Visit our newest sister site!
Hundreds of free aircraft flight manuals
Civilian • Historical • Military • Declassified • FREE!


TUCoPS :: Scams :: scam3.txt

SCAM! Magazine - Issue #3




ҷ
  ι  ̹
ʼ ι  ι
ʼι  ι
ʼ   ̹
ʼ ˻˻ʼ  ȹ
 ιλι FROM NEW YORK STATE, U. S. A.
ʼι˻ - August, 1993 - ˹
   ι
˻ ʼ SCAM! MAGAZINE ʼ ʹ
λɻɻ  VOL 1 * NO 3     
˻  ˻  
ι̹˻ ι  
˻˻ ι ˻ 
ι˻ ʼ ʼ 
 ιμ ̹ YOUR TRUE ON-LINE SCAM SOURCE!
 ʼʼ ˻  ˻  
˻  ι μ 
˻  ι μ 
˻  SCAM! is ȹ ʼ 
˻  ˻ published by      
THEPRODUCERĽ

Ŀ
VOL 1  NO 3        SCAM! MAGAZINE         August 1993          FREE ONLINE!



                          LEGALITIES AND DISCLAIMER

     "SCAM!" MAGAZINE is published solely for informational and entertainment
purposes.  The publishers and authors in no way wish to encourage or promote
unlawful and/or criminal activities of any nature or sort, but merely wish to
furnish the materials contained herein in accordance with the practices and
policies established by the IIRG and pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act.  Local, State and Federal laws provide severe civil and criminal
penalties for unlawful and/or criminal activity which may include fines and/
or imprisonment.  The publisher and authors absolve themselves from any and
all actions, direct or indirect, consequential or inconsequential, resulting
from the readers of this publication.  The publisher and authors are not and
at no time have been affiliated in any manner with any law enforcement agency
in any State or Territory of the United States of America.  This magazine and
its contents may be reproduced and uploaded without the permission of the
publisher and authors, but may not be modified in any manner.  The publisher
and authors assume no responsibility or liability for such unauthorized
modifications, and shall seek appropriate restitution.  SEE, READ AND
UNDERSTAND ANY AND ALL WARNINGS CONTAINED HEREIN.  THIS MAGAZINE IS AVAILABLE
FOR AND ONLY TO BE READ BY PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS.

ͻ
    ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE                                                 
                                                                           
    1.  The Non-Existance of AIDS                                          
            by The Producer                                                
                                                                           
    2.  "SCAM!" CLASSIFIED ADS                                             
ͼ

    EDITOR'S NOTE:   Read on with the knowledge that all materials contained in
the article "The Non-Existance of AIDS" are, to the author's knowledge, 100%
accurate.
                                  Ŀ
۳SCAM #3
                                  


                         "THE NON-EXISTANCE OF AIDS"
                               by The Producer

         August, 1993. --

              "... and I stood at my window and I watched them, people
         who looked just like they always had except they seemed
         tired, frustrated, afraid, and I wondered, 'What of?'  And
         they said, 'AIDS', and they told me it had been so long
         since their last sexual encounter that they felt ashamed to
         admit it, and some said they lost all true pleasure in life
         by not having as many partners as they once had.  And they
         said they wished they were born in the late 1940's so that
         they could have experienced the sexual freedom of the late
         '60's and '70's which they felt cheated out of.  And then
         they said it's hopeless, that there's nothing I could do ..."

         This entire issue is devoted to one of the biggest scams of all time
 the AIDS hype that has been pulled off by the government of the United
States of America  for reasons still unknown.  The author has noted a variety
of other publications discussing AIDS, however the faceless and fictitious
epidemic continues to plague society.  Omit the title page of this magazine and
omit this paragraph, and you should have no trouble getting someone to sleep
with you after they've fully read this article.  Sure, I know, you meet someone
and get her to your apartment at 3:17 A. M. and she says no, so what do you do,
whip out this article??  no, I guess not!; but, it will certainly help the
process of turning relationships from non-sexual to sexual.


Preface

         Please show this article to someone you know and love who will either
not sleep with you unless you wear a condom or, out of fear of contracting
AIDS, will not sleep with you at all.

                                     *


Introduction

         What are the real truths and untruths about AIDS, HIV and your odds
of actually dieing from them?  So much has been said, it is now finally the
time to clear up fact from fiction and explain away all the myths that have
sadly captured and inhibited the U. S. population.

         The following is a list of 12 statements that were once made to me
regarding AIDS and the use of condoms.  If you agree with them, by the end of
this report your opinion will hopefully drastically differ:

        1 AIDS is a horrible, lethal disease which has spread
           throughout the American population.

        2 It is a delusion to think AIDS is confined to
           homosexual men and intravenous drug users.  The
           heterosexual community is alarmingly at risk.

        3 Even if you have led a promiscuous life with partners
           out of the "high-risk" category, you still have a
           reasonable chance of contracting AIDS because you
           never know who your partners have slept with.

        4 People who are educated should be smart enough to
           acknowledge AIDS and should act accordingly to
           prevent themselves from becoming victims.

        5 It is reasonable for a single woman to expect a man
           she has been dating and knows well to voluntarily
           submit to an AIDS test so that she may have peace of
           mind.

        6 Even if a person submits to an AIDS test and has
           negative results, this is no assurance the person is
           not infected.  You have to wait at least 6 months
           without sexual contact and then take the test for it
           to be fairly accurate.  And even then, there's
           always still some risk.

        7 If I knew a man who was not in a "high-risk group"
           for AIDS, and if he promised to submit to an AIDS
           test in 6 months, I would still not have sex with
           him until that time, even if he wore a condom.

        8 Because of AIDS, I would insist my partner use a
           condom, even if his AIDS test result after 6 months
           was negative, because there's always risk.

        9 Any man who engages in sexual encounters with
           strangers without wearing a condom is a stupid and
           ignorant man.  He is alarmingly increasing his
           chances of being infected with AIDS.  He is not the
           type of man I would like to know, much less marry
           someday.

       10 AIDS has overwhelmed our society and government
           should clearly devote more financial resources to
           find a cure right away, as more people are dieing
           and more people are at risk than ever before.

       11 I've read articles which state the possibility
           exists that you can get AIDS from french kissing
           and oral sex.  Though there are a limited number of
           statistics available, the fact that I have read of
           the possibility is alone enough reason to make me
           that much more wary of french kissing strangers or
           engaging in oral sex with a non-tested partner.

       12 The articles I have read about AIDS come from well-
           known, reputable sources.  What I read from one
           source is confirmed by five others.  Even if one
           publication contained misstatements, they can't all
           contain misstatements.  Therefore, I generally
           accept what I read as true.


         To properly support the contention that AIDS is a virtually
insignificant disease for persons like you and I, two separate questions must
be addressed.  First, what really are our odds of becoming infected with HIV,
the virus that is AIDS?  And secondly, if it be true that our chances are
infinitely small, why are so many articles published warning and cautioning us
against a violently threatening disease?  Consideration must be made of the
actual public opinion of AIDS  not the opinion penned by questionable
magazine authors, but rather the actual opinion.  Finally, an argument must be
offered to illustrate why a person such as yourself might succom to excessive
fear of this disease.  Usage of condoms in the face of AIDS must similarly be
treated.


The Mathematical Probability of Contracting AIDS

         Let's first look at some hard statistics and apply some everyday
mathematics.  If you need to use your calculator, go ahead.  I used mine.

         Eighty-nine percent of AIDS cases in the U. S. involve gay or
bisexual men, who acquired the disease sexually, and users of intravenous
drugs who acquired the disease through infected needles.  The actual breakdown
is 62% gay/bisexual, 27% addicts.  Other high-risk groups include people with
hemophilia, who became infected through contaminated, blood-derived clotting
agents, and recent immigrants from certain African countries and Haiti.  Let's
be generous and say that 95% of all AIDS cases involve, directly or
indirectly, persons from one or more categories of this entire above
referenced segment of the population (collectively hereinafter "the high-risk
group").  Remember this 95% figure, for it will be cited soon again.

         Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley of The Center for AIDS Prevention
Studies at The University of California in San Francisco recently performed a
series of calculations.  In "The Journal of the American Medical Association",
the two researchers tabulated a heterosexual's chances of getting infected
with the AIDS virus during one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse.  Not
surprisingly, the risk is extremely low.  For instance, the chance of becoming
infected with the HIV after one sexual encounter with someone who has both
tested negative for HIV and who has no history of high-risk behavior is 1 in
500 million.  If the same couple uses a condom, the risk plummets to 1 in 5
billion.  Even having sex with someone whose HIV status is unknown, but who
does not belong to any high-risk group, yields a calculated risk of 1 in 5
million or 1 in 50 million per sexual episode, depending on whether or not a
condom is used.  And having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV-positive
still exposes a person to only a 1 in 500 chance of getting infected after one
sexual encounter.  After 500 such encounters, still only 2 out of 3
unprotected partners would become infected.  "This advice is substantially
different from the message that the public has so far received regarding AIDS
prevention," the researchers say.

         Since we now know that 95% of all AIDS cases involve persons from the
high risk group, let us assume that if a person is not in the high risk group
then this person is not infected (don't worry, this will be accounted for
later, but let's assume it now).

         For simplicity, let us state that I am a typical American male.  I
have had 10 sexual partners in my lifetime; only 1 of these partners did I
know very well and the other 9 were promiscuous, "one-night stands".  The
partner I knew well tells me, and I verily believe, that she had been with
only one other partner in her lifetime, the last sexual encounter with this
partner, who was not a member of the high-risk group, having taken place years
before anyone in the U. S. even knew what AIDS was.  With this information, we
rule out this well-known partner as being a carrier and must mathematically
investigate the 10 unknown females.

         First, we narrow down the AIDS pool by sex and race based on personal
knowledge.  Statistically, 92% of all AIDS victims in the U. S. are male and
70% of all female victims are black or hispanic.  I know that none of the 9
unknown females were black or hispanic.  Certainly, none were male (if there
is a God!)  Combining the above statistics, it can be mathematically shown
that 1 in 42 AIDS victims are non-black, non-hispanic females.  Thus if we do
not yet begin to consider the sexual histories or personal habits and morals
of these individuals and naturally assume the worst, and if we do not yet
consider the small probability of contracting AIDS in the general population,
each still has only a 1 in 42 chance of being a carrier and I am
mathematically left with a 97.6% safety net.

         Next we consider the high-risk factor.  A consensus of opinion is
that gays represent approximately 10% of the U. S. population.  A recent
Kinsey Institute estimate, however, more properly places the correct breakdown
at 4%.  Let us be generous, assume the worst, and go at 10%.  Let us further
be exceedingly generous and claim that 5% of the U. S. population are
intravenous drug users and thus similarly fall into the high-risk AIDS group
as defined above.  Let us continue to be mathematically generous and say that
people who are gay don't do drugs, and vice versa.  Under these extremely
generous figures a total of 15%, or about 1 in 6.5 people in our country,
would fall into the group.  Since we do not now know, nor will we ever know,
if these 9 unknown females were members of the high-risk group, although we
believe them all not to be, we are destined to use this "generous statistic"
that 1 in 6.5 of them were high-risk group members.  Recall now the figure of
95% we cited earlier as that which represents the percentage of AIDS victims
in the high risk group.  We account for the 1 in 20 AIDS victims who are not
high-risk (that leftover 5%), combine all statistics heretofore set forth and
arrive at a now 1 in 208 chance of any of these 9 unknown females to have been
a carrier ... again still not considering the likelihood of contracting AIDS
in the general population.

         Now considering the AIDS pool versus the entire U. S. population of
250 million, we begin by noting statistics of The U. S. Centers for Disease
Control (hereinafter "CDC"), which inflates the number of infected Americans
at 1.5 million, thus overestimating that 1 in 160 Americans are infected!  If
we use this generous figure, and if we know the odds for each of these 9
unknown females to fall into this 1-in-160 pool are 1 in 208, we now further
diminish the odds for any one of these 9 unknowns to actually be infected with
AIDS to be 1 in 33,280.

         (Here is something peculiar ... consider the AIDS pool versus the
entire U. S. population.  The U. S. Centers for Disease Control (hereinafter
"CDC") has placed the number of infected Americans at 1.5 million; as the
entire population is approximately 250 million, the CDC is thus implying that
1 in 160 Americans are infected.  Yet we just showed, mathematically, that
the odds of any of those 9 women to fall into the high risk group  not be
infected, just fall into the group  would be 1 in 208.  Thus, if what the
CDC has said is really true and 1 in 160 really are infected, that would mean
that if you're in the high risk group, you're pretty much automatically
infected; 1 in 160 and 1 in 208 are about the same odds.  Something sounds
wrong, doesn't it?  You bet!  Now, let's continue ...)

         Recall earlier we stated that having one sexual encounter with a
person who is HIV-positive results in a 1 in 500 chance of becoming infected.
If we know the likelihood for each of the 9 unknown females to be HIV positive
is 1 in 33,280, it can be mathematically shown that the actual odds of any one
of these 9 females being HIV positive AND of my becoming infected after that
one sexual encounter with them to be 1 in 16,640,000.

         Finally, to do some real-world adjustments, recall we used a
calculation of 1 in 6.5 for females to fall into the group, based upon the
inflated assumption that a majority of the 10% of the unknowns are lesbians
(gay); if they were, of course, chances are very high that they would not have
been my sexual partner in the first place, for to do so would mean they are
bisexual also.  Thus, considering an ever so slight adjustment for our
previous statistical generosity coupled with my judgment that none of the 9
females were bisexual/lesbians, or drug users for that matter, a rough and
still extremely generous final estimate would more appropriately be that the
likelihood for me to have become infected from any of the 9 women I have slept
with, whose past histories are virtually unknown, would be 1 IN 17 MILLION!!!

         This 1-in-17,000,000 statistic, by the way, will not waver upon the
past sexual histories of any of the 9 unknown partners  or 90 or 900 unknown
partners  because the figures used to calculate the statistic are based on
the present and have already incorporated the consequences of the past.  And
yes, this 1-in-17,000,000 statistic also assumes unprotected sex.

         Does this 1-in-17,000,000 figure seem right?  Yes.  Why?  Because we
began with the statistic that the odds of becoming infected with a person
whose HIV status is unknown, while unprotected, is 1 in 5 million.  But we
then filtered out a high percentage of the AIDS population because, in my
particular case, we do know certain things.  We know all the partners were
female; we know none were black or hispanic.  Naturally, we can expect to
statistically improve the odds through these specifics and so it is that 1 in
17 million might very well be a realistic ballpark guess, were it not for the
lengthy mathematical calculations heretofore performed to arrive at the
figure.


The Truth About Condoms

         The next question arising is, if I am a typical male and if my odds
of contracting AIDS while unprotected, with total strangers, is really only 1
in 17 million per sexual encounter, then why are so many men turning to
condoms to protect themselves against AIDS?  The answer is very simple:  they
aren't.

         "Consumer Reports" devoted an entire issue to condoms.  Not
surprisingly, they discovered that 87% of all males polled did not feel it
necessary to wear a condom to protect themselves against AIDS; 95% of those
over 30 years of age similarly did not feel it necessary to wear a condom.  It
should thus come as no surprise that there is not one, single college-educated
male friend I know who has worn a condom for the specific purpose of guarding
against AIDS.  And how about sex with an hispanic, Haitian hemophiliac homo
who's on heroin?  Fifty-five percent of the males polled in "Consumer Reports"
said it doesn't matter; their sexual practices have remained unchanged in the
face of AIDS.

         The only 3 possible advantages that condoms can provide to some men
are:  (1) eliminating the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy; (2) providing
justifiably sought peace of mind when engaging in repetitive sexual encounters
with a known member of the high risk group; and (3) enabling those who reach
orgasm easily to prolong the sexual episode.  In these instances, and only in
these instances, condoms are a worthwhile solution not only for men, but also
for their partners.  However, for those men who customarily engage in sexual
activity with a non-high risk, protected partner and who do not reach orgasm
quickly or easily, condoms can prove to be a nightmare.

         Statistics show that almost 60% of males polled have experienced
reduced sensation when wearing a condom.  Over 70% stated that condom usage
interfered sporadically with the natural art of lovemaking, and almost 40%
said they felt uncomfortable because they were constantly aware of its
presence.  One-fifth of the males noted that sex cannot be as vigorous, for
fear of breakage or slippage.  Other negative cites included the requirement
of prompt withdrawal (40%); general embarrassment (15%); and friction (about
5%).  Men were, on the average, about twice as critical as women.  However,
almost 70% of women shared their counterpart's view that condom usage does
create unwanted interruptions during sex.

         "Parents" magazine recently conducted a poll to compute the overall,
present-day reaction to AIDS.  They found 87% of those polled, both men and
women, to be "slightly worried" or "not at all worried" about personally
contracting AIDS; in fact, of this 87%, 21% were "slightly worried" and a
significantly larger 66% were "not at all worried".  How many were "very
worried"?  Only 5%.


The Statistical Insignificance of AIDS

         The reason most persons never think twice about AIDS is because it is
truly a statistically irrelevant disease plaguing a strictly confined group of
individuals.  Let us take the generous government estimate of 600,000 persons
expected to contract AIDS in the next 4 years; well, that's an average of
150,000 new AIDS victims per year.  That seems like a lot of people, right?
Not really.  This figure is dwarfed by the number of persons who will die of
cancer and heart disease.

         Over 2.1 million of us are in car accidents each year, yet no one
thinks twice about getting behind the wheel; and New York City parkways, being
in the condition they are in, should make it that much more apparent that
absolutely no measures are really being taken to ensure safer roadways.  What
about the number of babies that are born prematurely each year and who will
die each year because modern medicine, in its infinite wisdom, has not yet
found a way to artificially keep them alive until they are strong enough to
survive?  No woman would avoid pregnancy out of fear of being the mother of a
child such as this  despite the statistic that there are 40,000 such cases
each year!  That's 40,000 non-restrictive deaths  about 27% as many real
death as projected, confined AIDS deaths!  And yet every newly-expectant
mother announces her condition with an ear-to-ear smile.

         The world is chock full of 100,000-deaths-a-year causal factors;
these death figures are so insignificant when combined with the aggregate
population, however, and the number of causal factors are so very high, that
medical research grants totalling the national debt probably would not come
even close to scratching the surface for the innumerably required cures.  To
avoid the chance of falling victim to driving on one of those flooky roads to
death, one might just as well live in a bomb shelter with purified air and
water.  Getting emphezyma from the air we breathe; having a heart attack from
the caffeine in the coffee we drink; becoming HIV-positive after an
unprotected encounter with a stranger ... these are all mathematical
possibilities, yes, but we cannot live our lives in fear of these infinitely
unlikely, 1-in-17-million-odds occurrences causing us serious harm or death.
To do so would be tantamount to living the rest of our natural lives in a
coffin with a glass lid.


It's Legal to Lie

         So why is it, then, that so many persons you may know are concerned
with AIDS, you ask?  Why does it seem like a lot of people view it as a
serious threat?  And why, if all that you have read up to now is true, are you
faced with a multitude of articles and news stories in all forms of media, in
newspapers, magazines, journals, on radio and on television, proclaiming AIDS
to be one of America's biggest challenges and tragedies?  The reason is sad
and simple:  Sex sells!

         Combining greed, money, power and the desired attention by special-
interest groups, we have created an overwhelming onslaught of bogus editorials
and hyped newscasts which make AIDS out to be the present-day polio, out to
kill us all.  Thus, we must now examine the ethics of journalism as a whole
and answer the question, "Can we truly trust what we read?"  and, if not,
why not?

         Nearly 80% of the American workforce is in the sphere of information
and communication sectors.  These range from media, advertising, public
relations, consulting, telecommunications and computer industries to such
institutions as banking, insurance, education, transportation, bureaucracy and
the legal system.  The perceptions, attitudes, values and opinions of the
public at large are shaped by the quantity and quality of information
circulated in our society.  Media consultants, communications experts,
informational specialists and political advisors have been hired not to seek
information from the public but rather to use all the available techniques,
methodologies, strategies and resources to manipulate and control it.  Their
goal has been to change trends and opinions, not to seek information from the
public.

         The only time that the matter of information and communication came
to be a national debate was in the 1940's, when the Commission on Freedom of
the Press issued a report which cited, among other things, the decrease in the
proportion of the people who could express their opinion through the media
adequately, and the engagement of the press "from time to time in practice
which ... will inevitably undertake to regulate or control [society]".  It was
the Commission's opinion that the media should provide the citizenry with an
"intelligent account of the day's events".  No report or debate of this
magnitude has since been conducted in the U. S., where we must unpleasantly
face the fact, some fifty years later, that information in the media is being
treated mainly as a marked commodity rather than a social commodity.

         "The New Yorker" recently published a two-part article by Janet
Malcolm who, in her piece, files a sort of ethical class-action suit against
all reporters.  She states:

              "[They are all] incorrigible bullies who would dump
         their mothers for a decent story.  Every journalist who
         is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what
         is going on knows that what he does is morally
         indefensible.  He is a kind of confidence man, preying
         on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining
         their trust and betraying them without remorse."


Says Fred Bruning, staff writer with "Newsday":

              "Let's be frank.  Do reporters have their tricks?
         They do indeed.  There is [definite] doubt as to the
         rules of ethics and civility in the weightless
         atmosphere of hardback publishing and influential
         periodicals."


         The right to deceive the public got a major boost in August, 1989
after a Federal appeals court upheld a ruling that publications could legally
publish fabricated quotations.  In their final 2-1 vote, the majority
concluded:

              "Malice will not be inferred from evidence
         showing that the quoted language does not contain the
         exact words used ... provided that the fabricated
         quotations are either rational interpretations or do
         not alter the substantive content of [actual remarks]."


The single dissenting judge, Alex Kozinski, wrote:

              "This rationale is explosive.  What the Court is
         saying, in effect, is that if you make statements that
         could be reasonably construed as boastful or arrogant,
         or callous or stupid or reflecting any other trait or
         character or intellect, the reporter may attribute
         to you any other statement reflecting that same
         trait."


         Masquerading fiction as news or history is thusly becoming
increasingly common; and fiction, among its other characteristics, can have a
most considerable influence on cultural attitudes.  Producers and editors can
often be as story-crazy as publicists, who not only play competitors against
each other but often try to control assignment of the interviewer.  Deals
involve setting conditions for interviews, or where quotes can be changed "as
a favor".  One "Wall Street Journal" reporter estimated that 25% of all
interviews at his paper involve such deals, which are usually negotiated in
secret and deprive readers and viewers of knowing how certain stories get
hyped.

              "Why should otherwise respectable publications
         and TV programs allow themselves to become cogs in the
         'rave machine' of modern public relations?  Sometimes
         a deal is the only way ..."


         The practice of checking ostensible facts with the story's subject is
also rapidly declining.  "Washingtonian", a prosperous monthly, does an annual
salary survey.  Fall, 1989's survey, for example, which lists hundreds of
names linked to specific monetary figures, appears to be based on serious
research.  Eight "Time" staffers were cited; says Laurence I. Barrett of
"Time":

              "Mystified, several of us agreed that the figures
         were wrong, by 30% in one case, and that none of us had
         been consulted by 'Washingtonian'.  The writer, Robert
         Pack, explained:  'You don't call hundreds of people
         and ask them what they make because they won't tell
         you.'  Pack insisted that he had knowledgeable sources
         for his numbers.  An editor of the 'Washingtonian',
         however, acknowledged that such stories are 'ball-park
         estimates'.  If 'Washingtonian' didn't get MY pay
         right, how many other numbers in that story were wrong?
         More broadly, if too many news organizations neglect to
         check their facts, how long become this becomes
         [everyone's problem]?  In a business whose cardinal
         asset is credibility, that notion should be unsettling."


         In his "Time" article "Is it Right to Publish Rumors?", author Walter
Shapiro states as follows:

              "Public more may have changed over the past three
         decades, but the press still finds itself trapped by
         the rituals that govern its coverage of scabrous
         gossip.  Today the journalistic rules of righteous
         rumourmongering have been liberalized.  Leading
         newspapers and the television networks write and
         broadcast artificially crafted stories about the
         rumors themselves, thereby spreading calumny while
         piously decrying it."


         When one journalist starts a rumor, others are quick to "jump on the
bandwagon", despite the true facts and possible consequences.  Shapiro
continues:

              "How sad and sordid ... is the current rule of
         rumor on Capitol Hill.  Perhaps the nadir was reached
         with the recent press coverage of the baseless charge
         that House Speaker Thomas Foley is a homosexual.
         Syndicated columnists Roland Evans and Robert Novak
         initially helped stir the muck by referring to rumors
         about the 'alleged homosexuality of one Democrat who
         might move up the succession ladder'.  As the gossip
         oozed along the halls of Congress, 'New York Daily
         News' columnist Lars-Erik Nelson published the
         details of the whispering campaign against Foley in
         order to finger the staff of Congressman Newt
         Gingrich as one of its sources.  Never mind that the
         Foley rumors were completely false.  Once the
         Republican National Committee launched its own smear
         campaign against the new Speaker, using sniggering
         language like 'out of the liberal closet', virtually
         every news organization felt compelled to repeat the
         slur, regardless of the damage it would cause ...
         [H]ow tempting it must be for armchair analysts to
         decree that henceforth no responsible publication or
         newscast should disseminate unsubstantiated rumors.
         But ... would such a high-minded standard also serve
         the public interest?"


         The public interest, indeed; catching it is what the authors want, as
the more interest there is the higher the publication sales will be.  Leonore
Fleishcer or "Publishers Weekly" deems the AIDS crisis nothing more than "a
plague of blame and fear".  She cites Monroe E. Price, Dean of the Benjamin N.
Cordozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, who published a work entitled
"Shattered Mirrors:  Our Search for Identity and Community in the AIDS Era".
Mr. Price examines the frightening changes in the influential media to present
a message of sexual caution rather than sexual freedom.  He states that
television news has become

              " ... an electronic pulpit ... a tool with which
         public health officials instruct people in how to
         think and how to behave during the AIDS crisis.  [It
         tells us what individuals'] values are and should be,
         what conduct will be deemed worthy of imitation and,
         as a result, how behavior will be shaped."


         So there you have it:  a society whose media preys on the weaknesses
and fears of the general public and divinely deems what "acceptable" responses
to these fears should be.  The panic has a ceiling, however, and can only
spread so far; let it be known, fortunately for our society, that there are
still many wise Americans who will have rummaged their way through the
inescapable heap of media hype thrown at them and happily emerge with a
personal interpretation of their own, one which comes about only after
examining the manipulative, sadistic greed overpowering the heartless,
insensitive liars behind the frightening, doomsday words.


The Bogus "Masters and Johnson" Report

         One of the most respected research teams in the field of sexual
behavior, Masters and Johnson, joined the ranks of the money-hungry, word-
twisting fear-injectors when it published "Crisis:  Heterosexual Behavior in
the Age of AIDS".  Criticized for failing to submit their results to
scientific review, the medical research community deemed Masters and Johnson's
claim that the AIDS epidemic is "running rampant in the heterosexual
community" bad science, if slick marketing.  An elaborate press conference, a
cover story in "Newsweek" and distribution by "The Los Angeles Times
Syndicate" were timed to coincide with the book's publication.  Noted for
their innovative studies in human sexual physiology and pioneering work in sex
therapy, most readers in fact do not know that they have rarely submitted
their studies to scientific journals, where the work is supposed to pass the
scrutiny of experts before being published.  Says University of California sex
researcher Bernard Zilbergeld, "Their primary aim is to sell themselves and
their books."

         Aside from preposterous claims that AIDS can be contracted,
"theoretically at least", via mosquito bites, french kissing, toilet seats and
sliding into second base ("if, by chance, an infected player has bled into it
..."), experts say that the main problem with Masters and Johnson's alarming
AIDS data is, similarly, that their sample is drastically skewed, that is, not
representative of the nation as a whole.  The sex researchers, with co-author
Dr. Robert Koldony, studied 800 people in New York, Los Angeles, St. Louis and
Atlanta.  One-half claimed to be monogamous and one-half claimed to have had 6
sex partners per year for the previous 5 years.  The participants further
stated in questionnaires that they had not engaged in homosexual activity or
used drugs.  Only one of the monogamous subjects was found injected with the
AIDS virus, compared with 24 or 6% in the sexually active group, a rate 5 to
10 times higher than that found in patients at clinics for sexually
transmitted diseases, a very high risk population.

         "This is just plain bad science," says Dr. John Bailar, a
biostatistician at McGill University in Montreal and consultant to the U. S.
government and "The New England Journal of Medicine".  She continues:

              "The sample of people they chose, or who chose
         themselves, is totally biased.  You can't come to any
         broad conclusions from this, even if you assume that
         the subjects told them the truth about their sexual
         habits."


         The study participants were volunteers who responded to notices
placed at churches, childbirth classes, colleges and singles gathering spots.
Masters and Johnson apparently inserted a disclaimer in the book stating that
their results "cannot be easily generalized", but critics say Masters and
Johnson and Kolodny did just that:  they used their data to assert that AIDS
is spreading rapidly and that 200,000 heterosexuals in the U. S. are now
infected, not the 30,000 estimated by the CDC, which figures place the number
of heterosexuals with AIDS at 2% of the entire AIDS population.  Says Dr.
James Curran of CDC:

              "The problem has become more exaggerated in coverage
         of AIDS because of the severe life-and-death implications.
         This life-and-death journalistic rollercoaster leaves the
         public wondering what to believe."


         U. S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop promptly called the work
"irresponsible" and accused Masters and Johnson of "scare tactics".  New York
City Health Commissioner Dr. Stephen Joseph stated:

              "They pile their statements, each holding a thin
         layer of established fact, on top of one another like
         slices of bologna."


         A "Chicago Tribune" editorial blasted the "panic-peddling book" and
"The New York Times" decried its "false alarms about AIDS", all while
frightened readers jammed AIDS hotlines seeking clarification and comfort.
Perhaps some consolation was received by their being warmly reassured that
"The Journal of the American Medical Association" has scientifically disproven
the theory that "deep kissing" can lead to death.  Not one single case has
ever been attributed to infection brought on by french kissing.  Explains Jay
Levy of The University of California at San Francisco:

              "The AIDS virus is not present in saliva.  Saliva
         is a hostile environment for the AIDS virus.  In fact,
         it will kill half the viruses exposed to it within 30
         minutes."


         In their defense, Masters and Johnson argue that it is up to the
medical community to prove them wrong.  As a practical matter, however,
scientists cannot prove that something will never happen.  Even so, in a dozen
studies conducted on some 500 persons living with AIDS-infected relatives, not
one single case of casual transmission has occurred, even though they shared
toothbrushes, toilets, cups, plates, toys and bed linens.  "They've created a
straw man," says CDC's Curran, "Let THEM prove it's true!"  Says Joanne
Silbernerer in her recent work in "U. S. News & World Report":

              "Science is a gradual process; journalism isn't.
         Why do we fall for it?  The media reports the latest
         discoveries, which are all too often taken as gospel.
         Even when studies are reported in reputable journals,
         they can be misconstrued."


         At least with Masters and Johnson, some publications evidently saw
warning flags.  "Time" and "The Boston Globe" were invited to bid for rights
to excerpt the book, and declined.  "We felt it was determinedly alarming,"
said "Time" senior editor Russ Hoyle.  The book, published by Grove Press
after several other publishers reportedly turned it down, didn't lack buyers.
"The Los Angeles Times Syndicate", the German magazine "Stern" and France's
"Paris Match" bought rights.  As one editor precisely observed, and as
hereinbefore stated, "Sex sells."


You Don't Get Heard

         It does not pay to be the bearer of good news.  Since 1987, Michael
Fumento has been trying to spread the reassuring word that AIDS is not going
to carry off millions of Americans, that AIDS will not devastate the
heterosexual population, that AIDS is not the late 20th Century version of the
black death.  As a result, Fumento lost his job as AIDS expert at the U. S.
Commission on Civil Rights, had a generous fellowship offer rescinded, and has
been told that he is not a nice person.  Fumento, author of the recently
published book "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS", argues that AIDS is not a
disease that is easily transmitted, meaning the universe of Americans likely
to be infected by it is clearly circumscribed.  Arguing that monogamy buffs in
the Reagan administration were using AIDS as a tool to terrify sexually
adventurous Americans with a "chastity or death" message, Fumento did not get
in trouble for offending the gay liberals ... he got in trouble for offending
the conservatives.

         Essentially, Fumento denounces as "worthless" and "garbage" most of
the projections about the size of the AIDS epidemic, noting that most
information disseminated in the press has been provided by crackpots, while a
great deal of the statistical data generated by the CDC is high-class
guesswork.  In his work "The Incredible Shrinking AIDS Epidemic", Fumento
argues that new infections among homosexuals have dropped dramatically because
word about AIDS is out, while the number of drug users left to be exposed has
topped out because there are only so many drug users and partners left to
contaminate.

         In his "Forbes" article, author Joseph Quinnan states:

              "Fumento feels that alarming projections about the
         spread of AIDS into the heterosexual population served
         the interests of several groups.  One group was
         journalists, who revel in nightmarish stories and are
         willing to cite the most dire statistics, even when the
         numbers are supplied by 'experts' with dubious
         credentials, or by certain organizations whose
         epidemiological prowess is in question.  'It's a
         bumper sticker disease,' he remarks, suggesting that
         scaring the daylights out of white, middle-class
         suburbanites may have been the only way AIDS activists
         could have corralled the dollars needed to combat a
         disease whose principal victims are socially
         unfashionable black females and homosexuals."


Says Fumento:

              "AIDS will go down from an epidemic to an endemic
         level within just a few years.  If someone had come up
         with a 'cure' a couple of years ago, he would have
         been hailed as the new Jonas Salk.  But now, when AIDS
         vaccine is discovered, people will say, 'Oh, that's
         good, that's great, that's a good thing ..."


         When "Newsweek" jumped on the bogus Masters and Johnson survey in
support of its alleged validity, Michael Fumento joined those who criticized
the survey in an article in "The New Republic".  Alas, the circulation of "The
New Republic" is 92,500, while the circulation of "Newsweek" is 3,198,000!
So, the mass of the public will hear what they want to believe ... another
frightening statistic ... regardless of sociological implications.  "No wonder
we're hysterical, from denial or paranoia," states author John Leonard in his
recent "Ms." article as he vehemently lashes out against a world of
publications deliberately outpouring misinformation.  "It depends on the
magazine that's messing with our minds."  He further states:

              "[W]hat we think we know is determined entirely
         by the information environment.  It's as if they're
         screaming at us from transistors in the cavities of
         our teeth, and they don't care if they're telling
         the truth or not.  We haven't the tuners and
         amplifiers to steer through this static.  No
         historical bifocals for a close reading of the
         facts.  No previous experience nor any guru to help
         us feel our way.  As perhaps never before, we are
         dependent on the conscienceless, retina-eating media
         for all the weather in our heads.  What this amounts
         to is a shameful unknowingness, a crime."


Psychiatric Delusions in Some

         In its article "The AIDS Delusion", the magazine "Science News" set
forth an example of one of the terrifying consequences that twisted, tattered
words can have on some of us who are not strong enough to properly distinguish
fact from fiction:

              "Here's a new twist in the controversy over
         AIDS testing.  A small but increasing number of
         people with psychiatric disorders are demanding to
         be tested for the AIDS virus as a result of
         delusions that they have contracted the deadly
         disease.  In three cases described in 'The
         American Journal of Psychiatry', this erroneous
         belief that AIDS has been contracted disappeared
         with successful treatment of the person's severe
         depression or manic depression.  The patients have
         no symptoms of AIDS, are not intravenous drug users
         and report no homosexual experiences.  If testing
         for the AIDS virus is nonetheless conducted, the
         researchers note, these patients usually find a
         way to explain away negative results and hang on
         to their delusion until the underlying psychiatric
         disorder is addressed.  As AIDS becomes a fixture
         in the media in public consciousness, it may
         increasingly affect the delusions of people with
         psychiatric disorders, the investigators conclude."


Conclusion

         In summary, AIDS is a frightening disease and AIDS is a deadly
disease ... but AIDS is a distant disease, light years away from people like
you and I in the realistic world of mathematical probability and true facts.
My personal likelihood of contracting it, while unprotected and from a
stranger, has been calculated at 1 in 17 million; yours, equally minute.   It
is not disputed that there is justifiable reason to be cautious, however there
is certainly no cause for exaggerated and unnecessary fear and preoccupation.
Almost all males do not feel it necessary to wear condoms as a guard against
AIDS; condoms are primarily reluctantly used as a method of birth control, and
evoke widespread criticism for the reduction of sensation they produce.
Almost all men and women polled state they are "slightly" or "not at all"
worried about contracting aids, thus the ideals of the minority can be
attributed to the great influx of bogus, hype articles about AIDS that plague
the American media and frighten the American public.  A California court, in
1989, upheld a law permitting publications to legally publish fabricated
quotes, and reported news continues to become reported fiction.  Even Masters
and Johnson, one of the most noteworthy and respected teams of sex researchers
in the U. S., published a totally fictitious book based on non-scientific data
and was blasted by the U. S. Surgeon General.  Yet, countless other fabricated
AIDS books by less well-known authors have been bought, read and believed by
hundreds of thousands of persons, not surprisingly accounting for the creation
of a group of people who have delusions of having AIDS or getting AIDS, even
after negative HIV test results.


What to Do

         If you plan on having sex with someone who is in the high risk group,
use protection.  If you plan on having sex with someone on a regular basis and
do not want children, use protection regardless of the person's group status.
But if you meet someone who is not in the high risk group and would like to
have sex with this person without having a relationship, be free, live free,
remove all inhibitions, relax and enjoy, for there truly is nothing to fear
...  unless you've already slept with 17 million or so other persons, at which
point yes, I'd definitely be careful!

                                     *




                                  Ŀ
     THE Ŀ
    ۳
ͻ
 SCAM! //////// ///////////////////// 
  /                                     
 /      /      / //  / //   /  //        /     /   // /   /   
 /      /      /  /  /   /   /    /      /   
  / //   / //  /  /  /// /  /// /  //   /     //   / //   //  
 _/  _ /_/  / _/  _/  _  _/    _/ _  _/  
  SCAM! 
ͼ
    ۳Ŀ
    

"THE RUNE STONE BBS" is open and available to ALL inquisitive modemers!  This
is an IIRG-oriented, Connecticut-based BBS which features a VERY knowledgeable,
helpful and friendly Sysop; NO ratios(!); and a WEALTH of informational philes
to explore.  This BBS is also the place to find the latest editions of "SCAM!"
magazine!  Even if you're an out-of-state caller, this BBS is well worth the
extra dime.  So why not call today?  The fone number is (203) 832-8441.  Logon
with newuser password "CONSPIRACY", and say you heard about 'em from "SCAM!"

 FIND THE LATEST AND THE GREATEST 0-30'S!   STARGATE ASYLUM (516) YOU-WISH

WANTED:  VALID CBI, TRW, EQUIFAX AND TRANS UNION ACCOUNTS, PASSWORDS AND
LOGON HELP.  If you have enjoyed reading "SCAM!" magazine and have found it
of any value to you, which hopefully you have, please be advised that NO
idiotic money contributions are requested.  Rather, I seek the above.  If
you have any of the above, or would like to refer a BBS number and newuser
logon password where the above information can be obtained, please leave a
PRIVATE message for THE PRODUCER on The Rune Stone BBS (see above).  NOTE:
The Rune Stone BBS is a legitimate BBS and does NOT wish information of
this type publicly posted.  Therefore, please obey the wishes and respect
the rules of the Sysops on this BBS and do NOT post this info publicly.
Each message will be treated with the UTMOST in confidentiality and will be
sincerely appreciated.

  MERCENARY, GIMME MORE POINTS FOR AREA 27! I LIVE TO LEECH! -- The Prod.

                               HELLO, GERMANY!

ARE YOU SICK AND TIRED OF CALLING "611" to get repair service, only to find
out that the line is busy or you're being put on hold for about an hour??
Fret no more ... if you're a New York Telephone customer, try 890-0091.  This
is an UNLISTED New York Telephone trunk number that will automatically connect
you to the first available operator for repair.  The repair centers, by the
way, are in White Plains and Garden City, and there's another in Queens
somewhere.  You won't find yourself calling back or left on hold again!  (Note
this number works in MOST area codes serviced by New York Telephone, but might
not work in yours.  Try it anyway, you have nothing to lose!)
                                  * * * * *
  THIS HELPFUL HINT FURNISHED COURTESY OF THE PRODUCER & "SCAM!" MAGAZINE

FOR SALE:  VALID SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, together with (1) the name of the
person the number belongs to;  (2) his or her most current address; and (3)
his or her most current telephone number.  HUNDREDS OF NUMBERS AVAILABLE,
most also including the person's date of birth!  Many also include the
person's current occupation, place of employment AND salary.  These numbers,
which are available for REAL, LIVING persons, can in many cases be tailored to
your needs for specific age, race and/or nationality.  NO MONEY DESIRED FOR
THIS INFORMATION; USE YOUR BRAIN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S WANTED IN RETURN!
DISCLAIMER: The authors and publishers of this magazine shall act merely as
liaison to any parties responding to this advertisement, for informational and
entertainment purposes only.  RESPOND, PLEASE, IN THE APPROPRIATE FASHION.

FIND OUT INFO ON THAT AMEX CARD!  If you know the number of an American Express
Card AND the social security number of the cardholder, just dial the following
number: 1-800-292-2639.  A computer-generated program will permit you to find
out lots of valuable information on the card such as last payment, available
limits, etc.  You do NOT need to know the expiration date of the card!  Works
for greens, golds and platinums.  If the computer attempts to transfer you to
a live operator, this means some of the info you gave didn't jive ... so
disconnect!  Have more AMEX inquiries?  Call 1-800-528-4800 for a live person
... but know what you're doing!  Calls answered M-F 9:30-5:30 EST.

                   PIRACY RULES  ... AND THE DWELLING RETURNS!

                   
                                                         
                                  WANTED!!               
                                             
                       VALID WDIA ACCOUNTS, PASSWORDS    
                               AND LOGON HELP            
                                                         
                   

WDIA is (or was) one of the nation's largest electronic databases that acts
(or did act) as a gateway to DMV, credit card bureaus and courthouse records
nationwide.  Its function is (or was) to provide private investigators with
the necessary tools for tracing, tracking, etc. private individuals and/or
businesses and, upon entering the proper search requests, can offer credit
card histories, criminal background checks, business investigations etc.
nationwide, if not worldwide.  If you have enjoyed reading "SCAM!" magazine
and have found it of any value to you, please leave a PRIVATE message for THE
PRODUCER on The Rune Stone BBS (see above), or furnish a BBS number where the
above information can be obtained.  Again, please respect the rules of The
Rune Stone and do NOT post public ANY info of this type.  Each message will
be treated with the UTMOST confidentiality and will be sincerely appreciated.

         *** "SCAM!" SUGGESTION: ***

              For total anonymity, use PKZIP encryption.  Especially
         when dealing with WDIA, I would suggest it.

              0-30'S WITH MINT MESSAGE BASE AND SUPER-MINT SYSOP
                        THE TACK ROOM  (516) 4U2-KNOW

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD IN "SCAM!" MAGAZINE:  Leave a
PRIVATE message for THE PRODUCER on The Rune Stone BBS (see above).  Your real
name, address, etc. are NOT needed to place classified ads.  You may leave
your handle, e-mail address and/or BBS message area where others can respond
to your ad.  NO FEE IS REQUIRED!  Classified ads MUST conform to the general
content of "SCAM!" magazine.  Classified ads for "conservative" BBS's (e.g.
BBS's containing shareware programs, games, etc.) will NOT be posted, so
please don't waste my time!  Classified ads containing actual credit card
numbers, passwords, etc. will NOT be posted, simply because the posting of
such information would be clearly illegal; however, classified ads that
contain SOURCES to obtain this information are acceptable and, in fact, are
encouraged. Classified ads will be posted based upon their content and at the
sole and exclusive discretion of THE PRODUCER.  In your request, please don't
forget to specifically state that you wish a classified ad, or else your info
will simply be treated confidentially and I will not know to post it.  Please
help make "SCAM!" magazine grow by submitting your classified ad today!

     THE DWELLING RETURNS ... ELITENESS UP TO YOUR ASS!  (516) GO2-HELL

IF YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN "SCAM!" MAGAZINE:  "SCAM!"
magazine is searching for new "Field Researchers"!  If you have something you
feel is valuable to the readers of "SCAM!" and would like to submit it for
consideration, please do so!  Here's how:  Leave a PRIVATE message for THE
PRODUCER on The Rune Stone BBS (see above).  In this message, state the
following:  (1) your handle; (2) a brief (please!) description of your
offering; (3) about how many pages is it?; (4) a BBS that you belong to, other
than The Rune Stone BBS; and (5) newuser password and logon info for that
other BBS.  Generally only articles, in ASCII form, will be accepted;
executable programs, unless VERY useful and VERY small, cannot be considered
simply due to the forum.  Please post your proposed article in ZIP, ARJ or LHA
on that other BBS (not the Rune Stone!)  If your article seems really
worthwhile, it will be downloaded, reviewed and ultimately published.  In your
request, please don't forget to specifically state that you wish an article
published, or else your info will simply be treated confidentially and I will
not know to consider it.  Please help make "SCAM!" magazine grow by submitting
your articles for consideration today!

         *** "SCAM!" SUGGESTION: ***

              If you would like to keep your article confidential
         prior to its appearance in "SCAM!", do the following:  Place
         the article in "ZIP" form on the other BBS, but add PKZIP
         encryption to the file.  In your private message, leave the
         key.  That way, no one else can read the article.

EDITORIALS AND SUGGESTION BOX.  All articles in "SCAM!" magazine are subject to
EDITORIAL REPLY by my readers.  This is a free country and you're entitled to
respond, so PLEASE DO SO!  I welcome your thoughts and ideas.  Do you have any
suggestions on how to make "SCAM!" better, or what you'd like to see in
"SCAM!"??  Was there something in "SCAM!" you disagree with, or would like to
have clarified??  Is there a particular scam you'd like to pull off, but don't
know how??  Leave a PRIVATE message for THE PRODUCER on The Rune Stone BBS and
let your editorial replies be heard for future publications of this magazine!

 ͻ
ʻ
                 UNTIL NEXT TIME, HAPPY "SCAM!"S & BE WELL!!                
                                                                            
˻                                                                        ˹
ι   T  H  E    P  R  O  D  U  C  E  R   ι
ʼ                                                                        ʹ
                 SNEEZING, COUGHING, CHOKING AND GASPING FOR                
                     UNPOLLUTED AIR IN GOD'S COUNTRY ...                    
                          NEW YORK STATE, U. S. A.!                         
͹
 ͼ
                                  The End


TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH