy with three primary goals:

1. reducing the number of people who become infected with HIV,
2. increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV, and
3. reducing HIV-related health disparities.

We must also move away from thinking that one approach to HIV prevention will work, whether it is condoms, pills, or information. Instead, we need to develop, evaluate, and implement effective prevention strategies and combinations of approaches including efforts such as expanded HIV testing (since people who know their status are less likely to transmit HIV), education and support to encourage people to reduce risky behaviors, the strategic use of medications and biomedical interventions (which have allowed us, for example, to nearly eliminate HIV transmission to newborns), the development of vaccines and microbicides, and the expansion of evidence-based mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment programs.

Reducing HIV–Related Health Disparities

The stigma associated with HIV remains extremely high and fear of discrimination causes some Americans to avoid learning their HIV status, disclosing their status, or accessing medical care. Data indicate that HIV disproportionately affects the most vulnerable in our society—those Americans who have less access to prevention and treatment services and, as a result, often have poorer health outcomes. Further, in some heavily affected communities, HIV may not be viewed as a primary concern, such as in communities experiencing problems with crime, unemployment, lack of housing, and other pressing issues. Therefore, to successfully address HIV, we need more and better community–level approaches that integrate HIV prevention and care with more comprehensive responses to social service needs. Key steps for the public and private sector to take to reduce HIV-related health disparities are:

* Reduce HIV-related mortality in communities at high risk for HIV infection.
* Adopt community-level approaches to reduce HIV infection in high-risk communities.
* Reduce stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV.

That is what I have information on. What I do not know is exactly how far revoking laws is going to go. I am sure that intentionally spreading HIV to multiple people is still going to be a crime. If anybody could look up the exact changes to the laws, that would be nice.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Styki]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

Every few years won't be enough to stop the spread of HIV, at least not for a fair law that puts the testing onus equally on everyone (and that would be more provable in court).
Of course abstinance is great if you can handle it. While I sure respect that position, it doesn't help much legally.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:46 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

indeed. But there's nothing to "handle" If you get what I mean. No sex, no problems. mo' sex, mo' problems. Simple fact of life. better no problems than more problems. Abstinence works.

But I understand that 80% of the human population are mindless sex zombies. So I can't do much but laugh at that stupidity. If you want to test for aids accurately, Identify the largest unique molecular structure, find its resonance frequency, and scan for it. Healing it, as some have already been rumored to discover, is resonance freequency'ing its attacher biochemical units, thereby rendering the Aids Virus "sterile" in a sense.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:49 AM
See? First we get the health care insurance reform and now infectious diseases through the IV. This will teach people to take better care of the themselves and watch out not to hurt others so they too could avoid hospitalization and blood transfusion. I wonder how the vampyres would respond to the contamination of their `blood supply`?

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 01:57 AM
reply to post by halfoldman

For myself, getting blamed for somebody else's infection is a huge fear.
It's made me deny eyedrops and my ashtma pump to friends (although there's not a snowball's chance in hell they'll catch it from that). It's made me paranoid about car trips in case of a bloody accident, or even giving first-aid. I suppose being openly HIV-positive can come with those fears occassionally.
Although my friends are in an apparent straight, monogamous marriage, one never knows (there's usually a huge disjuncture between what people say and actually do) and if one of them should ever test positve I don't want fingers pointed at me.
What's worse, some were part of medical experiments for cash in London, and supposedly a whole floor was transfused HIV-positive blood. So there are all kinds of small odds that people can hit, and I fear the finger will always point at the openly HIV-positive guy.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by halfoldman]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:38 AM

Originally posted by pikypiky
See? First we get the health care insurance reform and now infectious diseases through the IV. This will teach people to take better care of the themselves and watch out not to hurt others so they too could avoid hospitalization and blood transfusion. I wonder how the vampyres would respond to the contamination of their `blood supply`?

As far as I can see, these laws were hastily instituted to make certain claims that were necessary for state funding in the late 1990s. The proposal so far is to scrap them because they are clearly unworkable. They will doubtlessly be replaced by something more succinct.
Convictions were surely obtained in some of these states where sufficient evidence was presented before these laws made their statement.
So far they only criminilize people who knowingly spread HIV.
However, HIV is mostly spread by people who don't know their status (and are thus HIV-negative by default).
The blood donation restrictions on high HIV risk groups remains, and the tests are more accurate and sensitive now than ever before (there's a whole thread on this).
Vampyres and people who consume blood should know the risks and how to minimize infection.
There seem to be older and better laws on blood and organ donations. It's not saying HIV-positive people can donate or give blood. It's just saying that people cannot be accused of attempted murder on assumptions. I'm sure Vampyres also enjoy their rights to be considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Organ donations between HIV-positive people have been done successfully in South Africa, and this option should be legalized in the US.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:28 AM
I feel this law was out of control to begin with. And seriously instead of focusing all our energy on that problem why not focus on a cure. And ways to stop spreading it.

For instance people are only taught to dial 911 in school. But this helps no one except the prosecuter make a good case for the now dead victim.

HIV no longer deserves the stigma it had. And imagine how the idiot would feel once he found out that all the people he tried to kill are going to live a normal life thanks to a cure.

Some of you may feel different, but my beliefs are you should not just try to blame some one cause you got aids... you should protect yourself not rely on someone to tell you.

And in all fairness.. shouldn't Drs be charged when they give children vaccines? There is a risk of death there as well. But our society just thinks they deserve something. So until people take it upon themselves to understand AND take accountability for their actions nothing is really going to get done.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman

Looking again at the law, it's actually very dangerous.
It's telling the careless idiot, the fatalist or the sociopath:
"Don't test - what you don't know can't legally hurt you!"
Just assume you're HIV-negative and tell everyone that you are!
What kind of message is that?

the message has a scientific name
social engineering
poulation control
you are being manipulated into acepting aids is enevitable for all
accepteble for all

imagine the big pharma profits if your entire poulation has aids

imagine the govenment has control of health care and the drugs

they decide who lives and who dies

the truth about aids has been suppresed

man made for poulation control of the masses

kinda like the swine flu (and the vaccine that followed)

is the govenment capable of this?


posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:46 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

Im glad you think that. I believe having sex and going around is trashy. I believe (unless its rape, or molest), if a person gets an std, they were basically asking for it. Sleeping around is not safe, and is it really worth the disease? I dont think so.

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:49 AM
The federal government, through the active efforts of the CDC, in alliance with the WHO, and the UN, have effectively planted the meme in the public that HIV causes AIDS. However, this still to this day remains a theory, and has never been proven. While there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS, correlation is not causation. There are thousands upon thousands of AIDS organizations that advocate the HIV theory, and only a few organizations that question it. The thousands of organizations that do advocate the HIV theory rabidly attack the few who question it, calling them "AIDS denialists" and "AIDS dissenters".

I respectfully submit to you that President Obama is keenly aware of the law, and how the legal system works in The United States. I also respectfully submit that President Obama is indeed an advocate of the HIV theory and would like to see the HIV=AIDS paradigm remain a firmly ensconced meme within the public. The last thing the HIV advocates need is someone effectively challenging a state law in court, demanding that the plaintiff's prove on record that HIV actually causes AIDS.

Under the rules of due process of law, and in American jurisprudence, when a person has been accused of a crime, it is incumbent upon the court party asserting the crime to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused actually committed this crime. When it comes to charging an HIV positive person with a crime, whether that be assault, attempted murder, or even a terrorist charge of attack with a deadly biological agent, it is incumbent upon the state to prove this is true.

Convincing the court of public opinion that HIV causes AIDS is infinitely easier than convincing a jury that HIV causes AIDS, and here is why:

HIV does not cause AIDS, it is just a harmless passenger virus, that's the claim of Duesberg and colleagues. The WHO (World Health Organization) estimates that 34.3 million are HIV-positive worldwide in 2000, yet only 1.4% developed AIDS. Similarly, in 1985, only 1.2% of the 1 million US citizens with HIV developed AIDS.

Who is "Duesberg"?

Peter Duesberg was, and still is, professor of molecular biology at the University of California at Berkeley, member of the National Academy of Sciences and recipient of a 1985 Outstanding Investigative Grant from the National Institutes of Health. He was tipped as a Nobel candidate for his work on viral oncogenes (genes causing cancer).

But all that came to a crashing end in 1987, when he published a paper [1] claiming that HIV did not cause AIDS, contrary to what the scientific community had come to believe to this day (Box 1), but was instead the result of drug use. He soon lost all his research grants, but that has not silenced him.

Ironically, Duesberg's hypothesis was generally held before the idea that HIV caused AIDS became accepted (see Box 2).

This is what the parenthetical Box 2 has to say:

Box 2

A brief history of HIV-AIDS hypothesis In 1981, a new epidemic began to strike male homosexuals and intravenous drug users in the United States and Europe. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) termed the epidemic, AIDS, for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.

Between 1981 and 1984, leading researchers, including those from CDC proposed that recreational drug use was the cause of AIDS.

But in 1984, the US government researchers proposed that a virus, now termed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), is the cause of the epidemic in US and Europe, and also in Africa. This hypothesis - HIV causes AIDS gained instant acceptance within the scientific community.

Deusberg, along with others, have brought to light several valid questions regarding the HIV theory. There are many questions regarding this retrovirus that don't jive with the standard knowledge of viral diseases.

First, there is the fact that there are people who die of AIDS, or have come down with AIDS, that do not test positive for HIV. This is just not the case with all other viruses. One does not get chickenpox and not test positive for chickenpox.

Secondly, the HIV virus cannot be readily isolated from people who test positive for HIV. What is measured in a person HIV positive is called a viral load, which is not the actual virus present, but a magnification of genetic parts of the virus, or DNA fragments, by using a PCR, also known as a Thermocycler, PCR Machine or DNA Amplifier, from the RNA of a rare virus, or DNA of rare latent infected cells.

As to the fact that there are people who get sick with AIDS but do not test positive for HIV, consider this report:

The report which received most attention at the VIII International Conference on AIDS was a presentation describing several cases of severe immuno-deficiency in persons without detectable HIV at a "Recent Reports" session at the conference, Dr. Jeffrey Laurence of Cornell Medical Center reported five cases of immune suppression characterized by low T4 cell counts, opportunistic infections, like CMV colitis, PCP and KS. Some patients had risk factors for HIV-1 infection yet none had any evidence of HIV-1 or HIV-2. Dr. James Curran, Director of AIDS at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), reported six additional cases which had been reported to the CDC in the past years. The agency chose not to report these cases and received severe criticism by many researchers for that decision. Other researchers reported similar HlV-negative cases of immune-suppression, including Dr. David Ho with 11 cases of patients. These were mostly gay men with low T4 cell counts, three of whom had OIs. In addition, Luc Montagnier, the co-discover of HIV-1, reported experience with a similar case. He claimed to have found HIV in the urine of a patient whose blood had no traces of the virus after PCR analysis.

In order to continue advocating the HIV theory, the CDC has taken to defining AIDS without any HIV positive testing as different disease entirely. They call it Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL:

Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia, or ICL, is an immunodeficiency syndrome in which human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, cannot be detected. Because HIV is the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), ICL can be referred to as Non-HIV AIDS. As in AIDS patients, Non-HIV AIDS patients exhibit reduced numbers of CD4+ T-lymphocytes, and many Non-HIV AIDS patients have developed the opportunistic infections or otherwise rare cancers associated with AIDS.

There are other theories, or hypothesis, as to what causes AIDS. Consider this hypothesis

Corticosteroids, Illicit Drugs, and Malnutrition to the Pathogenesis of AIDS

Review of the medical literature concerning the causes and the pathogenesis of AIDS worldwide, revealed the following facts:

1. AIDS in drug users and homosexuals in the USA and Europe is probably caused by the heavy ancillary use of glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents to medically treat the wide range of the chronic serious illnesses.

2. AIDS in hemophiliacs is clearly related to the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents to prevent the development of antibodies for factors VIII and IX and to treat chronic illnesses.

3. AIDS in people receiving blood and/or tissue is related to the use of glucocorticoids to prevent reactions of transfusion and tissue rejection.

4. AIDS in infants and children is probably caused by their exposure to drugs and corticosteroids in utero and their exposure to corticosteroids after birth used to treat their chronic illnesses.

5. AIDS in Africa is caused by malnutrition, release of endogenous cortisol, and by opportunistic diseases. Atrophy in the lymphoid tissue has been observed in HIV-negative people suffering from malnutrition.

6. Damage to the immune system is rapidly reversible after removal of the true insulting agent or treatment of the true causes in both HIV-positive and HIV-negative AIDS patients.

7. Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS) and lymphoma are probably induced by the use of steroids and drugs, and the release of endogenous cortisol. 8) HIV appears to be a harmless virus both in the in vivo and the in vitro settings.

8. The uses of glucocorticoids, AZT, and protease inhibitors to treat AIDS are contraindicated.

This report continues:

The following case history was the spark that ignited this in-depth investigation of the causes and pathogenesis of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). A 60 year-old-white male, HIV-negative, developed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) following treatment with a two month course of prednisone (60 mg per day) and a two week course of azathioprine (50-100 mg per day) for lung fibrosis. His blood CD4 + T cells count was 255/uL the CD4 + T cells /CD8 + T cells ratio was 0.6, and he had severe lymphocytopenia. He also suffered from pneumonia and severe fungal infection in his mouth and skin. Cessation of the treatment with prednisone and azathioprine lead to the reversal of the damage in his immune system. He fully recovered from pneumonia and the fungal infection after a short course of antibiotics and the use of antifungal lotion. Twenty two days after the last dose of prednisone, his CD4 + T cells count was back to normal at 657 cells/uL (Al-Bayati, 1999)

So, not only does this hypothesis suggest something other than HIV, it suggests a cure to AIDS is possible. In light of this, and in a court of law, such evidence when presented to a jury, could make proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV=AIDS rather difficult. If juries began acquitting defendants based on this, it would radically change the current paradigm.

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by LuckyMe777

Quite strange, when my parents were young the major moral scandal attached to sex was pregnancy.
Well, I'm kinda glad they slept around, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten knocked up, couples might have never been forced into marriage, and I wouldn't be here.

STDs were around, but most of the common ones could be treated, so it was a bit of a joke really.

Before Aids, cancer was the big hush-hush disease (which medical science couldn't beat), and as Susan Sontag pointed out, Aids banalized cancer.
Cancer was associated with a "passive character" lacking in vitality, just as HIV/Aids is now associated immediately with loose morals.

The post HIV-generation is facing moral judgements that previous generations did not know. While being responsible is certainly a good position, standing in judgement of people and making assumptions is unhelpful. While being promiscuous certainly ups the chances of becoming infected, it can only take once, and many people (especially women) become infected in what they assume are monogamous marriages.
Particularly in Third World countries, safe sex negotiation for married women is virtually impossible. Unfortunately procreation means sex.
It's easy to judge the people who get HIV (which even in the US is strongly associated with poverty), and the people who are open about it.
The systems like pre-marital sex, prostitution and adultery that keep heterosexuality going are hardly moralized if people don't hit the odds and catch HIV (or don't disclose it).
Say, if Sarah Palin's daughter became pregnant at a young age, she didn't use condoms, and maybe she was also asking for an STD? By your paradigm she should be judged equally immoral (she just had better luck - or so we assume).

But then there are many cold-hearted judgements in this world - from fat people who get chronic conditions like diabetes, to sports injuries or American soldiers who die in Afghanistan and Iraq (they should all have known better).
Thank goodness some people can see the true complexity in this world and how social power influences people.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:38 AM
If I may, this news is not at all as surprising from a different perspective. Agencies which traffic in human blood are scared to death of the liability they face for distributing tainted blood.

Too many people are suing these agencies for infecting them with different diseases, "HIV" being one among them. Since the meme of deadly HIV was thoroughly branded into our collective psyche's such infections are considered a 'death sentence' to which juries and judges alike are very sensitive when it comes time to compensate the hapless victims.

This is especially true as the standardized corporate model of faux-ethics is to reroute any known tainted material to a country which lacks the ability to challenge their indemnification under any US law.

There is more to this than meets the news consumers' eyes.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

But none of that matters. You're a dumb AIDS denialist so anything you say doesn't mean anything.


posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:03 PM
I gotta go against the grain on ths one...

Obama is not promoing people to pass infections; he is making each individual responisble for themselves.

I have never supprted the law that makes a person a criminal fro passing HIV, knowingly or not. Now if a hospital transmits it through a transfusion accidnetally, that should be malpractice, like anything else. But if two consenting adult decide to have unprotected sex, that is a personal choice which comes with a personal responisbilty.

First of all, how can one trace back to the person who passed the HIV anyway?

If you are living a promiscous lifetsyle, just because your current partner is infected dossn't mean they are the one who infected you.

Also, HIV poistive people can live linger thanon HIV positive people, and never die from it so it is not a 'murder weapon' and too many cases where an HIV positive person has unprotected sex and it is never transmitted....

I never understood why it was considered a crime in the first place.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by ButterCookie]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in