German Infected 450 Thai Woman With Aids

[4413]

The fact is there is no law in Thailand that prohibits any individual, Thai national or alien, from knowingly or unknowningly transfering any disease - be it contageous or fatal. There is no arguement what we would do if it were in our countries, however, it has happen in Thailand and the only law bound infringement he has perpetrated is that of overstay. I

You seem extremely knowledgeable on this subject 4431. I find it hard to believe, although I believe you, there is no law against the knowingly transmitting of a potentially deadly disease. Is there any other charge that could be brought about that would cover such an act? Such as, Willful intent to cause bodily harm or murder. I mean if you know what you are doing, you can kill somebody easily with a tightly rolled up newspaper. But it is not against the law to carry a newspaper. And a newspaper is not classed as a deadly weapon. What I mean is, if somebody folds a newspaper and rolls it up tightly, it becomes as hard as wood and a hard hit to the throat or temple, could potentially kill. What would be the charge?

Here in Greece there is something called in 'The Spirit of The Law' which in certain circumstances, can be used by lawyers, to imprison somebody or have them set free. Does any such thing exist in Thai Law?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ravisher

My apologies - this is in the context of this case. Thai Law is not cold and heartless towards it's nationals.

This case is unique due to procurement of a sexual act for personal financial gains. In this case, prostitution, the Thai Law is very clear in this falling OUTSIDE the covenance of the Law boundaries. It therefor is deemed to fall under the same outlying rule we have in our Westminster System, that of 'Caveat Emptor' latin for Let the Buyer Beware. However this legal principle applies to both sides, both buyer and seller. Thus the Thai Law clearly sets out that if you procure sexual activities for personal financial gains, it is solely your responsibility as the provider of the service to ensure the environment and terms of sale meet your own guidelines.

Unfortunately for the girls involved in this case, they are not lawyers or scholars, and the law has no footing to assist them when followed to the letter. Now, with such a high media profile, there will be no one who will come forward to be ridiculed and shot down in flames. It has been the will to bring it out into the open that has seen it retract out of sight.

[Limbo]

It is a very interesting matter and it is really great that so many members of Thai Visa can make some time free to discuss it.

By the way: Is it already known if girls are infected by this man, and in that case how many girls are infected? And if girls had sex with him and are HIVpositive now, how can be found out at they actually attracted it from him?

Or is this one of these usual 'crime and punishment' discussions to enable perverts to think out cruel and draconic punishment techniques?

[Limbo]

One of the perverts is very open about his sexual abberations: Padkapow Guy!

This man should be chopped up alive, slowly...over the course of months, and then thrown to the crocodiles.....preferably hungry ones.

just cut him up in small enough pieces to flush.

I would like to see all them so well informed self appointed judges in the claws of the so called Thai justice.

... was one of the answers he got.

And then, suddenly, I feel myself getting infected by the Padkapow Guy virus: I actually would like to see him in jail, in a Thai jail or an American jail.

I don't care if this guy is guilty or not. Maybe he is maybe he is not, let's have some fun and cut him in pieces, slowly, over the course of months. Wow, that feels really good!

[dr_Pat_Pong]

any chance of incorporating a spellchecker in thaivisa ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technically impossible. A gasoven and incinerator are present though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The goose left us

[dr_Pat_Pong]

any chance of incorporating a spellchecker in thaivisa ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technically impossible. A gasoven and incinerator are present though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The goose left us

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, and there I was, thinking it was turkey after thanksgiving

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Either term is apt

[yuyi]

Sorry, but if you would really be a psychologist you would have learned already that it is not a "security guard" who takes blood samples.

To follow your logic, you therefor deem that doctors enter into a prison cell to exam a prisoner alone. World Health Organization guidelines prohibit any medical employee from examining a prisoner unless accompanied by 3 enforcement officers from the holding facility.

When taking a blood sample from a prisoner who has issued written consent, the enforcement officers are required to act as observation staff only who instigate action based only on aggressive mannerisms of the prisoner. A medical employee is restricted from extracting blood samples, or conducting obtrusive tests, unless the prisoner has issued written consent.

In the event that a prisoner captures a syringe, using this as a tool of threat or weapon, the enforcement officers must restrain and subdue the prisoner.

Having only one leg does not affect his reach nor his power to lunge and strike with a blood filled syringe. Farang are larger that Thai enforcement officers. There was never any implication that Security Guards take blood.

So you know better! What I don't understand is why you try to make it appear as if i would have said otherwise!? You learned some Psycho tricks, did you? At the end you are really a psychologist

Anyway, you said that it's the security guard who is "attempting to stick a syringe into the arm"

Here is your exact quote:

"You will not find a security guard in a public prison system being paid less than 7,000 Baht per month, to risk his own life, or the life of his family, by attempting to stick a syringe into the arm of a man who has shown some unstable mental tendencies.

So now you explain yourself that you had been incorrect.

Where you find that I said that "doctors enter into a prison cell to exam a prisoner alone". Very clearly I have not said that. Another psychologist trick?

You said that the security guard is attempting to stick a syringe into the arm, and I said no, it's not the security guard.

Then you attempt to "to follow my logic", and make a lot of assumptions about what I would have said, and then you attack these assumptions. Which makes me believe that you have at least read some books about psychologist tricks, if not really studied it.

Another nice example:

I doubt if your story is true, and if you really have something to do with a NGO you probably never went there yourself, thus you do not have any more information than what was in the news anyway.

Again Yuyi, you have shown that you are far from qualified as an Expert Witness. You will learn in life that your doubt is of no consequence to anyone but yourself.

Wow! I learn in life here that I seemed to have applied to be an "Expert Witness", and about doubts and consequences. OK, you must have read a lot of books, or at least some good ones ;-)

As for whether I was there or not, you tell me the building that is opposite the main temple gate, and I will tell you if you know what you are talking about or not.

That building is even on the postcards, that's too easy. But how about the side entry of that building, what is written there at the door?

And what's that for an excuse that your NGO is scared of international journalists? I haven't seen an NGO yet which is hiding their good deeds, and not taking up the chance for some PR, which could mean some donations. Oh, you don't need donations? So, who's funding you? Logical common sense might then explain whose interests you follow...

And about your condom statement, well, I do not need to read the constitution to know that it is dumb and dumber not to use condoms, independently from any HIV risks, simply because of the usual STDs.

And now Freud (so you really have a book!):

And finally, a line direct from Sigmond Freud - straight to you Yuyi:

"It is not for the misunderstood to critisize those who offer a more educated perspective."

Does that mean that it is not for you to critisise me?

And now some legal issues:

If you want to judge the one legged monster, then for what? For infecting some girls? With what? HIV?

Well, until now it is still not proven that there is an HIV virus.

It is not proven that HIV leads to AIDS. It is also not proven that you can infect somebody with HIV.

All these are nothing but assumption. Heavily sponsored assumption. Sponsored with millions and again millions of money from the pharmaceutical industry. And that is proven: The HIV story is a big big business.

But that's another topic, back to the one legged monster story.

He, the one legged monster, does not know that the HIV story is still unproven. For him it is a fact. So if he indeed tried to infect the girls, with the intention to make them suffer, and eventually to kill them, then it simply does not matter if his attempts had been successful or not, he is committing a crime: Attempted murder.

I'm not a lawyer, so I do not know if he can get judged here or anywhere for attempted murder, or not. I think the laws should cover that.

However I'm aware also that then the fact that you give patients deadly chemotherapies (AZT etc.) based on assumption and half-truths (the HIV / AIDS myth), knowing that these are unproven assumptions, and knowingly omitting the usual double-blind studies to test if these chemotherapies have any positive effect, then this is attempted murder too.

But again, this is another story.

[yuyi]

Well, until now it is still not proven that there is an HIV virus.

It is not proven that HIV leads to AIDS. It is also not proven that you can infect somebody with HIV.

All these are nothing but assumption. Heavily sponsored assumption. Sponsored with millions and again millions of money from the pharmaceutical industry. And that is proven: The HIV story is a big big business.

However I'm aware also that then the fact that you give patients deadly chemotherapies (AZT etc.) based on assumption and half-truths (the HIV / AIDS myth), knowing that these are unproven assumptions, and knowingly omitting the usual double-blind studies to test if these chemotherapies have any positive effect, then this is attempted murder too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HIV Myth???

What is this then???

There is this family of proteins which are known as "HIV

proteins," but which we can call "X-proteins" for he sake of

discussion, here. There isn't any question of their identificat-

ion or their structure or their "isolation." We know their

sequences exactly, and we produce them routinely by genetic

engineering. For example, in the 3rd generation ELISA tests for

>HIV-antibodies, the proteins for use in the tests are actually

made by recombinant techniques in microbes, using genes for the

"X-proteins." We know what these proteins, are, okay?

We have given these "X proteins" names like HIVp24, HIVp17, and

HIVgp160. This is not misidentification, because these proteins

are called these names by definition. Ultimately the name does not

matter, so long as we can agree as to the nature of these proteins,

and the fact that they aren't a part of normal cells, and must

come from elsewhere.

Do you have any problem with this?

Now, these X proteins are viral proteins, and they are not endogenous

viral proteins. We know this because the genes that code for the

proteins are NOT present in normal cells as those of an endogenous

virus would of course be. There isn't any where they can hide from a

cell DNA digest and Southern blot. Or from PCR techniques targetted to

find them. However, these genes can be transferred to normal cells in

a filtered, cell-free extract, and this transfer causes cultured cells

to suddenly start actively making all these X proteins, which can then

be collected, sequenced, and/or identified by various means (SDS-PAGE,

for instance). So the ability of cells to make these proteins is

infectious, and can be transferred from culture to culture. Moreover,

such cultures secrete the genes to make these proteins, contained in

lipid particles of a characteristic density, just like those secreted

particles that contain the proteins themselves. Addition of a

cell-free extract containing these particles to cells in culture,

causes the cells to incorporate the genes, and to make more of the

particles.

A virus, by definition, is a package of genes and proteins

secreted by cells, which causes other cells to make more of the same

such packages. Our X-proteins and the genes that code for them fit

this definition, and X-proteins are thus viral proteins, and the genes

that code for them are viral genes. Moreover, limiting dilution assay

shows that only one virus type is involved with this protein family,

since dilution of cell-free extracts of X-proteins and their genes

reaches the point where the extract either transforms a culture into

making the whole family of X-proteins and genes, or else does nothing.

If more than one virus was involved, dilution would eventually

reach the point that cultures might be induced to only make some

of the viral X proteins in question, and not others. But all

these X-proteins we're talking about go together, always. They

are the proteins of one virus species, clearly.

That's really all that is necessary. We are talking about a

new virus species, defined by the family of viral proteins it

causes cells to make in culture. Science has given this virus

the name "HIV." That's the end of that story. That's what HIV

is.

Sounds like HIV to me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Ravisher, for this interesting explanation!

Yes, I'm aware of this family of proteins which, as you say, are known as "HIV proteins". I'm also aware of their origin from blood samples from Gallo's research for a cancer virus in cancer patients.

These "HIV proteins", which are supposed to be particles of the HIV retrovirus, have to be viewed with a considerable amount of perspective. Retroviral-like particles are practically ubiquitous. Already in the 1970s such particles were frequently observed in human leukaemia tissues, in cultures of embryonic tissues and in the majority of animal and human placentas. This is of significance given that the H9 cell line is made up of leukaemic cells and also because Montagnier obtained his EMs from cultures done with umbilical cord blood lymphocytes. (I assume you know about Gallo, Montagnier, and the H9 cell line) There's also a large group of retroviral particles classified as type-C particles that are found in fish, snakes, worms, pheasant, quail, partridge, turkey, tree mice, agouti, tapeworms, insects as well as mammals. And amongst its many official guises HIV has been described as a type-C particle, by both Montagnier and Gallo. Also, there's an electron microscope study reported in 1988 by O'Hara and colleagues from Harvard. They examined enlarged lymph nodes from both AIDS and non-AIDS patients and found "HIV" particles in 90% of BOTH groups. They had to concede that particles alone do not prove infection with HIV.

Thus there is no proof that these proteins are part of the HIV virus. And this is mainly because there is even no proof that a retrovirus HIV does exist. Not in test-tubes, not in AIDS patients and not in anyone who is "HIV" positive. I freely concede that this assertion may be wrong but to date no HIV expert did come up with any argument that has convinced me otherwise. There is a tradition in science that those who propose theories provide the proof. According to this tradition it is up to the HIV protagonists to come up with proof that HIV does exist. A scientist cannot employ the "Martian" argument. That Martians exist because there is no proof they do not exist. The laboratory phenomena documented by Montagnier and Gallo in Science in 1983/84 (which are still the best papers on this particular topic) are not specific for retroviruses and do not constitute proof of isolation of a retrovirus.

You mention the "PCR techniques" you use to find the HIV proteins. You might not know that the inventor of PCR, Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry, does say that PCR is useless as a HIV test. He says further:

"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things:

1) culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus.

-> There is no EM picture yet of the HIV virus.

2) you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyse precisely what makes it up.

-> There is no isolation yet of the HIV virus, and thus no analysis possible.

3) you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.

-> Without an isolated HIV virus, this can't be done.

But what did Gallo & Co then present as proof?

The HIV researchers have used some antibodies in the patients' blood to convince themselves that some proteins in their cultures are unique constituents of a particle which they say is a retrovirus and call HIV. That's the first thing. But having done that they've then turned around and said, "OK, if these proteins are from HIV then the antibodies must be THE HIV antibodies". So they've used the one and same chemical reaction to prove which each reactant is when in fact there's no way an antibody reaction can tell you even what one reactant is even if you know the other to start with. That's why you need a independent gold standard adjudicator (which would be isolated, purified HIV, which does not exist).

Or, to say it withe the words of Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, Munich: "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

And therefore, Ravisher, I do use the words "HIV myth".

I use them whenever I see that the assumptions "positive HIV test is a proof of HIV infection" and "HIV infection leads to AIDS" are taken as proven facts. They are very clearly not. They are an unproven theory. And a big business.

And it makes me feel very very sad to see that people are poisoned with expensive and deadly chemotherapies because these unproven theories are sold as facts.

[IsaanAlex]

This story is a load of ...

I'd acquit based on the tripe reported as fact so far.

He's just as likely a mentally unbalanced fool whose been screwed out of his assets by a vindictive ex-ho, ex-wife and wants to leave everyone hanging as to whether he's HIV positive or not.

His infected ex-wife was probably .. the infected headman and they decided to get the German out with the help of the headman's infected mea noi-the daughter of the cop that wants to 'kill him'.

Should be a healthy pot for all the assorted scum.

And convenient that he wasn't charged but...was deported.

Less chance for the truth to come out in open court or the public to become aware of all the pertinent 'facts'....

IA

Edited March 15, 2005 by RDN

[sbaker8688]

I use them whenever I see that the assumptions "positive HIV test is a proof of HIV infection" and "HIV infection leads to AIDS" are taken as proven facts. They are very clearly not. They are an unproven theory. And a big business.

And it makes me feel very very sad to see that people are poisoned with expensive and deadly chemotherapies because these unproven theories are sold as facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bow to your references. You have apparently done some reading, research, and have some knowlege in this area.

But either there is an "infection" that we call "HIV/AIDS" or there is not. There is either a girl lying here on the table infected and dying with it, or there isn't. Either you will, on a dare or a bet, have unprotected sex with her, claiming that it's all just a myth, or you won't. I bet that you won't. It is a known fact that this disease can be spread from person to person, is it not? If you don't believe it, I'm sure someone could hook you up with an infected needle to stick yourself with.

Do these drugs not have success in treating this "infection" (whatever you'd like to call it)? If they do, then surely there is an infection? If they do not, then there is a lot of propaganda and B.S. out there.

You make points about the scientific method, standards of proof, etc. That's fine. But your points seem to be largely academic. Are they not? Are you saying that this infection (whatever you want to call it), does not exist, does not kill people, and is not spreadable through blood and/or other bodily fluids? Is that your point? Or is your point simply that more research needs to be done, and that the virus needs to be isolated and identified and photographed, etc? If your point is #2, I think we'd all agree. If your point is #1, well, ....

This is not a flame or an impeachment of anything you have said. You seem to be an intelligent enough guy. I'm just asking questions and trying to clarify is all.

Thanks.

[george]

This topic continues here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30138