<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
Vision2020 is going far beyond insisting on public safety in the discussions on Mubita's alleged conduct.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
The prosecutorial "climate" on Vision2020 does not encourage people coming forward to be HIV tested.<BR>
<BR>
I offer a few corrections and comments regarding some statements in this discussion:<BR>
<BR>
Saundra wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Yes -- as far as *you* know with respect to *sex*. To date, transmission<BR>
via IV drug abuse (and if you think we don't have a problem with IV drug<BR>
abuse in our area, I encourage you to further educate yourself) is more<BR>
risky than unprotected heterosexual contact.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Shelley wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<B>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.<BR>
---------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</B></FONT></HTML>