Yeah I am one of those anomolies... Never been sick... Tested poz while pregnant with my second child... (along with having a poz herpes 1 test even though I don't have it now) never been sick nor have my children or my so called possibly exposed daughter in two years of her life. My Western Blots were totally inconsistent and I watched them like a hawk... Reactive one minute, indeterminate the next, reactive the next...

My son and I haven't been sick in six years since we were living in a house with mold... despite living in Africa for the last three of those. I have remained undetectable for almost two years since diagnosis... though accupuncture once gave me a blip... and was told during my previous pregnancy that they had ruled out a false poz. Which according to the CDC whom I phoned twice on the matter says is impossible to do while pregnant even with a western blot.

I have also been doing alot of study on the rate of false positives... the numbers and fears of incidences vary from country to country. I have even found financial projections from the NIH on the National Library of Health site... and questions about mandatory wide range testing and such talk about the financial risk of false positives in low risk populations through the imposition of wide range testing... Something to the degree of a much higher potential for false positives in low risk populations... (What the hell does that mean? If you are high risk we're sure you got it... but if you are low risk its alot more possible you don't ... despite a positive test... what? and this is from the NIH)

My research is all done within the current paradgm... the debaters simply affirm my findings. As I tend to question both sides of a coin.

I say to anyone who gets tested... LIE... Tell them you are straight, in a monogamous relationship, are not promiscuous, have never used recreational drugs, have never had an STD... because I am truly concerned simply exposing the possibility of being in a risk group allows the potential for the result. My risk group was having sex once with a man in South Africa. And the intake woman told me clearly not to give them too much information while I was in the process of expressing my concerns of the possibility and requesting a test.

As a matter of fact if you have tested pos try the lie in an anonymous test and see what happens. Apparently a gay man did that and said he was married and monogamous and got a negative result.

I agree... its a totally natural thing for a body that has been exposed to numerous stressors to break down. Is it a disease? Or a byproduct. A byproduct of our increasingly changing environments, food supply, water supply, overprescribed pharmacueticals, heightened recreational drug use, and harder more dangerous recreational drugs, stress from a crumbling economy and political structure.

I dunno... all I know is the people that will not open up the debate look pretty guilty in my eyes... I mean really if the current paradigm is so right about thier perspective why are they so unwilling to debate it? This is what causes me the most concern and curiosity about the validity of the debators... you know if they could prove it... all those doctors and scientists that question would have been sued and had there liscences revoked.

I'm sorry there is logic in AIDS, but there is no logic in HIV. I have a broken immune system... no wait... I'm super immune... how contradictory is that... and how is that possible? I have five years to live... no wait... I may never actually even deal with this virus... They've ruled out the false positive... no wait... there is no way to rule out the false positive.

CAN I PLEASE HAVE A LITTLE CONSISTENCY THIS IS MY LIFE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!

Unfortunately the debators have some serious logic in what they propose not to mention they are consistent.
To top that they have everything to lose with thier perspective and nothing to gain...

and those on the otherside have everything to lose because of how much they have gained. Starting simply with thier jobs and funding not to mention profits from the patents and pharmacuetical interests. Along with getting rid of welfare moms, homosexuals, prison inmates, drug addicts, and minority groups.

The debators gave all that up on scientific principle. Can't get funding even though many of them had recieved awards and huge amounts of funding and notoriety prior to thier questioning. Everytime someone tells me they have no credibility and are quacks... I go and research thier credibility. Nobel Prize laureates, Professors of Microbiology/Virology/Pathology still with professional standing in High Ranking colleges, (these guys know more about virus than my doctor does and believe me I have asked him) Doctors in medical practice, (ones who can explain the DNA and Mitocondria unlike my personal practicioner in charge of prescribing drugs that affect the DNA and the mitocondria not to mention they also state they know so little about the immune system when I ask why they don't build the immune system to try and fight the disease rather than try to kill very elusive virus with drugs) Then on top of that thier are soooo many within the current research paradigm and hypothesis who admit that the drugs are toxic and that we need alternatives, and that they only benefit 35% of thier patients. Which means there are 65% of thier patients that do not fit the traditional virus standard that would have a positive response to the treatment. They admit that thier is so much they don't know yet they constantly subject us to thier experiments often through coersion and in regards to pregnant mother through force even.

I still want answers as to the fact that the gay pride movement, the drug war, crack cocaine, and the AIDS virus all hit simultaneously at the same time. There must be something to that.

Who would you trust or deem somewhat credible... The guy willing to stake his entire career on an idea... or the guy who constantly avoids your questions?