.. ercourse even if it wasnt prostetutional work. I also left the clinic with a free supply of various condoms, lubricants and spermicides along with various literatures on condom ratings by size, texture and price, and how to clean intravenous needles with bleach. After several questions regarding what the disease actually does to the body, I realized that this woman was unsure, and more interested in giving me a course in sexual intercourse rather than my health. Also she asked me about my relationships with friends and family that were non- physical in anyway. I was told that It was a potentially dangerous factor that I had a brother (whom I havent resided with for quit some years) that has tried intravenous drugs and equally potentially dangerous that my mother had done some harsh drugs in the 60s.
Along with a danger due to my roommates gay friend using my restroom. I went into the situation feeling very confident that I had no real reason to be scared of being infected with AIDS, after all I have never tried any harsh or intravenous drugs and not had multiple sexual partners. But after leaving there I felt a sense of overwhelming fear that I had in some crazy way contracted AIDS from my dentist or family doctor. I realize that all HIV/AIDS test are probably not this ridiculous and it may have been a result of my continual questioning that provoked the volunteer to cover all possible grounds for potential infection. Actually the women seemed very nice and educated but I felt like maybe she had been mis-trained in what she should actually be looking for. It was very hard for me not to laugh at some of the things she asked and said and especially when she voluntarily demonstrated how to properly apply a condom to a banana and how to use a dental dam.
I dont feel like I was being immature of silly but I felt ridiculous and so must she. What in the world do doctors think we are? I went in to get tested for a disease that could end my life as I know it and cause me serious pain and suffering and I am just not quit sure how fruit has a place in this picture. I now know that a lot of the information that I acquired at the clinic in fact was false. In fact the AIDS test turns out to be proven scientifically invalid in determine whether people actually have HIV. I was also told that I was high risk because of my age, race and ethnicticity and my gender.
That alone contradicts any statistics that I have seen in where homosexual men and drug users are still at the highest risk. It also contradicts the initial spill that AID/HIV sees no color, gender or lifestyle. In actual research people of color or ethnicticity only are at a higher risk when living in there native land that may or may not be sanitary or have a high protein malnutrition rate. Yes, I am of Mexican decent and consider myself Mexican-American but for Christ sake I have only been to Mexico twice and it wasnt for more than two days at a time. I am sure not every African American has been to Africa or will ever go there so why are we at higher risk than people living right here in the states under the same living conditions. Some may argue that it is our genetic structure that makes us a higher risk, but this holds no water in a laboratory or in proving our immune systems are some how weaker.
I think it has to do more with the some stereotype that minorities are unhealthy unclean individuals. Yet beside all the outstanding evidence that supports the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS and even putting aside my personal encounter with the flaws in HIV/AIDS testing I still must be a skeptic. Why would any one create this disease? In one study I read it is to be believed that pharmaceutical companies mostly fund the research for AIDS. Why would pharmacies want a cure, when so many spend thousands of dollars on AZT and other drugs? They wouldnt unless possibly, the drugs for the cure mad them more money than the drugs that were suppose treat the disease. The idea that there is a possibility that doctors may be killing of a certain group of people and taking all there money for treatment before hand is hard to comprehend but possible.
May this have nothing to do with money at all but for power? I doctors can get their patients to trust them completely than physician ultimately hold all the power. A perfect example of the appeal to authority fallacy is being committed. There are numerous possibilities why the disease could have been created, but in using Okums razor, and determining the most probable cause, it is probably human error. Although we still must be skeptic considering even this a possibility. In one report we find that HIV is blaintenly claimed to be the cause of AIDS. HIV in this report is characterized by a gradual deterioration of immune function.
During the course of the infection, T-cells are disabled and killed and there number progressively declines. T-cells play a crucial role in the immune system in fighing off disease. In the above research Dr. Duesberg never says that this isnt the truth. Also in this particular report it states that it takes about 10 years before the onset of AIDS. And the suffers of AIDS often suffer infections of the lungs, brain eyes and other organs and frequently suffer from debilitating weight loss and diarrhea and a cancer known as Kaposis sarcoma. Many of the infected dies within a few years of developing the infections due to there weekend immune system.
Dr. Duesberg never argues those points either. So where is the controversy? Some skeptic claim that Dr. Duesberg is just an extreme radical looking for a quick ticket to fame and that he is no more credible than the next doctor is. I think that the problem lies in the definition of AIDS in that HIV is a cause and the definition closely related. I think when you look at one Dr.
Duesberg claim you find it to be overwhelmingly unbelievable. Yet when you research the current information on AIDS, that is highly believable also. With no back ground in medicine or research I have to realize that I to not obtain the knowledge or education in the human body to really say for sure that I understand the information given to me. I can though, looks at all possible hypothesis and conclude using my own knowledge in which I choose to believe. After getting research on AIDS/HIV from the WHO and other medical research facilities, I dont find the two hypothesis that different.
I find loopholes and flaws in each of the studies. Yet there is still one major factor in which why I still remain a skeptic on this claim. One of the claims that I failed to mention earlier was that 150 chimpanzees were infected with the HIV virus to test their response to the disease. Duesberg is very quick to point out that now nine years later the chimpanzees are still very healthy. But the definition for HIV is HUMAN immunodiefiency virus.
So how could a chimpanzee come down with and illness that only attacks humans? And despite the many flaws in HIV/AIDS testing that I mentioned before there are many possibilities for exposure, silly or not. For the people to become educated we must get personal and this may include very private sexual behavior and or drug use. The people administering the test must get all information regardless of how extreme to determine your risk factors. All in all I guess you really have to decide what is most satisfying to you. I feel that both hypotheses have good points to them.
I actually was very suppressed on how much information was out there regarding this subject. . I believe Dr. Duesberg hypothesis. I also believe that a lot of his information is a bit shaky and questionable.
Whatever motives he has for perusing the investigation are beside the point and rely irrelevant to me. I am not the best case scenario for a skeptic because I tend to believe things that are most pleasing to my life. I dont feel that I am a high-risk target for the disease because I dont use intravenous drugs or any harsh drugs for that matter and I dont practice multiply partner sex or unprotected sex. This is satisfying enough for me not to have to look further into the controversy because I dont feel at risk. If in the future I become more at risk than I will seek out more probable causes for the disease and motives behind the studies for the disease. Either way I learned a very important lesson through out this research paper and that is to not just settle for what I am told but to question everything concerning my life and make educated well informed decisions, but I must say we have to draw the line some whereor do we? Current Events.