Beyond "Poz" and "Neg": Five HIV Statuses, Plus a New One

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 5:39 PM GMT
    Let's review them on a continuum from the safest to the problematic ones.

    1 "I'm HIV positive, undetectable."
    2 "I'm HIV negative. I test regularly. I always use condoms."
    3 "I'm HIV-positive. I don't know what my viral load is."
    4 "I don't know my status."
    5 "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).



    The new group is a 1 or 2 "I'm HIV Negative on PrEP."


    Asking "Are you clean?" doesn't help anyone.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renato-barucco/beyond-poz-and-neg-five-h_b_5039729.html


    I was lambasted on a recent topic of dropping "reckless endangerment" as a legal classification for an HIV+ person if undetectable. I'd been hearing anecdotal evidence that undetectable was very safe for years. Now, with the most recent research Dr. Anthony Fuci and others are coming to that conclusion (not very safe...but the safest) with solid scientific medical evidence.

    The results

    The main news is that in PARTNER so far there have been no transmissions within couples from a partner with an undetectable viral load, in what was estimated as 16,400 occasions of sex in the gay men and 28,000 in the heterosexuals.

    Although some of the HIV-negative partners became HIV positive (exactly how many will be revealed in later analyses), genetic testing of the HIV revealed that in all cases the virus came from someone other than the main partner.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 8:40 PM GMT
    Sustenance saidThe way I see it there are only two statuses. Either you are positive or you are not. This rating system you are presenting just excuses the behaviors of those who are positive. I became positive because of those fucking excuses.


    That falls under 5 "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).

    The worst scenario, where you and/or he should have ABSOLUTELY worn a condom.

    I became positive in 1980 or so. I don't blame anybody and have no ill will to him.

    BTW Don't believe anything anyone tells you. Since my diagnosis in 1986 I know that I have NEVER given anyone HIV. It's either been 100% safe with condoms, another HIV+ man, or undetectable with their full knowledge. If anyone asks I would provide a DR.'s letter and recent lab work!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 8:58 PM GMT
    Sustenance said
    unckabasa said
    Sustenance saidThe way I see it there are only two statuses. Either you are positive or you are not. This rating system you are presenting just excuses the behaviors of those who are positive. I became positive because of those fucking excuses.


    That falls under 5 "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).

    The worst scenario, where you and/or he should have ABSOLUTELY worn a condom.


    The education wasn't out there the way it is today. Two months after I became positive the gay community was handing out rubbers at gay community sites.

    When I was 28 I took a health science class in college and the teacher said you have only a 1% chance of contracting the disease. So of course I equated that to only having a 1% chance out of a hundred people.

    I regret that today because I am going to die in 6 years because of this disease. I feel it is a punishment for my getting involved in the lifestyle. Nobody cared about the disease back then even though they were still crying over that fucking FAKE AIDS quilt they built in the eighties.

    Yes, I am still angry. I am angry at my stupidity for ever having joined the worlds biggest orgy... the gay community.


    I was there. They called it GRID, Gay Related Immune Deficiency before they called it AIDS. I got the same diagnosis....I "fired" my Doctor and got someone more knowledgeable.

    If I may ask what is it you are dying of in 6 years? Are you on ART?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 8:58 PM GMT
    Maybe more like here are stages/conditions of infection and then, not infected.

    :O
    Gets a little ehh otherwise...


    Oooo there is one really cute HIV positive guy I would date though....

    Ooooooo he so cuuuuute I forgot who though :/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 8:59 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidSchnookums, you forgot the sixth status:

    6. I'm HIV- and am taking Truvada (Prep) so you know what that means. I can bareback away and away and awaaaaay.....!


    it's right there!

    "The new group is a 1 or 2 "I'm HIV Negative on PrEP.""
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:08 PM GMT
    Sustenance said
    unckabasa said
    Sustenance said
    unckabasa said
    Sustenance saidThe way I see it there are only two statuses. Either you are positive or you are not. This rating system you are presenting just excuses the behaviors of those who are positive. I became positive because of those fucking excuses.


    That falls under 5 "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).

    The worst scenario, where you and/or he should have ABSOLUTELY worn a condom.


    The education wasn't out there the way it is today. Two months after I became positive the gay community was handing out rubbers at gay community sites.

    When I was 28 I took a health science class in college and the teacher said you have only a 1% chance of contracting the disease. So of course I equated that to only having a 1% chance out of a hundred people.

    I regret that today because I am going to die in 6 years because of this disease. I feel it is a punishment for my getting involved in the lifestyle. Nobody cared about the disease back then even though they were still crying over that fucking FAKE AIDS quilt they built in the eighties.

    Yes, I am still angry. I am angry at my stupidity for ever having joined the worlds biggest orgy... the gay community.


    I was there. They called it GRID, Gay Related Immune Deficiency before they called it AIDS. I got the same diagnosis....I "fired" my Doctor and got someone more knowledgeable.

    If I may ask what is it you are dying of in 6 years? Are you on ART?


    THe drug Truvada almost caused kidney failure. Now I have kidney disease and it will progress to end stage renal disease. I was shocked as hell when it happened. I thought I was going to live to old age. I thought I was going to be there for my mother when she passes. I thought I was going to grow old with my friends of twenty plus years. Now I am just a nobody.


    I am genuinely sorry to hear that. Is it the entire class of drugs? Can you do dialysis or a transplant?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:09 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    unckabasa said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidSchnookums, you forgot the sixth status:

    6. I'm HIV- and am taking Truvada (Prep) so you know what that means. I can bareback away and away and awaaaaay.....!


    it's right there!

    "The new group is a 1 or 2 "I'm HIV Negative on PrEP.""


    Oops! Pardon me. I skimmed through too fast on a 5.5" smartphone screen.


    No problem. I just thought it be read more in "everything gay" as nobody seems to know this information is out there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:15 PM GMT
    There was post similar when I joined RJ months ago
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:24 PM GMT
    Sustenance said
    unckabasa said
    Sustenance saidThe way I see it there are only two statuses. Either you are positive or you are not. This rating system you are presenting just excuses the behaviors of those who are positive. I became positive because of those fucking excuses.


    That falls under 5 "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).

    The worst scenario, where you and/or he should have ABSOLUTELY worn a condom.


    The education wasn't out there the way it is today. Two months after I became positive the gay community was handing out rubbers at gay community sites.

    When I was 28 I took a health science class in college and the teacher said you have only a 1% chance of contracting the disease. So of course I equated that to only having a 1% chance out of a hundred people.

    I regret that today because I am going to die in 6 years because of this disease. I feel it is a punishment for my getting involved in the lifestyle. Nobody cared about the disease back then even though they were still crying over that fucking FAKE AIDS quilt they built in the eighties.

    Yes, I am still angry. I am angry at my stupidity for ever having joined the worlds biggest orgy... the gay community.


    I find much of HIV and AIDS science actually quite suspect, but I'm not going to make my views known quite yet. But if HIV is a transmissible virus the chances are more like in one in a thousand. Some current AIDS medication may actually be quite beneficial...and perhaps have other uses, but most of the drugs that people took before those drugs were actually toxic... Perhaps I can reveal some of my views in that one thread of yours, though it will throw a cork into how you might see things a bit, but you will still nonetheless be right on the transmission of other types of viruses and infections, and about disease in general when it comes to gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:26 PM GMT
    Snaz saidThere was post similar when I joined RJ months ago


    I'm sure, but the information and research is much more definitive now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:38 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Snaz saidThere was post similar when I joined RJ months ago


    I'm sure, but the information and research is much more definitive now.


    I learned nothing new from this :/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:38 PM GMT
    Unnamed5 said

    I find much of HIV and AIDS science actually quite suspect, but I'm not going to make my views known quite yet. But if HIV is a transmissible virus the chances are more like in one in a thousand. Some current AIDS medication may actually be quite beneficial...and perhaps have other uses, but most of the drugs that people took before those drugs were actually toxic... Perhaps I can reveal some of my views in that one thread of yours, though it will throw a cork into how you might see things a bit, but you will still nonetheless be right on the transmission of other types of viruses and infections, and about disease in general when it comes to gays.


    1 in 1000 is what some were saying a few years ago. This recent study reflected the flaws of the straight only study. It shows it's the same for both Gay and Straight: ZERO transmissions. It doesn't eliminate safe sex, syphilis and gonorrhea haven't gone away. But in a committed relationship it is possible for a Neg and a POZ couple to have a fully developed sexual relationship. For the first time in 30 years!

    Share your opinions, but I may or may not agree. The data has changed quickly in the last year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:45 PM GMT
    Snaz said
    unckabasa said
    Snaz saidThere was post similar when I joined RJ months ago


    I'm sure, but the information and research is much more definitive now.


    I learned nothing new from this :/


    Then your scientific and medical information is fully current up to March 2014! Good for you. Considering I was branded as a "Gifter" and spreader of AIDS on another thread it's obvious not ALL on here are aware of this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 9:59 PM GMT
    LionEyes saidI think in the way you wrote this topic, we are not sure if you're pro or con of neg and poz couples, is this some sort of open question for people or simply sharing information from a medical journal... What's the purpose of this topic?

    To promote & excuse unsafe sex, evidently. I hope no one is misled by this deceptive info.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:09 PM GMT
    LionEyes saidI think in the way you wrote this topic, we are not sure if you're pro or con of neg and poz couples, is this some sort of open question for people or simply sharing information from a medical journal... What's the purpose of this topic?


    I already said
    "This recent study reflected the flaws of the straight only study. It shows it's the same for both Gay and Straight: ZERO transmissions. It doesn't eliminate safe sex, syphilis and gonorrhea haven't gone away. But in a committed relationship it is possible for a Neg and a POZ couple to have a fully developed sexual relationship. For the first time in 30 years!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:10 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    LionEyes saidI think in the way you wrote this topic, we are not sure if you're pro or con of neg and poz couples, is this some sort of open question for people or simply sharing information from a medical journal... What's the purpose of this topic?

    To promote & excuse unsafe sex, evidently. I hope no one is misled by this deceptive info.


    Evidently? WHAT?
    What is deceptive?

    That a HIV+ person on ART can be safer than a "stated Neg" person? That's true. That a "mixed" faithful couple can be free to express love normally? That's true.
    That a study of already mixed Poz/Neg couples had unprotected sex and NO transmissions occurred (only from outside the couple)? That is TRUE.

    Am I promoting unsafe sex? No, and for many reasons.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:15 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Unnamed5 said

    I find much of HIV and AIDS science actually quite suspect, but I'm not going to make my views known quite yet. But if HIV is a transmissible virus the chances are more like in one in a thousand. Some current AIDS medication may actually be quite beneficial...and perhaps have other uses, but most of the drugs that people took before those drugs were actually toxic... Perhaps I can reveal some of my views in that one thread of yours, though it will throw a cork into how you might see things a bit, but you will still nonetheless be right on the transmission of other types of viruses and infections, and about disease in general when it comes to gays.


    1 in 1000 is what some were saying a few years ago. This recent study reflected the flaws of the straight only study. It shows it's the same for both Gay and Straight: ZERO transmissions. It doesn't eliminate safe sex, syphilis and gonorrhea haven't gone away. But in a committed relationship it is possible for a Neg and a POZ couple to have a fully developed sexual relationship. For the first time in 30 years!

    Share your opinions, but I may or may not agree. The data has changed quickly in the last year.


    I'm going to actually write out my views on HIV and AIDS once I understand things a bit more, but it will take a couple of months to have that. But for now these are the views of Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of HIV...


    I believe that HIV is not the cause of immune deficiency in gay men and drug users and the cause of diseases associated with AIDS, and that there are very much other factors that killed these groups of people, and if HIV still plays a role, it's a non-essential one and co-factors need to be identified to really understand why people were dropping like flies. I have a suspicion that the deaths of gay men in the early 80's was from the environment of the bath houses that led to the the chronic infection of many other diseases and viruses besides HIV, the human body may have a limit to how much it can be assaulted by things. Weird ass diseases popped up when it came to that setting, especially strange cancers, and some of the diseases ringed a familiarity with me as being diseases I know Native Americans were chronically infected with when they lived in close quarters together, they essentially lived where they shit, and among sewage workers in poor countries, all such groups having low life-expectancy. The deaths that occur in the early 90's for gay men, may be due to taking toxic amounts of AZT, which were handed out like candy to people who didn't even test positive for HIV, but if you told a doctor that you were gay, and had chronic signs of fever and sweating, people were simply recommended AZT, and not to actually treat the sexual infections that gay men actually still had to deal with or ask them to stop going to the bathhouses and stop taking drugs. What I'm trying to say is that the narrative of AIDS isn't as convenient as proponents of it make it out to be. And in my opinion, those who are currently taking HIV medication may still test negative once they go off of it... And in my opinion, HIV is likely a harmless retrovirus that's impossible to transmit...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:18 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Art_Deco said
    LionEyes saidI think in the way you wrote this topic, we are not sure if you're pro or con of neg and poz couples, is this some sort of open question for people or simply sharing information from a medical journal... What's the purpose of this topic?

    To promote & excuse unsafe sex, evidently. I hope no one is misled by this deceptive info.

    Evidently? WHAT?
    What is deceptive?

    unckabasa said
    I'd been hearing anecdotal evidence that undetectable [HIV] was very safe for years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:23 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    unckabasa said
    Art_Deco said
    LionEyes saidI think in the way you wrote this topic, we are not sure if you're pro or con of neg and poz couples, is this some sort of open question for people or simply sharing information from a medical journal... What's the purpose of this topic?

    To promote & excuse unsafe sex, evidently. I hope no one is misled by this deceptive info.

    Evidently? WHAT?
    What is deceptive?

    unckabasa said
    I'd been hearing anecdotal evidence that undetectable [HIV] was very safe for years.


    If you kept reading, not only was the anecdotal information correct, it was understated.


    "..... the study intends to get infected individuals' viral loads down to levels where they cannot infect their sexual partners#8212;even in the absence of a condom. "The philosophy," Fauci says, "is if you test everybody, and treat everybody who has HIV, you could use treatment as prevention."
    http://www.realjock.com/article/1546/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:32 PM GMT
    LionEyes said
    unckabasa saidLet's review them on a continuum from the safest to the problematic ones.

    1 "I'm HIV positive, undetectable."
    2 "I'm HIV negative. I test regularly. I always use condoms."
    3 "I'm HIV-positive. I don't know what my viral load is."
    4 "I don't know my status."
    5 "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).



    The new group is a 1 or 2 "I'm HIV Negative on PrEP."


    Asking "Are you clean?" doesn't help anyone.


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renato-barucco/beyond-poz-and-neg-five-h_b_5039729.html


    I was lambasted on a recent topic of dropping "reckless endangerment" as a legal classification for an HIV+ person if undetectable. I'd been hearing anecdotal evidence that undetectable was very safe for years. Now, with the most recent research Dr. Anthony Fuci and others are coming to that conclusion (not very safe...but the safest) with solid scientific medical evidence.

    The results

    The main news is that in PARTNER so far there have been no transmissions within couples from a partner with an undetectable viral load, in what was estimated as 16,400 occasions of sex in the gay men and 28,000 in the heterosexuals.

    Although some of the HIV-negative partners became HIV positive (exactly how many will be revealed in later analyses), genetic testing of the HIV revealed that in all cases the virus came from someone other than the main partner.


    I would edit the first half of the topic and develop the second half which it's the part that's informative towards your theme.


    I edited for clarity and added quotes from the link. This was all I added:
    I was lambasted on a recent topic of dropping "reckless endangerment" as a legal classification for an HIV+ person if undetectable. I'd been hearing anecdotal evidence that undetectable was very safe for years. Now, with the most recent research Dr. Anthony Fuci and others are coming to that conclusion (not very safe...but the safest) with solid scientific medical evidence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:32 PM GMT
    I'm attempting to write another post in another thread, but let me just say that these findings have been known for decades in fact... And the convenient grouping of 30 or so diseases, mostly cancers, with either a so-called "HIV status" or low amounts of white blood cells, doesn't really get to the core of why certain people have the diseases that are identified with certain kinds of gay men and drug users, some of whom are also so-called HIV positive. It was guessed by some in the 70's that cancer could have a viral basis, and HIV causing AIDS conformed to that type of idea. People in the early 80's were dumbfounded why unusual cancers developed so early in young white males, most of whom we gay, and HIV seemed the appropriate answer, but I think having that answer might have actually made people lose perspective of what actually went on. More can be said, but not only do I have to research this further, I think I have to offer an alternative narrative of what actually happened. On my reading list is the Band Played On, which provides a narrative for HIV causing AIDS, but I'm looking for stuff that may account for other things that the author himself might have been oblivious to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:39 PM GMT
    Unnamed5 saidI'm attempting to write another post in another thread, but let me just say that these findings have been known for decades in fact... And the convenient grouping of 30 or so diseases, mostly cancers, with either a so-called "HIV status" or low amounts of white blood cells, doesn't really get to the core of why certain people have the diseases that are identified with certain kinds of gay men and drug users, some of whom are also so-called HIV positive. It was guessed by some in the 70's that cancer could have a viral basis, and HIV causing AIDS conformed to that type of idea. People in the early 80's were dumbfounded why unusual cancers developed so early in young white males, most of whom we gay, and HIV seemed the appropriate answer, but I think having that answer might have actually made people lose perspective of what actually went on. More can be said, but not only do I have to research this further, I think I have to offer an alternative narrative of what actually happened. On my reading list is the Band Played On, which provides a narrative for HIV causing AIDS, but I'm looking for stuff that may account for other things that the author himself might have been oblivious to.


    Spin Magazine? Circa 1990.
    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2011/11/truth-nothing-but-truth-celia-farbers.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:39 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    If you kept reading, not only was the anecdotal information correct, it was understated.

    The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not as convinced as you are. From their web site (ART = Antiretroviral therapy):

    The Meaning of “Undetectable” Viral Load: Persistence of Virus in Plasma and Seminal Fluid:

    Periodic blood plasma viral load monitoring is used to measure ART effectiveness. The goal of effective ART is the long-term suppression of plasma viral load, usually defined as the maintenance of a level of HIV virus that is below the threshold detectable by available tests. While plasma viral load tests are reliable, they have limitations: virus levels below a minimum concentration may not be detected. Studies have shown that persistent virus is found in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, even when individuals have sustained undetectable plasma viral load levels.

    Genital fluid viral loads are not routinely measured in persons on ART. Although ART reduces concentration of virus in seminal fluid, virus persists within cells present in seminal fluid of some men who are on ART with undetectable plasma viral load. ART also is associated with decrease in cervicovaginal fluid viral load; however, ‘breakthrough' shedding has been observed in some studies. Therefore, the potential for transmission exists despite sustaining undetectable viral load while on effective ART.

    Transient Increases (“Blips”) in Viral Load:

    Several studies have observed that individuals on effective ART who achieve long-term suppression of viral load to undetectable levels may exhibit periodic temporary increases in plasma viral load (blips). These are generally small increases ( between approximately 50 and 1000 copies/mL), and are estimated to last for short periods (<3 weeks). Because they are transient in nature, they may be missed on routine viral load testing. Currently, there are insufficient data to make statements regarding the magnitude of transmission risk related to viral load blips. However, it is conceivable that transient increases might correlate with increases in genital fluid viral load, and with enhanced sexual transmission risk.


    In other words, low viral load is not a safe indicator of HIV transmission potential. Viral loads may spike for briefs periods between tests. Therefore, sex with a low viral load person is NOT "very safe" as you claimed.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/art/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:44 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    unckabasa said
    If you kept reading, not only was the anecdotal information correct, it was understated.

    The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are not as convinced as you are. From their web site (ART = Anti-retroviral treatment):

    The Meaning of “Undetectable” Viral Load: Persistence of Virus in Plasma and Seminal Fluid

    Periodic blood plasma viral load monitoring is used to measure ART effectiveness. The goal of effective ART is the long-term suppression of plasma viral load, usually defined as the maintenance of a level of HIV virus that is below the threshold detectable by available tests. While plasma viral load tests are reliable, they have limitations: virus levels below a minimum concentration may not be detected. Studies have shown that persistent virus is found in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, even when individuals have sustained undetectable plasma viral load levels.

    Genital fluid viral loads are not routinely measured in persons on ART. Although ART reduces concentration of virus in seminal fluid, virus persists within cells present in seminal fluid of some men who are on ART with undetectable plasma viral load. ART also is associated with decrease in cervicovaginal fluid viral load; however, ‘breakthrough' shedding has been observed in some studies. Therefore, the potential for transmission exists despite sustaining undetectable viral load while on effective ART.

    Transient Increases (“Blips”) in Viral Load

    Several studies have observed that individuals on effective ART who achieve long-term suppression of viral load to undetectable levels may exhibit periodic temporary increases in plasma viral load (blips). These are generally small increases ( between approximately 50 and 1000 copies/mL), and are estimated to last for short periods (<3 weeks). Because they are transient in nature, they may be missed on routine viral load testing. Currently, there are insufficient data to make statements regarding the magnitude of transmission risk related to viral load blips. However, it is conceivable that transient increases might correlate with increases in genital fluid viral load, and with enhanced sexual transmission risk.


    In other words, low viral load is not a safe indicator of HIV transmission potential. Viral loads may spike for briefs periods between tests. Therefore, sex with a low viral load person is NOT "very safe".

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/art/



    The article I'm quoting is from last month. March 03 2014.

    You know who DR. Anthony Fauci is, right?

    The newest reference info from the CDC site is from 2009. 5 years old!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2014 10:49 PM GMT
    unckabasa said
    Unnamed5 saidI'm attempting to write another post in another thread, but let me just say that these findings have been known for decades in fact... And the convenient grouping of 30 or so diseases, mostly cancers, with either a so-called "HIV status" or low amounts of white blood cells, doesn't really get to the core of why certain people have the diseases that are identified with certain kinds of gay men and drug users, some of whom are also so-called HIV positive. It was guessed by some in the 70's that cancer could have a viral basis, and HIV causing AIDS conformed to that type of idea. People in the early 80's were dumbfounded why unusual cancers developed so early in young white males, most of whom we gay, and HIV seemed the appropriate answer, but I think having that answer might have actually made people lose perspective of what actually went on. More can be said, but not only do I have to research this further, I think I have to offer an alternative narrative of what actually happened. On my reading list is the Band Played On, which provides a narrative for HIV causing AIDS, but I'm looking for stuff that may account for other things that the author himself might have been oblivious to.


    Spin Magazine? Circa 1990.
    http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2011/11/truth-nothing-but-truth-celia-farbers.html


    Well, I need to more or less acquire a PhD level understanding of epidemiology and microbiology in a couple of months, haha, or at least something like that, to be able to really understand why experts believed in the things they did about HIV and AIDS, and at the moment, I could only really comment on how to think about something, and I want to be able to provide an alternative theory or model of what actually happened to gay men during the 80's and 90's. I'm very eclectic, and I will also read history books and articles on things that don't actually relate to HIV or AIDS at all (like how small pox affected Native Americans upon contact with Europeans), and try to get inferences from them and see how they can be applied to this HIV and AIDS thing.