[Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

Mon Dec 19 17:56:36 PST 2005

Saundra, Ted,

Ted writes:

"I agree with Saundra that there are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty in the Mubita HIV case.  But given the fact that numerous cases of death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be surprised?"

I do not think anyone wants to deny Kanay Mubita a fair trial.

I think what is occurring in this dispute is a misunderstanding over the use of words.  Perhaps a different, but real life example can help us resolve this issue in part.

There is a couple that live over the hill from our neighborhood.  Both are well known, but he more than she.  Both drive at times on Saddle Ridge Road, the main line through our neighborhood (Nearing Subdivisions, South Saddle Ridge Community).

Saddle Ridge Road is gravel in part and unstriped paved in part.

The male member of this duo frequently drives in the middle of or on his extreme left hand side of the road.  He has almost hit a number of pedestrians and pets a number of times.  Because he was entirely on the wrong side of the road, he has almost hit my car three times.  This has also happened to other residents.  Just after the first light snowstorm about three weeks ago, I saw him from the deck of our home drive more than 1/2 mile entirely on the wrong side of a very slippery road, finally disappearing around a blind curve, still on the wrong side.

The female member of this duo does the some sort of things except much faster, including sliding around corners in her high performance car.  About three years ago on U.S. Highway 95 going north just past where Estes Road enters, she passed five of us at one time, starting her pass before she could clearly see if there was any oncoming traffic.  I was the last car she passed, being in the lead of 5 five cars.  I was going 60 mph.  I think my speedometer is fairly accurate as I check it periodically.  I do not know exactly how fast she was going, but she was passing more than 2 reflective side strips to my one.

According to a friend, both members of this duo have amassed a large number of traffic citations.  Other people in our neighborhood comment on this couple's arrogantly reckless driving and express outrage and fear.

For the acts I described above no citations have been issued and thus no court action has occurred.  Hence in the meaning of "innocent - 1" (in the eyes of the legal system), they are "innocent - 1."  

However, it is clear to me from my own observations that it is extremely probable that they have both egregiously broken the law more than once.  Hence, in that sense, they are not "innocent - 2 ."

Further, like the Mubita case, they are a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

The point is this:  There is a difference between:

[1]    Being "guilty" or not "innocent -1" in the eyes of the legal system after all the relevant proceedings have taken place, and

[2]    There is a high probability that the act which forms the basis of a criminal allegation has taken place -- not "innocent -2".

Except for a perfunctory bail hearing, little of the legal proceedings in Mubita's case have taken place, hence there is no doubt that Mubita is "innocent -1" in the eyes of the legal system.

As for the use of "innocent - 2" as above, let's see. 

It is alleged that he has tested positive for HIV.  This has been asserted by several independent news sources.  It has been reported that according to the police that after first denying it, Mubita affirmed that he knew he was HIV positive.  Given the huge sanctions possible against the media and especially the police for making false and defamatory statements,  I choose to believe that it is extremely probable that Mubita is HIV positive.  This belief is not entirely certain, and it is open to change upon new, credible information, but it appears extremely probable at this juncture.

Has Mubita had unprotected sexual relations without informing his partners of his HIV positive status?  Apparently more than 20 women have came forward and asserted so.  Coming forward and making such an assertion is real act of courage and exposes the asserter to all kinds of unpleasant consequences.  Hence, it is highly probable that these assertions are true.  Hence, again subject to new, credible information, I choose to believe that it is extremely probable that Mubita did knowingly and intentionally have unprotected sexual relations without informing his partners of his HIV status on multiple occasions.

According the Latah Eagle, Mubita denies that he has had unprotected sex and also denies that he has had sex outside of a relationship.  He first asserted to the police that he was not HIV positive, then later admitted it.  He denied knowing the woman who claims having his baby.  It is highly improbable that a woman would so expose herself with such a lie given the state of DNA testing today.  There are other reasons why I believe that Mubita is not telling the truth but a discussion of them at this point would not be appropriate on V 2020.  Hence, I do not believe Mubita.

Hence, although technically Mubita is "innocent -1,", I believe that it is extremely improbable that he is not "innocent - 2."  Again, this opinion is subject to revision upon further credible information.

As Janesta, Phil, Shelley, Ellen, and others have pointed out, this is an important public health issue.  We are speaking of possible dire consequences to many individuals on the possible tree of infections resulting from his alleged actions.  For acting in these public health matters, not "innocent - 2" is sufficient in my opinion.

When there is the threat of a serious disease, mandatory public health actions include the following, sometimes related actions:

[1]    Treat the disease as far as is possible/practical.

[2]    Prevent the disease form spreading.

Preventing the disease from spreading includes testing those that are probable carriers, educating others about the consequences of the disease and how to avoid getting it, and to isolate via criminal/civil laws those that have demonstrated that they are knowingly and intentionally willing to engage in behavior that has some probability of spreading the disease.

>From what I have read on Vision 2020:

[1]    No one is asserting that Mubita is already not "innocent - 1."
[2]    Most believe that he is not "innocent - 2."
[3]    Most believe that the three public health measures above should be rigorously pursued.

Pat Kraut does not believe further education is necessary or would be useful.  I disagree.  Sometimes people do not get the message the first time they hear it, or the second, or the third,...  However, when an event like the current case happens, more people become more willing to listen and to change their behavior like using protection and getting tested not only for HIV but for other STDs.

It has been speculated that some of what has been written will discourage people from being tested.  I see no evidence of this.  Quite the contrary.  Several brave people have came forward in response to police requests.  The more information that is disseminated, the more people will realize the danger they may be in and/or the danger they may have or may be putting loved ones or others in.  People do not need to go to the public health district to be tested.  Except for one group of doctors where confidentiality may be a problem (a suit was filed alleging such) people can go to their doctors or other clinics/places for confidential testing.  Hence, dissemination/discussion of information such has occurred on V 2020, in my opinion, is likely to lead to more testing, not less.

One last point:  Nothing I have said should be seen a condemnation of anyone who unknowingly contacted HIV, that is, who contacted HIV without know their partners were infected.  This is a most unfortunate thing.

However, I do strongly condemn those that knowingly and intentionally engage in sexual relations without informing their partners that they are HIV positive.  I also condemn those that engage in HIV risky behavior who do not get periodically tested and thus run the risk of unknowingly infecting others, including loved ones.

Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843

(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tbertruss at aol.com 
  To: sslund at adelphia.net ; CJs at Turbonet.com ; janestacarcich at yahoo.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Cc: thansen at moscow.com ; deco at moscow.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

  All:

  I agree with Saundra that there are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty in the Mubita HIV case.  But given the fact that numerous cases of death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be surprised?

  Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.

  Those who are concerned about encouraging testing for HIV might consider the impact of on those who are afraid to get tested of what seems like an attempt to try and convict Mubita on Vision2020.  Would someone want a positive HIV test to result in those who may have sexually contacted HIV from them coming forward to file legal charges, resulting in their lives and conduct dissected on a public list serve?  Yes, sharing a needle is a more certain method of transferring the HIV virus than sexual relations in some cases, so anyone who finds out they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this possible legal ramification regarding allegations of knowingly engaging in conduct that can spread HIV.  

  The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.

  I offer a few corrections and comments regarding some statements in this discussion:

  Saundra wrote:

  Yes -- as far as *you* know with respect to *sex*.  To date, transmission
  via IV drug abuse (and if you think we don't have a problem with IV drug
  abuse in our area, I encourage you to further educate yourself) is more
  risky than unprotected heterosexual contact.

  If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned heterosexual contact and left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals do not have anal sex, the most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual conduct on average, sorry, wrong.  Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often do not report this, for obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores increase the risk of HIV transmission dramatically, providing a means for blood products to enter the body.  If someone has a healthy body with no sores or lesions, the odds of transmission of HIV are reduced dramatically.  Anal sex on average has a higher probability of sores or lesions or entry points for blood products than genital only intercourse or oral sex between same or different sex couples.  And so, devout lesbians (David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a very low risk group for HIV.

  Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something is wrong if the Health District is releasing information to the public of any kind regarding who is or is not being HIV tested at what time according to any criteria that might identify or embarrass the individuals involved.  These tests should be conducted with complete anonymity, with no information of any kind being made public or otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles regarding any criteria used to dictate who is tested or when they are tested.

  This is a major disconnect for someone who ostensibly is attempting to encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that they know the order in which the Health District is testing clients based on how high risk they are claiming knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations with.  If it is true that the local Health District was releasing ANY INFORMATION OF ANY KIND outside that department regarding their testing of HIV clients (well, accept the fact they do test for HIV), unless this involved law enforcement or the courts, they need to change or enforce their polices ensuring total anonymity for HIV testing.

  Shelley wrote:

  No Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol Morley at the Health District and ask her. They had "kits" to test those at "high risk." Many people were turned away with an appointment after they were counseled. The purpose of the health clinic staying open last Thursday was strictly for the high risk people that were in direct contact with Mubita as the Health Department had limited kits. There were many people who showed up who had no contact with Mubita but wanted tested. They were given appointments.
  ---------------------------------

  Ted Moffett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  /////////////////////////////////////////////////////

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saundra, Ted,

Ted writes:

"I agree with Saundra that there are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty in the Mubita HIV case.  But given the fact that numerous cases of death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be surprised?"

I do not think anyone wants to deny Kanay Mubita a fair trial.

I think what is occurring here is a misunderstanding over the use of words.  Perhaps a different, but real life example can halp us resolve this issue in part.

There is a couple that live over the hill from our neighborhood.  Both are wel known but he more than she.  Both drive on Saddle Ridge Road, the mian line through our neighborhood (Nearing Subdivision, Additions, South Saddle Ridge Community).

Saddle Ridge Road is gravel in part and unstriped paved in part.

The male member of this duo frequently drives in the middle of or on his extreme left hand side of the road.  He has almost hit a number of pedestrians and pets a number of times.  Because he was enetirely on the wrong side of the road, he has almost hit my car three times.  Just after the first light snowstorm about three weeks ago, I saw him from the deck of our home drive more than 1/2 mile entirely on the wrong side of the road, finally disappearing around a blid curve, still on the wrong side.

The female member of this duo does the some sort of things except much faster including sliding around corners in her high performance car.  About three years ago on highway 95 going north just past where Estes Road enters, she passed five of us at one time, starting her pass before she could clearly see if there was any oncoming traffic.  I was the last car she passed, being in the lead of 5 five cars.  I was going 60 mph.  I think my speedometer is fairly accurate as I check it periodically.  I do not know exactly how fast she was going, but she was passing more than 2 refective side strips to my one.

According to a friend, both have amassed a large number of citations.  Other people in our neighborhood comment on this couple's arrogantly wreckless driving.

For the acts I described above no citations have been issued and thus no court action has occurred.  Hence in the meaning of "innocent - 1" in the eyes of the legal system, they are "innocent."  

However, it is clear to me from my own observations that it is extremely probable that they have broken the law more than once.  Hence, in that sense, they are not "innocent -2 ."

Further, like the Mubita case, there is a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

The point is this:  There is a difference between:

[1]    Being "guilty" in the the eyes of the legal system after all the relevant proceedings have taken place, and

[2]    There is a high probablity that the act which forms the basis of a criminal allegation has taken place.

Except for a perfunctory bail hearing, little of the legal proceedings in Mubita's case have taken place, hence there is no doubt that Mubita is "innocent -1" in the eyes of the legal system.

As for the use of "innocent - 2" as above, let's see. 

It is alleged that he has tested postive for HIV.  This has been asserted in several independent news sources.  It has been reported that according to the police that after first denying it, Mubita affirmed that he knew he was HIV positive.  Given the huge sanctions possible against the media and especially the police for making false and defamatory statements,  I choose to beleive that it is extremely probable

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tbertruss at aol.com 
  To: sslund at adelphia.net ; CJs at Turbonet.com ; janestacarcich at yahoo.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Cc: thansen at moscow.com ; deco at moscow.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 4:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

  All:

  I agree with Saundra that there are disturbing signs of abandonment of the principle of innocent till proven guilty in the Mubita HIV case.  But given the fact that numerous cases of death row inmates being proven innocent, after they were found guilty in a court and sentenced to death, are on record in the USA, should anyone be surprised?

  Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.

  Those who are concerned about encouraging testing for HIV might consider the impact of on those who are afraid to get tested of what seems like an attempt to try and convict Mubita on Vision2020.  Would someone want a positive HIV test to result in those who may have sexually contacted HIV from them coming forward to file legal charges, resulting in their lives and conduct dissected on a public list serve?  Yes, sharing a needle is a more certain method of transferring the HIV virus than sexual relations in some cases, so anyone who finds out they are HIV positive who uses IV drugs has this possible legal ramification regarding allegations of knowingly engaging in conduct that can spread HIV.  

  The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.

  I offer a few corrections and comments regarding some statements in this discussion:

  Saundra wrote:

  Yes -- as far as *you* know with respect to *sex*.  To date, transmission
  via IV drug abuse (and if you think we don't have a problem with IV drug
  abuse in our area, I encourage you to further educate yourself) is more
  risky than unprotected heterosexual contact.

  If what you imply (I'm not sure why you mentioned heterosexual contact and left out homosexual contact) is that heterosexuals do not have anal sex, the most risky means for HIV transmission by sexual conduct on average, sorry, wrong.  Heterosexuals engage in anal sex, though often do not report this, for obvious reasons. Gential/anal/oral lesions or sores increase the risk of HIV transmission dramatically, providing a means for blood products to enter the body.  If someone has a healthy body with no sores or lesions, the odds of transmission of HIV are reduced dramatically.  Anal sex on average has a higher probability of sores or lesions or entry points for blood products than genital only intercourse or oral sex between same or different sex couples.  And so, devout lesbians (David Camden-Britton where are you?) are a very low risk group for HIV.

  Concerning this comment by Shelley below, something is wrong if the Health District is releasing information to the public of any kind regarding who is or is not being HIV tested at what time according to any criteria that might identify or embarrass the individuals involved.  These tests should be conducted with complete anonymity, with no information of any kind being made public or otherwise disseminated to any gossip circles regarding any criteria used to dictate who is tested or when they are tested.

  This is a major disconnect for someone who ostensibly is attempting to encourage HIV testing to post on Vision2020 that they know the order in which the Health District is testing clients based on how high risk they are claiming knowledge of who the clients had sexual relations with.  If it is true that the local Health District was releasing ANY INFORMATION OF ANY KIND outside that department regarding their testing of HIV clients (well, accept the fact they do test for HIV), unless this involved law enforcement or the courts, they need to change or enforce their polices ensuring total anonymity for HIV testing.

  Shelley wrote:

  No Saundra, this is incorrect. You can call Carol Morley at the Health District and ask her. They had "kits" to test those at "high risk." Many people were turned away with an appointment after they were counseled. The purpose of the health clinic staying open last Thursday was strictly for the high risk people that were in direct contact with Mubita as the Health Department had limited kits. There were many people who showed up who had no contact with Mubita but wanted tested. They were given appointments.
  ---------------------------------

  Ted Moffett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  /////////////////////////////////////////////////////

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------