PDA

View Full Version : CDC pushes for testing for everyone in U.S. age 13-64


banyon
05-09-2006, 05:27 PM
AIDS At 25: Everyone To Be Tested
Call For HIV Testing On 25th Anniversary Of U.S. AIDS Epidemic

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/05/08/image1597368g.jpg
(WebMD) The CDC will recommend at least one HIV test for everyone aged 13 to 64 who visits a doctor.

The radical change to HIV testing guidelines will be released in June or July, says Kevin Fenton, MD, PhD, the new director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Routine HIV tests in doctors’ offices and clinics will no longer require the pretest counseling now a part of all HIV testing.

Fenton, joined by former CDC AIDS chief James Curran, MD, MPH, now dean of Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, spoke today at a news conference marking the 25th anniversary of the AIDS pandemic.

"Most HIV is transmitted by the 25% of infected people who do not even realize they are infected," Fenton said. "We need to dramatically expand access to HIV testing by making it a routine aspect of clinical care."

Pretest Guidelines

Fenton said current guidelines make it impossible for busy doctors and nurses to offer routine HIV tests. That, he says, is because the guidelines call for detailed pretest counseling.

Because HIV testing has never been routine, people who ask for the tests usually have a reason to suspect they may have been exposed to the AIDS virus. The counseling includes safe-sex information. It warns people who test negative to improve their safe-sex behavior. And it helps prepare people who test positive for what will be a lifetime of medical care.

Routine testing in a medical setting, Fenton says, is a horse of a different color.

"What we want to do is to address barriers to testing in clinical sites," Fenton says. "We know that a barrier is the significant time it takes for pretest counseling. … HIV testing outside clinical settings will still bear the requirement for pretest counseling."

Timothy Mastro, acting director of the CDC's Global AIDS Program, says the idea is to make more people -- a lot more people -- aware of their HIV status.

"These new guidelines … recommend [changing] the nature of HIV testing so that it's not based on the risk to an individual or the community in which an individual resides, but routinizes testing of all people between the ages of 13 and 64," Mastro said at the news conference. "People with ongoing risk behaviors should be tested more frequently, but we think everyone should be tested at least once in the 13- to 64-year-old age group."

Testing is part of what disease trackers call surveillance -- the public health equivalent of knowing your enemy. Curran calls it the most important tool in fighting AIDS.

"Surveillance was the most important thing early in the epidemic," Curran said. "It continues to be the most important thing in designing and targeting prevention efforts to those most at risk -- and evaluating the extent to which those efforts are effective."

rest of article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/08/health/webmd/main1597034.shtml)

banyon
05-09-2006, 05:27 PM
I don't think I care for the ominous precedent this would set...

jAZ
05-09-2006, 05:46 PM
What's ominous? Wouldn't it be added as part of a routine blood test? I read this to be a change in recommendations to Dr's, not a mandate to citizens. Maybe I'm missing something.

If I'm right in my reading, then it seems reasonable to me.

banyon
05-09-2006, 05:51 PM
What's ominous? Wouldn't it be added as part of a routine blood test? I read this to be a change in recommendations to Dr's, not a mandate to citizens. Maybe I'm missing something.

If I'm right in my reading, then it seems reasonable to me.

Well, I'm not positive, but I don't see this as the last step.


"Surveillance was the most important thing early in the epidemic," Curran said. "It continues to be the most important thing in designing and targeting prevention efforts to those most at risk -- and evaluating the extent to which those efforts are effective."

He may be right about its effectiveness, but taken to the next level what will be the next invasive step?

jAZ
05-09-2006, 05:59 PM
He may be right about its effectiveness, but taken to the next level what will be the next invasive step?
Hmmm... I'm not sure this is a major step, but I guess I see why you might have concern.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 09:04 PM
I don't see anything to be concerned with here. It sounds like they are just making testing a less complicated/time consuming process to reduce the roadblocks for voluntary testing. As long as the testee is the one who is asking for the test (or at least approving it upon a doctor's recommendation), I see nothing wrong. If it evolves into some kind of mandatory testing, I'd have big problems with it.

BucEyedPea
05-09-2006, 09:09 PM
Surveillance on those " at risk." Sure okay...but nothing more.
If they come after me as part of surveillance...well I'm gonna inoculate myself from the state instead.

Hydrae
05-09-2006, 09:54 PM
I can see a reason why those close to the issue may think this way. However, as I have been married now for 14 years and neither of us has ever fooled around with anyone else, what would be the point in testing my wife and I? Or my virgin children for that matter?

Cochise
05-09-2006, 11:16 PM
thought this was interesting:

banyon
05-09-2006, 11:17 PM
I don't see anything to be concerned with here. It sounds like they are just making testing a less complicated/time consuming process to reduce the roadblocks for voluntary testing. As long as the testee is the one who is asking for the test (or at least approving it upon a doctor's recommendation), I see nothing wrong. If it evolves into some kind of mandatory testing, I'd have big problems with it.

but...you...are...a..."libertarian"...Right?

you of all people should be skeptical

Earthling
05-10-2006, 01:28 AM
I can see a reason why those close to the issue may think this way. However, as I have been married now for 14 years and neither of us has ever fooled around with anyone else, what would be the point in testing my wife and I? Or my virgin children for that matter?


Some while back I read that there was at least one case of a very young child that was HIV positive. They were mystified as to how she could have contracted the virus; good home, hyman intact, and no signs of abuse....I'd have to do some research. I think a testing of everyone would be a good thing. Its amazingly good that mosquitos can't spread the virus, being as they are a syringe of sorts.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 05:53 AM
but...you...are...a..."libertarian"...Right?

you of all people should be skeptical

Maybe I'm misreading the article, but what I'm seeing is a reduction in regulation (not sure if it's government regulation) that will allow doctors to offer HIV tests more regularly and a suggestion that doctors recommend them on a routine basis. Testing is not going to be forced on anyone AFAICT. Am I missing something?

Imagine if there was a bunch of time consuming paperwork involved in a visit to the doctor for a preventative physical examination. Very few people would go to the trouble. Now imagine if the requirement for all that paperwork is eliminated and doctors are encouraged to recommend that people have preventative physical examinations on a routine, annual basis. Is that oppressive?

Besides, you already staked out the skeptical position so I was left with no choice but to be receptive. :D

unlurking
05-10-2006, 06:23 AM
I think your missing the point Banyon.

They are making it EASIER to perform HIV testing in a routing manner, by removing the requirement for "pre-test" couneling. That's like removing the "pre-marriage" counseling done at many churches.

As far as "surveillance" goes, they are obviously hoping to increase there knowledge of the disease by increasing their known statistics of the disease by hoping that this move will attract some of the population that is infected and doesn't know it yet. At the same time, this will minimize the "I didn't know I had AIDS when we had sex" stuff discussed early in the article.

REMOVING RED TAPE FROM A HEALTH SERVICE IS A GOOD THING!!!! :)

unlurking
05-10-2006, 06:25 AM
Maybe I'm misreading the article, but what I'm seeing is a reduction in regulation (not sure if it's government regulation) that will allow doctors to offer HIV tests more regularly and a suggestion that doctors recommend them on a routine basis. Testing is not going to be forced on anyone AFAICT. Am I missing something?

Imagine if there was a bunch of time consuming paperwork involved in a visit to the doctor for a preventative physical examination. Very few people would go to the trouble. Now imagine if the requirement for all that paperwork is eliminated and doctors are encouraged to recommend that people have preventative physical examinations on a routine, annual basis. Is that oppressive?

Besides, you already staked out the skeptical position so I was left with no choice but to be receptive. :D
Exactly. I'd rep ya, but I forced myself to "turn the other cheek" regarding your Iraq war views in another thread, so I guess this evens out! ;)

banyon
05-10-2006, 07:45 AM
maybe I jumped the gun. But if you only read the headline (or the thread title)...

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 12:19 PM
Banyon has a strong point that has been argued since the 80's. If you make HIV testing quasi-mandatory, then you run the risk of many invasions of privacy through the medical sector. The biggest problem that activists had with this issue is that they felt it might lead to quarantining of the patients who did test positive. I must say that I think it is a good idea that was conceived not out of malice, however, I don't think that it will be all that effective, as it isn't going to target the groups who are at the highest risks of infection, uninsured, impoverished people of color. Women of this demographic are the largest growing subset of AIDS in America, but if they don't have basic medical insurance, they can't afford to be tested.

unlurking
05-10-2006, 12:26 PM
And you seem to not have read the article either.

Please point out WHERE in the article it says ANYTHING along the lines of mandatory, even "quasi".

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 12:34 PM
And you seem to not have read the article either.

Please point out WHERE in the article it says ANYTHING along the lines of mandatory, even "quasi".

Read it yourself, you dumb sonofabitch

"routinizes testing of all people between the ages of 13 and 64," Mastro said at the news conference. "People with ongoing risk behaviors should be tested more frequently, but we think everyone should be tested at least once in the 13- to 64-year-old age group."

unlurking
05-10-2006, 01:14 PM
Nice retort.

Now try Reading Comprehension 101.

"...should be..."
"...we think..."

""What we want to do is to address barriers to testing in clinical sites," Fenton says. "We know that a barrier is the significant time it takes for pretest counseling. … HIV testing outside clinical settings will still bear the requirement for pretest counseling."

I am surprised by your remark HJ. I have probably responded 50% in support of your posts in the past. Attacking me because you STILL cannot point to EVEN THE CONCEPT of mandatory anywhere in the article should be beneath you.

EDIT:
And before you come out with some comment about "should be", and "we think" being a reference to mandatory...

Men above 35 SHOULD get prostate/colon checks annually.
Everyone SHOULD get their teeth cleaned and a dental check every 6 months.
Women SHOULD check for lumps using the buddy system regularly.
I SHOULD change the oil in my car every 7,500 miles.
I SHOULD get a radiator flush/fill every 35,000 miles.

Where is the government mandating any of these suggestions?

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 08:13 PM
Nice retort.

Now try Reading Comprehension 101.

"...should be..."
"...we think..."

""What we want to do is to address barriers to testing in clinical sites," Fenton says. "We know that a barrier is the significant time it takes for pretest counseling. … HIV testing outside clinical settings will still bear the requirement for pretest counseling."

I am surprised by your remark HJ. I have probably responded 50% in support of your posts in the past. Attacking me because you STILL cannot point to EVEN THE CONCEPT of mandatory anywhere in the article should be beneath you.

EDIT:
And before you come out with some comment about "should be", and "we think" being a reference to mandatory...

Men above 35 SHOULD get prostate/colon checks annually.
Everyone SHOULD get their teeth cleaned and a dental check every 6 months.
Women SHOULD check for lumps using the buddy system regularly.
I SHOULD change the oil in my car every 7,500 miles.
I SHOULD get a radiator flush/fill every 35,000 miles.

Where is the government mandating any of these suggestions?

First off, my response was motivated by the fact that I don't enjoy people insinuating that I didn't read the text in question, particularly when I feel that those making said accusations are not reading the discursive actions that it uses. It's the pot calling the kettle black...

Regarding the article and the program:

It's a rhetorical move, and a nice one at that. Realize that I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea or that it's not meant to be beneficial for people, but that it contains the possibility for a very slippery slope regarding the rights of patients. You can initiate a medical program by saying 'should', but you can also construct the discourse to where people are viewed as irresponsible and dangerous if they don't follow through with this 'should'. This article is already trading in this belief, as it mentions in the beginning that those who spread the virus are those who don't know their status. The implicit warrant within that claim is that everyone should therefore be tested, because if you aren't then you could possibly be culpable for the spread of the disease. In many ways, this program won't change all that much, as it will just allow easier access for those who already have benefits of medical care that the lower economic classes (and those who are most at risk of infection) do not.

unlurking
05-10-2006, 10:14 PM
However you want to rationalize it. I will assume you read the article, but were LOOKING for something to complain about.

The article NEVER mentioned mandatory checks, "quasi" or otherwise. You inferred into it your own beliefs, or your assumptions about what the people behind the change might have as a hidden agenda.

This is a typical knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the fence as of late, and is what is really bringing this country down. When you can't look objectively at policy changes, you can't come to an honest understanding of what it will truly mean. (i.e. I can only feel safe if I give up my constitutional rights to privacy)

Your reaction is similar to those blasting retired military personnel for "turning on the CIC" in order to achieve personal gain, without having any idea of the motive behind that voiced belief.

Ignore the ENTIRE article and read the first statement only...

"The radical change to HIV testing guidelines will be released in June or July, says Kevin Fenton, MD, PhD, the new director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Routine HIV tests in doctors’ offices and clinics will no longer require the pretest counseling now a part of all HIV testing."

You do now state your opinion on the policy change, but again you misinterpret things based on a biased view. There is no medical initiative here to create a "slippery slope". The change simply modifies current policy requiring what is REALLY the concern you seem to have but do not see. They have removed the FEDERALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENT to counseling based on simply requesting a medical test be performed. Based on your concern, you should be ecstatic about this change, if you can get passed the media hyped headline.

Lastly, if you cannot get over someone insinuating something about you, don't present an action that would make someone believe that. The fact that you are arguing against something that is removing that which concerns you (gov involvement in your health care), simply leads one to believe that you did not read the article.

Props to banyon for arguing the same point, then actually reading the article and realizing the headline was mis-leading. 90% of the thread titles in here are that way.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 10:19 PM
However you want to rationalize it. I will assume you read the article, but were LOOKING for something to complain about.

The article NEVER mentioned mandatory checks, "quasi" or otherwise. You inferred into it your own beliefs, or your assumptions about what the people behind the change might have as a hidden agenda.

This is a typical knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the fence as of late, and is what is really bringing this country down. When you can't look objectively at policy changes, you can't come to an honest understanding of what it will truly mean. (i.e. I can only feel safe if I give up my constitutional rights to privacy)

Your reaction is similar to those blasting retired military personnel for "turning on the CIC" in order to achieve personal gain, without having any idea of the motive behind that voiced belief.

Ignore the ENTIRE article and read the first statement only...

"The radical change to HIV testing guidelines will be released in June or July, says Kevin Fenton, MD, PhD, the new director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Routine HIV tests in doctors’ offices and clinics will no longer require the pretest counseling now a part of all HIV testing."

You do now state your opinion on the policy change, but again you misinterpret things based on a biased view. There is no medical initiative here to create a "slippery slope". The change simply modifies current policy requiring what is REALLY the concern you seem to have but do not see. They have removed the FEDERALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENT to counseling based on simply requesting a medical test be performed. Based on your concern, you should be ecstatic about this change, if you can get passed the media hyped headline.

Lastly, if you cannot get over someone insinuating something about you, don't present an action that would make someone believe that. The fact that you are arguing against something that is removing that which concerns you (gov involvement in your health care), simply leads one to believe that you did not read the article.

Props to banyon for arguing the same point, then actually reading the article and realizing the headline was mis-leading. 90% of the thread titles in here are that way.

From my last post:

Realize that I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea or that it's not meant to be beneficial for people, but that it contains the possibility for a very slippery slope regarding the rights of patients.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 10:22 PM
However you want to rationalize it. I will assume you read the article, but were LOOKING for something to complain about.

The article NEVER mentioned mandatory checks, "quasi" or otherwise. You inferred into it your own beliefs, or your assumptions about what the people behind the change might have as a hidden agenda.

This is a typical knee-jerk reaction from both sides of the fence as of late, and is what is really bringing this country down. When you can't look objectively at policy changes, you can't come to an honest understanding of what it will truly mean. (i.e. I can only feel safe if I give up my constitutional rights to privacy)

Your reaction is similar to those blasting retired military personnel for "turning on the CIC" in order to achieve personal gain, without having any idea of the motive behind that voiced belief.

Ignore the ENTIRE article and read the first statement only...

"The radical change to HIV testing guidelines will be released in June or July, says Kevin Fenton, MD, PhD, the new director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Routine HIV tests in doctors’ offices and clinics will no longer require the pretest counseling now a part of all HIV testing."

You do now state your opinion on the policy change, but again you misinterpret things based on a biased view. There is no medical initiative here to create a "slippery slope". The change simply modifies current policy requiring what is REALLY the concern you seem to have but do not see. They have removed the FEDERALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENT to counseling based on simply requesting a medical test be performed. Based on your concern, you should be ecstatic about this change, if you can get passed the media hyped headline.

Lastly, if you cannot get over someone insinuating something about you, don't present an action that would make someone believe that. The fact that you are arguing against something that is removing that which concerns you (gov involvement in your health care), simply leads one to believe that you did not read the article.

Props to banyon for arguing the same point, then actually reading the article and realizing the headline was mis-leading. 90% of the thread titles in here are that way.

How do you *know* there is no medical initiative?? How do you know I am looking for something to complain about?? I never said I was against this program, I merely said that it is not a panacea to these problems. It seems that you are the one who is more invested via a personal agenda than am I, which makes your assertions puzzling and illogical.

unlurking
05-10-2006, 10:51 PM
In response to both your posts, I will re-post my statement, and hope that maybe you read it this time.

"You do now state your opinion on the policy change, but again you misinterpret things based on a biased view. There is no medical initiative here to create a "slippery slope". The change simply modifies current policy requiring what is REALLY the concern you seem to have but do not see. They have removed the FEDERALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENT to counseling based on simply requesting a medical test be performed. Based on your concern, you should be ecstatic about this change, if you can get passed the media hyped headline."

You can see here by the first bolded statement that I have read and understood your view (posted after your initial statement that looked for all intents and purposes to be a negative reaction) on the policy CHANGE (not initiative), but disagree with your take on the subject and go on to explain.

In the second bolded statement, I explain how your concerns about mandated testing are unfounded, and cannot be attributed to the text of this article without "reading into it".

As far as knowing their is no medical initiative, let me quote the first paragraph of the article (again)...

"The radical change to HIV testing guidelines will be released in June or July, says Kevin Fenton, MD, PhD, the new director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Routine HIV tests in doctors’ offices and clinics will no longer require the pretest counseling now a part of all HIV testing."

If you are *suspecting* there are medical initiatives, since neither of us *know* based on THIS article, than you are "reading between the lines".

And specifically, I would have had little problem with your post, if you had left the first half out...

"Banyon has a strong point that has been argued since the 80's. If you make HIV testing quasi-mandatory, then you run the risk of many invasions of privacy through the medical sector. The biggest problem that activists had with this issue is that they felt it might lead to quarantining of the patients who did test positive."

This has zero relation to the current article in focus.

At the same time, I would probably disagree with the seconf half of your statement (not whether or not the changes will have any effect, but your logic behind your belief).

Take this quote for instance...

"We need to dramatically expand access to HIV testing by making it a routine aspect of clinical care."

If you'll notice the discussion centers mostly around "clinics", although priavte practices (where insured people usually go) are included. The poverty stricken you are concerned about are the ones using clinics due to lower cost requirements (I'm also assuming free clinics are not exempted from this change).

BTW, thanks for the debate, I love arguing semantics. This topic is of really little interest to me, but the argument is fun! ;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-10-2006, 11:01 PM
In response to both your posts, I will re-post my statement, and hope that maybe you read it this time.

"You do now state your opinion on the policy change, but again you misinterpret things based on a biased view. There is no medical initiative here to create a "slippery slope". The change simply modifies current policy requiring what is REALLY the concern you seem to have but do not see. They have removed the FEDERALLY MANDATED REQUIREMENT to counseling based on simply requesting a medical test be performed. Based on your concern, you should be ecstatic about this change, if you can get passed the media hyped headline."

You can see here by the first bolded statement that I have read and understood your view (posted after your initial statement that looked for all intents and purposes to be a negative reaction) on the policy CHANGE (not initiative), but disagree with your take on the subject and go on to explain.

In the second bolded statement, I explain how your concerns about mandated testing are unfounded, and cannot be attributed to the text of this article without "reading into it".

As far as knowing their is no medical initiative, let me quote the first paragraph of the article (again)...

"The radical change to HIV testing guidelines will be released in June or July, says Kevin Fenton, MD, PhD, the new director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention. Routine HIV tests in doctors’ offices and clinics will no longer require the pretest counseling now a part of all HIV testing."

If you are *suspecting* there are medical initiatives, since neither of us *know* based on THIS article, than you are "reading between the lines".

And specifically, I would have had little problem with your post, if you had left the first half out...

"Banyon has a strong point that has been argued since the 80's. If you make HIV testing quasi-mandatory, then you run the risk of many invasions of privacy through the medical sector. The biggest problem that activists had with this issue is that they felt it might lead to quarantining of the patients who did test positive."

This has zero relation to the current article in focus.

At the same time, I would probably disagree with the seconf half of your statement (not whether or not the changes will have any effect, but your logic behind your belief).

Take this quote for instance...

"We need to dramatically expand access to HIV testing by making it a routine aspect of clinical care."

If you'll notice the discussion centers mostly around "clinics", although priavte practices (where insured people usually go) are included. The poverty stricken you are concerned about are the ones using clinics due to lower cost requirements (I'm also assuming free clinics are not exempted from this change).

BTW, thanks for the debate, I love arguing semantics. This topic is of really little interest to me, but the argument is fun! ;)

Having just got done with finals, I'd rather shoot myself in the face than argue semantics. I read your post the first time, and responded in kind. You assume that motives of the CDC are unbiased, and maybe they in fact are, but you claim it as an empirical truth, which is a highly problematic stance to take. That is the essence of my truck with both this policy and your posts in reference to it.

unlurking
05-10-2006, 11:19 PM
hahahaha

I didn't take it as emprical truth. My lord, just because I didn't infuse the article with my personal belief that their is an alterior motive behind this?!?!

Semantics or not, you've moved to straight hypocrasy on this one!

And if you had read my post, than maybe I was right in the belief that reading comprehension skills were required, as I had to repost my statements and that of the article multiple times.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-11-2006, 12:01 AM
hahahaha

I didn't take it as emprical truth. My lord, just because I didn't infuse the article with my personal belief that their is an alterior motive behind this?!?!

Semantics or not, you've moved to straight hypocrasy on this one!

And if you had read my post, than maybe I was right in the belief that reading comprehension skills were required, as I had to repost my statements and that of the article multiple times.

You have resorted to the standard DC defense of deflection. You have not addressed any of my concerns, only asserted that "Yup you don't have reading comprehension skills." When I point out what I feel the problem is, you retort with "Nope, you're biased and have reading comprehension skills". You make no attempt at an honest debate or analysis of the policy in question, and instead resort to the use of circular logic to prove your nonexistant point. I can see that further posts on this thread will be an exercise in futility, as you are either unwilling or unable to address my concerns. Until you can do so, kindly enjoy the view from inside your ass that your head has provided you.

unlurking
05-11-2006, 12:15 AM
Nice!

ROFL

You really have no clue do you? Claiming that I am not debating the policy, AND YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW THAT IT IS A CHANGE TO A CURRENT POLICY, NOT A NEW INITIATIVE.

Enjoy your attempted face saving backout after getting embarassed. I must say, I am really surprised by you tonight. I never realized you could be this hypocritical.

:(

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-11-2006, 07:20 AM
Nice!

ROFL

You really have no clue do you? Claiming that I am not debating the policy, AND YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW THAT IT IS A CHANGE TO A CURRENT POLICY, NOT A NEW INITIATIVE.

Enjoy your attempted face saving backout after getting embarassed. I must say, I am really surprised by you tonight. I never realized you could be this hypocritical.

:(

:shake: How do you make these wildly asinine assertions about what I do and do not know. Did you know that it is currently illegal for medical professionals to test patients for HIV w/o their consent? Why do you think that might be? Because there is such a stigma around the disease that those who are infected or may be infected are treated as lepers by a great deal of society. Hence the need for the pretest counseling which would be shirked for this newe policy. You have absolutely no clue as to the depth or breadth of my knowledge on this issue, yet you continue to make assertions claiming that I have an apparent lack of knowledge. Perhaps you should walk before you crawl next time. Christ.

unlurking
05-11-2006, 08:21 AM
heheheh

I don't really care if your knowledge of AIDS includes a magical cure. You've shown throughout this thread that your knowledge of the article has been minimal.

I never once posted regarding your knowledge of AIDS. I posted regarding your inability to read this article without infusing it with your own (apparently vast, yeah for you) knowledge of the subject.

Way to completely ignore my statements to you, while going off on tangents having nothing to do with my posts, ask questions that have already been answered, and ignore the "black and white" portions of the discussion (like the text).

I hereby grant unto you, with all its majestic powers and responsibilities, the honorary title of...



REPUBLICAN SPIN DOCTOR




woohoo!!!!

There was much fanfare and dancing in the streets.