Safe Sex

This report from Dr Velez about infection rates for HIV in AC are exactly the type of report that I have been raging about in this forum over the past several years. It it typical of the fear campaign being waged by the Australian federal government.

Reading the reported numbers, the normal ISG punter could be forgiven for thinking that his risk factors for HIV are going up. All the more reason to glove up.

However, the report really adds nothing to the information for ISG punters, because it does not break down the numbers. It does not say how many cases of HIV within homosexual males, within intravenous drug users, and within heterosexual people. In most societies, about 85% or more of HIV cases are homosexual men, about 15% among intravenous drug users, and effectively zero among heterosexual people.

Several punters here have commented on the apparent increase in numbers of bacla in the AC. I have no knowledge of intravenous drug users, as I have never even met one. I think. So maybe this is the cause of the increase in the numbers, who knows?

So you can confine that report to the dust bin, along with most others of its ilk, and proceed as before.

G

[QUOTE=ThatGuy865; 1352730]Food for thought.

[url]http://punto.com.ph/News/Article/15899/Volume-6-No-69/Headlines/STD-cases-jack-up-by-7-8--br-i-Freelance-sex-workers-asked-to-come-out-i[/url]

STD cases jack up by 7. 8 %

Freelance sex workers asked to come out.

By Ding Cervantes.

Nov 19, 2012.

ANGELES CITY- Cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in this city were noted to have increased by 7. 84 percent, all the victims being female freelance workers aged from 18 to 25.

The study, conducted by a group headed by Dr. Richard Velez, head of the department of medicine of the Sacred Heart Hospital here, also noted an average increase of four human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cases in this city every year since 1985.

'The registry showed a total of 93 confirmed cases of HIV infection from 1985 to 2011. The disease incidence distribution was irregular but the average incidence is about 4 positive cases per year.

Unfortunately the records did not classify the demographic characteristics of the positive population, ' the study also said.

The study also noted 'at least eleven reported confirmed deaths from the reported (HIV) positive population', adding that 'the status of the majority of the cases was undetermined or lost to follow-ups. '[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Westcoast1; 1352847]I am saying, however, that I prefer it this way. I had an uncle who died from cancer, he smoked to the end. He was unabashed about it. He had no desire to quit. He loved not only smoking, he said he liked the smell of smoke when others smoked. Possibly I like punani the same way, and like him, I prefer to live without the risk worry.

I'm not sure what that has to do with condom use. We cover our faces (and the ladies) to protect identities.

"Ain't none of us getting out of this thing alive."[/QUOTE]But your uncle as an example is not good here. When you fuck without protection you don't only take a risk. You also can spread disease and it's a point. You can spread it to other girls and other punters. Sure, we all take a risk but I'm sure most of us want to minimize the risk as much as possible.

Don't cough or sneeze around me either. I had pneumonia last spring and it was not very pleasant at all. Dam'n near died. I'm afraid to cross streets too as I might get hit by a truck. Geeeeeeez! The only guarantee is that were are all going to die. Live and let live until the end. BTW, I've never worn a raincoat in the Philippines.

[QUOTE=Tabasco72;1352920]But your uncle as an example is not good here. When you fuck without protection you don't only take a risk. You also can spread disease and it's a point. You can spread it to other girls and other punters. Sure, we all take a risk but I'm sure most of us want to minimize the risk as much as possible.[/QUOTE]Best Argument I have read so far to support condom use.

[QUOTE=Tabasco72;1352920]But your uncle as an example is not good here. When you fuck without protection you don't only take a risk. You also can spread disease and it's a point. You can spread it to other girls and other punters. Sure, we all take a risk but I'm sure most of us want to minimize the risk as much as possible.[/QUOTE]Stating the obvious. Minimize your own risk by using a condom or abstaining (bahala ka). Other punters don't concern themselves with [I]your [/I]risk when it comes to working girls. If you're weak, or uncertain, stay home.

[QUOTE=Westcoast1;1353099]Stating the obvious. Minimize your own risk by using a condom or abstaining (bahala ka). Other punters don't concern themselves with [I]your [/I]risk when it comes to working girls. If you're weak, or uncertain, stay home.[/QUOTE]Well that was also my point the guy who never got a std for 20 year got warts and fucked 10 or more girls with out a condom. I do not care I use condoms, but the guy is not going to help the girls he gave the std to as he was sure he was clean as he never had a std for 20 years, but when the doctor pointed out the blister was a wart he stopped, I think he knew what he had and what he had done and had to confess to me, obvious I will not name the guy.

You can be a carrier of a few std and show no symptoms but spread them, I am one of those weak guys I have a low immune system. I test my girls if I get the slightest of tingles and get tested myself, as some of these std occur naturally. So if not for your own health but the health of wonderful girls we share think about your actions.

[blue][Deleted by Admin][/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was deleted because it appears that the poster was [u]deliberately posting false information to agitate the forum membership for his own amusement[/u]. This kind of deliberate antagonism will not be tolerated and will result in the perpetrator being permanently banned from the forum. [i]Thank You![/i][/blue]

[QUOTE=Gangles;1352919]In most societies, about 85% or more of HIV cases are homosexual men, about 15% among intravenous drug users, and effectively zero among heterosexual people.[/QUOTE]Going bareback is a bit like climbing mount everest. There's no law against it, but it doesn't come without it'e risks. If you appreciate the risks and want to continue, it's not for anyone to tell you otherwise.

What I find distasteful is people trying to justify their actions by underselling the risks. Your comments that HIV only affects Gay people and drug users is an attitude from the 1980's. There are over 20 million HIV positive people in Africa, and I don't think you will find too many homosexuals amongst them. That said the liklehood of getting HIV from a single bareback pop with an AC girl is about the same as being killed in a road accident next year in the UK. However, there are lots of other STD's around that are far more infectious.

As was said in an earlier post, those who go bareback and get away with it are a lot more likely to be bragging about it than the punter who caught something nasty.

Is this the AC Thread the last 5 page is all about STD and bareback just use condem all the time and move on and talk about something else more useful.

Fast Eddie 48

I get weary of the rubber dictators, but your post has a nice analogy. No wait, it has a ridiculous analogy. But it was interesting to read nevertheless.

[QUOTE=Llantarnam; 1353230]Going bareback is a bit like climbing mount everest. There's no law against it, but it doesn't come without it'e risks. If you appreciate the risks and want to continue, it's not for anyone to tell you otherwise.

What I find distasteful is people trying to justify their actions by underselling the risks. Your comments that HIV only affects Gay people and drug users is an attitude from the 1980's. There are over 20 million HIV positive people in Africa, and I don't think you will find too many homosexuals amongst them. That said the liklehood of getting HIV from a single bareback pop with an AC girl is about the same as being killed in a road accident next year in the UK. However, there are lots of other STD's around that are far more infectious.

As was said in an earlier post, those who go bareback and get away with it are a lot more likely to be bragging about it than the punter who caught something nasty.[/QUOTE]

I'm an MD, not entirely demented and I shag bareback, 100 percent. I only forage a few weeks any given year in either the PI and more lately in west Africa. I have a 22 yo African bouncing bride at home with me where I am strictly monogamous. When foraging, I always self treat a day or so prior to "deploying" and continue taking antibiotics through the trip plus a day or two.

Many STIs / STDs can be easily contracted going bareback, especially without condoms or good hygiene. Some of these STDs can be highly contagious esp HSV II, warts, and any of the bacterial disease. HIV and Hepatitis viruses are NOT readily spread by "conventional" heterosex and I would include only straight vag and oral sex as being reasonably safe for these two groups of viruses (HIV and Hepatitis. B or C).

Here's my feeling about the principal "bugs" that can cause problems.

HSV II. You won't kill it, but it won't kill you. If you like sleeping with different women (who sleep with different men) quit crying about it. Get some low dose acyclovir and that will decrease outbreaks to nearly zilch. If you've found the First Virgin in anywhere PI, good for you!

Hepatitis. Hep B and C had previously been listed as STDs, however epidemiologic studies demonstrated these viruses were not passed between partners engaged in straight sex. ALSO NOTE THERE ARE VERY EFFECTIVE VACCINES FOR BOTH HEP A AS WELL AS HEP B. ALL mongerers should seriously consider getting these vaccines if they have not yet already done so.

HIV. The incidence of HIV in the PI I think (based on reported numbers) is one of lowest in the world. Also, a recent NIH international study of 1700 partners with HIV showed conclusively that while on retroviral drugs, there was effectively ZERO percent chance of contracting HIV. The clinical trial, known as HPTN 052 suggests that the HIV is completely arrested while the individual is taking HIV agents. So if you ARE one of the unluckiest phucks in the world to contract HIV by straight sex, and you have ACCESS to anything resembling modern health care (I. E. Retroviral agents) , HIV WILL NOT KILL YOU. The standard of care for the vast majority of HIV carriers up until HPTN 052 was to treat HIV ONLY after it had essentially progressed to AIDS which IS near uniformly fatal. Get tested annually.

Warts. Liquid Nitrogen VERY effective, but you have to have that done at a clinic. Only slightly less effective however is podophylline lotion. 0.5 percent, though if you apply this yourself you MUST follow instructions.

Bacterial types (e. G. Chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea). What concerns me the most actually. Easily contracted even with good hygiene (pissing and washing immed post coitus can be very effective but nowhere near 100%). If you got a lick of common sense and a few bucks, get some doxycycline and another broad spectrum antibiotic. The CDC says, at least for Americans, we SHOULD be taking doxy (or some other substitute) going most places for malarial prophylaxis. Add a cephalosporin or a fluroquinolone type antibiotic and you will be as right as rain.

I'm no Superhero. Warts, HSV and in the distant past some of those pesky bugs though in each case from indiscretions here at home, without caution. But I'm pretty GD sure I'm not going to die or kill anyone from an STD. Not with modern chemistry anyways. You jump out of airplanes then you get a pro rigger to pack your reserve and to be real safe you should use an uautomatic opening device. But the risk is manageable and even then well maybe you'll get a little rash that won't even stop your dick from wanting to run rampant. If you don't have HSV II and don't want to get it, consider joining a monastery. With good antibiosis, my biggest concern coming home is always bedbugs.

So with that, can anybody tell me what the historic and present day mortality rates were / are for climbing Mt Everest? (rhetorical only, please)

Very few people actually think about risk assessment in their daily lives.

By far, the most dangerous place for most people is their kitchen. Large numbers of people die in their kitchens each year. Yet they still use their kitchens, maybe you are one of them.

Fatality rates on our roads amounts to thousands of deaths, and tens of thousands of maimings each year. Yet many people still choose to drive, and maybe you are one of them.

Please be careful to not misquote what I have said in my post. I referred to ". Most countries", not all countries. Because I do not have details on all countries. Nor did I say that HIV affects "only" gay people and drug users. I said homosexual males and intravenous drug users.

However, your comment has caused me to be more specific about risk groups for HIV infection. The primary reason for higher infection rates among homosexual men is because of anal intercourse. The vagina is designed for penile sexual penetration, and friction. So the skin does not split during sexual intercourse. However, the skin around the anus is not designed for sexual penetration and friction, and sexual intercourse can cause small splits and lesions in the skin around the anus. This makes it easier for infected fluids, particularly blood, to pass between the two people.

So, heterosexual vaginal sex is pretty safe for HIV infection. Same with oral sex, it is pretty safe for HIV. But of course, anal heterosexual sex carries the higher risk. And I had not considered that as a higher risk subgroup.

It is my understanding that the elephant in the room for HIV in Africa is anal sex. Because African couples have commonly used anal sex as a form of contraception. But none of the NGO's, or governments, or anybody else, will openly talk about it. So the problem remains intractable, and infection can still spread rapidly.

So, I am not justifying my actions, I do not need to. I take the risks, with an understanding of what they are. Nor am I underestimating, or understating the risks for HIV infection for other people. I prefer to base my risk assessment on hard data, numbers, and sound statistical principles, not gut feeling and government propaganda.

For your consideration,

G.

[QUOTE=Llantarnam; 1353230]Going bareback is a bit like climbing mount everest. There's no law against it, but it doesn't come without it'e risks. If you appreciate the risks and want to continue, it's not for anyone to tell you otherwise.

What I find distasteful is people trying to justify their actions by underselling the risks. Your comments that HIV only affects Gay people and drug users is an attitude from the 1980's. There are over 20 million HIV positive people in Africa, and I don't think you will find too many homosexuals amongst them. That said the liklehood of getting HIV from a single bareback pop with an AC girl is about the same as being killed in a road accident next year in the UK. However, there are lots of other STD's around that are far more infectious.

As was said in an earlier post, those who go bareback and get away with it are a lot more likely to be bragging about it than the punter who caught something nasty.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Pete Benetar; 1353471]I'm an MD, not entirely demented and I shag bareback. 100 percent. I only forage a few weeks any given year in either the PI and more lately in west Africa. I have a 22 yo African bouncing bride at home with me where I am strictly monogamous.

(snip)

HIV and Hepatitis viruses are NOT readily spread by "conventional" heterosex and I would include only straight vag and oral sex as being reasonably safe for these two groups of viruses (HIV and Hepatitis. B or C).[/QUOTE]First you tell us you are an MD, then you tell us you "forage" a few weeks of the year, but you are "strictly monogamous" with your African bride. Perhaps logical argumentation was not part of your education, or perhaps you have a very reliable African or Caribbean medical degree. In plain English, if you are out screwing other women, you are not in a monogamous relationship. Even if you meant to say that your wife is monogamous or you are monogamous within your own community, don't you think she might also be out getting a little strange while you are out foraging during those few weeks of the year?

Regarding HIV not being spread by "conventional" heterosex: Studies show a surprising increase in HIV among heterosexual married women in rural Africa. The analysts were puzzled, and then they figured out that the men take temporary employment in cities, where the only jobs exist. While away from home they root around with prostitutes. Then they return to their rural homes and infect their stay-at-home wives. So maybe the stay-at-home wives are secretly exchanging dirty needles, or the men are into anal sex with the prostitutes and then come home and push the new trick on (or in) their wives? Or is the whole analysis just crap?

You might want to look up Daniel Kahneman's extensive work on the confirmation bias and ask yourself whether MDs are any less susceptible to it than mere laymen.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost;1353481]Perhaps logical argumentation was not part of your education, or perhaps you have a very reliable African or Caribbean medical degree.[/QUOTE]Perhaps syntax and grammar was never your strong suit, since you would like to endorse your own sense of editorializing. Try reading my post. A little more carefully.

On the heterosexual transmission of HIV you describe in Africa, nobody knows what the factors are but I'm perfectly comfortable in my game doing as I do. HIV is not a lethal disease.

Interesting that you conclude with matters of confirmation bias. Were you mistreated as a child or did you just have a physician at some point with a God complex?

Or not.

Sorry. Couldn't help it.