Rare Drug-Resistant HIV Found in NYC

[Felicia Katt]

I posted the entire text of the article, because I couldn't just link to it (access required an account and password), but it is worth reading, in that it lends strong emphasis to Allanah's and Danielles posts. First, the infected individuals drug use was strongly implicated in how his disease progressed. And secondly, alwas use a condom or otherwise practice safe sex

Felicia

[AllanahStarrNYC]

The US media is quick to cause a public scare when these "AIDS" cases are made public-

But please read this article- here the the THINGS THE CDC and NIH forget to publish.


BBC Documentary

On the eve of World AIDS Day, the BBC featured a prime-time special that exposed viewers in the UK to some of the tragic results of America’s war on AIDS: drug experiments on children--some taken from loving homes and responsible parents--and the loss of human and civil rights for HIV positive moms. I was among several mothers interviewed for this segment by award-winning BBC producer Jamie Doran who delivered on his promise to make a strong and powerful statement.

Alex Russell, a colleague in London who watched the special broadcast, had this to say: “The BBC documentary really spoke up for our views and was very hard hitting! It made a very clear point that when the children were taken off AIDS medication, their health improved dramatically.”

The BBC story is apparently reverberating through the media with coverage now coming from a number of outlets from Fox News to the LA Times. The program apparently moved even radio reporter Amy Goodman, who to the great disappointment of many, has consistently refused to include alternative AIDS information in her very popular alternative news program Democracy Now. In a break from her long-held position on airing only mainstream AIDS news, Amy actually made mention of the controversial BBC report. Her historic utterance has inspired a campaign to get her to do more. See details following these excerpts on the TV program from the BBC web site:

Guinea Pig Kids: New York's HIV Experiment
by Jamie Doran

HIV positive children and their loved ones have few rights if they choose to battle with social work authorities in New York City.

Jacklyn Hoerger worked at the Incarnation Children's Center, a New York children's home. Hoerger's job was to treat children with HIV, but nobody told her that the drugs she was administering were experimental and highly toxic. "We were told that if they were vomiting, if they lost their ability to walk, if they were having diarrhea, if they were dying, all of this was because of their HIV infection."

In fact, it was the drugs that were making the children ill and the children had been enrolled on the secret trials without their relatives' or guardians' knowledge. As Jacklyn would later discover, those who tried to take the children off the drugs risked losing them to state custody.

The BBC asked the Alliance for Human Research Protection about the drug trials. Spokesperson Vera Sherav said: "They tested these highly experimental drugs…expos[ing] them to risk and pain, when they were helpless. Would they have done those experiments with their own children? I doubt it."

When I first heard the story of the "guinea pig kids," I instinctively refused to believe that it could be happening in any civilized country, particularly the United States, where the propensity for legal action normally ensures a high level of protection. But that, as I was to discover, was central to the choice of location and subjects, because to be free in New York City, you need money.

Over 23,000 of the city's children are either in foster care or independent homes run mostly by religious organizations on behalf of the local authorities and almost 99% are black or hispanic. Some of these kids come from "crack" mothers with HIV. For over a decade, this became the target group for experimentation involving cocktails of toxic drugs.

Central to this story is the city's child welfare department, the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). The ACS, as it is known, was granted far-reaching powers in the 1990s by then-Republican Mayor Rudi Giuliani, after a particularly horrific child killing. Within the shortest of periods, literally thousands of children were being rounded up and placed in foster care.

"They're essentially out of control," said family lawyer David Lansner. "I've had many ACS case workers tell me 'We're ACS, we can do whatever we want' and they usually get away with it."

Having taken children into care, the ACS was now, effectively, their parent and could do just about anything it wished with them.

One of the homes to which HIV positive children were taken was the Incarnation Children's Center, a large, expensively refurbished red-bricked building set back from the sidewalk in a busy Harlem street. It is owned by the Catholic church and when we attempted to talk to officials at Incarnation we were referred to an equally expensive Manhattan public relations company, which then refused to comment on activities within the home. Hardly surprising, when we already knew that highly controversial and secretive drug experiments had been conducted on orphans and foster children as young as three months old.

We asked Dr David Rasnick, visiting scholar at the University of Berkeley, for his opinion on some of the experiments. He said: "We're talking about serious, serious side-effects. These children are absolutely miserable…cramps, diarrhea…joints swell up…[they] roll around the ground and you can't touch them." He went on to describe some of the drugs - supplied by major drug manufacturers including Glaxo SmithKline - as "lethal".

When approached by the BBC, Glaxo SmithKline said such trials must have stringent standards and be conducted strictly in accordance with local regulations. [But] at Incarnation, if a child refused to take the medicines offered, he or she was force-fed through a peg-tube inserted into the stomach. Critics of the trials say children should have been volunteered to test drugs by their parents.

When Jacklyn Hoerger later fostered two children from the home where she used to work with a view to adopting them, she discovered just how powerful the ACS was.

"It was a Saturday morning and they had come a few times unannounced," she said. "So when I opened the door I invited them in and they said that this wasn't a happy visit. At that point they told me that they were taking the children away. I was in shock."

Jacklyn, a trained pediatric nurse, had taken the fatal step of taking the children off the drugs, which had resulted in an immediate boost to their health and happiness. As a result she was branded a child abuser in court. She has not been allowed to see the children since.

In the film Guinea Pig Kids, we follow Jacklyn's story and that of other parents or guardians who fear for the lives of their loved ones. We talk to a child who spent years on drugs programs which made them and their friends ill, and we discover that Incarnation is not an isolated case. The experiments continue to be carried out on the poor children of New York City…

Guinea Pig Kids was broadcast on Tuesday, 30 November, 2004, at 7:30 PM on BBC Two (UK). For more information, visit http://news.bbc.co.uk
ssed. Revolutionary in scope, expect some heated discussions after the screenings.”

[AllanahStarrNYC]

There is also a documentary I really want to see called

"The Other Side of AIDS" which is getting lots of critical aclaim...

Hollywoof Reporter:

“Inspired by his HIV-positive wife, Christine Maggiore, Robin Scovill's documentary, The Other Side of AIDS, is a shocking indictment against the widespread notion that HIV causes AIDS, that people should take HIV tests, that AIDS drugs do more help than harm and many other ideas about HIV and AIDS. Focusing on many medicine-free individuals who have been HIV positive for years and peppered with major thinkers armed with skepticism and evidence contrary to popular opinion, this documentary should not be missed"

LA Weekly

“This cinematic hand grenade makes a convincing case that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, tracing the unchallenged belief to political agendas, government laziness and indifference and corporate greed. Having filled his documentary with reasoned arguments by political activists, medical experts and celebrated professors who don’t adhere to the HIV-AIDS connection, director Robin Scovill clears plenty of space for the conventional thinkers to make their case, and he doesn’t ridicule or dismiss them. But their arguments seem flimsy and unconvincing when stacked against the counter viewpoints, and the film sizzles within that gap of opinion."

[Bigwilly]

[quote="Danielle Foxxx"]I am going to start ignoring stupid people from now on...LOL
Trying to bring up a stupid old discussion... I can't please everyone sweety, this posting was not for my benefit, I am just trying to get awareness out there, and if you don't appretiate someone trying to watch out for you - FUCK YOU! I've had enough of you... GIve me a call we'll take your anger to the next level and settle this "man to man" LOL
What a low life!

Anyways, I didn't realize that someone already beat me to posting something about this already.




Using a condom & getting tested regularly-what's the big deal? Why is someone a tranny hater because they suggest to a TS porn star that they use condoms in their scenes?
In the recent threadi read in another forum, both these girls(Vicki and and DAN YELL) assert that because they get tested every 2 weeks that means they are safe to do BB scenes in their movies. They cite the low % of infection in the porn industry, especially among GG performers who do all sorts of traditionally risky sex acts. Ok, understood.

However, as i tried to point out, testing only tells you that something AFTER THE FACT. In other words, if you got tested today and it shows a negative result, that doesn't mean you aren't infected!

This is from the Department of Health's website:

"If you become infected with HIV, it usually takes between three weeks and two months for your immune system to produce antibodies to HIV. If you think you were exposed to HIV, you should wait for two months before being tested. You can also test right away and then again after two or three months. During this "window period" an antibody test will give a negative result, but you can transmit the virus to others if you are infected.

About 5% of people take longer than two months to produce antibodies. There is one documented case of a person exposed to HIV and hepatitis C at the same time. Antibodies to HIV were not detected until one year after exposure. Testing at 3 and 6 months after possible exposure will detect almost all HIV infections. However, there are no guarantees as to when an individual will produce enough antibodies to be detected by an HIV test. If you have any unexplained symptoms, talk with your health care provider and consider re-testing for HIV.

DO ANY TESTS WORK SOONER AFTER INFECTION?
Viral load tests detect pieces of HIV genetic material. They show up before the immune system manufactures antibodies. Also, in early 2002, the FDA approved "nucleic acid testing." It is similar to viral load testing. Blood banks use it to screen donated blood.

The viral load or nucleic acid tests are generally not used to see if someone has been infected with HIV because they are much more expensive than an antibody test. They also have a slightly higher error rate****************."

Soooooooooooo, unless you gals are 100% celibate during the "window period," your test results are meaningless. Am I missing something here? I may be wrong about this as I am no expert, so please, someone give me a non-defensive answer about this.

For example, what if an actor got tested the day before his scene with you and it showed a negative result. But in fact, he was HIV positive, just that the antibodies had not shown up yet in his blood (or at least enough to be detectible by the tests). If you do a BB anal scene with him, could you get infected by him? You could, right? Of course you could even if you used a condom, but then the chances of him being BOTH infected, non-detected by the recent testing AND the condom breaking or being ineffectual are infinitesimally small (which is the goal).

PS- there is no hatred here. I am merely discussing the risks of your activities and hopefully, to convince both of you RISKY ladies(YES u and Vicki) to be even safer than you already are (by using condoms in your movies. Also, I acknowledge that street girls who don't get tested or do so infrequently are probably a higher risk, even if they use condoms with their customers. But that doesn't make it any safer for you to do BB scenes.

[Bigwilly]

Felicia he is probably one of the uneducated people who migrated from The SFredbook posts...That web site is nothing but a buch of guys giving reviews on escorts, it gets like that in here sometimes, but most people in here can carry an inteligent conversation...

Pathetic how you changed your avatar after my post!!! Insecure Dan-Yell?
Sweetie there is a world of difference between the Favellas in Rio, and glitter of NYC or LA.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

I agree with what Thanos Allanah and others basically say about the condom issue. Personally for me if I were in the Adult business I would get the regular tests and wear a condom, but this is just me i cannot make that call for everyone and since i cannot, to me it is better to be safe than sorry.

anyway thanks for the 411 people

i personally think this is a knee jerk reaction from the way it sounds this persons body was burning up from repeated meth use and from some of the people i have seen on meth......shit it looked as if a Mosquito bite could kill them. totally destruction of the body....scary stuff indeed but then what do you expect from a man made drug that some people make with things like beercans and such.

[Vicki Richter]

Typical HIV thread on HA:

Anyone, "HIV is bad and dangerous and will kill you"

Allanah, "No it's not bad. It's all made up. Here's proof. With the right diet, you will actually live longer if you have it."

Misc Hater, "Danielle and Vicki do bareback in their movies. They will get AIDS. Testing isn't any good."

My response again to BigWily... I did this before on Redbook, but Arianna just did a 60+ guy creampie video. She still doesn't have HIV. I guess that is just dumb luck huh? 65 guys in one scene came in her unprotected pussy and she is still negative. Most people don't have HIV. The testing isn't flawless, but it's pretty fucking good. There is a small blind spot, but it's not excessive. Female pornstars have used this testing since 1998 and only .003% of the industry (as a ratio of total sex scenes) has contracted HIV from bareback scenes - including double anal cream pies, etc.

Everyone, "Yes we all agree HIV and AIDS is bad. Be careful"

Everyone, "Amen"

The End.

[The American Nightmare]

It really is astonishing how disease-free the porn industry has kept itself. It's probably much more dangerous being with a hooker or going to church.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Allanah, "No it's not bad. It's all made up. Here's proof. With the right diet, you will actually live longer if you have it."

I don't think I have ever said that-

I have posted counter view point on the HIV=AIDS dogma
about things you do not usuallly hear in the news or media.

All from reputable sources and scientists who have the same questions.

Believe what you like- just get informed.

[Felicia Katt]

I'll second everything Vicki said, except to add this. Even, under Bigwilly's extremely unlikely scenario of someone all of a sudden contracting aids just before getting tested, and then doing a bareback scene, the odds are still overhwelming against their partner getting infected.

the basic information is here

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp...&page=pr-04-02

to summarize the odds:

the receptive or bottom's odds are less than one in 100 (.82 %)when having unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner. and are even way more remote if you are the top Something on the order of .06%. Interestingly, the chance of contracting HIV when you are the top and using a condom is .04%. So actually, there is not a lot of difference, statistically between using and not using a condom. In either case, the odds are pretty remote, though you can reduce them even further by using a condom. If you are "bottoming"with a condom, your odds are 0.18%,which means you can enhance them by a factor of 4.

So, the short answer is that sex is always safer with a condom, but realistically, only fractionally so. Unless its mastubation, or sex with one partner in a totally confirmed monogamous relationship, or sex with someone who has been celibate for a while after being tested, all sex involves some risk. Even sex with condoms. But the risks are very, very remote. Certainly not risky enough to justify BigWilly's alarmist post or his crocodile tears of concern.