Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
PozHealth
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want your group to be featured on the Yahoo! Groups website? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 21363 - 21393 of 31313   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#21393 From: "George M. Carter" <fiar@...>
Date: Tue May 1, 2007 11:02 am
Subject: C and E for Ribavirin anemia
lalzephyr
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Kawaguchi Y, Mizuta T, Takahashi, K, et al.  High-dose vitamins E and
C supplementation prevents ribavirin-induced hemolytic anemia in
patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatol Res. 2007 May;37(5):317-24.

Department of Internal Medicine, Saga Medical School, Saga, Japan.
Aim: In combination therapy using interferon (IFN) and ribavirin for
chronic hepatitis C, reduced doses should be used due to
ribavirin-induced hemolytic anemia. The present study aimed to
elucidate whether high-dose vitamins E and C supplementation
attenuated ribavirin-induced hemolytic anemia. Methods: Twenty-one
consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis C were enrolled in this
study between July 2003 and December 2004, and received high-dose
vitamins E (2000 mg) and C (2000 mg) supplementation, daily, in
addition to IFN alfa-2b and ribavirin combination therapy (vitamins
E/C group). Twenty-one sex- and age-matched patients who received a
standard regimen of IFN alfa-2b and ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C
between January 2001 and June 2003 were evaluated as the control
group. Results: Decrease in hemoglobin level was significantly
prevented in the vitamins E and C group compared to that in the
control group (P = 0.029). Three (14.3%) patients in the control
group discontinued treatment because of anemia, while no treated
patient dropped out of the study due to anemia. Sustained virological
response was not significantly different between the two groups.
Conclusion: High-dose vitamins E and C supplementation prevented
ribavirin-induced hemolytic anemia during combination therapy with
ribavirin and IFN alfa-2b in patients with chronic hepatitis C.
PMID: 17441803 [PubMed - in process]

#21392 From: PoWeRTX@...
Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:02 am
Subject: Nandrolone and Oxandrin issue- What you can do to help
nelsonvergel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

1- Quickly review this blog  http://watsonboycott.blogspot.com/

2- Download this flyer and make as many copies as you can distribute in your city. You need adobe acrobat reader (download it for free at adobe.com)

http://www.medibolics.com/NANDROLONEflyer2_1_.pdf


3- Send a letter by mail to Watson and Savient using the two sample letters shown in the blog above

4- Let your doctor know about this problem

5- Contact your congress people about this situation. To find out who they are , go to http://www.eff.org/congress/

Email them to let them know about your opinion and also mail them the letters you sent to Watson and Savient.

6- Let all your friends know so that they can help!

7- If you want to really get involved, join our activist group by sending an email to SaveHIVWastingMeds-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


Regards,

Nelson Vergel
powerusa dot org




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21391 From: "Bill Gaul" <wgaul1@...>
Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:50 am
Subject: Re: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
upstatedv8
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Trouble is - a lot of the real people in the "real world" were never very
real either. I find bars to be very similar to chat rooms, except you have
the advantage of looking someone in the eyes. I have had bad experience with
gossips there. They can make being + sound so negative.

Another issue is that if you can Google it - it's available to anyone who
wants the info. They may not have to know where to look, just your name.
Some profiles (and my personal homepage) turn up with search engines. I've
been "out" for a long time, even on TV, but I don't have to worry about
prospective employers (for now) either. I'm sure a lot of people have to be
much more careful than I.

BG

----- Original Message -----

Agreed: being eliminated doesn't make one feel nice.

But hell, I'm 52 and not everybody's cup-of-tea in any event.

It's WHY one is eliminated.  And yeah, it 'might' happen anyway, but in 21
years of being poz, I've never BEEN 'eliminated' for that reason - if they
met me first, we knew each other some, THEN they were informed.

This isn't mere aesthetics, either.

But gotta agree that one way to surmount it is to meet real people.  :)
Problem is. a lot of real people are first met via the computer now days.

Kelly
Seattle

#21390 From: TucChico@...
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on ...
Tucchico
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 4/30/2007 3:50:40 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, jim98122x@... writes:
You guys are all "preaching to the choir" and you're all dancing
around the real issue.  The issue isn't really whether or not the
profiles ask, your points really all boil down to "how does it make
me feel when someone eliminates me because I'm poz?"   We can reason
amongst ourselves all we want how people are making foolish decisions
based on online profiles, and taking stupid risks, etc.  But the real
point is how we get treated for being poz.  You can't blame the
websites, it only speeds up the process that might happen anyway.
No what is boils down to is NO ONE has the right to know our status unless we tell them explicitly. If there is no sex involved in just chatting with a person there is no need for that person to know status. Not all online sites are for "hookups alone" you can actually make some nice friends that you will never meet online.
If it comes down to letting someone know my status here was my standard line. And I did not deviate from it.
"I love myself enough that I will not hurt you. I also love you just enough to let you know I am HIV +. I will not go to bed with you if you feel uncomfortable with it and if nothing else I have made a new friend." I don't need to let anyone know my status anymore as I now have Scott who is also + in my life for the last 2 years so I don't have to divulge anything to anyone
FRANK




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21388 From: PoWeRTX@...
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Subject: Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: a randomized placebo-cont
nelsonvergel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
1: Neurology. 2007 Feb 13;68(7):515-21. Related Articles, Links

Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Abrams DI, Jay CA, Shade SB, Vizoso H, Reda H, Press S, Kelly ME, Rowbotham MC, Petersen KL.

Community Consortium, Positive Health Program, San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA. dabrams@...

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of smoked cannabis on the neuropathic pain of HIV-associated sensory neuropathy and an experimental pain model. METHODS: Prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in the inpatient General Clinical Research Center between May 2003 and May 2005 involving adults with painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy. Patients were randomly assigned to smoke either cannabis (3.56% tetrahydrocannabinol) or identical placebo cigarettes with the cannabinoids extracted three times daily for 5 days. Primary outcome measures included ratings of chronic pain and the percentage achieving >30% reduction in pain intensity. Acute analgesic and anti-hyperalgesic effects of smoked cannabis were assessed using a cutaneous heat stimulation procedure and the heat/capsaicin sensitization model. RESULTS: Fifty patients completed the entire trial. Smoked cannabis reduced daily pain by 34% (median reduction; IQR = -71, -16) vs 17% (IQR = -29, 8) with placebo (p = 0.03). Greater than 30% reduction in pain was reported by 52% in the cannabis group and by 24% in the placebo group (p = 0.04). The first cannabis cigarette reduced chronic pain by a median of 72% vs 15% with placebo (p < 0.001). Cannabis reduced experimentally induced hyperalgesia to both brush and von Frey hair stimuli (p < or = 0.05) but appeared to have little effect on the painfulness of noxious heat stimulation. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Smoked cannabis was well tolerated and effectively relieved chronic neuropathic pain from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy. The findings are comparable to oral drugs used for chronic neuropathic pain.
 
 
*******************************************************************

Summary and Comment

Marijuana for Painful Peripheral Neuropathy?

A cleverly designed trial demonstrated the pain-relief benefits of smoked marijuana in patients with HIV-associated sensory neuropathy.

In 1999, an Institute of Medicine report concluded that the natural products contained in marijuana (cannabinoids) might be useful for managing pain and spasticity. Now, investigators have conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether smoked marijuana has therapeutic value specifically in HIV-infected patients with painful peripheral neuropathy.

Using a uniform puff procedure, 50 patients smoked marijuana three times daily for 5 days at an inpatient general clinical research center (GCRC) in California. Those assigned to the treatment group smoked active marijuana (grown by the federal government and not very potent by street standards), whereas those assigned to the placebo group smoked marijuana with the cannabinoids removed. The trial incorporated many clever design elements to control for potential confounding, including eligibility criteria that required a history of prior marijuana exposure but did not allow for current substance abuse, a 2-day lead-in phase in the confines of the GCRC, observation of smoking sessions by study staff, and no visitors permitted during the 7-day GCRC stay. All patients rated their chronic neuropathic pain on a daily basis before, during, and after the smoking phase of the study. In addition, 30 patients underwent experimental tests, both before and after smoking, that involved exposing their forearms to heat for 1 minute; these tests allowed for an assessment of marijuana’s effects on acute pain.

At baseline, the groups had similar median daily pain ratings. By the end of the smoking phase, about half of the marijuana group, compared with one quarter of the placebo group, had a clinically significant reduction in chronic pain (defined a priori as >30%). The median daily reduction in chronic pain was 34% in the marijuana group and 17% in the placebo group. During most of the experimental tests, the marijuana group experienced a significantly smaller area of pain than did the placebo group. Sedation, anxiety, disorientation, confusion, and dizziness were all significantly more common in the marijuana group.

Comment: Despite relatively low concentrations of active cannabinoids, the marijuana cigarettes used in this study reduced chronic pain associated with peripheral neuropathy and also alleviated acute pain. The level of pain relief was comparable to, or better than, that seen with other drugs, such as anticonvulsants and tricyclic antidepressants, that have been evaluated for peripheral neuropathy. Legal issues with the medical use of marijuana abound, but I think that clinicians and patients who are comfortable with the concept of therapeutic cannabis use can explore its usefulness in ameliorating painful peripheral neuropathy, especially in situations in which other approaches have failed.

— Judith Feinberg, MD

Published in AIDS Clinical Care April 30, 2007

Citation(s):

Abrams DI et al. Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 2007 Feb 13; 68:515-21.

 

Regards,

Nelson Vergel
powerusa dot org




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21387 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:53 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Agreed: being eliminated doesn't make one feel nice.

But hell, I'm 52 and not everybody's cup-of-tea in any event.

It's WHY one is eliminated.  And yeah, it 'might' happen anyway, but in 21
years of being poz, I've never BEEN 'eliminated' for that reason - if they
met me first, we knew each other some, THEN they were informed.

This isn't mere aesthetics, either.

But gotta agree that one way to surmount it is to meet real people.  :)
Problem is. a lot of real people are first met via the computer now days.

Kelly
Seattle

-----Original Message-----
From: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PozHealth@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of jim98122x
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:51 AM
To: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PozHealth] Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV
status on on-line profiles

You guys are all "preaching to the choir" and you're all dancing
around the real issue.  The issue isn't really whether or not the
profiles ask, your points really all boil down to "how does it make
me feel when someone eliminates me because I'm poz?"   We can reason
amongst ourselves all we want how people are making foolish decisions
based on online profiles, and taking stupid risks, etc.  But the real
point is how we get treated for being poz.  You can't blame the
websites, it only speeds up the process that might happen anyway.

The way I see it, the few choices we have are  A) serosorting,
sticking to poz-only guys, which many people don't feel good about
or B)  put down the f*cking mouse, step away from the computer, and
go back out into the real world-- where people meet you first as an
individual.  Where the "need to know" comes really when they need to
know, and not on your '20 words or less' profile screen.

JimS.

--- In PozHealth@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...> wrote:
>
> I agree except well, it promotes idiotic risk taking.
Communicating mere status, and acting on that lil piece of
information, will quite reliably get them infected.

> Kelly
> Seattle

> To: Rhino88; PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about
HIV status on on-line profiles
>
>
>
> I'm not offended by the question...  I agree with everything you
said but for the most part these are 'hook-up' sites where the
presumption is people are looking for sex partners... I believe the
thinking is that since the hiv thing is a deal breaker for many
putting it out there saves a lot of time... you can leave it blank
and people may assume, but at least you aren't disclosing to every
person who happens to look at your profile... I do indicate that I'm
positive but I don't post a face pic... at least this way there is
some privacy maintained.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rhino88 <rhino88@...>
> Subject: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV
status on on-line profiles

>
> I realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I want
to get some feedback regardless.
>

> As the Internet becomes more and more of a standard way to meet
people in the gay world (and elsewhere), I have noticed a new trend,
which I personally find very stigmatizing and disturbing.
>
>
> When you create an on-line profile for yourself in various gay
sites, you will be chugging along putting in check marks for
questions like Eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Weight?, age?
Location? etc...and then suddenly out of the blue you will be forced
to check off HIV + or -? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but I
resent the idea that an intensely private health issue is suddenly
being juxtaposed with "Are your eyes brown or blue?" as if it was
this simple throw away question.  They probably don't ask people to
put down their annual income because it is seen as being "too
personal", but they think that people should be expected to broadcast
their HIV status to the entire universe in cyberspace.
>

> Don't get me wrong.  If someone wants to ask me directly - I have
no problem telling them. In fact, if I personally WANT to be
totaly "out" about my HIV status I could just put it voluntarily in
the text of my profile or even in the headline.
>
>
> But by forcing people to reveal themselves it means the following
>
> a) If you check off that you are HIV+, you cease to be a personal
with any human characteristics - you are reduced to a pile of
statistics with a + sign afterwards meaning you can get tossed into a
reject pile when people want a quick way to seperate the wheat from
the chaff. YOu have also now shared something about yourself with
hundreds of thousands of people in cyberspace that you may never have
discussed with some close friends or family.

>
> b) you can lie and say you are NEG - but who wants to do that since
it would be unethical
>
> c) you can leave it blank - in which case you might as well just
check off POZ since that is the conclusion everyone will jump to if
you don't answer the question.
>
> I think it should be up to individuals to decide who, what, where,
when and how they want to "disclose" their status to people and that
this is a slippery slope that will lead to being asked about HIV
status on job application forms etc...
>
> We should have a right to privacy.
>




Welcome to our PozHealth group!
If you received this email from someone who forwarded it to you and would
like to join this group, send a blank email to
PozHealth-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and you will get an email with
instructions to follow. You can chose to receive single emails or a daily
digest (collection of emails). You can post pictures, images, attach files
and search by keyword old postings in the group.

For those of you who are members already and want to switch from single
emails to digest or vice versa, visit www.yahoogroups.com, click on
PozHealth, then on "edit my membership" and go down to your selection. The
list administrator does not process any requests, so this is a
do-it-yourself easy process ! :)
Thanks for joining. You will learn and share a lot in this group!

NOTE: I moderate, approve or disapprove emails before they are posted.
Please follow the guidelines shown in the homepage. I will not allow
rudeness, sexually  explicit material, attacks, and anyone who does not
follow the rules. If you are not OK with this, please do not join the group.


Forward this email to anyone who may benefit from this information! Thanks!
In Health,

Nelson Vergel (PoWeRTX@...)
List Founder and Moderator

Yahoo! Groups Links

#21386 From: PoWeRTX@...
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:09 pm
Subject: Can HAART Reduce HIV Transmission Among Gay Men?
nelsonvergel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 

Regards,

Nelson Vergel
powerusa dot org




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21385 From: jeff young <cd4yo@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:20 pm
Subject: Medicare Part D - "D" is for Damned If I Do/Damned If I Don't
cd4rocketman
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I am about to choose a Medicare Pard D plan and like many others I am overwhelmed.  I live in Houston Texas (Missouri City, TX to be exact) and I think I've narrowed the pool down to one of these plans:
 
1) Health Net Orange Option 3 which list all my HIV meds as "Preferred Brands" and pays for generic drugs during the dreaded GAP.  It has a $43.10 premium and no deductible.  Problem is I've asked a couple of pharmacists and my doctor's billing department rep. about this plan and none of them have ever heard of Health Net Orange Option 3.  Hmmmmm...
 
2) Blue Medicare RX - Plus (HISC - Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas) which excludes Norvir, Prezista, and Truvada from their "Preferred Brands" list, which doesn't make any sense to me that they can just exclude these life saving drugs.  The premium is $55.60 which is more than Health Net but the pharmacist and doctors office have dealt with this plan before. 
 
I would appreciate any feedback and advice regarding this decision.  I am ready to chose the obvious choice of Health Net but am incredibly anxious that I may be leaving an important piece of this Part D puzzle out of the equation.  Help!
 
Again, I live in Houston, TX and half of my meds are generic and half are brand names.
 
Thank you for your time.
 
Jeff

#21384 From: John Barrow <pozbod@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:08 pm
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended
johnftl59
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I just think that anyone who depends on an on line site to give
accurate information about a person's HIV status is hopelessly
stupid, and that is an unattractive quality.

You never know what that person on the other end really is.  If they
say "ub2," pass them by, they are idiots, and "ub2."

As for your own "scarlet letter," where you wear it, proudly on your
arm, or in discrete whispers, it is your own business how you do it,
as long as you are honest about it when the meat hits the sheets.

On some sites, putting HIV+ seems to be "hit repellant," while on
others, it seems to get more attention.

There's no one right way.

JB

#21383 From: John Barrow <pozbod@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:34 pm
Subject: Superinfection numbers?
johnftl59
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
The numbers he quotes are from Africa, and in a heteropopulation, but interesting



superinfection risk?
Apr 18, 2007

Hello, Both my lover and I are poz for a couple of decades each. We're healthy but I'm concerned because he came in me and I don't want a "superinfection", or resistance due to his HIV having a ride in my body. What now? Thank you.









Response from Dr. Sherer



'What now' is that you both explain to your doctors what has happened, and you and your doctor(s) watch for any evidence that a superinfection has occured.

You are right to be concerned. It is now well established that HIV superinfection can occur. Superinfection means that a person with HIV infection can acquire a second strain of HIV and, as you suggest, it is possible that the second strain may be harmful to your current medical care due to ART drug resistance.

In one long term study in a very different setting, i.e. of heterosexuals in Africa, superinfection was observed to occur in 8 of 57 women. In that study the main forms of HIV were Clade C, D, A, and various 'recombinants'. Here in the US, where the majority clade is clade B, superinfection has also been well documented, though it has been more difficult to prove and has occured at a lower frequency than in the above study.

Still, the important take home point for people living with HIV is that you can be superinfected with a different strain of HIV, and there are cases documented in which a persons stable clinical course was disrupted because of the acquisition of a viral strain that was resistant to the patient's current regimen.

So, to repeat myself, I suggest that you each talk to your doctor about this event, your concerns, and this response, so that you can monitor your status closely over the next few months. You will be asked whether you have had any new signs or symptoms, and you will repeat your viral load and CD4 cell count, as well as resistance test if the viral load is elevated.

Finally, I urge you to be safe in future, so you can avoid this uncertainty, and continue to be fully adherent to your ART regimen, so that you can remain healthy.









#21382 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 4:27 pm
Subject: RE: Regarding hiv staus on line
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Lol
Nope, its not legal to require blanket pre-employment medical releases.

IF you're qualified for the job, apply and make a lawyers dream come true:
recovery of attorney's fees are covered in the ADA and other statutes, just
make sure you're covered by the statutes.

Kelly
Seattle

-----Original Message-----
From: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PozHealth@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Don
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:29 PM
To: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PozHealth] Regarding hiv staus on line

I find it vey hurtful when an hiv negative person refers to himself
as "clean." Why not just say the rest of us are dirty?

Also I recently saw an employment application that included a release
form for the applicant's medical records. What the hell was this
about ---is this legal? I'd never seen it before.
Don



Welcome to our PozHealth group!
If you received this email from someone who forwarded it to you and would
like to join this group, send a blank email to
PozHealth-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and you will get an email with
instructions to follow. You can chose to receive single emails or a daily
digest (collection of emails). You can post pictures, images, attach files
and search by keyword old postings in the group.

For those of you who are members already and want to switch from single
emails to digest or vice versa, visit www.yahoogroups.com, click on
PozHealth, then on "edit my membership" and go down to your selection. The
list administrator does not process any requests, so this is a
do-it-yourself easy process ! :)
Thanks for joining. You will learn and share a lot in this group!

NOTE: I moderate, approve or disapprove emails before they are posted.
Please follow the guidelines shown in the homepage. I will not allow
rudeness, sexually  explicit material, attacks, and anyone who does not
follow the rules. If you are not OK with this, please do not join the group.


Forward this email to anyone who may benefit from this information! Thanks!
In Health,

Nelson Vergel (PoWeRTX@...)
List Founder and Moderator

Yahoo! Groups Links

#21381 From: "jim98122x" <jim98122x@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
jim98122x
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
You guys are all "preaching to the choir" and you're all dancing
around the real issue.  The issue isn't really whether or not the
profiles ask, your points really all boil down to "how does it make
me feel when someone eliminates me because I'm poz?"   We can reason
amongst ourselves all we want how people are making foolish decisions
based on online profiles, and taking stupid risks, etc.  But the real
point is how we get treated for being poz.  You can't blame the
websites, it only speeds up the process that might happen anyway.

The way I see it, the few choices we have are  A) serosorting,
sticking to poz-only guys, which many people don't feel good about
or B)  put down the f*cking mouse, step away from the computer, and
go back out into the real world-- where people meet you first as an
individual.  Where the "need to know" comes really when they need to
know, and not on your '20 words or less' profile screen.

JimS.

--- In PozHealth@yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...> wrote:
>
> I agree except well, it promotes idiotic risk taking.
Communicating mere status, and acting on that lil piece of
information, will quite reliably get them infected.

> Kelly
> Seattle

> To: Rhino88; PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about
HIV status on on-line profiles
>
>
>
> I'm not offended by the question...  I agree with everything you
said but for the most part these are 'hook-up' sites where the
presumption is people are looking for sex partners... I believe the
thinking is that since the hiv thing is a deal breaker for many
putting it out there saves a lot of time... you can leave it blank
and people may assume, but at least you aren't disclosing to every
person who happens to look at your profile... I do indicate that I'm
positive but I don't post a face pic... at least this way there is
some privacy maintained.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rhino88 <rhino88@...>
> Subject: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV
status on on-line profiles

>
> I realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I want
to get some feedback regardless.
>

> As the Internet becomes more and more of a standard way to meet
people in the gay world (and elsewhere), I have noticed a new trend,
which I personally find very stigmatizing and disturbing.
>
>
> When you create an on-line profile for yourself in various gay
sites, you will be chugging along putting in check marks for
questions like Eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Weight?, age?
Location? etc...and then suddenly out of the blue you will be forced
to check off HIV + or -? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but I
resent the idea that an intensely private health issue is suddenly
being juxtaposed with "Are your eyes brown or blue?" as if it was
this simple throw away question.  They probably don't ask people to
put down their annual income because it is seen as being "too
personal", but they think that people should be expected to broadcast
their HIV status to the entire universe in cyberspace.
>

> Don't get me wrong.  If someone wants to ask me directly - I have
no problem telling them. In fact, if I personally WANT to be
totaly "out" about my HIV status I could just put it voluntarily in
the text of my profile or even in the headline.
>
>
> But by forcing people to reveal themselves it means the following
>
> a) If you check off that you are HIV+, you cease to be a personal
with any human characteristics - you are reduced to a pile of
statistics with a + sign afterwards meaning you can get tossed into a
reject pile when people want a quick way to seperate the wheat from
the chaff. YOu have also now shared something about yourself with
hundreds of thousands of people in cyberspace that you may never have
discussed with some close friends or family.

>
> b) you can lie and say you are NEG - but who wants to do that since
it would be unethical
>
> c) you can leave it blank - in which case you might as well just
check off POZ since that is the conclusion everyone will jump to if
you don't answer the question.
>
> I think it should be up to individuals to decide who, what, where,
when and how they want to "disclose" their status to people and that
this is a slippery slope that will lead to being asked about HIV
status on job application forms etc...
>
> We should have a right to privacy.
>

#21380 From: Tim <tjwdraws@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:07 pm
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line pro
tjwdraws
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Personally, I choose to disclose on-line. I am trying to be out about my HIV status much like I view being out as gay.
 
I remember reading a negative assessment of Erasure's front man, Andy Bell, because he waited a few years to publicly announce he was poz.  I find that ridiculous as it is a totally personal decision to share one's status but I also see the benefit of being upfront and honest and allowing people to see the face of HIV/AIDS. I don't think we can rely of entertainers and athletes to bear the full brunt of being our spokespeople.
 
As for on-line sex cruising I think it is a fair question on a menu of questions. No more invasive than asking for cock size and many will turn down a guy is he doesn't fit a  minimum requirement. I suppose for hookups there is no reason not to ask for exactly what you want in a sex partner even if your criteria is very narrow in scope or restrictive.
 
If looking for friends I'd rather not waste my time on someone who might not like me because I am poz. Screw them. HIV is an important part of my life but it is not who I am.
 
Anyway, that's just my online philosophy and by no means meant to be critical of anyone else's decisions for online behaviour.
 
-Tim
If you respond with anger when another
    harms you,
Does your wrath remove the harm
    inflicted?
Resentment surely serves no purpose in
    this life
And brings adversity in lives to come.
 
-Chandrakirti
 


Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

#21379 From: Rick Loftus <rickloftus@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:30 pm
Subject: Re:hpv vax therapeutic value
rickloftus
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Hi folks.
 
Please let's not get into a flame war about Gardasil.
 
Most of the researchers I know working on Gardasil do NOT believe that it can work as what we'd call a "therapeutic immunogen," meaning stimulating an immune response against existing HPV infections. There is no data to suggest it can help in EXISTING HPV infections.
 
It DOES prevent HPV infections very well in HIV-negative people, and it produces strong immune responses in men and women (and the younger they are when they get the vaccine, the stronger the responses).
 
Per my previous postings, there are MANY questions left to us all about the potential benefits of the vaccine to people who were not in the finished studies: men, gay men, HIVers, etc.
 
Meanwhile, I think the choice to use the vaccine by such people is very individual. Last week I gave the vaccine to an HIV-neg 26-yr-old straight man who has no history of HPV and a girlfriend who does; and a 28 year old neg gay guy with few past partners.
 
I think providers and patients need to take an individualized approach to this.
 


NOTE NEW CONTACT INFORMATION!
 
Richard A. Loftus, MD
Health Management Institute, Inc. (hmii.org)
Davies Medical Center
45 Castro Street, Suite 415
San Francisco CA 94114
415-565-6288
fax 415-552-3972
 
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or privileged material protected from disclosure under applicable law, intended or the sole use of the intended recipient(s) named in the e-mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please contact sender and delete/destroy all copies of the message. Thank you.

#21378 From: Butch Kara <longjohnmaniac@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:03 pm
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended
longjohnmaniac
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I agree -  personal health issues, including HIV, should be considered essentially personal and private.  However, it your  ad implies that you're seeking sex, your HIV status is obviously relevant (or at least, should be relevant) to the other party.  Some sites offer alternatives to simple "yes" or "no" answers, such as "I will discuss this later" or "None of your business" (I frequently find that option next to the annual income question).  On the other other side, I'm amazed at how many ads for "friends" or "penpals" require that the respondent be HIV negative.  I've also seen a trend toward the claim of being "HIV positive but healthy" which seems to be an attempt to reassure that you won't be a burden if you become lifelong mates - so much for "in sickness and in health".   By the way, can I examine your teeth?  There is usually the option to leave some of the checkblocks unchecked.   I think the checkblock concept developed because many people feel intimidated when asked to compose their own paragraph describing themselves.  Checkblocks allow them to chose descriptors even if they add nothing else.   Like you, I prefer to reveal my HIV status (if I feel it's relevant) in my own words.   And for those of us with facial lipoatrophy, adding a picture is often telling enough.

Original message: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line pro
Posted by: "Rhino88" rhino88@...
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:37 am ((PDT))

PozHealthI realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I
want to get some feedback regardless.

As the Internet becomes more and more of a standard way to meet people
in the gay world (and elsewhere), I have noticed a new trend, which I
personally find very stigmatizing and disturbing.

When you create an on-line profile for yourself in various gay sites,
you will be chugging along putting in check marks for questions like Eye
colour? Hair colour? Height? Weight?, age? Location? etc...and then
suddenly out of the blue you will be forced to check off HIV + or -? Maybe
I'm just being overly sensitive, but I resent the idea that an
intensely private health issue is suddenly being juxtaposed with "Are your eyes
brown or blue?" as if it was this simple throw away question. They
probably don't ask people to put down their annual income because it is
seen as being "too personal", but they think that people should be
expected to broadcast their HIV status to the entire universe in cyberspace.

Don't get me wrong. If someone wants to ask me directly - I have no
problem telling them. In fact, if I personally WANT to be totaly "out"
about my HIV status I could just put it voluntarily in the text of my
profile or even in the headline.

But by forcing people to reveal themselves it means the following

a) If you check off that you are HIV+, you cease to be a personal with
any human characteristics - you are reduced to a pile of statistics
with a + sign afterwards meaning you can get tossed into a reject pile
when people want a quick way to seperate the wheat from the chaff. YOu
have also now shared something about yourself with hundreds of thousands
of people in cyberspace that you may never have discussed with some
close friends or family.

b) you can lie and say you are NEG - but who wants to do that since it
would be unethical

c) you can leave it blank - in which case you might as well just check
off POZ since that is the conclusion everyone will jump to if you don't
answer the question.

I think it should be up to individuals to decide who, what, where, when
and how they want to "disclose" their status to people and that this is
a slippery slope that will lead to being asked about HIV status on job
application forms etc...

We should have a right to privacy.
Messages in this topic (1)
_________________________________________


Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

#21377 From: PoWeRTX@...
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:28 am
Subject: OFF TOPIC- HELP DARFUR VICTIMS
nelsonvergel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Please help
 
 
This is one of the most horrible genocides that we are allowing to happen in the past few years. It is getting worse now with more money helping the killers. Money is flowing from China into the region.
 
 

Regards,

Nelson Vergel
powerusa dot org




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21376 From: PoWeRTX@...
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:55 am
Subject: Looking for people who have or are using nandrolone (deca)
nelsonvergel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
 
Gang
 
 
I am writing an article in efforts to bring back nandrolone to the market either by convincing Watson Pharmaceuticals to reverse their decision, or finding other suppliers.
 
 
I am looking for people who:
 
1- Have used nandrolone and reversed their wasting or fatigue
 
2- Are currently using nandrolone provided by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (CA, NY, Michigan, Florida and 8 others)
 
3- Have used Oxandrin but had elevations in their liver enzymes
 
4- Are Hep C or Hep B coinfected and need to gain weight
 
 
Please email me at nelsonvergel@...  if you are willing to help with a one paragraph description of your case.
 
Thanks!

Regards,

Nelson Vergel
powerusa dot org




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21375 From: "Norm Stuart" <ns02@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:32 am
Subject: Re: hpv vax therapeutic value
norm_w_stuart
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

It certainly sounds like Dr Goldstone, and his patients in Bedrock, won't be getting the series of three Gardasil vaccinations - because he knows the Gardasil vaccine is only approved for women of a certain age. 

Fortunately I did get the Gardasil vaccinations because I think it works just as well in men.

Place your bets and take your chances.


--- In PozHealth@yahoogroups.com, "Don" <gideonIATF@...> wrote:
>
> dear Norm
>
> in your text below you suggest that the gardasil vax would have
> beneficial effect on previously HPV infected men and would reduce
> ocurrence of warts.
>
> i have today spoken with Dr. Goldstone who said to me very loud and
> clear that Gardasil offers no such benefit.
>
> It would be to the benefit of the list if you clarify the basis for
> this claim.
>
> thanks
>
> Gideon Hirsch MD
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Norm Stuart" ns02@
> Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:57 pm
> Subject: Re: last night's forum on anal dysplasia and cancer -
> supplement recommendations norm_w_stuart
> Offline
> Send Email
> Invite to Yahoo! 360°
> Its true that very few HIV+ people are already infected with all
> four strains of HPV which the three Gardasil vaccinatons protect
> against. But Gardasil potentially offers far more protection than
> this, at least in the trials conducted so far.
>
> Gardasil was only 89% effective in preventing infection with any of
> the viral strains . . .
>
> But, Gardasil was 100% effective in preventing cancer, precancerous
> lesions or genital warts.
>
> So, even if you are infected with any of these HPV viral strains,
> Gardasil offers the possibility of controlling this existing virus
> and preventing it from causing warts or anal cancer.
>


#21374 From: "Don" <dononmontgomery@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:28 am
Subject: Regarding hiv staus on line
dontntx
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I find it vey hurtful when an hiv negative person refers to himself
as "clean." Why not just say the rest of us are dirty?

Also I recently saw an employment application that included a release
form for the applicant's medical records. What the hell was this
about ---is this legal? I'd never seen it before.
Don

#21373 From: "George M. Carter" <fiar@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:17 am
Subject: RE: Abbott CEO fights back in dispute over HIV drug
lalzephyr
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Kelly, I think you have PRECISELY delineated the core problem--and the core rot--with drug discovery and access.

When it is placed in the terms of a privatized industry, profit IS the first thing. You're correct. And the greed that this engenders as an unfettered "business model" turns shareholders into fearful, greedy people who, if thinking their profits are threatened, immediately wish to sue the agent of the loss of their profits.

If this is with regard to a sneaker or a pork belly, this is not necessarily of major direct and immediate harm or threat.

When it comes to lifesaving drugs, diagnostics and devices, it is a lethal set of problems. The sequelae of which include desperate acts of massaging data, distorting clinical trial results, billions on ads, marketing, and lobbying, lying about negative results or side effects, horribly inflated prices, denying access to millions around the world.

That is an economic form of genocide (and that is my view, not a legal interpretation of the term--although it should be).

Pharma has turned into a strange and twisted perversion of itself. The capitalist system did work a little bit--but by the 80s, any last vestige of honor and integrity in much of business evaporated with the Reagan era--and it's all gotten much worse since then.

I encourage EVERYONE HEARTILY to read Angell's The Truth About the Drug Companies (she was senior editor at the New England Journal of Medicine) and Rost's The Whistleblower (the despicable shenanigans of Pfizer, Pharmacia and others where Rost was a VP of marketing for a growth hormone drug).

George M. Carter

At 02:57 PM 4/29/2007, Kelly Scott wrote:
George, I appreciate your sentiment, but companies being responsible
(supposedly) to share holders, by what right can one expect them to put
things AHEAD of profits, market share, the economic well being of the
company?  That doesn't justify lies nor delusion, but frankly, if a company
I had my pension in was losing money due to sheer altruism, I'd sue the
managers' asses off.... 

Create market pressure, a government regulatory scheme or some type of
thinking which can show it is to the shareholders advantage economically..

Kelly Scott


#21372 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:26 pm
Subject: RE: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

I agree except… well, it promotes idiotic risk taking.  Communicating mere status, and acting on that lil piece of information, will quite reliably get them infected.

 

Kelly

Seattle

 


From: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PozHealth@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jlew64@...
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:56 AM
To: Rhino88; PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles

 

I'm not offended by the question...  I agree with everything you said but for the most part these are 'hook-up' sites where the presumption is people are looking for sex partners... I believe the thinking is that since the hiv thing is a deal breaker for many putting it out there saves a lot of time... you can leave it blank and people may assume, but at least you aren't disclosing to every person who happens to look at your profile... I do indicate that I'm positive but I don't post a face pic... at least this way there is some privacy maintained.

----- Original Message ----
From: Rhino88 <rhino88@...>
To: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:33:17 AM
Subject: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles



I realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I want to get some feedback regardless.

 

As the Internet becomes more and more of a standard way to meet people in the gay world (and elsewhere), I have noticed a new trend, which I personally find very stigmatizing and disturbing.

 

When you create an on-line profile for yourself in various gay sites, you will be chugging along putting in check marks for questions like Eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Weight?, age? Location? etc...and then suddenly out of the blue you will be forced to check off HIV + or -? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but I resent the idea that an intensely private health issue is suddenly being juxtaposed with "Are your eyes brown or blue?" as if it was this simple throw away question.  They probably don't ask people to put down their annual income because it is seen as being "too personal", but they think that people should be expected to broadcast their HIV status to the entire universe in cyberspace.

 

Don't get me wrong.  If someone wants to ask me directly - I have no problem telling them. In fact, if I personally WANT to be totaly "out" about my HIV status I could just put it voluntarily in the text of my profile or even in the headline.

 

But by forcing people to reveal themselves it means the following

 

a) If you check off that you are HIV+, you cease to be a personal with any human characteristics - you are reduced to a pile of statistics with a + sign afterwards meaning you can get tossed into a reject pile when people want a quick way to seperate the wheat from the chaff. YOu have also now shared something about yourself with hundreds of thousands of people in cyberspace that you may never have discussed with some close friends or family.

 

b) you can lie and say you are NEG - but who wants to do that since it would be unethical

 

c) you can leave it blank - in which case you might as well just check off POZ since that is the conclusion everyone will jump to if you don't answer the question.

 

I think it should be up to individuals to decide who, what, where, when and how they want to "disclose" their status to people and that this is a slippery slope that will lead to being asked about HIV status on job application forms etc...

 

We should have a right to privacy.

 


#21371 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:26 pm
Subject: RE: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Brian...

I correct them too, which makes them look really puzzled.  I am flatly
astonished at the ignorance and lack of thinking of negatives now days. A
negative test means one was negative for a month or so before the test
forward until the next risk taking.

In fact, I've made EXACTLY your argument with public health, to no apparent
avail, who push disclosure as the end all be all of communication, the lack
of which they want subject to criminal penalties.  That is, there are no
negatives, just those who don't know they are positives -> at least, in a
context where sexual activity is presumed (e.g. Manhunt, et al).

Worse, 'I'm negative since...' doesn't address how much risk taking since
that date, which might make the person HIGHLY infectious, as being in early
infection, much more so than they will be in a few months.  Yet those who
desire to know serostatus must want to know to gauge their own behavior, no?
Which means they are liable to take more risks with someone 'negative', who
may nonetheless (and at a certain point of prevalence in the population, is
likely to be) many many times as infectious as someone positive.  Real
communication would lead to a short discussion of sexual history SINCE then,
but nope, its all short hand.

No soap.  It's a visceral thing: everyone wants to know, and get all that
thinking stuff out of the way.  That a certain amount of risk they simply
have to live with, and that the highest amount may not come from the guy who
is safe but positive, is just beyond their labeling lil minds.

Kelly

-----Original Message-----
From: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PozHealth@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Brian Mailman
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:19 AM
To: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV
status on on-line profiles

Rhino88 wrote:
> I realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I want to
> get some feedback regardless.

I think it fosters a false sense of safety because "positive" is the
only dispositive status.  "Negative" just means "was negative at the
least 3 months previously."

Whenever I meet someone who tells me "I'm negative," I correct him with
"you mean you were negative on your last test." and sometimes follow up
with "and you know it only means that when you were tested you hadn't
been in exposed in the previous 3 months."

B/


Welcome to our PozHealth group!
If you received this email from someone who forwarded it to you and would
like to join this group, send a blank email to
PozHealth-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and you will get an email with
instructions to follow. You can chose to receive single emails or a daily
digest (collection of emails). You can post pictures, images, attach files
and search by keyword old postings in the group.

For those of you who are members already and want to switch from single
emails to digest or vice versa, visit www.yahoogroups.com, click on
PozHealth, then on "edit my membership" and go down to your selection. The
list administrator does not process any requests, so this is a
do-it-yourself easy process ! :)
Thanks for joining. You will learn and share a lot in this group!

NOTE: I moderate, approve or disapprove emails before they are posted.
Please follow the guidelines shown in the homepage. I will not allow
rudeness, sexually  explicit material, attacks, and anyone who does not
follow the rules. If you are not OK with this, please do not join the group.


Forward this email to anyone who may benefit from this information! Thanks!
In Health,

Nelson Vergel (PoWeRTX@...)
List Founder and Moderator

Yahoo! Groups Links

#21370 From: flipper501501 <flipper501501@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:04 am
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
flipper501501
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
Or it could just mean they just never have been tested.  This way you can never knowingly spread HIV so the criminal statutes would not apply.  I personally prefer to get the HIV thing out of the way from the beginning.  It prevents lots of problems later.

Brian Mailman wrote:

Rhino88 wrote:
> I realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I want to
> get some feedback regardless.

I think it fosters a false sense of safety because "positive" is the
only dispositive status. "Negative" just means "was negative at the
least 3 months previously."

Whenever I meet someone who tells me "I'm negative," I correct him with
"you mean you were negative on your last test." and sometimes follow up
with "and you know it only means that when you were tested you hadn't
been in exposed in the previous 3 months."

B/

_


#21369 From: John Barrow <pozbod@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 1:38 am
Subject: Re:HPV
johnftl59
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
You know?  I'm here, reading notes, and watching TV, and low and
behold, there's a "gardasil" add.

My first reaction is that perhaps, this add will reach people unaware
of HPV, and it's not all bad.

hmmmmmmm


JB

#21368 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 12:11 am
Subject: Cognitive impairments http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003685588_chemobrain29.html
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Does this article on “chemo-brain” among breast cancer survivors resonate with anyone?

Kelly

Seattle


#21367 From: "Don" <gideonIATF@...>
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:32 pm
Subject: hpv vax therapeutic value
kosherpig1
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
dear Norm

in your text below you suggest that the gardasil vax would have
beneficial effect on previously HPV infected men and would reduce
ocurrence of warts.

i have today spoken with Dr.  Goldstone who said to me very loud and
clear that Gardasil offers no such benefit.

It would be to the benefit of the list if you clarify the basis for
this claim.

thanks

Gideon Hirsch MD





From: "Norm Stuart" <ns02@...>
Date: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:57 pm
Subject: Re: last night's forum on anal dysplasia and cancer -
supplement recommendations  norm_w_stuart
  Offline
  Send Email
  Invite to Yahoo! 360°
   Its true that very few HIV+ people are already infected with all
four strains of HPV which the three Gardasil vaccinatons protect
against.  But Gardasil potentially offers far more protection than
this, at least in the trials conducted so far.

Gardasil was only 89% effective in preventing infection with any of
the viral strains . . .

But, Gardasil was 100% effective in preventing cancer, precancerous
lesions or genital warts.

So, even if you are infected with any of these HPV viral strains,
Gardasil offers the possibility of controlling this existing virus
and preventing it from causing warts or anal cancer.

#21366 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Subject: RE: Abbott CEO fights back in dispute over HIV drug
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
George, I appreciate your sentiment, but companies being responsible
(supposedly) to share holders, by what right can one expect them to put
things AHEAD of profits, market share, the economic well being of the
company?  That doesn't justify lies nor delusion, but frankly, if a company
I had my pension in was losing money due to sheer altruism, I'd sue the
managers' asses off....

Create market pressure, a government regulatory scheme or some type of
thinking which can show it is to the shareholders advantage economically..

Kelly Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:] On Behalf Of George M. Carter
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:34 AM
To: lipodystrophy-yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [PozHealth] Abbott CEO fights back in dispute over HIV drug

At 05:14 PM 4/27/2007, you wrote:

>Abbott CEO fights back in dispute over HIV drug
>White defends action in Thailand at shareholder meeting
>
>(Crains) - Abbott Laboratories CEO Miles White
>on Friday offered a stern defense of the
>drugmaker's handling of a dispute with Thailand
>over the patent on its top-selling HIV medication.

What a load of crap--defending the indefensible.
"Profits matter more than human lives" he squealed petulantly!

Sounds like "abstinence only! No condoms! Sex is
Naughty" cried Randall Tobias, erstwhile head of
USAID who just stepped down after being caught
fucking prostitutes at a local DC Madam's establishment.

A world that seems run on lies, hypocrisies and self-delusional bullshit.
Same as it ever was....
George M. Carter





Welcome to our PozHealth group!
If you received this email from someone who forwarded it to you and would
like to join this group, send a blank email to
PozHealth-subscribe@yahoogroups.com and you will get an email with
instructions to follow. You can chose to receive single emails or a daily
digest (collection of emails). You can post pictures, images, attach files
and search by keyword old postings in the group.

For those of you who are members already and want to switch from single
emails to digest or vice versa, visit www.yahoogroups.com, click on
PozHealth, then on "edit my membership" and go down to your selection. The
list administrator does not process any requests, so this is a
do-it-yourself easy process ! :)
Thanks for joining. You will learn and share a lot in this group!

NOTE: I moderate, approve or disapprove emails before they are posted.
Please follow the guidelines shown in the homepage. I will not allow
rudeness, sexually  explicit material, attacks, and anyone who does not
follow the rules. If you are not OK with this, please do not join the group.


Forward this email to anyone who may benefit from this information! Thanks!
In Health,

Nelson Vergel (PoWeRTX@...)
List Founder and Moderator

Yahoo! Groups Links

#21365 From: PoWeRTX@...
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:12 pm
Subject: Activists and Abbott- Youtube.com videos
nelsonvergel
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I love how we can all now use youtube.com or goggle video to show activism to others.
 
The first video is about a very small group of people in Austin that protested just this week and the next video is from 7 months ago at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto.
 
 
Add Video to QuickList
Thursday, April 26, 2007 was the International Day of Action againsy Abbott Laboratories' greed, www.abbottsgreed.com
 
 
 
Add Video to QuickList
Protest of Abbott Laboratories that occurred at the XVI Internation AIDS Conference in Toronto, August 2006. Abbott was one of the few drug companies strangely absent from the Protest of Abbott Laboratories that occurred at the XVI Internation AIDS Conference in Toronto, August 2006.
Abbott was one of the few drug companies strangely absent from the conference. While most companies have brought down the price of a drug cocktail to $120/yr in the developing world, Abbot still charges $2,200/year for it's single drug, Kaletra - out of reach to the 70% of the world living on less than $1 a day.
 
 

Regards,

Nelson Vergel
powerusa dot org




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21364 From: TucChico@...
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:19 pm
Subject: Re: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-l...
Tucchico
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
In a message dated 4/29/2007 7:39:52 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, rhino88@... writes:
Don't get me wrong.  If someone wants to ask me directly - I have no problem telling them. In fact, if I personally WANT to be totaly "out" about my HIV status I could just put it voluntarily in the text of my profile or even in the headline.
all you need to do is leave several questions open with ASK ME in it and you will be fine. The question will not go away until the owner/moderator is made aware that it is offensive in general. A email like yours will make them come to their senses. When I get nasty email generally the first email that states that I must be HIV+ since I did not answer the question. I just tell them I never asked to F*** your nasty ass in the first place so F*** Off. Yes I do get even more verbally abusive to stupid twinks who think they are at the top of the world who are probably false negatives since they have never been tested.
FRANK




See what's free at AOL.com.

#21363 From: "Kelly Scott" <kscott@...>
Date: Sun Apr 29, 2007 6:57 pm
Subject: RE: Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles
kallenscott2003
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

Damn right.

 

True, it’s probably useful for promoting serosorting, since sex can happen.

 

The converse of that is to think how idiotic: don’t they know that there’s no way to be safe without communicating a lot more than supposed-status? 

 

So much for the sex stuff.

 

On more notes than sex though, a LOT of me feels exactly like you do: hey, until a guy and I contemplate something where someone is at risk (and NOT just a conceivable or slight risk) or they put me at risk, this is my info, I should not be expected to simply put it out there automatically (gee, why not Mr. Buckley’s old tattoo idea then?) and I’d rather not be known as Mr. HIV.  It is simply no one’s business until there is risk involved – no more than his last five blowjobs in a high sero-prevalence city. 

 

It is private, and it is way out of line to ask someone that who you barely know (maybe even if you know them well) UNLESS it becomes relevant. I don’t care if people go on TV and talk about the damndest things; I don’t care what people divulge on facebook; that simply isn’t me, I don’t think its even close to mentally healthy, and I shouldn’t be expected to

 

And it is definitely an expectation out there.  Frankly, I think its really just a way of maintaining an ‘us and them’ – as in, ‘they’ are infected’, ‘I/us are not’.  And a way for negatives to fuck unsafely and not worry about it. 

 

What bothers me is that the vast majority permits this segregation: no one gives grief to those whose profiles snidely remark that all non-answered questions mean you are poz, or the profiles which ask if you are clean (and it isn’t asking about grooming)…

 

Kelly Scott

Seattle

 


From: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PozHealth@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Rhino88
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 10:33 AM
To: PozHealth@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [PozHealth] Is anyone else offended by questions about HIV status on on-line profiles

 

I realize this is not strictly speaking health related, but I want to get some feedback regardless.

 

As the Internet becomes more and more of a standard way to meet people in the gay world (and elsewhere), I have noticed a new trend, which I personally find very stigmatizing and disturbing.

 

When you create an on-line profile for yourself in various gay sites, you will be chugging along putting in check marks for questions like Eye colour? Hair colour? Height? Weight?, age? Location? etc...and then suddenly out of the blue you will be forced to check off HIV + or -? Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but I resent the idea that an intensely private health issue is suddenly being juxtaposed with "Are your eyes brown or blue?" as if it was this simple throw away question.  They probably don't ask people to put down their annual income because it is seen as being "too personal", but they think that people should be expected to broadcast their HIV status to the entire universe in cyberspace.

 

Don't get me wrong.  If someone wants to ask me directly - I have no problem telling them. In fact, if I personally WANT to be totaly "out" about my HIV status I could just put it voluntarily in the text of my profile or even in the headline.

 

But by forcing people to reveal themselves it means the following

 

a) If you check off that you are HIV+, you cease to be a personal with any human characteristics - you are reduced to a pile of statistics with a + sign afterwards meaning you can get tossed into a reject pile when people want a quick way to seperate the wheat from the chaff. YOu have also now shared something about yourself with hundreds of thousands of people in cyberspace that you may never have discussed with some close friends or family.

 

b) you can lie and say you are NEG - but who wants to do that since it would be unethical

 

c) you can leave it blank - in which case you might as well just check off POZ since that is the conclusion everyone will jump to if you don't answer the question.

 

I think it should be up to individuals to decide who, what, where, when and how they want to "disclose" their status to people and that this is a slippery slope that will lead to being asked about HIV status on job application forms etc...

 

We should have a right to privacy.


Messages 21363 - 21393 of 31313   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help