Monday, March 26th, 2001

Luke Untangles His Tefillin

What do you get when you combine the most unfriendly Orthodox synagogue in the world with porn's most notorious gossip monger?

A new pair of tefillin.

Guys, today a very beautiful thing happened... A friend from shul invited me over today. He had something to give me... It was a brand new pair of tefillin (leather straps attached to boxes of scrolls of Torah that you wrap around your head and arm) from my new unfriendly shul... This is worth about $600... My tefillin are old and probably unkosher... I was deeply touched by this sweet gift and I am determined to live up to it... My friend saw my tefillin on purim, called the shul rabbi, and arranged the gift...

It was very pleasant to eat lunch and spend 2 hrs with today with Flame... We've done the hard work, and so, even though we haven't communicated in six months, our talk was easy and fluid. She asked after my friend Chaim Amalek...She very much enjoyed the one email I forwarded her, where Chaim suggested she was a Mosad spy.

She did not flip her hair or cross her legs or give me hope for the future... She knows what I do for a living but thank God I've never had to say the word "porno" or "l-keford.com" to her sweet soul and she has not mentioned them either... She mentioned that some people from our Israel trip had forwarded her things I'd written about how I feared getting found out... She's been in my van many times, and been to my place and made no comments on either...

Scott writes Luke: Congradulations on your Jewish strap thing(sounds kinky). More good(?)news-I managed to get sereral links to LF.com and one for Prager on The Big Doggie New Orleans board with the posts getting deleted. I decided to make this a mission-to get your link on ALL of TBD's whore boards. Several times on each at least(as you can see,the industry hasn't been making a s---load of GOOD new movies lately,so it's something to do). The Dennis Prager site must be really confusing to these moron johns with to much $$$ to waste. Maybe they will learn something. Like no matter how much you worship($pend) on them,porn stars are totally disgusted by their fans. Especially naked fans.

Luke Gets Mail

Simon writes from the UK: Hi Luke, I've just seen a documentary on UK TV called 'Disinfo Nation' of the growing trend in 'Extreme Porn' from LA. I thought you insights were spot-on as to the effect of porn on modern personal relationships. I myself have been in contact with a few pornstars who have worked with the likes of Rob Black and 'Extreme' and too find his whole approach too disgusting to palette. However, in a strange way I find him more moralistic and 'mainstream' than say something like Vivid, in the sense that he believes that what he does is wrong and evil, and he thinks of it as prostitution and pandering. It seems to me that here in Europe he would not be so controversial, not because we are more perverted, but that people would just think of him as irrelevant, infantile even.

I found Inari Vachs to be more intelligent and articulate than I expected and would like to correspond with her. Do you know if she has a general E-mail for people to write to?

Finally, one criticism of porn critics I have is that you seem very reluctant to admit to liking porn. Instead you give a diatribe on its effects on the american psyche without actually saying that you like writing about it because you like to watch it. Why not say you are conflicted, and that porn can corrupt even middle class journalists. Are porn stars erotic entertainers or low class play things? It's so easy to see from way up here.

Luke replies: Thanks for your letter. I am not a porn critic. I don't review porno. But I'm sure I've been sullied by my time in porno.

Taylor Thompson Warning

Nic writes: Luke Just a word that you might like to get out in the open, a model Taylor Thompson is lurking around the industry calling magazines where her pic is being published and claiming she is underage, and has not signed a release. At the time I shot her she had two id's, both photo id's stating she was 18 years old and 11 months. And she positively signed a release and she was also put on tape stating the ids are of her, have not beeen altered and she is over 18 and signed all documents. If you want a picture of her please let me know, I know she has shot with a few people including Jill Kelley.

Taylor Thompson Taylor again

Marc writes Luke: is that how dirty old men picture high school girls waiting for the bus? please, sir, find a new line of work. you and your philacteries deserve it.

Public Nudity On College Campuses #2

2000--Filmco Releasing

Patrick Riley writes on RAME: According to the titles, some of these have been sent in by viewers, presumably fellow college students as they do look like they've been videoed there. Maybe those codes of conduct are necessary, or maybe some of these guys just need to grow up. Bring back the draft, I say!

There are about 20 segments which can be broken down into categories: girl takes shower while hidden camera watches but can't see anything because the steam and water on the shower doors obscure the view, girl working out in the gym (generally pudgy girls); girl dressing being peeped on through a window; girl nude on tanning bed; and probably most repulsive of all, the hidden camera in the toilet just below seat level. Fortunately no one takes a dump in these scenes however they do provide one of the more interesting events where a girl pees, wipes, and then removes and puts in a new tampon. Seems to be quite practiced at it, heh, heh.

There's also the last scene which is a bit different in that it was supposedly videoed by her roommate using a Sony night vision camera. It's advertised on the box as what happens when a girl has phone sex with a guy which conjures up visions of some Roseanne Barr look-a-like munching on Twinkies while yakking on the phone but this is quite different. The girl is in (or on the) bed talking quite sweetly to her obvious boyfriend. She pulls off her panties and masturbates and then uses a dildo to bring herself to orgasm. For once it actually appears to be real and although the girl is hard to see and looks a little on the pudgy side, the scene is quite erotic.

Charlie's Little Devils

2000--Legend Video
Producer/Director: Jerome Tanner
Featuring: Mirage, Gwen Summers, Stevie, Keki D'Aire, Mia Smiles, Dillon Day, Dale DaBone, Evan Stone, Chris Cannon, Joel Lawrence, Joey Ray, Frank Buckquid

Pat Riley writes: Tanner's repertory company is at it again. Same old people with one addition doing a rip-off of a mainstream plot they have neither the talent nor the money to do properly. There's the obligatory porno-friendly lines about right wing politicians being hypocrites and the usual quota of mechanical sex all resulting in another forgettable tape cluttering up the shelves of the video store.

Dale is a congressman trying to unseat Senator Dillon in the next election but he's caught screwing pudgy intern Keki by Dillon's henchman Evan who takes photos. He realizes his chances of election are now nil--wonder why?--unless he can trap Dillon into a similar predicament so he approaches Cannon, the front man for Angel Investigators, a PI agency owned by "Charlie" who gives instructions by speaker phone.

Cannon heads off to a porno set to find girls willing to open their thighs and trap Dillon and, after some conversation with director (?) Frank Buckquid (no sex), he watches Joey Ray screw Stevie (huge cantaloupes, whorish, see {Nymph Fever #4}). She's happy to do the job and also recommends her girlfriends, Mirage (credits: Briana Banks) and Gwen. Mirage gives Cannon a BJ to show how loose she is.

Later Gwen is supposed to seduce Dillon but ends up screwing Evan in the back of the politician's limo. That didn't work so they track Dillon down to a location where he's giving a speech to some farmers and Mirage screws chauffeur Joel to distract him. For some reason they think Dillon will now recognize them so they call in reinforcements in the form of Mia and she seduces Dillon in the bathroom. After the cum shot, Cannon bursts in and takes photos. Yeah, sure!

Sexwise: Dale screws Keki including an anal ending in a facial; Joey screws Stevie ending in a tit cum shot; Mirage gives a BJ to Cannon; Evan screws Gwen ending in a facial; Joel screws Mirage including an anal ending in a facial/tit cum shot; and Dillon screws Mia ending in a facial. Condoms used for Stevie and Mia; the rest, including Gwen, took the risk.

Booty Talk 20

West Coast Product.
Producer/Director: Shorty
Featuring: Cashmere, Cherry Lee, Joy, Karizzma, Diamond (black), Crave, Jack Napier, Lexington Steele, Mandingo, Mark Anthony, Shorty

Pat Riley writes: As of the time of writing this has the two best looking girls, black or white, in the industry in the persons of Crave and Karizzma, and a very high quality body for Joy. The rest, however, don't come up to the same standard. As to the sex, Karizzma's scene is exceptionally good despite the male being Mandingo but Joy and Crave's scenes, both studded by Lexington, suffer from the disproportionate size of his dick which results in the girl spending more time trying to avoid deep penetration than in enjoying herself.

Cashmere is the just-out-of-the-maternity-ward girl from {#21} with horrible blonde hair. Napier picks her up in a van and takes her home where they screw ending in a belly cum shot.

Cherry Lee who started back in 1997/8 and thus has worn out her welcome, is interviewed by Shorty, the director. It appears that she had a period of absence from the business while she established her website and she has returned for the fans. I didn't notice her absence. Lexington and Jake share her including a dubious DP (could be a double cuntal) ending in a back cum shot and a facial. Hooker sex.

Joy, who can be seen in {Black Cheerleader Search #38} and {#39} has a passable face, long straight black hair, medium/large tits, tight waist, flat belly, front tooth gap, piranha teeth, paintbrush, and an adorable little butt. Lexington screws her during which she struggles to keep him from penetrating too deeply, at one stage in doggie even trying to pull away to the point that he has to pull her back. It ends in a tit cum shot.

Karizzma (credits: Charisma (movie); Tia (box)) is the very pretty girl from {P.Y.T. #3}, {BCS #41}, and {FWF #25} with her long beaded hair here and wearing a business suit. She calls on Mandingo who seems to be living in an empty apartment but from the conversation it appears that she's a real estate agent trying to persuade him to rent the place. After they look around, he suggests that she needs to do something to prime the pump so they screw in front of the fire. It ends in a tit cum shot. Despite the overtones of commercial sex this is somewhat passionate and well videoed. Especially nice was the conversation between them while Karizzma was lying on her side still wearing her blouse and skirt. Unfortunately we don't see her actually undress.

Diamond has long red hair, very light skin, marginal face, red lips tattoo on her right butt, large tailbone tattoo, shaven pussy, tattoo right shoulder outside, small/medium tits, prominent clit, left nipple ring, and a lithe body. Mark and Napier shoot the breeze with her and then share her including a DP ending in a facial and a pussy cum shot.

Finally Crave (see {More Black Dirty Debutantes #30}) with her gorgeous little body, masturbates and then Lexington arrives and screws her ending in a facial. It has similar pain avoidance and attempts to stop him penetrating too deeply as with Joy's scene but there is one item of note in the positioning. At one stage Crave is seated on a straight chair with her butt overhanging the edge and Lexington simply pumps her from behind. At the end of the movie they show some behind the scenes interviews/preening by the girls but nothing very interesting was said.

Ready To Drop 35

2000--Filmco Releasing Producer/Director: Loretta Sterling Featuring: Krista, Shannon, Brooke, Raquel, Guy DeSilva

Pat Riley writes: Not too exciting except for fans of Krista, the (now) older woman from 1992/5, who does a passable scene with Guy (uncredited). The rest are only just OK.

Krista preens in the mirror and shows us her very swollen belly and largely well-kept body. Guy, pretending to be her husband, arrives home, massages her body with oil, and checks out the fetal movement. They screw using a condom and ending in a tit/belly cum shot. I wouldn't call it passionate but nor is it completely pro-sex.

Shannon has long blonde hair, passable face, small not yet engorged tits, poor dentition, prominent treasure trail, and a hairy pussy. She says that she's at 34 weeks but the belly size looks small for that level of gestation. No particular damage such as stretch marks or varicose veins. She complains that her tits are very tender but that she'd be willing to engage in some g/g sex so Loretta, who you hear behind the camera, brings in Brooke. Yikes! Looks like a refugee from the chemo ward or a young unhealthy boy: near bald head, emaciated body, tiny droopy tits, hairy pussy, and a loss of belly muscle tone. She sounds retarded, although willing, but seems to never have done a g/g before. Shannon is fed up with the screwing around and takes charge and they go through the usual g/g motions. It's certainly not erotic.

Raquel (box cover) has long reddish-brown hair, large swollen tits, passable face, very prominent treasure trail, and a splooge of pubic hair. She's far along in her pregnancy and says that she's horny. She rings hubby but he's stuck at work so she preens in the mirror and then masturbates only.

Zack writes Luke: Luke, I know keeping the site going is a lot of work, but really, reposting reviews from RAME is a very lazy and half-assed way to get content. Get off your ass and get some gossip! Provide original content.

When Did Beautiful Women Get So Nasty?

Mutt writes on RAME.net: Like I said in my first posts to r.a.m.e I'm not an adult video buff aka Raincoater. Mostly because I have no interest in becoming known in my local video rental store as Mr Perv and running out to an adults only video and magazine store is really too much of a hassle. And paying 30 bucks to buy vids by mail order on the Net is just way too much money to spank my monkey. But now that I've discovered these pay per view places on the Net and my cable connection I'm starting to catch up on what's been going on. My question is WHEN THE HELL DID THE WORLD GET SO DAMN FREAKY, EVEN THE XXX PORNO WORLD? WHEN DID BEAUTIFUL WOMEN GET SO DAMN NASTY?

Honestly I don't know if I'm happy or sad about it. Back when I was renting videos there were some beautiful actresses and I enjoyed watching them have sex and masturbate but it was pretty much the kind of sex I have in my personal life - there weren't many anal scenes, blowjobs weren't accompanied by enough drool to fill a backyard swimming pool and facials/swallowing weren't that frequent either. In fact XXX porn was sorta like real life, the more beautiful a woman was the less crazy she was in bed.

So I rented a video online by Seymore Butts called Behind the Scenes last night. The premise of this tape is Seymore goes to the set of a big budget feature film type porn flick and pokes around showing you them making the movie, backstage interviews and some extracurricular little sex scenes manipulated by Seymore while the real movie is being filmed. On his way into this beautiful mansion where the film is being shot Seymore meets this absolutely gorgeous brunette hanging out outside. Seymore knows her he says from some Pool Party video he did at his house. Then he goes in the house and does his thing, all I'm waiting for is for the brunette hottie to come back into the video, the rest was pretty boring stuff. Finally she does, Seymore and her get into this vintage antique expensive car and then this sweet beautiful things GOES ABSOLUTELY f---ING INSANE ..........

I truly was a bit in shock....she was far more interested in licking, eating and f---ing Seymore's hairy smelly butthole with her tongue than fellating his dick. Damn. I personalize this s--- when I watch it and I'm thinking if I met a girl as gorgeous and sweet as this girl and I am fortunate to get her into my bed and all she wants to do seemingly is bury her tongue in my foul anus I am going to enjoy it but I'm crossing her off as a potential gf/wife.

Do any of you guys feel the same way about such nastiness? Oh yeah, I finally figured out who the girl was. Taylor Hayes. I knew the name and from promoting Vivid's websites I knew she was a Vivid Girl so she must be very attractive. She is awesome to look at, a 9 in my books, maybe a 9 and a half. Where and when did all this nastiness become so 'normal'? It seems like the prettiest girls are trying to prove how nasty they can be.....some kind of Gen X extreme thing where you push the envelope of everything. What info do we have about Taylor Hayes? Does she come from some kind of f---ed up background? Does she date only guys from the porn biz?

MrHollywoodJew writes: Taylor Hayes is f---ing gorgeous! She is a 10 in my book and, contrary to Mutt's point of view, if she behaved with me as she did on tape with Seymore, I would ask her on the spot to be not merely my girlfriend but my WIFE!!!

Succubus

I sat in on the third day of the James DiGiorgio directed VCA shoot Succubus. It boasts beautiful girls such as VCA contract girl Julie Meadows, who's been married ten years, as well as tall tangy Nakita Denise from the Czech Republic. Ava Vincent plays the lead role. A few months ago, Sin City said she was going to be their new contract girl but no deal was ever struck. I hear the two sides are talking again.

Two agents from William Morris stopped by and witnessed a verbal fight between Rob Spallone and Herschel Savage which threatened to disrupt the shoot. Director James DiGiorgio played peacemaker and Herschel returned to the shoot late Sunday night, as I was leaving.

Jace Rocker served as Assistant Director while his ex-wife, the ex-porn star Britt Morgan, weilded a Sony camera to capture behind-the-scenes footage for the DVD version. Britt and Jace were together ten years and married eight. They split in 1992. Britt remarried. She's now divorcing her much older husband in Texas and she's living platonically with Jace, who's set her up with a room and a web site BrittMorgan.com.

Jace's having sex with someone who's having sex with someone who's having sex with Britt.

Sin City director Michael Raven writes: Alien, while I appreciate your comments and thank you for your support I must point out a few things lest they be misunderstood. The purpose of my question to Jimmy D was to simply challenge him to support his assertion. I do not believe he wishes me any ill will nor do I believe he is "envious" as you suppose. I believe him to be just recalling events as he remembers them. From the time I first entered this industry till the present I have never found him to be anything but honest and polite( albeit a bit sarcastic, but I don't consider that a negative character trait) in his dealings with me. While I am sure our opinions differ and would imagine we might remember selected events with differing perspectives, I hold Jimmy in high regard as a fellow Director, a talented Editor and friendly acquaintance.

AlienX@SinCityFilms.com writes: Hhe heh I understand that stuff indeed, respect is hi for Di Georgio here as well. I just got to put the check's in place and watch them, concerning this realm. I do not like to go soft where I feel a dig is being made. I say I what think, based off what I see, and I merely saw someone attempting to make dig. Di Georgio let's talk about opening doors here! Get it out so we can all be happy, kiss and make up infront of the paragraph lens before all these people. Rest assured Michael when you make a movie people are gettin out a pen and paper these days to make notes, best film of the year is not easy to come by and Watchers will be a tough act to follow next year. Watchers is now playing at SinCityVOD.com, Video On Demand technology at it finest.

Director James DiGiorgio writes: Michael's right. I did not mean to imply or assert that his success is anything but his own doing. It's been my observation that men who come into this business with female performers (as significant others) are often-times better able to meet people in the business--hopefully the 'right' people-- and network with them. I thought I had taken care (in my comments) not to imply that Michael's success is merely a by-product of Sydnee's stature as a performer. If I am mistaken in my recall of who came first, Michael or Sydnee, it was an honest mistake. Michael's a terrific director. What he and I have in common is a background in the craft of editing. We don't know each other all that well, but I think we know each other well enough to know that there's no malice or envy in either direction.

Catching Up With Richard Pacheco, Jamie Gillis

In the January issue of Richard Freeman's zine Batteries Not Included (BNI@aol.com), Richard Pacheco talks about turning 40 years of age.

He says he photographs young and has kept his body in good shape and often thinks about returning to porn, even though he's married with teenage daughters.

Pacheco says he never retired from porn. He just stopped performing until there's a cure or vaccine for AIDS.

Richard complains that he's earned about 30 cents in the past three years - pointing out one of the more painful and least talked about problems with working in porn. It's no platform to other work. Most jobs are gained through working other jobs. Most jobs lead to other jobs, except porno.

Porno attracts anti-social people with minimal skills. This outlaw world allows those who dip into it for a few months or years the option of delaying reality. Porn provides little opportunity for refining the skills that make for life success.

Pacheco got to know Jamie Gillis "while working with the ogre, Svetlana, one of the worst people God ever put on this earth...and by far, the worst director I ever worked for. Jamie pulled me through that nightmare and I have loved him ever since."

Gillis is a wild man, with few sexual boundaries. Like Harry Reems and Rocco Siffredi, he delighted for years in sexually pummelling chicks.

Jamie tells BNI that he never officially retired though he did recently leave porn for a year for the sake of a woman he lived with. She hated porn. So Jamie left porn and in the process of a year with the woman, he went broke.

Gillis sold everything he owned. He wrote a few articles for different magazines, including "The Mad Satyr" for Screw.

"I was living with this girl," Gillis tells Pacheco, "who told me to give up porn and I said okay. Of course, the upshot of all this was...she had this broken down bum who she eventually threw out because he didn't have any money."

Scared of AIDS, Jamie moved to New York City where he drove a cab. "I used to freak out when I got on airplanes. I'd think, Oh, God, I'm going to cash, crash, crash... So, I think the statistics now for AIDS and heterosexual sex...one in 500 if you have sex once with a person who has AIDS..."

But these stats don't necessarily apply to Gillis as he does not necessarily restrict himself to heterosexual sex.

Fred Lincoln flew Gillis to Europe to do a couple of films. Then one night, a passenger in his cab worked for Bizarre Video. She suggested he call the company which he did. Jamie began hanging around in their offices and eventually became general manager.

Fred writes: L-- I no longer believe this BS about how difficult it is for a porn girl to return to civilian life. Anyone can do it. In fact, check out the attached.

A few questions: a) Has Britt Morgan aged well over the years? b) I assume her ex-husband knew about her porn past, eh? c) Is she trying to melt back into civilian life, or capitalize off of her porn past? d) What is Mr. Pacheco doing nowadays? What does he do for a living? e) Does his past haunt him? In other words, does he get recognized?

Luke Gets Mail

LT writes: Did Skeeter Kerkove ever stop and think perhaps Roger Pipe finds Brianna Banks more attractive on general terms REGARDLESS of the boob job? As far as the 85%...so, is that why Brigett went to the doctor from the Harline Clinic where you bragged of "getting a deal" to have a nose job thrown in as well...because 85% have them? Wonderful, what if 85% jump off a bridge?...or 85% use heroin?

Point being Skeeter, what Rog (and others) pointed out, is that Brigett has a BAD boob job. Terrible. Awful. And they are correct. I've seen that mentioned by people who find Brigett attractive otherwise (or at least did before she was butchered by a Harline disciple. Some liked her fine before the implants other than the ridiculous fake lips). And it still was unfair to Rog because he has pointed this out about other porn performers as well. Not as many as I would like, as he still has a tendency to go on using terms like "perfect breasts" for some with obvious implants...but, he HAS mentioned poor and unecessary boob jobs with other actresses, on several occasions...and did it before Brigett ever entered porn. That said, I'm not so sure Rog hasn't backed off since he I don't know how to interpret it when he says: "I don't pile on" Skeeter believes he has, so that's all that matters.

Skeeter, you never did address the fact that I pointed out exactly which "doctor" Brigett went to (was taken to might be a better way of putting it) or address your bragging about "getting a deal" on her implants and having the doctor "throw in a nose job as well" or Bridgett telling people how she was only going up to a C and yet winding up with DDs. Instead you cowardly tried to throw it another direction by claiming I didn't know what I was talking about.

Look, Skeeter, I don't know you and I have no ill feelings toward Brigett personally, but what I presented are facts. Maybe you weren't even aware that the "doctor" works for Harline...but he does.

And glamour does not equal fake tits. There's not one thing glamorous about having some ENT slice open one's areolas and stuff silicone bags filled with salt water or silicone gel into a cavity created by separating layers of tissue. There's nothing the least bit glamourous about the aftermath and complications (scars, wrinkling, loss of sensation, repeated surgeries, genuine health risks, on and on...)

Unfortunately due to marketing and media saturation (which has come through well greased palms and "freebie" procedures), many folks other than yourself belive fake tits to be "glamourous" or view them as status. I wonder if you view your wife's implants as status, but considering your bragging and what seems to be your tying of the entirety of your being to overt materialism...that might be a question already answered.

And, no, Playboy doesn't go for the "young look", it goes for the FAKE look. Hefner must be losing his eyesight or has cut the same kind of deal with the implant makers that he has with Pfizer for his constant shilling of Viagra. Have you checked out the age of the Playmates?...they might not go for the "young look", but Hefner obviously goes for young in age. And I hate to break it to you, but Brigett ain't gonna be a Playmate, no matter how many surgeries are done to try to make her yet another Pammy clone. Those are a dime a dozen. Her breasts looked fine before. At least back then she was distinctive and had her own uniqueness. Then we get to his most outrageous statment yet...

Every time someone mentions not liking breast implants, invariably some in the pro fake tit crowd respond that anyone stating their dislike of implants must only like "flat chested women"...ignoring the obvious fact that natural breasts come in all shapes and sizes. Now you've taken this ridiculousness to an absurd level by indicating those interested in natural breasts are "pedophiles" as opposed to those who like "glamour girls" (which apparently, to you, equates fake tits, nose job and pumped up lips). Unbelievable. Do you honestly believe this characterization? If you do, convenience and denial are terms that come to my mind.

John writes: Since everyone has to pitch in to help in the California energy crisis I created a website http://pornvalley.com. Perhaps we came shame the porners into conserving electricity by exposing promiscious electricity use in Porn Valley.

Patrick Riley writes: I see the leftover hippy, Farrell Timlake (or is it Timlake Farrell?), Erin Rae's ex, and Mike from Quasarman (who the hell is this), and Mike South are ganging up on Brandy again. Gawd, it pains me to take Brandy's side (twice in the last month, no less) on an issue like this. She might be a woman and she is an ex-porno performer, but at least she's right here.

Now children, before you even think about replying point your browsers to:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/spotlight/hiv00/default.htm

and read; all of it, including the hypertexed links. It'll take a while. Research, ya' know Jeremy, but of course I'm sure the authority of the National Institute of Health pales into insignificance in comparison to a "platinum selling recording artist" you quoted. Wow, medical evidence from the mouth of the equivalent of Brittney Spears!

And while you're doing your research, Jeremy, in addition to the URL above which addresses the question, you might try cracking a medical textbook and looking up "antibodies". Contrary to your apparent belief, the presence of antibodies does not indicate "an illness has been beaten and immunity established"; many diagnostic tests look for antibodies to establish that you have a disease. It says nothing about it being beaten.

As to the question of the porn industry being the "greatest clinical trial in history". Uh, of what? Of the supposed 5,000 new footage releases (accepting your number for the moment) at least 1000 are gay and over 50% of the gay performers are supposedly HIV+. So much for the "low 2 digits". But let's ignore that for the moment and just talk about the heterosexuals.

Are you trying to say that of the people who have tested negative for HIV within the last month, only a tiny percentage test positive the next time they want to work? No s---! This would be like taking the entire population, quarantining the HIV+, and then because a tiny few would slip through, being amazed at the subsequent low level of HIV+ people in the remaining population.

The black helicopters are coming...aliens are controlling the mind of the President...the moon landing was actually in Arizona...Roswell is fact...the mafia killed Kennedy...crystals work...the world is a giant conspiracy run by the illuminati (see the Simpsons for proof!)...oh, and HIV/AIDS is a figment of the imagination of the pharmaceutical industry aided and abetted by those money-grubbing researchers. Yeah, right!

Bob Jones writes: The stuff posted in response to Brandy on your site today about AIDS and HIV is absolute nonsense. These people who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS use the same ridiculous logic as the conspiracy theorists who think the moon landings were fake. They selectively cite statistics and facts they don't understand, reject anything refuting their logic as lies pushed by a massive conspiracy, and make the rest up out of thin air. Let's go through some of it:

3M dead: This is from the site on AIDS information quasarman is so proud to push, rather than from stuff posted on your site. The claim is that only 3M people have ever died of AIDS. The reality is that 3M people died of AIDS in 2000 alone. 22M people have died from AIDS since it began.

Less AIDS in porn than in the US: This is an absolute lie. The rate of prevalence among North American adults is 0.6%, according to the WHO. Let's say the poster was right and the number of people in porn with AIDS is in the low 2-digits, say 20. (He's probably wrong, by the way, considering how little time most participants stay in the industry; when a performer gets AIDS, do they send telegrams to all their porn-friends, or just disappear from the scene?) For the rate in porn to be _lower_ than that of the US, there would have to be more than 3500 active porn performers. Taking out people who showed up in L.A., did one scene, then left, does anyone really think there are that many performers?

Non-HIV AIDS cases: There are numerous other diseases besides AIDS that cause a decline in the immune system. They are also exceedingly rare and non-transmissible.

Presumptive Diagnoses: Absolutely not true. No-one in the U.S. is diagnosed with AIDS without a test. There is a very good reason for this: Mononucleosis, a very common disease, mimics the early stages of AIDS. Before HIV tests were reliable and available, there were occasional cases of people with Mono being diagnosed with AIDS. Those received a great deal of publicity, and HIV tests are now used routinely.

PCR/DNA: The CDC has never said that this test is not an accurate test for HIV. They have said that it isn't an adequate screen. Why? Because for several months after infections there can be false _negatives_, people infected but without enough virus to trigger the test. Are there false positives? Around 1%, which is why when people test positive they are supposed to get another test to confirm! Is the PCR/DNA test a better test than the alternatives? Yes. Is it better than no test, even though there are false negatives among early infections? Absolutely.

Gallo's 1984 Study: The key here is that the study was in 1984. Before accurate testing. Before PCR (not the PCR/DNA test, but the PCR technology itself) was even available! This was HIV research at its absolute infancy, when they were just learning to identify it.

Antibodies an indication that an ilness has been defeated: Absolutely not true. Whoever promulgates this hasn't the slightest understanding of medicine or how the human body works. Antibodies are a sign that the body is trying to fight off a disease. They are not a signal of success! Before HIV, all testing for viruses, and most testing for bacterial infections, was accomplished by looking for antibodies. Many of our vaccines, like the vaccine for Polio, work by stimulating antibody production. Why does this work? Because when a person is infected with real Polio, rather than the vaccine, the body doesn't produce enough antibodies fast enough to defeat the ilness. If antibodies were a sign of a defeated ilness, no-one would ever get sick from a viral infection.

Nobel winning scientists believe this: Absolutely not true. No-one who's won a nobel for medicine believes this nonsense.

This claim that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS is a lunatic conspiracy theory. It is nonsense, absolute nonsense, that has been utterly rejected by every legitimate scientist and doctor in the world.

There are a tiny number of people who claim to be scientists who persistently refuse to accept the relationship between AIDS and HIV. These people are not scientists, or doctors. They do no research. They publish no articles. They do not do any science. Their entire occupation consists of appearing on television and selling this bogus information to people desperate to believe that they aren't infected with a deadly disease. They're in the same class as faith-healers and spiritual surgeons; charlatans trying to make a buck by selling false hope to the sick and dying---and making their ilnesses work as they ignore proper treatments.

One of the biggest tragedies of all this is South Africa. President Mbeki is convinced of the lunacy, and because of it South Africa now has the highest rate of new HIV infections in the world. South African medical officials hold their heads down in shame when they meet with foreign doctors, because Mbeki has single-handedly silenced all attempts by the medical profession to slow the rate of infection. The rate of infection is so high that the WHO predicts that within 10 years, 25% of the South African population will be infected.

Anyone who spreads these lies is trying encouraging people to take risks that get themselves infected and not accept proper treatment. For people in the porn industry to do this, when it is so blatantly self-serving, is despicable. I shudder to think of these people, talking to the girl just out of the trailer park and entering the industry, who's not sure she should do something because she's afraid of AIDS, being told that there's nothing to worry about and given the bogus logic, lies, and misleading statistics they posted to your site. Its pure murder.

Tricia Devereaux writes: Regarding the weekend posts about HIV: HIV is an important issue to our business, but since John and I no longer perform with anyone who is negative, I simply ask that we, and our personal choices regarding treatment, be left out of further discussions, as our current statuses are therefore irrelevant to anyone other than us. For Farrell: as a friend of mine and John's, please know that we HAVE indeed done MUCH research, and have made individual decisions which we feel comfortable with, and would prefer to let the experts who are most current on their research help us with those decisions. I welcome you asking us how we are doing, but please leave it at that. By the way, all blood test results that have come back so far indicate that there was no transmission to my daughter.

Brandy Alexandre writes in response to someone who said they applaud Tricia and John for not going the abortion route: You misunderstand, though. The child was not an accident. They tried to get pregnant because they simply wanted to have a baby even though both are HIV+. The "Steel Magnolias" reference comes from characters where only one parent was ill, who may or may not die within the child's early lifetime. Otherwise, I would agree with you.

Jeremy Steele writes: For Bob Jones and all other people who think they are so well informed. Nobel Scientists Walter Gilbert and Kary Mullis don't believe in the HIV=AIDS Hyptothesis. Look it up, and while you're at it, why don't you check out a started by a bunch of scientists called The group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis Kary Mullis is one of the signitories Check out www.rethinkingaids.com Go tell them they're all a a bunch of idiots too.

Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis who invented the PCR writes the forward of Peter Duesberg's book "Inventing The AIDS Virus" Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis says, and I quote "We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" page xiv (forward). Go read it yourself. And then shut the f--- up!

Bob Jones replies: Kary Mullis' primary occupation since inventing PCR has been consumption of LSD. He was unable to testify in the OJ trial, and lost the large retainer paid to him by the defense because of his unwillingness or inability to cease his hallucinogenic drug use long enough to testify. Kary Mullis, like Walter Gilbert, won the nobel for chemistry, by the way, not medicine. Neither is a doctor, or involved in AIDS research, or involved in any form of medical research, nor have they been for some 20 years.

So these are the people who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS. People whose intensive medical and scientific training led them to a career in porn, and a guy who thinks OJ didn't do it.

The funny part about this argument from the nutty HIV types, claiming the support of Nobel prize winners, is that they reject the statements of the many AIDS researchers who have won the Nobel prize for medicine for their research as the work of a gigantic conspiracy. If the Nobel prize is an indicator of great knowledge (which it is) then why dismiss the people who've actually won it for AIDS research?

Brandy Alexandre writes: As far as my comments being "cruel," again it was just an opinion that it was selfish and irresponsible. Yeah, they did what they thought was right for them. That's the whole point. I don't think they considered what was right for the child or for the people who will be caring for the child when that can't any longer. So what if they put together a whopping trust fund, someone else's life will be affected by their decision. There's no two ways about it. Jeremy is just still mad because I dissed him music a while back. I'm sorry he is incapable of separating issues and judging each on their own merits.

Farrell Timlake writes: Luke, Thank you for printing my last post, but I am wondering why you would edit out the reference information and quotes? My criticism of Brandy was directed at her lack of information and supported by my references and quotes from legitimate published sources, however by removing my references I am leveled to her same incapability. Is it more interesting reading, if we are all just reduced to name calling? I present information that is well documented and I try to support my statements with factual data. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe the Knights of the Templar are secretly orchestrating some kind of world controlling cabal. As I respond to Bob Jones, please do not omit my references, lest I look like even more of an idiot. Along with Brandy Alexandre, Bob Jones makes many assertions, mostly incorrectly referenced and misleading. My rebuttal follows:

AIDS in Africa: President Mbeki is critical of WHO because they publish AIDS statistics based upon PRESUMPTIVE DIAGNOSIS and not actual test results. Essentially any African dying of any disease, viral, bacterial, etc. that is associated with AIDS is presumed to have AIDS even in the absence of an actual AIDS test result. (source: The London Times, "The Plague that never was", also, Journal of AIDS 1994 7:8 p.876)

The AIDS test: Elisa, Western Blot, and PCR are for various reasons not conclusive testing devices for AIDS. Elisa and Western Blot are non-specific, meaning they react to a wide variety of other factors that have nothing to do with HIV. PCR replicates portions of DNA that are misleadingly inconclusive.(source: Bio/Technology Journal, 11:696-707)

AIDS statistics: I posted recently the link to the San Francisco Public Health website that published HIV statistics for the Bay Area and the report showed a steady decline in actual cases since the mid-eighties, in spite of Bob Jones assertions, the information is published by a public, not private, institution. Intriguingly, this information is public, yet San Francisco continues to receive massive funds because of a continued declared "State of Emergency". Also, since the so-called discovery of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, statistically the rate of HIV infection has only been supported by constantly adding defining diseases. There is no proof that HIV is the cause of any of these associated illnesses which range from bacterial infections, to diarrhea, many types of cancer etc. At the same time, The CDC counts from 1979 all reputed cases, which includes five years of presumptive data based on health information before there was even a test for HIV! Bob is incorrectly stating that the CDC reports that two million tested people a year die from HIV since the statistic is derived mostly from PRESUMPTIVE diagnosis. (source: San Francisco Office of Public Health website, various CDC Reports on AIDS)

AIDS criticism: There is a growing number, literally thousands, of very well respected scientists, doctors, and other medical professionals who are critical of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. If Bob Jones thinks that Dr. Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning scientist who invented PCR, is not a respected source for information about PCR, then he is beyond reason and I cannot help that. If Bob Jones thinks he knows more than Dr. Peter Duesberg about retroviruses, since he has been a leading researcher of them at Berkeley for most of his tenure, then I guess Bob Jones knows more than all of us. (source: www.reappraisingaids.org)

Once again, I am all about presenting information for an educated review and debate by all sides of this issue. I am not about attacking anyone personally, as long as they do not attack me personally. At www.Homegrownvideo.com, we are here to learn and keep an open mind. We are trying to make a world where sex is safe. I would like to thank Bob for not attacking me personally for my freedom of expression.

P.S: On another note, the Los Angeles Times recently had a front page article that was extremely critical of the major pharmaceutical companies promoting toxic and unproven therapies on an unsuspecting public, does that make them "conspiracy theorists" too? Remember the miracles of Phen Phen, and Thalidomide? Also, Dr. Gallo, who was found guilty of medical fraud in his research of HIV, sits as head of the CDC and on the board of Merck-Wellcome and personally makes serious bank off of HIV test patents. It is not conspiracy theory to suspect ethical issues concerning his claims in this matter.

Bob Jones writes: Response to Farrell Timlake Presumptive Diagnoses: Yes, the WHO uses statistical models and inferences to calculate rates of infection. This is called science. Their work is performed and reviewed by scientists, using the latest research and information. These are not "presumptive diagnoses", at least as the original poster used the term. That person referred to individuals being diagnosed with AIDS without a test, which does not happen. Why does the WHO use statistical inference? Because the other alternative would be test every person in the world for HIV every year. If that is the only data that will satisfy Farrell, I think that shows what a lunatic he is.

Mbeki: Pres. Mbeki has said very publicly that HIV does not cause AIDS. Because of his belief, the South African government (I believe until just recently) refused to fund AZT treatment for infected pregnant women. AZT treatment, by the way, has been repeatedly shown in double blind tests to reduce the transmission of HIV to children at birth. No one has bothered to track the children to see if they develop AIDS, since no sane scientist has doubted the connection for a decade.

AIDS tests: It is true that AIDS tests make mistakes. Here's a hint: all medical tests have error rates. Part of the science of making these tests is figuring out how sensitive to make them, balancing out the false negatives with the false positives. AIDS tests are adjusted to produce more false positives than false negatives. Why? Because if there is a false negative, other people will get infected. If there is a false positive, you give another, perhaps different, test. This is ordinary medicine; it proves exactly the opposite of Farrell's claims.

AIDS statistics: I never said anything about the CDC, never mentioned the CDC, and never quoted the CDC. I don't know why Farrell thinks the number I cited came from the CDC, except to say that this is indicative of the intellectual level at which he engaged AIDS information. What I did do was refute a statistic on the AIDS information page linked from quasarman's site, that 3M people have ever died of AIDS. I used the December, 2000 WHO AIDS (UNAIDS) report to do it, because I believe this is where the authors of that site got the 3M number, and because, again, it shows their basic inability to read.

Proof of AIDS and related diseases: There is only "No Proof" to people who refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

AIDS criticism: Absolutely untrue. There are not thousands of scientists, doctors, etc. who are critical of the relationship between HIV and AIDS. Reality: The relationship between HIV and AIDS is so well established that there are absolutely zero well respected scientists, doctors, and medical professionals who believe it. Kary Mullis: I never said Mullis was not an expert on PCR. I said he was not an expert on AIDS. Again, I think this shows the level at which Timlake reads. (And, actually, Mullis hasn't been involved in PCR or in research for decades.)

Kary Mullis was a very respected scientist. His work as a scientist, when he did it, is still respected. Today, the person Kary Mullis is widely respected among Los Angeles college students, I'm told, for his ability to surf while on LSD. Peter Duesberg: Once a scientist---in the 70s. A search for his name on the Berkeley website reveals a lot about his current status there. He hasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal in 15 years. Apparently, he is well known around campus for outrageous and nonsensical beliefs. I'm reading a student written skit right now, in which the remainder of Berkeley's molecular biology department kidnaps Duesberg to prevent him from humilating their department any further. He also, by the way, believes that genes play no role in cancer.

Drug Companies: Many people are critical of drug company actions. Most are not conspiracy theorists. Why? Because they support their arguments with actual research, and understand what it is they are researching.

Dr. Gallo: Was never "found guilty of medical fraud." This is utter nonsense.

I would just like to summarize by pointing out that Timlake was unable to respond, and apparently to understand, what I posted. He made up the CDC reference entirely out of thin air, but his "refutation" is to focus on imagined defects in CDC data. He made up that I said Mullis is not an expert in PCR. The names he cites are not legitimate scientists, and have not been for a long time. They are laughingstocks, as are Timlake's ideas, as are the websites, individuals, and non-existent "movement" he claims for support. And the remainder of what I posted goes unchallenged.

Farrell Timlake writes: I love the way the debate is heating up! Luke, I thank and commend you for presenting all sides, though I still feel hobbled when you edit my references! I am very honored that John and Tricia regard me as a friend and I will henceforth totally respect their wishes to be left out of my discourse on the subject. Jeremy Steele, though I am grateful for your statements and praise, I would kindly ask that you do not use profanity to make your point. The facts will do just fine.

Having met Dr. Mullis, I can attest to his not being on LSD at the time. I can also say that Bob's assertion that he was kicked off the OJ trial had nothing to do with his prior use of LSD, it had to do with his controversial stand on the subject of HIV. By his admission, he no longer even does LSD and hasn't for over 20 years, however interestingly enough, he does claim that the inspiration for his Nobel Prize winning discovery was inspired during an LSD experience, so say what you will about him, LSD, PCR, whatever; he still is an expert on the subject of PCR, and employed as a top research scientist and expert in PCR analysis. If you know something he does not, then maybe the Nobel should have gone to you, Mr. Jones. (Maybe with a name like Jones we ought to examine your drug use more closely too since the illogical and unfounded assertions you make against Dr. Mullis could also be made in the same way against you)

Bob, a closer look at the NIH and CDC statistical data reveals a well documented history of manipulation. For example, when you claimed 2 million people die from AIDS every year, that assertion is based on presumptive analysis gathered from before there was even a test, as well as representing cumulative data and is not confined to periodic comparison. Also, adding "defining" illnesses to the definition of AIDS has resulted in even greater presumptive information for data.(Washington Journalism Review Jan/Feb 1992)

Considering the estimation of life expectancy has changed from several months to an unknown amount of years, how deadly is HIV in reality? What about all the folks diagnosed HIV positive who die from say Karposi Sarcoma, yet have no presence of HIV in autopsy? Even Gallo's original 1984 study upon which most of your assertions are actually based has never accounted for the fact that over 60% of his supposedly AIDS infected cases had no trace of HIV. Please remember that in twenty years of research not a single correlation to any disease or illness has been proven in any scientific literature from here to Africa, it has only been postulated. Every assumption has been repudiated in respected science and medical journals from the New England Journal of Medicine to Nature, the Journal of Science. (Those being the sources of the assertions made in the last paragraph)

Once again, Bob, do you know more than the people publishing in these esteemed medical science journals? You state correctly that antibodies are not necessarily an indication of health, but keep in mind, that people have been successfully using inoculations since the 16th century when the small pox vaccination was accidentally discovered to combat the horrendous viral infection of small pox. Why is HIV the only virus that has defied the definition of viruses that has existed for over 100 years? Who changed that definition, keeping in mind that HIV is the only virus for which the definition is not applied? Why Dr. Gallo, of course, who remember was convicted of stealing data from Dr. Luc Montegnier. Did you know Dr. Montegnier was quoted in a public forum at an AIDS conference about a year ago saying that he no longer saw a correlation between HIV and AIDS, even though he later recanted? (Remember Montegnier shares patent rights with Gallo worth billions).Hey, come to think of it, doesn't owning patents to medicines sort of violate the ethical tenets of the hippocratic oath? Guess that is a whole other ball of wax.

Luke, I know you are going to drop this like a hot potato as soon as you see fit, but I pray that you will give me just a little more rope to either hang myself with, or tie this issue up into a neat little bow. Thank you again for allowing me this forum. At www.homegrownvideo.com, we thank everyone for keeping an open mind and listening respectfully to all sides, and we hope that everyone has safe and pleasurable orgasms for a long time to come... (pun definately intended)

Bob Jones claims assert the opinions of the majority, but I would like him to show me one study that was not funded directly by pharmaceutical companies that supports his assumptions. If you take his claims about presumptive diagnosis to be true, then I can state factually that every person on the planet is going to die from AIDS, which is acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Are we not all going to acquire an immune deficiency that will kill us eventually? The typical diseases of the elderly are almost all acquired immune deficiencies. Africans were dying from diarrhea since well before presuming in the absence of actual testing that they have AIDS. By going to http://www.aliveandwell.org a person can review all the references Bob is making to the NIH studies and the CDC studies.

This is not a conspiracy theory site, it is a watchdog site that tries to present all the current information in a clear and unemotional and dare I say scientific light. In science, saying a majority believes something does not make it true. It must be established by facts. Hypothesis is open to debate, except in the case of HIV study, which seems to be politically motivated. There is proof that small pox or Ebola are viruses that can kill you. There is still no proof AIDS=HIV, and the circumstantial evidence has been refuted very legitimately. You incorrectly assert about Duesberg with regards to genes and cancer. He believes retro-viruses are not causing genes to become cancerous. However, I must thank you for bringing the most intelligent level to this debate thus far. Also, Bob, I am usually responding to several people/issues simultaneously and I am sorry if I misquoted you. Oh yes, the adult industry is still one of the best control groups and worthy of review precisely because they all have actually been tested, even though none of the HIV tests is an accurate indicator of HIV or a measure of the syndrome called AIDS as I have referenced in previous posts.

Quasarman writes: "Luke...it's hilarious to read Meni state that he's not Jenna's publicist. s--- look at his s---ty of a website pornnewsdaily.com. Many other people will agree with me is jennanewsdaily.com or menis-got-his-head-up-jennas-ass.com. He should really get a life and a real job instead of his website and parttime webmaster for Jenna's site. I guess that's what high school drop-outs do for a living."

Luke you attributed this to me on your site and I never said it and have no idea who this person is. Check your f---ing email a little closer in the future please and make sure you attribute slander to it's rightful owner which in this case is not me.

Email: THE RIGHT'S TO THE NEW BOBBITT FILM, "JOHN WAYNE BOBBITT: THE MOST FAMOUS DICK IN THE WORLD" WILL BE GOING UP FOR AUCTION ON EBAY. E-MAIL BOBBITSREP@AOL.COM FOR MORE DETAILS.

Michael Raven writes: Other than the cash, the only reason he probably forces his wife do porn is so > he can taste other guy's dicks.

Knowing the Kerkoves personally, I can assure you that Mrs. Kerkove isn't being "forced" to do anything. It comes very natural to her.

Jeremy Steele writes: I apologize. I didn't quite state it clearly regarding my antibodies comment "(antibodies have always been the indicator that an illness has been beaten and immunity established)" In a general sense that is true.. there are a few exceptions including Herpes where you can have antibodies but it doesn't mean you won't get Herpes.. But, The Hiv test is not testing for antibodies actually, but a set of proteins that are sought to describe HIV antibodies, but none of which unique or specific to HIV antibodies. If you think someone has mononucleosis you give them an epstein barr antibody test, a test that has been verified by finding the causative virus in the people who have the disease at the beginning of the discussion not ones who will supposedly have an AIDS illness 20 years down the line where noone has verified the test. Also, in general, tests are given to people with the symptoms, not just to everyone at l! arge. And, so you cut down on the number of false positives you can get.. And it can never tell you for certain if somebody has the disease because it's all based on that an a clinical diagnosis of a supposed future event. A person who has mononucleosis at age 14 who goes into a doctor today at age 34 will test positive for mononucleosis. That person still has the antibodies for mononucleosis but has long since beaten it. Antibodies don't go away. Because I had the chicken pox at age 7, I still have the chickon pox antibodies in my system today, but noone is going to catch chicken pox from me, nor will I ever have it again. In some cases, like Tuberculosis, people who are really ill with Tuberculosis are no longer producing TB antibodies. But, if you try to apply a similar rule to HIV people tested with late stage aids diseases based on the aids defining illnesses, it has n! ever been proven that HIV antibodies disappear in late stage aids. People with aids defining illness often test more positive than ever for the supposed antibodies.

HIV dogma bends the rules of science. If you compare Chicken Pox to HIV/AIDS you get the following: Chicken Pox produces the same symptoms in all cases, while HIV/AIDS produce different symptoms depending on the risk group. Chicken Pox VZV antibodies, in the absence of virus, indicate life-long immuity, while natural HIV antibodies, in the absence of a virus, are said to indicate or predict AIDS. In Chicken Pox severe symptoms appear days or weeks after infection and before antibody immunity, while AIDS symptoms are said to occur years after the infection and only AFTER antibody immunity (ie: HIV+ test). Then you're perscribed extremely poisonous/toxic Harm-aceutical medication right away, which have been proven to cause AIDS themselves: Thus- a self-fulfilling prophecy. HIV(+ chemotherapy in a pill)=AIDS.

MHJ writes: RE: The discussion of AIDS and, most specifically, of Mbeki and the situation in South Africa, go to the following link: www.rense.com/general9/dds.htm

Bob Jones writes: Response to Farrel Timlake:

Kary Mullis: Mullis was interviewed, while on LSD, for an article (I think it was Time) in '93. So he certainly hasn't been drug free for 20 years. His drug problems in the OJ case were widely reported at the time. If he's off drugs now, more power to him. And regardless of his expertise on PCR (which he is, indeed, an expert in), PCR is not AIDS.

Me: Bob Jones is, obviously, not my real name. Although I have no intention of revealing my real name to you, I can assure you that there have never been articles about me and drugs in major national publications, as there are about Mr. Mullis.

NIH & CDC Data: What you call "manipulation" is what everyone who's ever taken a statistics class knows is science. You measure carefully samples, make sure they are representative, infer to the general population, and refine your tests over time as your knowledge increases. Congratulations, Farrel. You've discovered math.

Life Expectancy from AIDS: Yes, it has increased. A direct and dramatic consequence of medicines developed to combat HIV, and a direct refutation of your argument.

Karposi Sarcoma and AIDS: Absolutely untrue. I'm not sure what articles you're getting this from, but I'm quite sure you just didn't understand them, since the relationship of Karposi, and many other diseases, to AIDS has been well established for over a decade. By the way, are you referring to the journals "Nature" and "Science", or do you think that "Nature, the Journal of Science" is how one refers to that journal?

My knowledge compared to esteemed medical journals: The journals all agree with me; they think you and the people you mention are lunatics. Innoculations since the 16th Century: I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Innoculation was invented in the 19th Century; I think by Pasteur, but I may be mistaken about that. In the 16th Century they believed that diseases were caused by an imbalance in humors; bloodletting was a common treatment. Vaccines, by the way, do not combat infections. If you are vaccinated after you are infected, you get no benefit. You have to be vaccinated before you are infected; they prepare your body to combat infections.

HIV and virus definition: HIV is not the only virus that "defied the definition of viruses for over 100 years." First off, viruses were discovered in this century, you idiot. Second of all, HIV is, as everyone on the planet but you appears to know, a retrovirus, very different from most viruses. Other retroviruses include Ebola & Marburg (to which AIDS is believed related) and the common cold, none of which have cures.

Dr. Gallo: If this "stealing data" is the medical fraud you are referring to, you've got to be kidding. You accused this man of "medical fraud" as though he had faked research. In reality, there was an adjudication over who came up with the HIV discovery and test first. This is hardly "medical fraud."

Doctors owning patents: You said that owning a patent to medicine violates the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic oath is "first, do no harm." Please explain to me what could possibly have been going through your diseased little mind when you thought that owning a patent would be a violation?

Again, Timlake has failed to engage a single one of the points that I made with any fact or logic. Every one of his assertions is refuted, and he has offered no response. Nor has he defended the ridiculous claims he made in his prior posts.

I think I can wrap this up by saying that Mr. Timlake is an absolutely astoudingly stupid person. Were he simply a nutcase, I would leave it at that. The problem is, again, it is so utterly in Mr. Timlake's self interest, as someone who makes his living off of naive young girls having unprotected sex, for him to propogate these ridiculous beliefs about HIV. For him to accuse Gallo of being unethical for patenting his AIDS test is outrageous. -Bob

P.S.: Luke, how about getting the formatting right this time.

P.P.S.: One other suggestion that might make the site easier to read. When you have a bunch of posts all in a row, how about bolding the author's name at the top? Not big letters like a heading, just bold, so we know when scrolling where we are.

HIV Is God's Gift To The White Man

Earl Turner writes: "One of the biggest tragedies of all this is South Africa. President Mbeki is convinced of the lunacy, and because of it South Africa now has the highest rate of new HIV infections in the world. South African medical officials hold their heads down in shame when they meet with foreign doctors, because Mbeki has single-handedly silenced all attempts by the medical profession to slow the rate of infection. The rate of infection is so high that the WHO predicts that within 10 years, 25% of the South African population will be infected. "

If only more negroes could be convinced of this, half of the White Man's problems would be at an end within ten years. Keep up the good work! - The Order

Nakita Kash Strip Show Review

AJB writes on RAME: I went to see Nakita Kash at Deja Vu Showgirls in north-west Toronto on Thursday night Mar. 22... the first major porn star I've seen in Toronto in close to 2 months. I got to talk to her a fair bit and heard about her upcoming boy / girl scene...

Nakita Kash burst out on to the stage wearing a show girl costume and Elvis singing "Viva Las Vegas" in the background. It was one of those outfits that you know has got to cost $1000: huge white plumes, satin blue sequins, a drape of pearls over the legs, the whole get-up. I'm not too big on show girl costumes but it was good to see some flash and glitter on stage. As usual, I was sitting right beside the stage for a good look. Nikita Kash certainly is the real thing: perfectly toned body, long legs you want wrapped around you head, sexy eyes. She's obviously a natural boobs girl, no hideous doctor job. Mind you, I'm more into either a total flattie with a young girlie face or a C-cup or D-cup type woman with a nasty snarling face -- but that's just personal preference. Nakita's perky nipples did a number on my erogenous zone though, so all was well.

A couple times during the act she would sit on a chair with her butt hanging off the edge and then she would do this marvellous buns flexing thing... it's the mark of a true stripper when you see this kind of butt bouncing muscular control. Your average house dancer can only dream about manipulating her ass cheeks with such surgical skill. My only question about this is: with such good ass control, is Nakita Kash destined to be an anal queen?

After the show I went to get a Polaroid pic with Nakita. To my surprise, I was the only fan who showed up to be with her. Like so many clubs I visit, I'm the only true believer of porn, one of the few, the proud, the horny. Anyway, I got to chat with her for quite some time. Here are a few things we discussed:

1. Nakita Kash really thinks the world of Randy West. He was a judge at a strip show some years back and she met him there. Some time later she contacted him and said she'd like to try some lesbian porn. Randy West was only too happy to oblige and they have been good buddies since. I asked if she'd ever f--- Randy West on film and she said "I don't really think of him that way, he's my bud." But, then again, she didn't exactly say outright no. To some degree she seemed to indicate she might do it with him, she merely had never really considered it. Nakita and I also had a giggle about the time Randy West appeared on the TV show Politically Incorrect.

2. Nakita had the feeling the just about all the major contract girls are aching to fulfill their contract and then immediately leave to form their own production companies. She really admires the do-it-yourself people in the industry. Nakita was also happy to see how more and more men are getting their own videos series; specifically, she mentioned Peter North and Lexington Steel in that context. I asked if she'd ever do Peter North and she said it would be difficult simply because he doesn't do many films anymore. She went on to describe the sad life of male porn studs who get paid "only $200 a scene or maybe just $50 for getting a blow job from a girl". As soon as she said that, she gazed at me and had to laugh as I said "s---, pay me $50 to get a blow job from a porn girl? Sign me up!"

3. I showed her my long list of porn starlet Polaroid pics and she was fascinated with a lot of them. She knew most of the girls although she wasn't quite sure of Amber Lynn right away, or Davia Ardell or Mimi Myagi. Still, her "product knowledge" of the porn industry was impressive compared to most other girls in the business who are only dimly aware of other performers or porn history. Nakita noted that she's never done a lezzie scene with Felicia simply because when they cast a typical film, there's a singe bush munching-only girl per production, so the odds of getting it on with Felicia are actually lessened even though they would be an obvious match. I pointed out my pictures of Alisha Klass and me and then asked Nakita about the gossip concerning Alisha and Bruce Willis. Nakita said she heard through he grapevine that Alisha and Willis are indeed fooling-around friends but not really dating as such. And Nakita said Sydnee Steele was one of her best friends in porn -- AND that Nakita read my review of Sydnee's show here in RAME. I wrote a fairly flattering review of Sydnee's show although I think Nakita was going to spank my ass for not being effusive in my praise.

4. She's leading a swinging lifestyle. She lives in a house with webcams so we can see her and some friends doing the nasty. That's at www.porngirlslive.com.

Amused writes: There is something equally laughable and saddening when our friend "AJB" writes of whipping out a photo album of his stripper polaroids to share with Nakita Kash. Dude you are too into porn! Get a hobby.