Couple: HIV 2 Year Old Barred from Pool

abcnews.go.com ^ | 07/09/07 | abc

[TornadoAlley3]

Toddler Was Denied Shower Access as Well:

A couple says their vacation was ruined when an RV park owner told them they weren't welcome after discovering their 2-year-old foster son had the HIV virus. Last week, Dick and Silvia Glover went to the Wales West RV Park in Silver Hill, Ala., with their foster son Caleb. When the boy was banned from using the pool and showers, the Glovers said they were offered an uncomfortable and painful choice: They could either keep Caleb out of the water or leave.

[SoldierDad]

Your comment not worthy of my time.

[trumandogz]

I know that I can find a case of a person being killed by dry lightening and know that out of all the millions of people that have contracted HIV not one single person has done so in a swimming pool.

But then again, I am speaking of facts while you from ill-conceived conjecture.

[Doc Savage]

More than meets the eye??? I should say so. HIV is a harmless, ubiquitous, passenger retrovirus. HIV does not cause Acquired Immune Disease Syndrome. And AIDS is NOT a sexually-transmitted disease. Eventually you sheeple will wake up,...but when?

Total garbage. The kid can swim with me any day!

[SoldierDad]

Oh, so you can find no instance of a person contracting the HIV virus though being bitten by someone who is HIV infected? Wow. Not much of a researcher, are you?

[Doc Savage]

1. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, it must be abundant

in AIDS patients based on “exactly the same criteria as for

other viral diseases.”

But, only antibodies against HIV are found in most

patients (1–7)**. Therefore, “HIV infection is identified in

blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences, or viral

isolation.” But, HIV can only be “isolated” from rare, latently

infected lymphocytes that have been cultured for

weeks in vitro – away from the antibodies of the human

host (8). Thus HIV behaves like a latent passenger virus.

2. Since HIV is “the sole cause of AIDS”, there is no AIDS in

HIV-free people.

But, the AIDS literature has described at least 4621 HIVfree

AIDS cases according to one survey – irrespective of,

or in agreement with allowances made by the CDC for

HIV-free AIDS cases (55).

3. The retrovirus HIV causes immunodeficiency by killing

T-cells (1–3).

But, retroviruses do not kill cells because they depend on

viable cells for the replication of their RNA from viral

DNA integrated into cellular DNA (4, 25). Thus, T-cells

infected in vitro thrive, and those patented to mass-produce

HIV for the detection of HIV antibodies and diag nosis

of AIDS are immortal (9–15)!

4. Following “exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases”,

HIV causes AIDS by killing more T-cells than the body

can replace. Thus T-cells or “CD4 lymphocytes . . . become

depleted in people with AIDS”.

But, even in patients dying from AIDS less than 1 in 500

of the T-cells “that become depleted” are ever infected by

HIV (16–20, 54). This rate of infection is the hallmark of

a latent passenger virus (21).

5. With an RNA of 9 kilobases, just like polio virus, HIV

should be able to cause one specific disease, or no disease if

it is a passenger (22).

But, HIV is said to be “the sole cause of AIDS”, or of 26

different immunodeficiency and non-immunodeficiency

diseases, all of which also occur without HIV (table 2).

Thus there is not one HIV-specific disease, which is the

definition of a passenger virus!

6. All viruses are most pathogenic prior to anti-viral immunity.

Therefore, preemptive immunization with Jennerian vaccines is

used to protect against all viral diseases since 1798.

But, AIDS is observed – by definition – only after anti-

HIV immunity is established, a positive HIV/AIDS test

(23). Thus HIV cannot cause AIDS by “the same criteria”

as conventional viruses.

7. HIV needs “5–10 years” from establishing antiviral immunity

to cause AIDS.

But, HIV replicates in 1 day, generating over 100 new HIVs

per cell (24, 25). Accordingly, HIV is immunogenic, i.e. biochemically

most active, within weeks after infection (26, 27).

Thus, based on conventional criteria “for other viral disea ses”,

HIV should also cause AIDS within weeks – if it could.

8. “Most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within

5–10 years” – the justification for prophylaxis of AIDS with

the DNA chain terminator AZT (§ 4).

But, of “34×3 million . . . with HIV worldwide” only 1×4%

[= 471,457 (obtained by substracting the WHO’s cumulative

total of 1999 from that of 2000)] developed AIDS in 2000,

and similarly low percentages prevailed in all previous years

(28). Likewise, in 1985, only 1×2% of the 1 million US citizens

with HIV developed AIDS (29, 30). Since an annual incidence

of 1×2–1×4% of all 26 AIDS defining diseases combined is no

more than the normal mortality in the US and Europe (life ex pectancy

of 75 years), HIV must be a passenger virus.

9. A vaccine against HIV should (“is hoped” to) prevent

AIDS – the reason why AIDS researchers try to develop an

AIDS vaccine since 1984 (31).

But, despite enormous efforts there is no such vaccine to

this day (31). Moreover, since AIDS occurs by definition

only in the presence of natural antibodies against HIV

(§ 3), and since natural antibodies are so effective that no

HIV is detectable in AIDS patients (see No. 1), even the

hopes for a vaccine are irrational.

10. HIV, like other viruses, survives by transmission from host

to host, which is said to be mediated “through sexual contact”.

But, only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits

HIV (32–34), and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected

(29, 30), (figure 1b). Therefore, an average un-infected

US citizen needs 275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get

infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic!

(Table 4. Cond.)

J. Biosci. | Vol. 28 | No. 4 | June 2003

The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics

391

Table 4.

No. Prediction Fact

11. “AIDS spreads by infection” of HIV. But, contrary to the spread of AIDS, there is no “spread”

of HIV in the US. In the US HIV infections have remained

constant at 1 million from 1985 (29) until now (30), (see

also The Durban Declaration and figure 1b). By contrast,

AIDS has increased from 1981 until 1992 and has declined

ever since (figure 1a).

12. Many of the 3 million people who annually receive blood transfusions

in the US for life-threatening diseases (51), should have

developed AIDS from HIV-infected blood donors prior to the

elimination of HIV from the blood supply in 1985.

But there was no increase in AIDS-defining diseases in

HIV-positive transfusion recipients in the AIDS era (52),

and no AIDS-defining Kaposi’s sarcoma has ever been

observed in millions of transfusion recipients (53).

13. Doctors are at high risk to contract AIDS from patients, HIV

researchers from virus preparations, wives of HIV-positive

hemophiliacs from husbands, and prostitutes from clients –

particularly since there is no HIV vaccine.

But, in the peer-reviewed literature there is not one doctor or

nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the

over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years

(30). Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted

AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS (35).

And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes (36–38). Thus

AIDS is not contagious (39, 40).

14. Viral AIDS – like all viral/microbial epidemics in the past

(41–43) – should spread randomly in a population.

But, in the US and Europe AIDS is restricted since 1981

to two main risk groups, intravenous drug users and male

homosexual drug users (§ 1 and 4).

15. A viral AIDS epidemic should form a classical, bell-shaped

chronological curve (41–43), rising exponentially via virus

spread and declining exponentially via natural immunity,

within months (see figure 3a).

But, AIDS has been increasing slowly since 1981 for 12

years and is now declining since 1993 (figure 1a), just like

a lifestyle epidemic, as for example lung cancer from

smoking (figure 3b).

16. AIDS should be a pediatric epidemic now, because HIV is

transmitted “from mother to infant” at rates of 25–50% (44–

49), and because “34×3 million people worldwide” were already

infected in 2000. To reduce the high maternal transmission

rate HIV-antibody-positive pregnant mothers are

treated with AZT for up to 6 months prior to birth (§ 4).

But, less than 1% of AIDS in the US and Europe is pediatric

(30, 50). Thus HIV must be a passenger virus in newborns.

17. “HIV recognizes no social, political or geographic borders”

– just like all other viruses.

But, the presumably HIV-caused AIDS epidemics of

Africa and of the US and Europe differ both clinically and

epidemiologically (§ 1, table 2). The US/European epidemic

is highly nonrandom, 80% male and restricted to

abnormal risk groups, whereas the African epidemic is

random.

[TopQuark]

i completely agree with everything you said, an in particular:

It would be hard to prove that a swimming pool is a way to transmit HIV.

The point is not whether it is possible or easy to prove --- if someone merely tries to do that, it ruins you financially. And many lawyers will do just that. In our litigious society, you do not need to lose the case in order to incur a considerable loss.

[TopQuark]

Please see #186

[pfflier]

The odds of you getting HIV from an HIV+ person after being scratched, bitten or bled on are extremely small ...But possible... and that's the point

[ErnBatavia]

I’m assuming you forgot the /sarc tag....either that, or you are verrrry blotto/drunk this evening.

[trumandogz]

I never said that biting has never infected someone with HIV, rather I see no connection between swimming and biting. The kid with HIV could bite someone on the city bus. However, the kid can still go to the playground and ride the city bus since anyone with any intelligence understands that the probability of the kid biting someone while on the bus and that person contracting HIV is extremely remote.

[dpa5923]

If you tell yourself that you wouldn’t get into the same pool as someone with HIV (barring, for argument’s sake, a situation in which the person were bleeding copiously while you were tending to your score of gaping wounds), then you could use some basic education on how HIV is transmitted.

That is exactly what the pool owner was trying to do. He was informed that a child has a serious and life threatening disease. He told the parents of the child that he needed some documentation from a more qualified source that his own memory that the child posed no threat to the other patrons of his pool. The parents decided to ignore his request.

The pool owner may be ignorant of the manner in which HIV is spread, but because of his ignorance he decided to be safe and ask for documentation from a doctor to ensure the child was not a risk to the other patrons.

He (the pool owner) was seeking education from a qualified source. The parents decided they could make some undeserved noise on the entire episode.

From the article...""We weren't sure if somebody could get the virus if the child upchucked on them or from blood or what," said Ken Zadnichek, the park's owner. "We didn't know what the risk was. That's why we asked for something from their doctor or the county health department."

Dick Glover said the request for a doctor's note made it clear Caleb was unwelcome.

An Alabama newspaper quoted Zadnichek as saying, "I'm not responsible for their feelings. I'm responsible for the well-being of everybody in the park. If their feelings got hurt, I'm sorry. That's the way it's got to be."

[Alter Kaker]

The point is not whether it is possible or easy to prove --- if someone merely tries to do that, it ruins you financially. And many lawyers will do just that. In our litigious society, you do not need to lose the case in order to incur a considerable loss.

Except now the family of the two year old will have standing to sue the pool for discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and clean up. That seems a little more real than your hypothetical lawsuit from somebody offended to be in the same county as an HIV+ person.

[Alter Kaker]

But possible... and that's the point

And it's possible that at any given moment a meteor will land on your head, yet I bet you haven't moved out of your house into a reinforced concrete bunker either. There are some risks so small that they become laughable.

[pfflier]

There are some risks so small that they become laughable.

That explains why all healthcare workers wear gloves when they handle HIV patients but not hardhats to prevent meteor strikes!.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

[dpa5923]

Except now the family of the two year old will have standing to sue the pool for discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and clean up.

I don't think so.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires reasonable accommodations, not total.

I do not think asking a person (or their guardian) who has a serious life threatening illness to provide documentation that they do not pose a risk to other patrons as an unreasonable accommodation.

The child in the pool would be in close contact with other patrons and as the pool owner stated he did not know the potential for transmittal from a 2 year puking on another patron (not unreasonable to assume a sick child might puke in a pool). I do not believe this is a strong case for violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

[SoldierDad]

You think the owners/operators of the RV park acted wrongly. I disagree. Nothing more to say.

[kbingham]

You’re using a statistical conclusion based on data you didn’t view to make a case, and that’s the problem. They are coming up with this 1 in 300 number, for example, and I’d like to know how they arrived at it because it neglects all of the important details: the stage of the HIV of the infected person, other details regarding the immune system of the victim, previous exposures of the victim, what strain the infected person had, etc.

Is it 1 in 300 if the person just acquired it or is it 1 in 300 when the person has full blown AIDS and is at death’s door? Or 1 in 300 when the victim is dead?

One doctor has been infected from a corpse.
Here is a documented case.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:V7yMPwDimZYJ:www.poljpathol.cm-uj.krakow.pl/03_2/GAN.pdf+doctor+infected+with+HIV+during+autopsy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

I’m asking you to dig deeper and figure out how they came up with these numbers from a mathematical standpoint. I know what is often done when struggling to find a suitable distribution for very complex sets of variables. Ultimately, statistical arguments tell you nothing about what’s really happening and therefore cannot predict what will happen next.

Anytime anyone uses this kind of argument but makes no assertion about the process—the WHY this person got infected with the needle and this person Did not—aside from “it went deeper”—then it is not science.

Biology is not physics. It is not aerodynamics.

Every conclusion they are citing there is based doctors/grad stuents being told come up with a number based on chains of infection: like Bob was stuck with a needle, and thinks he got HIV from it and is now +. Alice was too, but she is -. Now, here’s 5,000 cases. Come up with a conclusion.
You may think that “makes sense” to make an argument based on that kind of data, but it’s irrelevant in this context.

There are lots of factors not even accounted for, like people who got stuck with needles and are still negative because they are immune to the virus, like steve crohn http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/gen/hivimmunity/index.html)
How do you know all of the Steve Crohn people have been factored out so that the needle-stick test only included the average dope who isn’t immune?
Depending on the sample size, this may be significant to your findings.

After all this unfiltered garbage data, they come up with some mean/variance approximation.

You use statistics when you don’t understand the process or when there are too many variables to track, but regardless, whenever anyone is using statistics, they’re basically saying “I have no what’s going on in the details.”

You should be wary when taking these guidelines as absolutes when they in fact, I repeat, offer no explanation as to what is different the 1 time in 300 where infection occurs. Bad luck? No explanation is even suggested, so therefore, it means absolutely nothing. Sorry, but that’s not science. The CDC may think so, but it isn’t, and people need to think for themselves concerning issues like this.

[MarineBrat]

I am not quoting PC mantra but simply stating scientific fact. No person has ever contracted HIV from non sexual activity in a swimming pool. That is simply a fact and cannot be disputed.

I didn't want to get involved in this, but the above statement is absolutely ludicrous. That is simply a fact and cannot be disputed.

[Alter Kaker]

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires reasonable accommodations, not total.

And permitting a family to use a public facility is a totally reasonable accommodation. Any court in the United States will agree.

The child in the pool would be in close contact with other patrons and as the pool owner stated he did not know the potential for transmittal from a 2 year puking on another patron (not unreasonable to assume a sick child might puke in a pool).

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. I'm not sure how often children puke on one another in this fellow's establishment, but as I'm sure you know, vomit cannot transmit HIV.

I do not believe this is a strong case for violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

That's fair. Plenty of lawyers will disagree with you, and I believe there's actually a pretty hefty amount of case law to back them up on that.

[Alter Kaker]

That explains why all healthcare workers wear gloves when they handle HIV patients but not hardhats to prevent meteor strikes!

Health care workers (1) deal with many patients per day, vastly increasing the chance of contamination and cross-contamination, (2) deal with sharp objects regularly, (3) even without gloves would have a very low risk of contracting HIV.

In any event, if you can't see the difference between being in the same swimming pool as a healthy child living with HIV and giving intravenous injections to a hemorrhaging delusional homeless person, I'm not sure I can help you -- the risk differential is all the world.