How safe is giving oral without a condom?

[Guest]

As I said before, this is promoting no agenda except medical truth.

AZT is a horrible poisonous drug that is killing people. Children born with HIV contracted from their mothers are being given AZT for no other reason. There is no reason to expect that they will get sick or have suppressed immune system any longer than the few days of mild flu like symptoms.

Those numbers are not only not insignificant, they are incomplete. The point is that all the research numbers kept till now have been kept to bias towards the assumption that HIV causes AIDs. Even when there has been absolutely no proof that this is the case.

The point being, when a statistic doesn't fit the pattern, it has been discarded. This makes it very difficult to find out which statistics lie outside the biased numbers.

The more than 4,000 AIDs - HIV cases were ones that were easily found that the CDC admitted they knew about. There's literally no way of even guessing how many others there are. You could double or tripple that number.

Also, don't forget the presumptive diagnosis. A large percentage of the "AIDS cases" only have a presumptive diagnosis. This means they have one of the AIDS spectrum diseases, pneumonia or kaposis sarcoma, or cervical cancer --- but they were never actually tested for presence of HIV. It was just assumed that they had it. That's poor science.

Why would a Dr. presume that a tuberculosis patient has HIV? Because if he doesn't it's just a TB patient. If he does, he's a $2,500 grant from the federal government.

Next: Many of the people listed as HIV positive are listed so incorrectly. All three of the major tests that reveal HIV anti-bodies are known to be flawed in favor of providing false positives. In literature arguing this position, "establishment" defenders claim that positive test of 1 type were backed up with results from a 2nd type test. All that says is that a patient has 2 known faulty tests.

There have been many, many cases of patients believing they have HIV only to find out years later that they never did.

If HIV was what it's purported to be, and does what it is said to do, there would be huge numbers of cases in the medical community of nurses and doctors contracting HIV and then succumbing to AIDS. It's been over 20 years, the "latency period" is not that long.

By comparison, there are tens of thousands of cases every year of medical workers contracting Hepatitis from accidental needle sticks. If you take that as a measure of common occurance, there should be many more cases of HIV - AIDS contraction. Istead there's about half a dozen. It just doesn't add up.

Back to your original question. No agenda. I'm not against gay people or a moralist against drug users. I don't think AIDS is caused by "gods wrath" or anything like that.

What I am saying is that people believe things they hear pervasively and persistantly. People believe that AIDS is growing uncontrollably. That "everyone is at risk". That research is being aimed at HIV, the "cause" of the AIDS epidemic. That third world countries especially Africa are becoming "pandemic situations".

None of these things are true.

1. Reported AIDS cases have stayed at about 1 million a year. That's a uge triumph, and completely agaisnt what epidemiological predictions would expect if the disease is anything like what the mainstream doctors have said. Think about it, with the population increasing every year, even at level percentages, cases should increase geometrically.
They aren't. So maintaining a steady 1 million is a huge reduction. Numbers as late as 1998 show cases being down in the 700 to 800 thousands, and that's even AFTER the definition of AIDS was changed to include a new range of diseases.

2. Everyone is NOT at risk. The concentration of cases are still 90% male. Most of those are homosexuals with mobile lifestyles and multiple partners, and heavy drug users. That profile is still accurate. Many of the anti-HIV researchers believe that AIDS is caused by simply overloading the body with an incredible amount of various contractible diseases and drug use. If you pound the immune system with enough, it will eventually collapse. It's not surprising that many of these patients had HIV, they also have a whole host of other VD and diseases, some including cow diseases and other exotic things!
It's not a criticism or a polemic against gays, it's simply a fact of science. If you have a person who engages in high fluid swapping activities, is very sexually active with many partners, and takes drugs, they are courting disaster. It's like charm bracelets, where every person you come in contact with gives you a new piece. Some people are wakling around with these disease cocktails in their blood like loaded weapons.

3. Africa is suffering from malaria, wasting disease and other diseases related to poor medical care and a desperate need for funds. This was going on before AIDs was ever heard of. Claimed AIDS cases are a good way to get much needed medical support for WHO and DWB into Africa. Dr.s there have admitted "We treat the machete cut on the patients leg and call it AIDS".

Yes, AIDS is serious. Sure, no one wants to get it. Yes, it's absolutely a great idea to use a condom (and also common sense in your choice and frequency of partners) for many reasons including but certainly not limited to AIDs.

There is a coalition of over 500 Dr.s from around the world who are fighting to get papers published and research shown in medical journals simple to get the HIV - AIDS hypothesis re-examined with a non-biased stance. They are being scoffed by the editors of those publications. Galileo was threatened with death for non admitting that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Popularity or assumptions do not make something true or false.

There are consequences. The more people know about this, and the wider this knowledges spreads, the closer we will be to finding a real cause, and solving a real problem. Not engaging in politics or financial boondogglery.

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing all of this, grunyen. I agree with virtually everything you say.
As for what does cause AIDs, I read a very interesting article back around 1990, in which the writer gave evidence that AIDs is not caused by HIV, but by immunosuppressive behavior and/or activity. I unfortunately do not still have the article.

[Guest]

That's pretty much what the leading (secondary) theory is.

The typical patient profile is someone that just managed to basically be a living sticky fly-paper for every communicable disease you can imagine. The human body was just never built for that, and is not prepared for that kind of onslaught.

Add to that the drug use, which already weakens the immune system.

Some of these other Dr's readily admit that something like HIV could be the contributing factor, but the bottom line is, until we get real about what it's not and start looking for something else, we'll never find it.

Things are always in the last place you look for them. If you assume you've found it, you stop looking.

20+ years and 22 Billion dollars would have amounted to something by now if a simple common retro-virus was to blame.

[olekunde]

so why did young healthy men and women suddenly start to die of KS and other diseases back in the 80s?
is it just a coincidence that they found the hiv virus at the same time?
or do you have scientific proof that there were as many [people before that died that had aids-like symptoms?
you talk about people that have multiple sex partners and people that use drugs, but what about those who did get blood transfusion. got the virus and developed aids, people that were perfectly normal and healthy before they got the virus.

You can not make something true by continuing to reassert louder and more vehemently incorrect information.

back to you. you have no proof of what you have been reading is true or not, it is speculations. the coallition of doctors you mention could write articels that they have proof that santa claus lives on the north pole, and for those who see and believe in conspiracies on every street corner would eat this raw as well. as you said, no one has collected the prize money to the key of hiv/aids yet, and your boys probably have their agenda to get some of it.

i can only agree with on the definition of aids, or the lack of it.

but back to the topic. sucking dick with no condom is very low risk activity. suck on...

[thaibound]

but back to the topic. sucking dick with no condom is very low risk activity. suck on...

very interesting dialogue folks. thanks to all of you. my own conclusion: sucking dick does seem "relatively safe" but it would now seem especially important to "check" for any apparent STD's as at least one of the theories holds that repeated exposure to said STD's may well be a causative factor in the development of AIDS (with or without the HIV trigger). avoiding heavy and/or intravenous drug users may also be of increased importance based on this discussion, regardless of whether they are HIV+ at the time of your involvement.

[Guest]

I find all of this quite disturbing. Simply because from what I understand none of you are even remotely qualified to be making such statements about HIV, AIDS etc. I really feel that giving of such medical opinions on a forum such as this is frought with danger.

Many of you are making statments of fact so I would love to hear about your qualifications in the areas of virology and immunology?

[olekunde]

right on ozzie. this might disturb/disgust you even more. but, i well, ok i maybe i can say i lived in los for more or less 3 yrs, and right up to this moment i astonished myself when i look back when i think of how many bbs i have had. i got myself tested not so long back ago and i was negative. before i did, the nurse treated me, after i revelead my history, like a lepard, and i must say they didnt do anything to comfort me, but to their surprise, as i said i was negative.
but back to the sub topic. yeah, ive treid to argue for, that neither of gunyen or me have any medical qualifications to lean our arguments on. but it seems that both of us are clear on the safe sex policy.
on this behalf, i must say, to yout disgust, that sex with ggs, and pussy fucking solely, is a minimum risk to catch hiv. yeah, it is a gun tor your head, but that should be up to each up to his own

[olekunde]

i had to dig deeper into this matter as i what somewhat fascinated by grunyens views. so i visited http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/ with the best intentions and with curiosity. i was soon disappointed. the fact site is more or less random notes and quotes, but it did get worse when i got to the forum. i have to call them the believers, since they must be classified as some kind of religious sect. everybody agree with each other with no medical proof that hiv doesnt cause aids, and most even discard the existance of the virus, and even hep a, b and c. and blame it on the medicine as the killer.

i was in fact hoping for some revealing facts about this matter, but after seeing this site, and i think you all should see it too, there is not.

visit also these links:
http://www.thebody.com/Forums....72.html
http://www.thebody.com/Forums....92.html
http://www.thebody.com/Forums....36.html

[Guest]

Those three posts are nothing more than re-hashed, pat replies with all the same standard arguments.

There is no way you can come away from reading Kary Mullis' essays on HIV-AIDS and weigh this featherweight crap as being equal in consideration, talent, and invested effort.

TheBody.com is paid for by drug companies. Make of that what you want.

What I find most interesting is that people here have so viciously and vociferously defended a theory that they had no part in creating or no stake in defending.

It's shocking how difficult people take it when you question something they've taken to believe no matter how small or tangential that subject is to their own lives or work.

I guess I'm just one of those people who has always fallen on the side of DaVinci, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Salk, Mullis, etc. etc. etc.

The scientists and Dr.'s who have most revolutionized our world and our thinking were almost exclusively lone voices, or at least preaching to a small crowd. They were often chastised and in dark times even threatened with their lives.

The popular truth is usually only so many generations later. That same truth was heresy in it's own time. What is that reflex that makes the villagers furrow their borw, grab up pitchforks and lynch those who say something different?

I would advocate keeping a more open mind. Be flexible and think scientifically, not emotionally. Try to read or watch some alternative news now and then and not watch the same government and corporate approved and sponsored mainstream drivel every night. It helps you avoid the embarassing position of being one of the jack-asses living in the dark ages, having to defend your own beliefs from having been fooled in the first place and clinging so desperately to any belief that helps you understand the mysterious and demon haunted world.

Wake up folks. We now know that thunder isn't Vulcan throwing his hammer across the sky in anger. There are no invisible people who live in the sky and tell you where not to touch yourself. Anyone could offer the "evidence" that 95% of the world believe in "spirits" and invisible gods (all of whom watch over each respective persons best interests and hate the other guy of course). The myriad of believers, establishment, money, books, and even "doctorates" in religion do not make invisible people in the sky true anymore than the world is flat, or disease is caused by evil spirits, or the moon is made of green cheese.

Our knowledge of the world changes constantly. Don't be so afraid of it. Be willing to at least examine and be open to new things while they are contemporary or else you will be a useless old fart. By the time these things make it into your kids textbooks, they will have been known by scientists for 30 years.

Textbooks now still tell you there are 2 forms of carbon, and three forms of matter. We now know that there are at least 3 types of carbon, and at least 5 forms of matter. There are still people who don't believe it though because the little books written so a child will understand them don't reflect this yet.

I'm surprised in a forum where everyone lusts after men with tit-jobs and lipstick that there aren't more open minded and progressive people. Leave the flat earthers behaviour behind.

What motives could people like Kary Mullis and Dr. Deusberg have? Mullis already won his Nobel prize and knows more about DNA, retro-virus, and biologic testing than any of us ever will. Deusberg stuck to his guns until he disproved his own theory of oncogenes because he knew it was the right thing to do, despite pissing off all the people who had made a nice financial boon following a flawed theory; and he continued trying to spread the HIV#Aids evidence until his funding was cut off to silence him. How is that seeking fame or fortune?

I still stand by this; in 10 or 20 years, or however long it takes, everyone will know that HIV (a common retro-virus that is non-existent in the body after anti-bodies kill it off) is not somehow magically causing a disease from beyond the grave 10 years after it has been flushed from the body. By then, the money and time wasted on the HIV/AIDs theory will be seen as another painful and wasteful mistake in the history of medicine. It won't make any difference to those who have already retired or died after a long and successful career both financially and publicly by advocating and working in a theory that ultimately failed- and it will be little consolation to those who have also retired or died being laughed at or despised by the medical community for trying to deliver a message past the guards of the accepted wisdom.

[olekunde]

gee, you must get high on yourself being so alternative, know-it-all, figured it all out and are not one of the stupid in the big blind mass. i guess youre american and need to be a little alternative from time to time. guess what, the world doesnt envolve around america. there are expertise in other places than usa , and is it crap that expertise from all countries more or less agree on whats been established so far.
is the hiv hypothesis a world wide conspiracy? all lab material bullshit? all the people who died that had severly damaged immune defence also had a high viral load of hiv, little or none t4 cells left, is it a hoax?

even how much i want to believe what you have been indoctrinated with, there are so much published statistical material that supports the theory of the connection between hiv and aids. the connection between children born with hiv and their short life expectancy, and the fact that they have been testet hiv+ from day 0 to day rip. there must be a connection. the question is probably why and how not there is no connection.

just because you have a handful of doctors that says otherwise and their followers want so much to be something/alternative, isnt a proof that the hiv hypothesis is wrong. they have put a doubful seed into the equation, but that is all, they have no hypothesis that has any medical significance that can prove there is something else than hiv that causes aids.

what really puzzles me is how much people that do not have any medical knowledge at all have so strong opinions about this. like you grunyen, you talk as you have won the noble prize yourself, but all you really have is what master mullis and deusberg write. and if i have understood this right is that they only have questioned what has been discovered.

its not unlikely there will be a cure or vaccine against hiv and suddenly aids cases drop close to zero. if this happens my guess is that they still wont believe that hiv exist, or that hiv causes aids.

there are alot of other hypthesis out there you know, for instance the one about holocaust during ww2, does 2 added with 2 equals 4 or 22. so many things to question, and so little time. think i head of to los soon to get me some lb ass (before you do and infect all my honeys)

[Stewart]

I would advocate keeping a more open mind. Be flexible and think scientifically, not emotionally. Try to read or watch some alternative news now and then and not watch the same government and corporate approved and sponsored mainstream drivel every night. It helps you avoid the embarassing position of being one of the jack-asses living in the dark ages, having to defend your own beliefs from having been fooled in the first place and clinging so desperately to any belief that helps you understand the mysterious and demon haunted world.

Well, thanks for insulting the many of us who were probably reading this thread with interest. Sounds like you cannot take some of your own medicine - some guys here were questioning your hypothesis, just like you were advocating should be done with HIV-AIDS. Seems pretty reasonable to me

Another question - of all the news organisations in the world, and you CANNOT say they are ALL sheep, why have none of them exposed this sham?

[Guest]

Whence cometh all the anger?

[Guest]

Well, thanks for insulting the many of us who were probably reading this thread with interest. Sounds like you cannot take some of your own medicine - some guys here were questioning your hypothesis, just like you were advocating should be done with HIV-AIDS. Seems pretty reasonable to me

Another question - of all the news organisations in the world, and you CANNOT say they are ALL sheep, why have none of them exposed this sham?

If the description doesn't fit you, then I wasn't responding to you. Don't take personal offence at a directed response if you are not the one directed towards.

These other facts that others have brought up about viral load etc. are just assumptions based on what people generally think they know about the hypothesys.

To cover some recently brought up issues.

1. High viral load. This is just nonsense. The fact is, people dying of AIDS *do not* have a HIV viral load. What they may or may not have is a HIV anti-body load floating around in their bodies.
So far, no one has been able to isolate the HIV virus from a culture taken from an AIDS victim. This is a very standard procedure. If you had a cold or flu for instance, Dr.'s could isolate the virus from your blood stream easily.
If the HIV=AIDS hypothesis were right, isolating the virus would be a walk in the park.

AIDS victims are often *not* tested, but are what's called "presumptive cases". That means the Dr. just writes it down without a anti-body test. Some percentage, and don't assume it's a small one, of the positive anti-body tests are false. False positives are not un-common because the test is picking up cross reactive anti-bodies from other types of infections.

AIDS patients who test positive for HIV anti-bodies repeatedly with more involved tests to come up with a sure positive result, *do not* have the HIV virus in their blood. They have anti-bodies which your body may keep for a ong time, maybe even forever. In all likelihood, they did have the HIV virus once but it was successfully killed by their bodies immune system and flushed many years ago.

No one can say for sure, because *no one is testing this*. No one will test it as long as it is assumed that the equation is all figured out.

2. This is somehow an American thing. Where did that come from? People will grasp for the oddest reasons to call the other guy a phony. "He's from the other village" outsider syndrome is a pretty ancient one. Yes, I happen to be an American. That has nothing to do with anything. The group of Dr.s who are trying to introduce a reassertion of the AIDS hypothesis are numbered a little over 500, and they are from all countries. Many, including some of the most well known and vocal are from the US, but that's not surprising considering the dispropotionate medical community, economics, and amount of research in the US vs. other countries. This is not a value statement or any kind of drubbing, that is simply a demograhic fact.

3. Mullis and Deusberg are two of the most vocal oppositionists, for lack of a better term. Most people can only name one or two people from any political party or movement. Name the top 250 people in the Greenpeace organization? I can't even name one. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. There is a organized group of over 500 Dr.s who simply don't believe in the current theory and want to see people explore other avenues because their vue of the research tells them that the current hypothesis isn't right, and is in fact wasting time and money. There are likely hundreds more Dr.s who harbor their own doubts, or have done their own dissenting research but may not be members of this organization, or may just not want to get into a public debate about it, or buck the trend. Some people have seen their funding cut, and their research papers trashbinned over this.

4. Again... HIV sounds scary because that is the name they gave it. If could have been called "Ralph" or "Pamela". It actually had several names, some less threatening, because it was being looked at by different Dr.s at different labs in different places. The HIV name was eventually settled on in part over a lawsuit claiming bragging rights, and also because the Dr.s involved with it were convinced at that time that it was the *cause* of AIDS.

5. HIV may be extremely common. Retro-viral organizms are not uncommon. You have many retro-viral things floating around in your body right now. Your own DNA sequences have retro-viral elements in places. This doesn't mean it's all going to kill you. There are many people who have had HIV *at some point* because they do show positive after repeated and multiple tests for the *anti-bodies*. Meaning their body fought it at some point and kicked it. Many people have had HIV at some point and have not as yet contracted AIDS. We're talking about periods of decades. The HIV=AIDS proponents have claimed that there is a "latency period", but they have conveniently stretched that latency period the longer AIDS has been known, and the longer people have gone with HIV anti-bodies without contracting AIDS.
There could be thousands and thousands of people with HIV anti-bodies walking around calmly living their lives without ever knowing it or suffering any ill effects. The point once again is that we won't know until people start studying that issue. You only find what you are looking for.


6. The definition itself, of AIDS, is flawed. The definition includes a combination of some 30+ diseases combined with a supposed positive HIV anti-body test. Its like a chinese menu, "pick one from column A and two from column B". Even Dr.s who don't want to get involved in the debate agree that it's a stupid definition of an ailment. It's like saying the Flu is one disease, and the Flu if youhave Red hair is a different disease.

7. People have died of immuno system collapse for no explainable or specific reason throughout history. People have died from all kinds of strange ailments and failures of the body that were never explained, many of which can be attributed to just plain differences in everyones general makeup. A friend of mine was engaged to a girl whose body became allergic to her own blood. She basically suffered the syptoms of an organ donor whose body rejected ALL her organs. She was treated by a Dr. who was considered THE expert on the matter because he had treated 2 of the patients who had it. Only 5 people are know to have been diagnosed witht he disease, she was number 6.
The point is that there are infintely variable people, and plenty of medical mystery and questions never answered. Some of the people who will die from imune collapse will happen for various different reasons. The pneumonia that one person may survive might just devestate another persons immune system for no reason. Until there is a specific cause known for AIDS, we won't know how many of the statistics are not related to each other. Its already known that many subgroups of AIDS cases have little in common. Some of them may not be "AIDS cases" at all. Until there is a better definitive definition of what AIDS is, the statistics are very difficult to make much meaning of.

Let me change modes here for a second. I'm not going out of my way to insult anyone or have any other kind of weird motive. I am not a Dr. I am simply sharing information that I've researched fairly extensively for a layman. People do share news, views, and opinions you know. Its not a crime and I'm not the first.

I have lashed back a little, and tried to defend my position, and myself. I think that's pretty reasonable. If I've hit anyone who doesn't think they deserved it, believe me, it was not intended and I am sorry that it happened. I'm not out to get anyone. Why would I be for crying out loud?

I am sharing information I believe to be accurate and rarely known. Not an uncommon condition over history. I never posited any theories that I was better than anyone else, smarter than anyone else, or better looking. I think some peopel do just love to get on the receiving end of an argument and read these things into whatever they hear when they feel their dander up. I'm not looking for any personal debates.

If other people feel this information is correct, that's fine. I've got no problem with debating, or rather, explaining what I know or have read, or surmised. That's about as far as I can go, as once again I don't have a lab in the basement. If anyone wishes to share or disagree based on their own knowledge and admit their lack theoreof in the same way, that's quite fine also. I've got no beef with people sharing other information as well.

What I don't need is that happening in an attack fashion. What's the point? I swear any time there is an anonymous forum, people get in such a macho state and have to flame or turn everything into a pissing match. None of you would do this same thing sitting in a pub or a drawing room. You'd rightly assuem that someone would punch you in the nose if you responded to someone's talking by suddenly standing an a chair and acting like a braying ass. Take a chill pill and talk or share if you like but leave the anonymity-drunk attitude behind.

I can't see how anyone could have read all of what I've said and come away with the impressions that some have, or the absurdly out-of-proportion responses that some have had. It seems that several of the responses have completely ignored or forgotten parts of what I've said, prompting me to have to repeat the same information over and over again. Others just seem to have come out of left field.

I do appreciate those who have been civil, those that have shared good information or opinions, and those who have been open to listening and thinking. I hope you specifically will understand my intentions and attitudes, and not take offence or assume anything negative is directed at you. In general, I find that those open minded people have the good sense to sort it all out and take things in the right light.

I consider myself to be a above average intelligence person (and I've tested that way repeatedly). It's at least a statistical fact that I'm nore than one standard deviation higher in IQ than the average of the population. That doesn't make me a super-person or better than anyone. I do also have aptitudes in reasoning, science, logic, and verbal and written communication. I think I'm a pretty good researcher and a fairly resonable chap in general. While none of this makes me an uber-man, I do think it makes me feel pretty reasonably sure of myself, and I'm not some complete dipshit who just goes popping of about ludicrous theories of aliens and seven headed dragons.

In other words, I'm a smart guy who likes to enjoy smart talk about interesting subjects with other people. I may make mistakes and screw up, but please don't get in a twit and make stabs at me. If I do something wrong or offend someone, I like to think I'm reasonable about recognizing it, and apologetic to those who didn't deserve it.

[thaibound]

I'm not some complete dipshit who just goes popping of about ludicrous theories of aliens and seven headed dragons.

Dude, why did you have to dis my "Theory of The Seven-Headed Dragon: Are 7 Heads Really Better Than 1?"? And, as for that blatant antagonism toward aliens, did you even read my latest treatise, "Area 51 Where Are You?" But the capper was the thing about your standard deviation being bigger than my standard deviation! (Okay, I might have misread that part, but still, to brag about being a deviant! Damn, on a forum full of guys who suck and fuck ladyboys, that's pretty ballsy, no?)



Seriously folks,
I for one have read every word of this thread, have understood most (sometimes the spelling threw me, I confess) and have found it to be intriguing if not directly enlightening. (Much more so than the "Am I Gay?" thing which just repeatedly begs for specification regarding a gender nomenclature for those whose existence personifies The Reason We Are Here).

I have spoken with many learned people (my degrees are totally non-medical) and I have long wondered about the inconsistencies of infection rate and cause/effect. I don't quite buy in to "the ways of the Lord are mysterious" as a rational explanation, but existentially it might well prove to be as true as any. When soldiers charge enemy lines why do two guys have their heads blown off while the guy in between survives untouched? I don't mean to compare HIV to a howitzer but...an HIV+ human has sex with one hundred lovers. Some contract HIV, some don't. Some never get tested and may never know. Some who test positive die of AIDS, some of other diseases. Some live long, healthy, uninterrupted lives. It just seems that whether HIV is the trigger (and personally I think it very probably is) there must be other factors of great importance with regard to our ultimate fears of are we going to die of AIDS?
I therefore appreciate intelligent, provocative conversation on the subject -- always taken with a grain of salt due to the possibility that each and all of us may well, ultimately, be completely full of shit.

[olekunde]

i stop comment any medical issues. i must comment one thing on behalf of the request/topic. this guy asked if it was okay to suck cock w/o condom. i think it is relatively safe, but not 100% (what is) since i still believe in the hiv hypthesis still ( i have a little story that will give grunyen more water on the mill).
i know grunyen are close to 100% sure i am wrong and he is right, but the consequences of his opinions can be fatal. as he say , common beliefs have been proved wrong through history, but his beliefs are again are common among those who dont believe in hiv. and they can be proven wrong as well.

the story i wanted to tell is about a friend of mine, who came back from los and had done some barebacking, so he went through the full spectre of tests. both the hiv and hep b testes were inconsistent, meaning they couldnt tell if he were 100% negative, which probably back ups grunyen theory about my friends body at some point have been fighting a (retro?) virus. 6 months later, the tests showed the same result, but he was cleared as hiv negative.