[Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

Mon Dec 19 20:14:36 PST 2005

I could not agree more.

I encourage everyone to read ALL of Wayne's lengthy post here. 

Thank You Wayne for taking the time to express your feelings openly and
honestly. 

Have you talked with PD about this couple who continuously break the law?
Tell them a time they can go and watch it happen. A person can only get so
many citations before it turns into something else. Especially when they are
endangering others. I would be curious as well as others on this list if you
updated us periodically on this couple.

Shelley Roderick 

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

From: Art Deco
Date: 12/19/05 18:24:40
To: Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Health District HIV Gossip?

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
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////