From: Eric T. Jue <etjue@lbl.gov>
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling You
Date: 29 Jul 1992 21:50:25 GMT
Organization: LBL
Distribution: world
     <NEV.92Jul28191430@palm03.stl.stc.co.uk>
     <1992Jul28.183756.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
     <1992Jul29.113342.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.243.64.95
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1

The following is a very interesting article found in another newsgroup in
response to my initial posting.

In article <1992Jul29.095509.26227@riacs.edu> Charles J. Guest,
chguest@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov writes:

Doctor Day has become something of a Parraia since she has dredged up
things in medical journals that were until now not redily available to
the general public.  There is a real loud politically motivated group
of her x-peers who want her to quit telling people the things she 
has found in her research.  They seem to think that public dissemination
of this informatio would cause a panic.  They may or man not be correct.

These items are not new they were available for people to read for
at least 5 years IF you knew where to look.  Doctor Day is different
because she has found a platform within the mainstream media from
where to speak.  Others attempting to sound the alarm (Like Dr. Gene 
Antonio) were unfairly dismissed as alarmists. Dr. Day is in a 
somewhat different situation since she was an on-the-line doctor who 
was pretty well known.  She had no need for a hidden agenda and
wasn't attempting to do anything more than warn her colleagues 
about a problem which she felt was being swept under the rug.

I have not seen a copy of her book yet, but I too have heard her
speak and have seen her on TV.  Her arguments appear valid and
well reasond and DOCUMENTED.  

She speaks of at least 3 cases of closed skin blood splash transmission.
(pores as an entry point?)  She also discusses the fact that the virus
lives outside of the human host for many days.  This is 180 degrees
oposite of what we were told as little as 2 years ago by the medical
community.  The logical question then becomes 'is casual transmission
possible'.  I have no answer for this, BUT if closed skin transmission
has occured, and IF  the virus lives outside of the body, and IF (as
discussed in Discover Magazine) the virus can infect via only one viron
[virus particle] then it would seem that casual transmission is at least
THEORETICALLY possible. 

Lastly, lets consider HOW it has been decided that the virus is not
casually transmissable.  The conclusions were bassed on Epedimiological
studies of patients who contracted aids.  Now keeping in mind that the
virus can be dormant for 10+ years lets think of the questions on the
test.  Have you ever had sex?  Yes.  Well it must have come from there.
Sigh.  Seems like a logical fault here.  In 10 YEARS any number of
behaviors would have been participated in, determining that the only
risk comes from just one behavior without double blind infection testing
(which would be massivly unethical) seems to miss the logic boat.
Doubtless most of those victims drank milk, but that does not mean that
milk caused the disease.  10 years is too long for a latency period if
you want to get good epedimiological results. 	The studies are also
unable to answer the very disturbing question of how people who were not
in any
identifiable risk group have contracted aids.  This extra percentage is
very important, but has been totally ignored by main stream medical and
media people.  These extra people who are not within the sphere of EASY
categories and are impossible to explain away simply without a casual or
at
least non-sexual non-blood sharing senario.

Hope this helps.....