The Truth about AIDS

Select "Add New Message" to post a message.

well let's see if we can get a discussion going on THIS subject, guys and girls!
I live in a medium sized metro area in michigan (500,000), and i grew up in metro chicago. Having been in business, both upright and somewhat shady, for years, i have come to know a whole lot of people from many walks of life. All this verboseness is leading up to this one simple fact: out of the 50,000+/- people i have known throughout my 40+ years on this planet, i only know one person who has contracted aids. If you are to believe the government statistics, that number should be more like 500. Bottom line is, in my opinion, the government decided that they need to control our sexual behavior and they have learned from experience that laws won't do it. So, they try scare tactics.
You will probably call me a fool, but i seldom have safe sex, even with professionals. And i have regular check-ups from my doc, including STD screening. Frankly, I am more concerned about catching some virulant form of gonnorhea or syphliss than HIV.
It is my feeling that as long as you avoid anal, hetro or homo, and avoid needle using junkies, you are safe from the "modern plauge". The one person that i mentioned that i know has aids, incidently, is a total flame. I can guess where he got it.
pls reply, people...let the games begin!

Yea, I travel alot as well and don't seem to know anyone with thad Disease Either. Only needle shooters and gay backdoor men.
Maybe we all been lucky?

I hear with all the medicine around you have 15 years. So at 45 I go Wild, then I catch it. I will last until 60. Is that so bad? I have seen guys in my office die of heart attacks at age 52 and of cancer at 60.

Trainbum
You are one huge dumb asshole my friend if you do not at least have safe sex that includes wrapping the dog for FS.
DATY, BBBJ in non safe mode is probably pretty low risk other than maybe herpes, but intercourse front or back door without is just stupid.
Bottom line...if she's got it ( clap STD ) then you got it.
I had gonorhea twice as a very young guy and back then a shot of penicillin in the ass and you were good to go. Today, it's a different matter with mutated strains and lots of other cute STD's
The reason I am writing this post is out of pure selfishness. I don't really give a rat's ass about whether you live or die or your dick turns black and falls off, but since I like to fuck women, I don't want your sloppy seconds if you're not safe, got it?

Hi trainbum You probably know lots more people with AIDS than you realize, its not the sort of thing people brag about. Still unless you hang out with druggies you are not likely to meet a lot of people with AIDS. The disease is not nearly as common in homosexuals lately as most people think. Gay men learned to deal with the epidemic a long time ago by using condoms for anal sex or not doing it at all. AIDS has lately become much more a disease of drug users. They pass the virus when they share needles. Drug users do not seem to care enough about their own health to take the precautions that would protect them........Aids is still a big concern , but it is rare for a man to get the virus unless he allows another man to fuck him in his ass or he shares needles to shoot drugs.....This is true in the United States and Europe, but the AIDS epidemic is going strong in Africa and some other areas of the world among hetrosexuals due to lack of education , health care and some cultural practices.

"The Truth About Aids" is out there if you care to investigate. I suggest Duesberg's book INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS. Or just plug his name into google and follow some links. There is a huge movement established that has rejected the propaganda put out by the National Institute of Health.

Did you know that if a woman dies of cervical cancer and she is HIV positive, she is classified as an AIDS victim. If she's HIV neg, she's just a cancer victim. The same is true for many other "AIDS related" diseases that the NIH put on the list when the epidemic they predicted in the late 80's never materialized.

Did you know that in Africa, they don't even test AIDS "victims" for HIV? They use "symtom" diagnosis--i.e. if the victim has lost weight, develops high fever, etc etc, they just ASSUME it is AIDS. Why? Money. Money comes pouring in from many agencies as the "epidemic" continues to rage. In fact, Africans are dying from the same diseases and malnutrition that have always existed.

Isn't it amazing how much bigger and stronger Magic Johnson has gotten?

Brett, about the advent of AIDS, in Europe wouldn't you know it but most European countries have a very low incidence of the disease?? Would you know that about 0.19 percent of adults in the Netherlands have HIV?? The current rate in the USA is .61, almost triple. In Germany its about 0.1, one sixth of the rate in the States. In France its about .41, in the UK, its .1. All these countries have legal and widespread prostitution yet they have some of the lowest incidences of HIV on the planet. Safe sex and knowledge, along with precautions, go a long way to prevent the outbreak.

CBGB,
So what you're saying is for every 200 adults in the US, 1.22 have HIV. That's hard to believe.

If you don't believe me, check out the CIA World Factbook on the web, there's an article on Yahoo about Aids as well. Close to 1 million people in the USA are HIV positive. The statistics don't lie check it out for yourself.

I don't take a position on whether or not statistics lie, but the CIA lies all day, every day, to the point where they would not know the truth if it bit them on the dick.

CBGBConnisur,
Well said. I would presume that those countries that have some form of legal or tolerated prostitution (like mine) are probably ultimately more liberal about sex in general. That means good sexual education in schools and open discussion about diseases and safe sex practices between couples. Also, those Governments are more likely to spend money educating the community with ad campaigns, etc about safe sex, provide needle and syringe exchanges for drug users and encourage condom provision, like public vending machines, to high risk groups such as teenagers, those in prison, and the gay "sex on premises" venues (like in my country). Countries who encourage people to "Just Say NO" are in my opinion doing severe damamge to the health of their citizens with their ignorance (not naming any names! LOL)

masaji lover,
You are correct in saying that the death count is not an accurate measure. As you said, regardless of what actually killed you, the fact that you were HIV positive is recorded on the stats. However, the "new infection" rates in most western countries are pretty reliable statistics.

and to Brett re: "it is rare for a man to get the virus unless he allows another man to fuck him in his ass or he shares needles to shoot drugs"
Yes it is more likely that you will contract HIV if you do either of these things....BUT...firstly there is the fact that many gay men have caught HIV by being the "penetrative partner". There is definitely more risk of catching it if you are the "receptive" partner, but because of the tearing of the anal lining during sex, the penetrative partner can still be exposed to blood. People are very quick to say "Well either way, it's gay sex, so that's why they caught it"...but there is absolutely NO difference when it comes to anal sex with an HIV+ woman. And if you look around this forum, that is a very popular activity among straight men. Also, who's to say that the woman you are sleeping with doesn't have a bisexual boyfriend???

Secondly, the issue of drugs. Lots of people here have said that the way to avoid HIV is to make sure the girl is not a junkie. I don't do drugs myself, so I guess that would make you feel safe with me. But what happens if the last few people that I slept with WERE drug users? Not only that, but drug use is not always easily recognisable. Many doctors and lawyers and other professionals spend their weekends shooting up with friends. Would you consider your new lawyer girlfriend a high HIV risk?

AIDS, like any other STD, does not discriminate. Yes there are more risks of contracting it if you indulge in certain activities...but that doesn't mean you are risk free if you don't.

CBGB,
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were not right. I should have checked before I posted because those stats are downright scary.

Let me just reiterate that there is an alternate view of the whole theory of HIV and AIDS that doesn't get any coverage by the mainstream media, who just repeat the propaganda put out by the NIH. I won't bother to recap it all, but it boils down to the fact that the virus is just a passenger virus that many people carry with no medical problems resulting. You can start at www.Duesberg.com and continue with these:

http://www.rethinkingaids.com
This is the website of the Group for the Reappraisal of AIDS.

http://www.virusmyth.com
This website contains more than 500 web pages with over 350 articles about the AIDS controversy.

http://www.aliveandwell.org
The website of Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives, a non-profit education, action and support network founded by a group of HIV positive diagnosed people who live in wellness without AIDS drugs and without fear of AIDS.

Masaji,
While the "Duesberg Theory" is indeed an alternate view of AIDS, the number of scientists and doctors who support it is tiny. To call everything else "propaganda" is silly. The media and medical establishment don't give it much coverage because they don't believe it and leads us down a dangerous path - that HIV infection is unimportant and hence safe sex is relatively unimportant. If drugs were the main reason HIV infected people get sick, why didn't those same drugs cause a world-wide problem prior to the 80's? Heroin, cocaine, poppers and more were widely used for many years. Why did so many HIV infected die prior to AZT? While many good questions are raised - like why African AIDS appears to be different, what are important co-factors and how we count AIDS deaths - the vast majority of researchers believe in the HIV and AIDS link. The fact the Magic Johnson has gotten stronger and bigger (fatter?) is itself contrary to the Duesberg Theory. Because he has taken AZT and the complete cocktail of AIDS drugs for 10 years he should have gotten sick from these drugs which are themselves a major cause of AIDS deaths according to the theory.

Well said, Prokofiev. I prefer my science to be argued by people who actually know what they're talking about and how to look at things, not journalists or creationists who have extra time on their hands.

I've spent a lot of time looking through the Duesberg stuff, and I've been following the epidemic for a very, very long time -- since the early eighties when I worked in a Red Cross blood bank when HIV testing first came out, and had to help manage parts of its implementation. I also used to tutor research design and was engaged to critique the design of a number of scientific studies. There's no question that lots of studies, including those about AIDS, make grander statements and conclusions than are truly warranted, and that they need to be looked at carefully. The nature of the beast is that people make careers by asserting and proving things of large scope, and making baby steps, while it's good science, isn't good career management. (Science also doesn't necessarily happen according to a schedule, and the truth of things is that in scientific terms AIDS is still a pretty young malady, so arguments about what "should" have been found at this point are pretty well bunk.)

One aspect of the Duesberg stuff is that it tends to focus on poking holes in this or that aspect, which is a fine approach and a necessary counterweight, but it then leaps to discounting the entire theory, which is pretty well without basis or supported by anything other than anecdote or assertion. And even managing to prove that a treatment doesn't work (which I don't at all concede) doesn't disprove the theory the treatment is based on.

One thing I think is very significant is the fact that HIV testing has radically reduced transmission of AIDS by transfusion, which was one of the more frequent ways of getting AIDS in the early years (remember Arthur Ashe?)

Personally, I don't care if you call it an invasion from Mars -- I don't wanna get it. All these counter-theories generally manage to overlook the fact that there are a lot of corpses out there who fit specific death patterns that didn't exist in the same quantity up until about thirty years ago. Their explanations for why this should be the case besides AIDS are horribly unconvincing.

Regarding the whole Africa thing -- the fact that it's a more complex equation means nothing. Bad counting or statistical methods have nothing whatsoever to do with baseline immuniological issues. There are also countless strains of countless diseases around the world -- whether we're talking about malaria or syphilis. That said, IMHO, President Mbeki of South Africa is at least half right when he argues that AIDS isn't what the issue there is all about. The continent is so ravaged (my visits there were at times heartbreaking because of the high degree of human misery) and resource-strapped that curing everyone there who is HIV or AIDS positive is not going to solve a thing. I agree with Mbeki that the proper solution is a basic strengthening of the general and nutritional infrastructure first, and attention to the epidemic later. It sounds terrible to say, but a third of that continent is simply going to die because the mechanisms and resources aren't already in place to save them, AIDS or not. And that's not even considering the upcoming politics and wars over resources. It's one of the things that keeps me from spending more time there, and I'd like to because it's such a starkly beautiful continent. But let's not mistake exaggerated statistics as somehow disproving scienctific theory.

I actually know a disproportionately large number of friends and aquaintances here in the US who have died from AIDS, and I know a number who are either fighting the disease currently or have tested positive. (Or, maybe not disproportionate, given the estimate that close to half a million have died here.) It's a scary damn disease, and an absolutely horrible way to die, and things that lull people into thinking they're safe when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences.

Joe_zop:

I have been following the debate in this forum, and you and I debated the HIV/AIDS controversy before (in the Thailand forum).

For the information of other posters here, I am squarely on the side of the minority view, or the "denialists" as some call them. To me, the whole HIV/AIDS theory just does not add up.

I have little to add on this, and I agree with the posts below from masaji lover, among others.

The point I want to make about your latest post is the following: you write "things that lull people into thinking they're safe when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences." Now that is insulting for the intelligence of your fellow humans, in particular those who are litterate enough to be reading the posts on this forum.

Don't you think that people can decide for themselves? We are in front of a medical controversy. There are scientist on both sides, with equally impressive credentials. Yes there are many more on the side of the majority (by definition ...) but there is no necessary truth in numbers.

I have been debating this issue for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that you cannot convince people that the HIV/AIDS theory is flawed. All you can do is to make them aware that there is indeed a controversy, point them in the direction of material supporting the Duesberg views etc., and then let them get on that journey if they so wish.

Ultimately, the issue is not only to know whether HIV exists, or even if it causes AIDS, on its own or as a cofactor. There is a very real issue for any HIV positive person to know whether they need to damage their health permanently by taking highly toxic drugs even as they are asymptomatic.

To paraphrase you, I would say "things that lull people into thinking that they need to take huge amounts of toxic drugs to prevent them being sick when they're not are potentially handing out free death sentences as well".

In my view, this is the only thing that really matters in the whole controversy.

Safe sex campaigns do not work. People still have unprotected sex quite a lot (several "classic" STDs are still going pretty strong).

HIV infection rates are still high, this is not surprising as more people get tested than ever before, which tends to increase dramatically the number of "false positives", if you do not believe that all positives are false positives that is.

Billions of dollars have been spent for very little, and there are calls for more. The lobbies are in full swing.

The only thing that really makes a difference is that we are able to help people who are faced with the decision to go on tritherapies etc. to decide for themselves. We must not let those poor souls who have been delivered their HIV positive results go unsupported as the men in white gather around them with their lethal drugs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joe_zop[i] I actually know a disproportionately large number of friends and aquaintances here in the US who have died from AIDS [/i][/QUOTE]

I don't take sides on this debate and would rather practice safe sex than worry, but I would be sincerely interested to know if any of these friends of yours who unfortunately died were exclusively heterosexual non-drug users.

Seydlitz,

Letting "people decide for themselves" is fine if you are choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream. But when it comes to a potenially fatal virus, I think good science is more important than personal choice. The virus is either responsible for millions of deaths or -as Duesberg believes - it's relatively harmless. If one theory is correct, the other is wrong. It is not a matter of personal choice. Choose wrong and you may die. Or worse, infect other partners and ultimate kill yourself and 100's of others.
.
The point about "handing out free death sentences" relates to the fact that if HIV is harmless, then safe sex is unimportant. Simply stay away from certain drugs and you will be healthy. Who cares if you acquire the virus or pass it on to others? Even if you fervently believe this theory, I still believe it is irresponsible to youself and others to help spread HIV.
.
As to the idea that "there are scientists with impressive credentials on both sides" - you make it seem as if it's a 60-40 split between the two sides. Sorry, it's not even 100 to 1. The "minority scientists" are a VERY tiny minority. Most followers are AIDS activists and anti-AZT people, many already HIV+. While pointing out some interesting problems with the HIV-AIDS link, the cause of all these deaths has not been explained by the Duesberg followers. AZT and anti-viral drugs are the cause of AIDS? Then why has the death rate dropped so dramatically by using them? Why did so many die before AZT? Heroin, cocaine and poppers are the root cause - along with an unhealthy lifestyle? Then why didn't these common drugs kill in the millions before the AIDS virus appeared? No shortage of these drugs during the 50's, 60's and 70's. And plenty of unhealthy lifestyles.
.
The decision to take AZT-type drugs or not is indeed a personal one. And it may well be true that the toxicity of these drugs has killed some patients. But the idea of NOT supporting safe sex for HIV prevention is ridiculous, no matter what you believe . . .

Seydlitz:

Yes, we've debated it before, and I continue to respect your intelligence, reasoning, and veracity, even if I disagree with your point of view. I'm well aware that in no way have you at all advocated unsafe sexual practice, and, again, I respect you greatly for that. You well know that I've consistently defended your right to post information about alternative theories, and I hope you continue to do so. (That does not, of course, mean in any way that I'll not keep my option to disagree.) And I agree with you that people can decide for themselves, and I encourage everyone to read fully in order to do so.

However, the truth is that the vast majority of folks will not take the time to follow down the web links, or to delve into the specifics of the studies enough to really understand them or even to read deeply enough to take a personal position that's based on looking at something close to source materials. Things like "Isn't it amazing how much bigger and stronger Magic Johnson has gotten" is not rational factual argument about the AIDS debate; it's inflammatorily misleading at best. And statements such as trainbum17's that statistics are irrelevant because he only knows one person who's got AIDS, so he feels he's ok not worrying about safe sex -- sorry, but the fact that I believe in people intelligently making up their minds doesn't mean I surrender the right to react to statements such as those.

There are several aspects where you and I are at odds. First, you and I disagree about the weight of credentials on one side or another. While there are a couple who I consider credible and stellar on the Duesberg side, there are also those who I consider utterly uncredentialled and crackpots. We disagree clearly about the value of studies and information on this or that side. You and I also disagree about treatments -- I have friends who consider (as do I) that the only reason at all they are alive is based on those treatment therapies as we've watched their health wane and wax along with the treatments. Some of them have gone the routes suggested by some of the Duesberg literature and are not alive to partake in the debate, and others have gone the treatment route and are similarly not alive. So I'm not comforted by things which are basically attempts to reclassify, discredit, or rework statistics -- no matter what the final numbers end up being, my friends are still dead and I will not see them again.

Finally, and most importantly, we disagree about the framework of the debate. To you, it is about the treatment, whether or not people's health is being damaged as a result of that, and whether there is basically a conspiracy to get lots of money to fund false research. To me, particularly in a forum such as this which is all about high-risk sexual practice (defined so by having multiple partners who bring a greater degree of exposure into the equation) this is about intelligent sexual behavior, understanding that there are risks in unsafe practices, and getting a handle on where the risks lie. To me, this is not about the economics or the treatment, this is about the disease.

[quote]originally posted by dickhead
[i]

i don't take sides on this debate and would rather practice safe sex than worry, but i would be sincerely interested to know if any of these friends of yours who unfortunately died were exclusively heterosexual non-drug users. [/i][/quote]

i can't swear absolutely about the drug side of things, but needle stuff wasn't prevalent though other stuff (chiefly coke and speed) probably was being used by some. it wasn't a druggie crowd, but this [b]was[/b] the eighties. they weren't all gay but lots were. some of the women probably did have sexual contact with bisexual lovers, but to me that simply means that the risk enters my domain, as i had sexual opportunities with some of them (not taken, but they were there.)

joe_zop,

thanks for the kind words.

as you pointed out, I never advocated unsafe sex practices. Quite the contrary. It seems obvious to me that even if you brush aside HIV as either inexistant or harmless, you still have to face tens of bad old STDs, some of them rather nasty, and also the age-old risk of pregnancy.

There is a difference though. STDs, unpleasant as they may be, can be cured, and pregnancy is primarily an issue for the woman. HIV scare is the only thing that is strong enough to have many men use condoms. That is why, I guess, any debate that might lessen that scare is heretic.

About conspiracy etc. , I would not say that I believe there is a conspiracy. There is enough confusion to enable anybody to continue uttering the most outrageous theories along the lines of HIV/AIDS. Recently, I read that the virus keeps a memory of all the failed treatments, thus making it necessary to imagine ever more complex drugs to fight it. That is pretty smart from a mere retrovirus that is after all a very elementary entity. Someone also said last week that even with very powerful retroviral drugs, it might be impossible to eradicate the virus for another 73 years (why 73?). The HIV lobby is preparing the careers of their sons and daughters.

I suspect that western governments are aware that there is a controversy, and many in those circles have doubts about the whole hings. President Mbeki has been quite vocal over the last two years. But who would have the courage to speak up, when it is so much easier to go along.

In the west, governments continue to funds AIDS research, and foot the bill for retroviral drugs. After all it is public spending, a very Keynesian approach. It stimulates the economy, just like building roads etc. Big pharmaceutical companies benefit from that money, but they provide jobs, and they pay taxes. Little harm done here, although we could do with more schools and swimming pools, and rather less pharma subsidies.

As for Africa (and China now. It seems that the powers-that-be have written off Africa, as decidedly too backward to be a presentable AIDS victim continent, and China is the new star. At least there, they can find a single government), western governments do not care about it. It is relatively easy to promise money, not to give it, or to give much less, and even take that money from budgets already assigned to foreign aid.

Africans will not be given access to sophisticated retroviral drugs, which is rather a good thing given their toxicity. It is somewhat ironic that there is a debate on giving retroviral drugs to people who might not even have access to enough water to take the damned pills.

So back to personal choice. If someone tested positive to HIV, knowing that those tests ARE flawed, (even the manufacturers say that they should not be used to diagnose anything), while being otherwise healthy (asymptomatic), what wrong could that person do by refusing to take retroviral drugs, and see what happens ? To put the safe sex lobby at ease, let's assume that the person practices safe sex and uses condoms all the time.

If that person becomes sick, he or she can be treated for the disease for which he of she has symptoms. And of course that person would do better to stop all those activities connected to risk groups (drugs, etc.) and get a healtier lifestyle.

Ultimately, it is a bet with your own life. Nobody should be given authority to overule a person on what to do with that person's life.

There is one thorny issue, though: children. Should parents be given the right to decline retroviral drug treatments for their HIV positive children ? I think yes.

Prokofiev,

you will find nowhere that I ever advocated unsafe sex. Most of us on WSG have intercourse with prostitutes. That is a relatively unsafe activity. Unsafe sex behaviors make us take personal risks, and force our other partners (the wife in particular) to share in those risks, which is irresponsible. Could I be clearer ?

This does not change anything to the HIV/AIDS debate.

You say "The "minority scientists" are a VERY tiny minority". This is true, but a very vocal one. And one can only admire their persistence, and their courage to put their careers at risk wwhen it would be so easy to go along with the flow and be a respected orthodox AIDS scientist.

You say : "No shortage of these drugs during the 50's, 60's and 70's. And plenty of unhealthy lifestyles. " Indeed, and many deaths as well. Just not identified as AIDS cases until a virus, HIV, was connected with a list of pre-existing diseases.

Drugs make people sick and eventually kill them. This is why many are illegal. What made the difference in the 80s was the creation of communities in which those unhealthy lifestyles were concentrated. People died as before, but now they died in clusters in big American cities (NY and SF in particular). It is the increased occurence of those deaths in relativly closed circles that did draw the attention and lead to the suspicion that something was going on. Then came Gallo and HIV.

I do not understand why it was necessary to invent a viral theory, with a totally new virus, so special that it can do increasingly amazing things, to explain what was observed.

Seydlitz:

Regarding the virus having a "memory" -- c'mon now, this is pretty standard stuff, HIV or not! There are many, many viruses out there which have mutated and rendered treatments useless or less effective, requiring more sophisticated ones to be developed. I could cite malaria and the flu off the top of my head, but there are dozens of others. The fact that this is about HIV/AIDS doesn't suddenly make it newsworthy or unusual. It's not about a "smart" retrovirus, it's about evolutionary process. To label an established and understood process as somehow an "outrageous theory" only inflames the rhetoric and adds to the confusion you decry.

And the fact that people make stupid statements about numeric estimates as a way of getting their names in the paper is nothing new and has nothing to do with the facts of the debate. Estimates in this arena are like estimates in any other -- a guess by someone who supposedly has a decent idea. It's not canonical law; it's a guess. "The HIV lobby is preparing the careers of their sons and daughters." Perhaps, instead, the HIV lobby is attempting to bring a dose of reality into the process by lowering short-term expectations in the face of difficult science.

Your statements about public health funding could easily be directed toward any kind of funding, not just HIV. How many years has funding been directed toward cancer, muscular dystrophy, and many others, as opposed to building swimming pools? I can also make the same statements about money going to the farm lobby, weapons research, etc., as opposed to things I'd prefer to see supported.

"What made the difference in the 80s was the creation of communities in which those unhealthy lifestyles were concentrated." Oh, come on -- this is just a ludicrous statement. There have been large concentrations of gays and drug users before, and in fact the historical truth is that these communities, as well as others, have always congregated. People have a tendency to seeks affiliation, purely and simply. In truth, as well, these concentrations took place well before the 80's -- the gay bathouse scene in NYC was in full swing for many years before the 80's and the infamous song YMCA celebrating the fact was from the 70's. The truth of the matter is that the rumors and talk of a "gay plague" is what brought the issue to the forefront in the US, but that discussion was going on well before HIV was labelled as the potential indicator.

As to your final point regarding what parents should be able to do regarding their children's treatment with retroviral drug treatments -- look at the similar issues and arguments that have surrounded, say, laetrile treatments, among others and religious beliefs. One of the things I think is a mistake in the HIV/AIDS discussion is not placing it firmly within the context of other such debates, as such issues have arisen and been discussed before, and those discussions can provide a context for looking at them again.

Again, always good to debate with you on this topic, as healthy dialogue and thought requires opposing points of view.

joe_zop:

The evolutionary pattern is of course that there are subtle variations of genetic material across a given population, and the most fit survive to reproduce themselves. Nature is smart, not the individuals. What I find outrageous about the virus memory thing is that it is presented just like that. The cunning little virus learns from the past attempts at eradicating it and adapts. This presentation gives the damn thing a diabolical dimension that does not help, I think.

About gay communities, of course there have been some for a long time in large cities. It is easier to live a gay life in NY than in Anytown, USA. But those communities grew to a new, large proportion and engaged in increasingly dangerous behaviors relatively recently, say the mid 70's. It took a while for their lifestyle to take its toll, then they started dying in larger numbers than before. Then the world noticed, by the mid 80s. And then Gallo.

About children etc. I am in favor of science. And it is because of that that I have a difficulty to accept that you give toxic drugs to a healthy person, because of a theory that has quite a few weaknesses, to say the least. And if that person is a child, I find unacceptable that the authorities can take the child away.

Overruling parents who oppose treatment for their sick child, whose sickness is detectable and the treatment established to be curative, is one thing. Administering drugs to fight a virus whose trace cannot even be found, only antibodies, drugs that still have tu cure one single person, not just hypothetically lengthen his life, is a totally different matter.

In any case, I have no control on public spending, or the press. I just sit and wait. One day, that madness will stop, and we will see.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seydlitz
[i]joe_zop:

Administering drugs to fight a virus whose trace cannot even be found, only antibodies, drugs that still have tu cure one single person, not just hypothetically lengthen his life, is a totally different matter.

[/i][/QUOTE]

So (if we remove the "trace" aspects as being some sort of trump card) the argument is that preventive drugs in all forms should be off the table, in your estimation? Or things given to people that might lengthen their lives but don't cure them?

My diabetic cousin, whose parents over her objections injected her with insulin for years without her being cured, will not be thrilled about that concept now that she's an adult. And we'll need to change rather completely our public health policies regarding vaccinations, as we're basically injecting people, including kids, with weakened forms of deadly things to which some have negative reactions, not to cure them but instead to hypothetically lengthen their lives. And, yes, I know there are differences in the specifics of some of these things, but you're talking about drawing a specific line in a broad public policy issue.

I think the difficulty here is where we stand right now in the process, which is in the early stages to middle of the developmental process. In ten to twenty years this will all look silly, one way or another. At least so I earnestly hope!

Joe_zop:

you are twisting what I said.

First, vaccination is all right, as a technique to trigger the production of antibodies that will protect the patient. It is well established, and it is specific. There is one vaccine per disease, with specific antibodies expected.

The problem with HIV is that it is not associated with a specific disease, and that infected patients do not generate specifc antibodies, wich is why the tests cross-react and cause false positives.

It is that simple: no virus, no antibodies, no vaccine. But then there in no disease either.

And your diabetic cousin was in no danger with my theory either. She had a serious life-treatening condition, and insulin was demonstrated as a means to remedy to that condition. Sadly, she cannot be cured, but as long as she takes the insulin, she will be fine.

This is not the case for people on tritherapies. They are healthy to start with, then they take 20-30 pills a day that damage their health beyond recovery. Their immune system collapses, they get one of many diseases and they die. Another victim of this tragedy.

It is so much the opposite of your cousin's situation: there are increasing occurences of doctors prescribing drug holidays to their patients who suffer too much from the tritherapy. Do you believe that your cousin's doctor would have prescribed an insulin holiday ? Doctors know that the drugs are highly toxic. They prescribe them anyway, but they can accept that the treatment be suspended. Realpolitik ?

Although I am a dickhead and this must always be taken into consideration when judging the value of my opinion, it seems to me that if everyone used condoms and practiced safe sex, this either disease or alleged disease, or virus or alleged virus, would die out in a generation. Seems like a small price to pay considering the lack of medical consensus and the extreme and overarching risk involved.

Seems to me like there's risks worth taking, and there's risks not worth taking.

Now anyone who has not been practicing safe sex and is running around exposing others to this either disease or alleged disease, is a shithead, IMO, and that is far worse than being a

Dickhead

Seydlitz, you are completely missing my point, which was about your call for broad public policies that allow people to assert, against the prevailing medical opinion, that a treatment should not be given to minors. That very much is in the same category as the examples I mentioned. As I said, the science of those precise examples doesn't track, and I was not at all talking about your theory, but you were talking about policy and not medicine and my examples relate to policy.

Your perspective that tritherapies absolutely damage people's systems, do no good, and in fact cause damage and disease, is decidedly a minority opinion. While I think it's very important that the issues continue to be debated and the prevailing wisdom challenged and flaws pointed out and pursued, that doesn't mean that the minority opinion should suddenly become a matter of policy.

The truth of it is very simple -- if someone who is HIV-positive chooses to believe the same things that you do, they are under no obligation, providing that they are an adult, to enter into tritherapies. Yes, they will be strongly urged to do so precisely because according the the vast majority of the medical profession that is the indicated treatment. But it is their choice -- no one can force you to undergo radiation therapy for cancer if you choose not to, and no one can force you to undergo this therapy either. You are free to reject prevailing wisdom and seek other options, and that is how it should be as long as doing so doesn't pose a substantial public health risk (which, since neither approach eliminates the HIV indication and thereby the potential transmission, is the case here.)

The problematic aspect I see in all of this, to be honest, is contained in Dickhead's indictment -- that your position indicates to folks who are HIV-positive that they are not in any way a danger to other people, so they should feel free to do as they please, including, (if they choose to be, as Dickhead labels them, shitheads) engaging in unsafe sex. And please note the distinction I'm making -- I'm not saying you are endorsing that approach or implication as I know that's very much not the case, I'm saying it is a conclusion someone could come to based on the argument that HIV does not lead to AIDS. If your position is correct, then no damage will be done by this. If your position is incorrect, then the there is the possibility that infectious people who believe they are not a risk will act irresponsibly and infect still more people.

The idea that drugs, gay sex and unhealthy lifestyles suddenly occured in the early 80's is laughable. Concentrations of gay men in New York, Paris, New Orleans, San Fran etc. goes back to the last CENTURY, at least. Bathhouses and public urinals since Roman times have been centers of gay sexual activity. The % of gay men has remained constant through time. Their numbers grew with the population, not any faster. The only change in the 70's was that it became more open and that the other 90% of the population became aware of what had been happening for the last few millenia. "Gay Pride" emerged. The sex was always there.
.
The assertion that drug addicts and gay men have always been dying and we only just noticed it in the early 80's is absurd. AIDS was recognized years before the HIV virus. Something DRAMATIC had happened in a short period of time. Perhaps the numbers are now inflated, but millions of people were not dying "unnoticed" prior to 1981.
.

Although I don't have any kids, for which the world should probably be thankful, if I DID I would vaccinate them against known or suspected dangers such as measles, diphtheria, and yes even smallpox post 9/11.

I am a pragmatist as well as a dickhead and so I think if this generation used condoms it would "vaccinate" future generations against AIDS, alleged AIDS, HIV, alleged HIV, hepatitis A thru Z and all its possible alleged permutations, and plus maybe annoying non-fatal shit like chlamydia, the clap, and assorted other drips, leaks, and drizzles. That would be good, I think.

Condoms do make sex less pleasurable and anyone who claims otherwise is probably only using them to jack off into. I like math (sorry, FU) so here is some. If condoms make sex say 50% less pleasurable (probably an overstatement in my opinion; I'd say more like 25% if someone is holding a gun to my head), maybe one way to make up for that would be to fuck twice as often. Or as I posted a long time ago, before I had perfected my Dickhead persona, if the condom eliminates 50% of the sensation, make her suck twice as hard.

I am a patriot. Not an American patriot, but a pussy patriot. It is our patriotic duty as men to practice safe sex, and women's patriotic duty to suck as hard as necessary for us to get a good, safe, guilt-free nut.

This is my opinion (and JZ, please do not refer to my opinions as indictments as I am not running for attorney general). I don't like condoms, but I don't like red lights either and I stop at them anyway.

Your less than humble, overly opinionated, but loyal and reasonably well-informed servant,

Dickhead

Prokofiev:

the website aidsrealitycheck cites the CDC 2001 mid-year report in the following quote:

<CDC Finally Releases Its "Midyear Report" for 2001

As a nation of 270 million people, the U.S. has less than 5% of the world's population, but we have almost *29%* of the world's reported "AIDS" cases! In fact, the U.S. has the highest per capita rate of "AIDS" of ANY nation, industrialized OR developing.

The CDC's "Midyear Report" for 2001 is finally available on the internet. It shows a 6% DECREASE, yes, *DECREASE* in annual cases of "AIDS" from the previous year. Pediatric cases of so-called "AIDS" saw a DECREASE of over 13% annually over last year's figures. In total, in a nation of 270 million people, the CDC reports only 793,000 cases of "AIDS" in OVER TWENTY YEARS OF *CUMULATIVE* REPORTING!>

Less than 1 million deaths in 20 years ... This is far less than car crashes, lung cancer, gunshots, and so many other causes of death that plague the American society.

Such a phenomenon could easily have gone unnoticed for a long time.

It is about definition and statistics: pneumonia without HIV = pneumonia, pneumonia with HIV = AIDS

Dickhead,

Sorry, that came out stronger than I meant it to -- in no way did I intend to imply (as on rereading I may have) that you were in favor of what I was saying.

But I must confess I never pictured you as utopian dreamer: an entire generation sacrificing sexual pleasure to keep future generations safe. Wow.

JZ, I AM in favor of what you are saying and I agree with your position almost completely. But Dickhead is no utopian. Dickhead is the ultimate pragmatist. Remember I said to fuck twice as much to make up for the lost pleasure (wouldn't help me much right now as 2 x 0 = 0). Quantity is quality when it comes to sex, if you're a

Dickhead

seydlitz,
reading through most of your website links is like talking to ufo/ roswell advocates or any conspiracy theorists - it's a series of facts and true statements that mysteriously morph into questionable ideas and dubious links and then goes on to make far-fetched associations, totally unwarranted by the original statements. when written by a literate - though misguided - author with an air of authority, it can read as if it has scientific credence.
.
. an example - one article gives a long list of symptoms of benzyne poisoning and then links the info to benzoic acid and benzoates which are common preservatives in food/drinks. it then links perrier water, fat-free foods and diet soda which contain benzoates to cronic fatigue syndrome "of yuppies" and in turn to aids because both have similar symptoms! please!!!
.
it seems that sexual lubricants, silicone, trojan condoms (and most other latex-types) are a major cause of aids! when used in the rectum these products cause toxic reactions and attack the immune system. according to one article, since almost all anal sex and lubricants were associated with gays (huh??) the problem first appeared among gay "botttoms". o.k. - a couple questions. prior to 1985, how many gay men used condoms? do you think more straight or gay couples used condoms? do you think anal sex only occured among gays? do you think women having anal sex didn't use lubricants? crazy! but the most disturbing aspect of this line of reasoning is that it is completely contrary to safe sex practice. latex condoms - trojans included - are the #1 recommendation for safe sex. lubricants for anal sex? a very good idea.
.
don't confuse the ramblings of fringe thinkers and psuedo-scientists who post their "findings" on the inter-net with ideas critiqued by peer review in scientific and medical journals. i don't claim that the cdc and the "medical establishment" have all the answers or that some of the duesberg objections are quite interesting and need to be addressed. maybe anti-aids drug therapies are not the right answer for all hiv+ people. it certainly appears that the number of aids deaths has been inflated and confused with other diseases -especially in africa. but over-all, the hiv-aids link appears strong and explains so much about what we know. the majority is not always right but, it's usually right. _ p

Prokofiev:

now that you have read some of the material, you will have noticed that those websites are a repository of articles written by different persons at different times. All they have in common is that the authors question some or al af the majority view on HIV/AIDS.

Regrettably, they do not agree with each other on fundamental issues. Some deny that HIV exists, most say that HIV and AIDS are not related, etc. In fact the "denialists" are not a lobby. They could use a bit more coordination and need to articulate their views if they want to be able to convince people, not just add to the confusion.

Please bear in mind that I have written none of those articles, and that I do not endorse everything in those websites. I have formed my opinion, as you can do with yours, based on that material, and some more.

Your point about condoms and lubricants is fine with me. That part of the material on the websites is very dubious, even if there are serious allergies to latex, and if many lubricants can be toxic when used intensively or aggressively, as can be the case in anal gay sex.

The truth about AIDS:

1). A lot of it is caused by anal gay sex.
2). A lot more of it is caused by shooting up dope.

Both of these practices are very disgusting in my opinion.

DickHead,

How about straight anal sex? A little hot backdoor action with a cute and willing woman who gets-off with anal penetration? Or is that disgusting too? It can have the same net effect. Both boy and girl butts will bleed when stretched.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prokofiev
[i]DickHead,

How about straight anal sex? A little hot backdoor action with a cute and willing woman who gets-off with anal penetration? Or is that disgusting too? It can have the same net effect. Both boy and girl butts will bleed when stretched. [/i][/QUOTE]

Yes, FWIW I find straight anal sex disgusting also, although for some reason not QUITE as disgusting as gay anal sex = prejudice (feelings aren't rational). YEMV. I recommend digital penetration or using dildos if one's female partner is anally oriented.

Anal sex without the use of condoms is just way, way, way disgusting to me, and you can get SO many fucking diseases that way without even considering AIDS.

Anal sex with the use of condoms is merely way, way disgusting to me (one fewer "way").

Live like you want to live, but anyone who is having condomless anal sex is

1) affecting me personally by increasing the incidence of STDs, and
2) dumber than dirt.

This is my opinion and does not reflect the opinion of WSG, my employer, my family, my pets and blah blah blah.

I think another poster said it best when he said "the anus is an exit, not an entrance."

Mr. Richard Head,
Why do you feel that there are "so many ***** diseases" associated with anal sex? AIDS -yes. But others (herpes, clap, syphillis, etc) are no more likely encountered from behind. No, I would NOT recommend condom-less anal sex (or vaginal) with pros or pick-ups, but if you have a wife or girlfriend and you KNOW you are both disease-free, what is the big deal? Having had several significant others who were "anal-oriented" I have gone that route perhaps a 1000 or more times. Enjoyable for both parties - and more so without latex. Lambskin seems to be particularly enjoyable (although I know it is NOT recommended as effective against the HIV virus).
.
I find it interesting that so many sources connect anal sex with gay men, but not with women. In overall numbers (not %) I'm sure there is more female anal sex than male. Or do I just live in a different world? I can't believe that my women over the years were SO different from the norm. Most women do not want to admit or talk about anal sex, but in my experience it is not at all uncommon. And looking at this web-site, it appears plenty of men want it as well. But to each his own, Mr. Head. Whatever floats your boat . . . Peace - P

Epididimitis (sp?) in particular is transmitted by condomless anal sex. This makes your balls swell up real bad and often leads to sterility. Urinary tract (primarily bladder) infections are relatively uncommon in men as opposed to women, but are relatively much more common in men who engage in anal sex (with whatever gender). In neither case does it matter if both partners are "clean," monogamous, or whatever as these are bacterial rather than viral in nature.

I know a lot of guys (and gals, unfortunately) like anal sex, and before you ask, yes, I've tried it, several times. I personally don't like it and think it's dirty and dangerous. Dickhead aims to please but is no longer willing to do that just to please a woman.

But as long as guys use condoms, I don't take it personally. I DO take it personally if they don't use condoms, cuz that affects ME.

Richard "Dick" Head (all my friends and most of my enemies just call me Dick!)

Personally, I'm fine with people having sex with whomever, whatever, and in whatever ways they want to, as long as there aren't kids or unhappy livestock involved (and I could probably be convinced the livestock is consenting in some instances.) I'm just not particularly thrilled with that behavior affecting me if I've slept with someone who's slept with someone and those folks I've not had the pleasure with have managed to pass infection to me.

The whole gay sex/druggie thing I find a complete and unfortunate distraction. The US has a higher proportion of transmission in those areas than many other places, but that (unless you follow the alternative theory viewpoint) is less about the disease itself and how it acts and more about being close to the danger zone. Of course sharing needles is a prime scenario, because there's direct blood exchange. Same with gay anal sex -- there's tearing involved, and in general the lifestyle, similar to the one we discuss here, involves multiple partners. I'm not about to be comforted to hear that there's a rampant epidemic of smallpox in, say, Wyoming, just because mostly cowboys are getting it and I'm not a cowboy and I'm not in the west. One ranch hand with a bad sense of direction (and really, really tireless horse) and I'm at risk.

Okay, JZ, you brought it up. Speaking of consenting livestock, how does a lazy cowboy screw a mule? (consenting mule over the age of 18 and using a condom of course):

"Giddyup. Whoa. Giddyup. Whoa. Giddyup. Whoa."

PS: You said: "The whole gay sex/druggie thing I find a complete and unfortunate distraction"; I did not understand what you meant by this. Can you amplify or explain further? DH

Joe,

I agree with your position exactly. It's all very well to say that you're "careful" in choosing your sexual partners...but who's to say that your partners are taking as much care as you are?

For instance, if it WAS only a gay/IV drug users disease (not that I believe for a second that it is) I may sleep with a man who I know is neither gay nor a drug user, thinking I'm safe. But HIS last partner may have been an IV drug user...and HER last partner may have been a gay IV drug user! Who knows? Or what about the wealthy businessmen in a suit who I feel completely safe with...who neglected to tell me that he has just returned from an unprotected sex junket to Thailand???

It's pretty darn stupid to claim it's an African/IV drug user/gay male/Thai prostitute problem. Even if that WAS the case...these people still get around, (they are not the "exclusive" groups that people think they are and they still mix with the general community whether people like it or not), and suddenly it lands in YOUR backyard too.

exactly, rn. dickhead, what i meant is that it's not as if hiv/aids is genetically connected to gay folks, looking for some sort of chromosome (as with sickle cell anemia, for example) and then going to town. it's not as if hiv/aids is a true byproduct of intravenous drug use, being something that's an interaction of particular illicit drugs. these groups are more at risk, yes, because their behavior and who they're with leads them toward more possibility of exposure, but that has nothing to do with the disease itself. and because these groups are marginalized, people can focus on that as opposed to the danger of the disease to themselves. it's "others" who get it, people who are different than i am -- gays, druggies, foreigners. in the us, despite hearing from the ryan whites (hemopheliac kid who contracted it, for those non-us readers) and mary fischers (socialite mom who caught it from her husband), we still are busy feeling mostly safe because we're not "them" where them is a member of one of the groups where the incidence is higher.

it's now a decade since fisher made her famous speech to the republican national convention -- "hiv asks only one thing of those it attacks. are you human? and this is the right question. are you human? because people with hiv have not entered some alien state of being" -- and i don't see where the prevailing sentiment has changed all that much. we still want to marginalize and blame the victims as opposed to worry we might be next.

Personally, my interest is not in placing blame but figuring out how risky it is to get a BBBJ from someone I've known for a long time and whom I'm certain is not bisexual or an IV drug user, but who sleeps with a couple of other people whom I'm also certain are not bisexual or IV drug users. Certainly the risk is not zero but people take risks every day.

Motorcycle helmets are a possible parallel. I believe they reduce risk and I use one 100% of the time when I ride, but I could still get killed, and even with a helmet, motorcycling is riskier than driving a car (although approximately 75% of car/motorcycle accidents are the car driver's fault, I'd still be dead). There is no helmet law in my state, and if others choose to ride without a helmet, the increased medical costs fall on the general population to a certain extent. There are reasonably reliable statistics I could look up as to what percentage of motorcycle fatalities are wearing helmets, and I could compare the death rates to states where helmet laws are mandatory (so you could assume almost all the riders were wearing helmets), but that really doesn't tell me what I need to know. What I need is the fatality and injury rates per mile for helmeted vs. helmet-less riders.

Of course, you can tell if someone is wearing a helmet or not but you can't tell if someone has HIV or AIDS. In the case of HIV/AIDS, what I need to know is what percentage of what sex acts result in the transmission of AIDS, and I doubt very seriously if there will ever be reliable numbers on that. So I choose to use condoms all the time when I am with hookers, and I try to use them with amateurs but here is where the problem lies: the women don't want to use them and think that my wanting to use them "says something" about them. Well, it does "say something" about them; it says that there is a non-zero probability that they (or even perhaps me although I get tested every six months) are HIV positive. Nothing more and nothing less. So a lot of times I lie and say we should use them for birth control even though Dickhead only fires blanks.

Then plus even if I am in a long-term relationship and we have both been tested, women always cheat (that has been my experience 100% of the time), and then they lie about cheating. This then leads to a situation where I want to keep using condoms even after we've been together a while and been tested, and then they think I'M cheating. Dickhead doesn't cheat, ever. I'll break up before I'll cheat.

So it sucks, and I can't win, and this is why I proposed that condoms be used for an entire generation until this whole plague goes away. I know it won't happen but the death rate is one per capita regardless and I've already had more fun than I ever dreamed of.

End of rant. Sorry.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dickhead
[i]So I choose to use condoms all the time when I am with hookers, and I try to use them with amateurs" [/i][/QUOTE]

Well, from a pure statistical standpoint, there's no doubt that prostitutes have a higher level of HIV/AIDS infection than the general population, dramatically and frighteningly higher in some locales, so I'm always astonished to hear folks on this board who are willing to go bareback in the face of that. Until prostitution is absolutely legalized and sex workers are regularly tested (and this is the wrong thread for that discussion) there's always going to be a greater risk simply because sex workers are going to have more partners.

Whether or not all women (or men) cheat, the essence of the equation is that without a condom you put your life in the hands of someone who may or may not be telling you the truth. And lies about who people have or haven't slept with have gotta be the most common lies there are, unless we count words that come out of the mouths of politicians.

JZ, agree with everything you say BUT you put your life in someone else's hands every time you drive or fly (plus I like to bungee jump), etc. And AIDS is a lousy way to die but in a car accident you could become a quadriplegic which to me would be a fate worse than death.

So it kinda sounds like I'm better off letting my friend (who tells me honestly that she cannot be monogamous) blow me without a condom (she won't do it any other way) as opposed to getting in a long-term relationship with someone I can't trust.

The Truth About AIDS is .... (drum roll, please) unknown at this point. Latex condoms provide substantial risk reduction but I don't think it will ever get to the point where steady sex partners use them unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the known presence of HIV (and even then ....)

About statistics:

let's not forget that prostitution is very much a matter of class, socially I mean. Nutrition, hygiene, lifestyle, etc. do have an enormous impact on the risk one takes of having intercourse, protected or not, with a working girl.

Equally, prostitutes do not necessarily constitute a higher risk of infection (HIV or STDs) than many promiscuous "amateurs".

One thing I will never understand is why a woman would accept to have unprotected sex. For a man, I know, it is often very hard to resist the temptation of going bareback, at the cost of taking a risk, because condoms do remove quite a lot of the pleasure of sex.

But a woman ? She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seydlitz
[i] One thing I will never understand is why a woman would accept to have unprotected sex. For a man, I know, it is often very hard to resist the temptation of going bareback, at the cost of taking a risk, because condoms do remove quite a lot of the pleasure of sex.

But a woman ? She has nothing to gain, and everything to lose. [/i][/QUOTE]

Some women tell me that condoms are uncomfortable for them, give them rashes or burning, create increased friction, etc. Other women tell me they enjoy the jizz as part of the experience.

SOME, mind you, not all. Others have just said stuff like "I hate condoms" and don't really care to discuss it further.

Dickhead:

unless I am gravely mistaken (always a possibility), even the CDC does not see much risk in being on the receiving end of a BBBJ (unless your penis is in such a state of decay that your girlfriend would not blow you anyway ...

Well, that's not really what the CDC says. It does say the risk is smaller than for vaginal or anal (yuck!) sex. But we already knew that. So the question is how small is small and they don't quantify that and anyway I would question their data collection techniques if they did.

But I mean I got sucked by at least 50 women in the past year, with condoms, and what would be the risk if I did the same thing without condoms? So what we really need to know is whether the risk increases more per different partner or per total number of blow jobs. Is it riskier to get 5 BBBJs from 1 girl vs. 1 BBBJ from each of 5 girls?

Then the other issue is, if the risk is greater for the suckor than for the suckee, what is the morality of the suckee allowing the BBBJ knowing the greater risk to the suckor? Even a dickhead like me cares about that to some extent.

And this is not an academic question because I have a willing would-be suckor who 1) thinks AIDS will never happen to her because she is "clean," 2) has no idea that I have been with hundreds of hookers, 3) is really hot and gives great blow jobs, and 4) is one of the best friends I've ever had.

I guess maybe I should tell her that I've been with hundreds of women (no need to specify that a large majority were hookers) in recent years but have always used condoms, and then if she is still willing I will take the BBBJs.

Dickhead:

this is what the CDC says:
<Can I get HIV from performing oral sex?

Yes, it is possible for you to become infected with HIV through performing oral sex. There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex.

Blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, and vaginal fluid all may contain the virus. Cells in the mucous lining of the mouth may carry HIV into the lymph nodes or the bloodstream. The risk increases:
if you have cuts or sores around or in your mouth or throat;
if your partner ejaculates in your mouth; or
if your partner has another sexually transmitted disease (STD).
If you choose to have oral sex, and your partner is male, use a latex condom on the penis; or
if you or your partner is allergic to latex, plastic (polyurethane) condoms can be used.
Research has shown the effectiveness of latex condoms used on the penis to prevent the transmission of HIV. Condoms are not risk-free, but they greatly reduce your risk of becoming HIV-infected if your partner has the virus.

If you choose to have oral sex, and your partner is female, use a latex barrier (such as a dental dam or a cut-open condom that makes a square) between your mouth and the vagina. Plastic food wrap also can be used as a barrier. >

I gave you my interpretation of that, but it is better to quote chapter and verse.

About your personal situation, if you have a partner willing to give you BBBJ and that you know that yourself you are virus-free, I cannot see why you should get her into the confidence about those hundreds of other women. Just enjoy he situation. You are doing nothing wrong.

Now about your rhetorical questions, I would say that oral sex is a significantly lower risk activity than penetrative sex, no matter what. In sex there is no such thing as zero risk. If all those women were average general population women, I'd say that there would be little more risk involved in your having BBBJ than covered BJ.

Now, since you say that many of those were prostitutes, then there is a higher probability of trouble, due to potentially poorer hygiene, etc. Still the risk is very much lower than if you had condomless sex with them.

Even so, I believe that you should be fine receiving BBBJ. Giving it is another matter, and as you say, I do not quite see why a woman would want to do that.

Still, the best compromise between customer (or boyfriend) satisfaction and manageable risk might be BBBJ and protected penetration.

Yes, I have read the CDC site many times. I do agree your earlier paraphrasation was basically and roughly accurate although not as precise as quoting the actual site (which I read again right before my last post).

She won't fuck me regardless of condom or no and will only blow me. I've fucked her lots of times years ago but now she has a live in boyfriend and so she thinks it is being "less unfaithful" to him if she just blows me. Her words. Probably I could talk her into fucking me in the heat of the moment but she is much better at oral, primarily due to being a very poor kisser in my opinion.

I guess I should be concerned about passing something on to her boyfriend, but since I know he is being unfaithful to her with one of my other best friends (which my friend does not know and that's another issue), there's really nowhere to draw a line that I can see.

Only due to the increased awareness and knowledge I have gotten from this board am I even worrying about this. I mean, I've been having sex with her off and on for years, decades even, and she's never been monogamous and never used condoms and I've never gotten anything from her or given anything to her. And I've been going to hookers the whole time and using condoms the whole time so why I am driving myself nuts?

I guess it's because I don't think she has the same level of knowledge that I do (that's a polite way to put it and really I should say she has her head in the sand) and so if I am taking a risk it is an informed risk whereas she is taking an uninformed risk. That's why I was considering telling her about all the hookers. Plus I DON'T "know" that I am virus-free; I only know that I tested negative at the end of March and that I always use condoms with hookers and that I don't shoot up or engage in anal sex. There's an incubation period and no one claims that condoms are 100% effective in preventing AIDS, and I've been with hookers since my last test.

It seems to me that you are a very safe-sex minded person, and should be ok.

A balanced healthy lifestyle, rigorous personal hygiene plus safe sex practices should really put you in the lowest risk level.

After all, these nasty things we are afraid of are rather less virulent than the Ebola fever ! You can hardly catch an STD in a split second exposure of healthy skin or tissue. And even if you did, those are curable.

As for HIV, I do not know if it is current gospel, but at one point the good doctors at the CDC and others indicated that infection came for the repetition of exposure rather than any individual exposure (which incidentally, I have always found rather surprising if you believe in the viral theory).

And if your girl friend is uninformed, you might want to enlighten her on those issues, rather than mentioning the 100 prostitutes. But who am I to offer personal advice...

About your getting tested regularly, you might as well keep in mind the so many (100+?) instances of documented reasons for false positives. The good news is that even a positive does not necessarily mean death over the horizon, the bad news is that the test is so unreliable that even a negative might be wrong too...

Personally, I do not believe that "rigorous personal hygiene," whatever that involves, provides protection against AIDs or any other STD. I shower, brush and floss my teeth, and wear clean clothes. I wash my hands after I use the toilet. Is that "rigorous personal hygiene"? If so I have it and if not not. Sometimes I pick my nose if no one is looking.

I do believe that eating right and staying in shape might help you stay healthier longer if you did get AIDS. But that's not why I do it. I do it because I don't want to get fat and I want to be able to either run from anybody who tries to fuck with me or jack his jaw, whichever seems more prudent at the time.

And yeah, I'm hip to the possibility of false postive and false negative AIDS tests. My doctor offers AIDS testing for free (probably since she is queer as a four dollar bill) so I do it. Otherwise I probably wouldn't since it wouldn't really change anything. But the women seem to have a funny attitude about it, like the fact that I get tested means I'm LESS safe. That's pretty fucked up, I think. Like the last time I was in a steady relationship, after we both said we wanted to just see each other, I said, "Well, let's get HIV tests and if they're both negative we can stop using condoms." Her response was like "IF? What do you mean IF?" So I patiently explained that anyone who was sexually active with anyone other than a single partner who was a virgin at the time and then had no other sex partners ever ever ever ever had SOME risk.

This led to a huge argument, with her accusing me of accusing her of being a ****, so I told her to hit the road and I went to Amsterdam for a week. But that gets really expensive.

Seydlitz, I know you are not an American but do you see the shit we go through?

Dickhead,
Personally (for obvious, selfish reasons) I don't think the fact that you had sex with prostitutes has anything to do with anything. I'm not gonna start quoting stats again don't worry, but as you know there are certain places in the world (that you have been to) where the hookers are MUCH "cleaner" than the general population. I also think there needs to be a distinction between street hookers, brothel workers, etc...to say that "hookers" in general are a high risk factor is unfair, and untrue in a lot of cases. The fact is though, whether they are higher risk or not, you used condoms with those women. Therefore your risk of catching anything from them is extremely small. What you SHOULD be telling her is the amount of times you have had UNPROTECTED sex...regardless of who it was with.

As for not wanting to use condoms "saying something" about the women you are with...it sure as hell does in my books! When I was working and someone asked me for oral without a condom, I would always say "Don't you think that if I do it with you, that I usually do it with everyone??" That stopped them in their tracks. It's all too easy to think that we are "special", and that the woman likes us a little more than all the rest of the people that she sleeps with, but that is a really naive attitude to take. A woman who would compromise her health with you, is likely to do it with others.

Like someone pointed out, women have more to worry about than men do. If you think that she is not well educated on those matters, and that she doesn't have the information required to assess the risks, then I think you should be telling her. However, if she knows the risks and really doesn't care too much...I would be keeping my dick in my pants!!

Oh, by the way Dickhead...

Well said about the testing. Honestly, for a person who regularly has different partners (and doesn't use condoms) testing is moot. Your results are only as good as the exact moment that you had the tests done. If you go out and get laid straight after your doctors appointment, your status could be different before you even get your results back! And then there is the window periods...I may have JUST caught chlamydia the day before my appointment, but it won't show up until I'm tested next time. In the meantime I have infected heaps of others, believing I was "clean".

That is part of my argument against mandatory testing of sex workers (one of many reasons!!). Unless you are in a truly exclusive relationship, and you KNOW the other person is being monogamous as well, you are never risk free. When I have sex I always treat the other person as if they are infected. Either way, I can't enjoy sex if I'm laying there wondering if I'm going to catch something. I would rather use a condom (which I don't particularly like) and be able to relax.

Dickhead,

as you say, I am not an American, but I know what you have to put up with.

My own experience is that many american women are shallow, materialistic and somewhat paranoid about women rights etc.

All this makes them very unattractive as companions, although as a European, I have found that I am given a certain "margin" compared to American men. Many American women are willing to accept being told a number of things by a European man, that would make them jump at the throat of the American man who would be foolish enough to say them.

In a way, Europeans are exotic, the more so when they act in a way that contrasts with the US behavior. American women are outraged, but somewhat fascinated.

Still I do not remember ever having had sex with an American woman, because I do find them unattractive.

Ah, but the basic point of testing isn't to certify that someone is necessarily safe, but to identify someone's situation at the time of the test. We may [b]want[/b] to use these tests as some sort of STD litmus tool, but that's a social issue -- the underlying medical idea for such tests is to screen for those who are infected and be able to treat them.

That said, obviously an ongoing series of tests gives a better idea of overall status, even if activity renders the latest test less reliable than the previous ones. If your results for STDs come back negative after more than one test, then your status is that of clean or of recently infected, which means that a) you've probably caught nothing from past partners, or b) that your infection is in the early stages and thus, if identified, less likely to do substantial harm to your system if treated.

Also, here's a nice resource -- a literature review for things about prostitution and HIV/AIDS: [url]http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/issues/prostitution/e-info-oa1.htm[/url]

Oops Joe...after reading your post and then re-reading mine, I realised that I may have sounded like I was suggesting that testing was pointless.

I should really make the distinction...what I meant was that getting tested and then saying "I'm clean...let's not bother with the condoms" was kind of pointless, and a bit irresponsible.

Getting tested for your own health and wellbeing...as well as that of your regular partners...is still something I would definitely encourage. :)

And thank you for that link too. I have already read many of the documents listed on that site, and will make an effort to track down the ones that I have yet to see.

Actually, RN, considering all the discussion about testing, I also just wanted to point out that people tend to want to use tests in broader ways than they're really designed from a strictly medical perspective. This relates, as well, to Seydlitz's comments about the unreliability of HIV testing -- while it's true that the test often yields false positives, and also that it's possible that some with HIV are not properly identified, a series of tests is the normal way of confirming most medical conditions as opposed to one single one which could be anomalous. Most tests improve in reliability when given more than once or when combined with others that test for the same condition.

And the social agenda (proving people are "safe" or not) does have a tendency to overwhelm and overshadow the medical purpose of the tests. While such data is useful to some extent in looking at overall rates of exposure and infection, and thereby giving a kind of overall risk factor to, say, a region, it becomes more problematic when drawing distinctions within groups or when making blanket statements about the safety of individuals. Take, for example, your complaint that "to say that 'hookers' in general are a high risk factor is unfair." In truth, that's not the case -- precisely when you're talking "in general" and using the broad definition, sex workers generally do have higher infection rates than the general population. (Prostitutes in Nairobi, for example, are generally HIV positive at a rate of close to 50% as opposed to the appallingly high rate of the rest of the country. The infection rate for prostitutes in NYC is far higher than that of the city as a whole.) As you properly point out, this blanket statement doesn't reflect the different striations or types of sex workers, and the truth varies radically depending on where and who we're talking about. Not to mention, of course, that the data is quite often murky and incomplete.

I did understand what you were saying as testing relates to the whole issue of mandatory testing of sex workers, which is a complex and unfortunate issue -- unfortunate in that a well-regulated and well-educated sector could very well keep everyone safer, but education and regulation tend to be at odds in this particular case because of the social stigmas involved. In a perfect place, all sex workers would be tested and would remove themselves from the workplace if they were infected; in real life government demands for such time-outs or removal (as well as being formally identified as a sex worker) generally has the effect of driving those most at risk underground. What's needed, I think, is a mutually trusted intermediary organization that educates, provides tests and medical assistance, but has a buffer between them and governmental registration or control as a way of reducing fear and stigma. (And ideally an additional support structure for integrating and supporting those sex workers who are undergoing treatment and not working.) Most importantly, it also takes an acknowledgement that these sex workers didn't get infected on their own, and that their customers are equally culpable in the equation.

Unfortunately, that latter fact is something that's politically [b]far[/b] more difficult to deal with than just about anything else. Wouldn't it be nice, in the face of continued criminalization of prostitution in various places, if convictions for soliciting or frequenting prostitutes didn't mean going to John school or paying a fine or forfeiting your car, but simply meant you had to get tested for STDs and, if needed, treated? And that was that? (And before people jump on me, I'll note again that I'm firmly and absolutely in favor of decriminilization!) In the long run, that would be far more socially productive. Of course, the odds that this kind of thing would happen in [i]lieu[/i] of other penalties are slim and none -- it's far more likely something like that would be added on as an additional condition, and probably coupled with some form of further social embarrassment, which has the same effect of mandatory testing of sex workers in defeating the purpose.

Joe, (GREAT post by the way!)

[i]Take, for example, your complaint that "to say that 'hookers' in general are a high risk factor is unfair." In truth, that's not the case -- precisely when you're talking "in general" and using the broad definition, sex workers generally do have higher infection rates than the general population.[/i]

I know that in most countries, prostitutes have a higher rate of HIV infection. (And that this is a direct result of social stigma, government/police interference in the sex industry, poverty, lack of health education, no access to safe sex equipment, etc...) I guess I was annoyed with the blanket statements for two reasons.
a) I come from a country where sex workers ARE "cleaner" than the general community (and I guess my own pride just can't let me sit back and read it without commenting! LOL) and,
b) I find the attitudes in here re: hookers versus "normal" girls to be really naive, and in some cases, maybe even dangerous.

Soooo many posts in this and the safe sex section (including all the stuff in the old forum) say things like "I'd only do that with a normal girl, not a hooker" and "barebacking is a death sentence with a hooker...save it for the "amateurs". Everyone is so convinced that hookers are the "vectors of disease" and that so-called normal girls are somehow safer. It has nothing much to do with the number of men a hooker sleeps with, and everything to do with safe sex practices. IMHO a hooker who always insists on using condoms with her 5 clients a day is a lot safer than the "normal" girl who NEVER uses condoms and picks up a different guy every week.

I think this is very much the same argument as the gay man/IV drug user discussion. People can not keep considering it to be simply a "hooker problem"....ANY woman who sleeps with many partners or indulges in unsafe sex is a high risk. To think otherwise is simply lulling yourself into a false sense of security every time you have sex with a "good girl".

[i]What's needed, I think, is a mutually trusted intermediary organization that educates, provides tests and medical assistance, but has a buffer between them and governmental registration or control as a way of reducing fear and stigma. (And ideally an additional support structure for integrating and supporting those sex workers who are undergoing treatment and not working.)[/i]

That is exactly what I do...that is where I work. There is at least one agency in every Australian state that provides these exact services, and they are all Government funded. Every service is provided with complete anonymity, which makes sex workers more than willing to seek us out. We also go to them in their places of work. Most importantly, we do not question about age, drug habits, immigration status, etc...things that will usually force a worker to stay hidden from authorities. It is solely because of these agencies that the Oz sex industry is so "clean" in comparison to most other places in the world. If every other Government had half a brain, they would fund something similar (and if OUR Government had half a brain, they would realise that we do half the work off our own backs because we do not get ENOUGH funding!! LOL) Unfortunately, the welfare of the public is always so much more important to the powers that be than the welfare of the sex workers. I wish they would wake up and realise that by assisting the industry, public health will benefit.

I knew that was Aussie pride (and pride in one's work) I heard crackling in the background! And it's loud, too, and irresistable to tweak. ;)

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the similarity of "gay/druggie" and "hooker" categorizations. Again, it's a way of making it something that happens to others and not you, and it looks at the victims as opposed to the diseases. Safe practice is safe practice, no matter who's doing the practicing.

And I do feel compelled to just briefly comment on your statement "It has nothing much to do with the number of men a hooker sleeps with, and everything to do with safe sex practices." Well, really, it's both. Condoms break, precautions fail, and being in a situation of multiple partners still means a greater general risk. But your point is well taken about overall safety and the tendency of guys to be less careful with "good girls." Personally, I'll find little comfort knowing that the person who ends up being the death of me was an amatuer.

So, is there a civil service exam to get hired in your job? Interesting pictures swirl in my head regarding the questions and necessary demonstrations of expertise involved :)

heh heh i'm a stubborn woman...i can't help it, sorry *grin*

i know it's totally off topic, but i thought i would answer your question re: the sex worker agencies in oz (solely out of pride again of course! lol)

they are based on a "peer education" model, as are most of the drug agencies, hiv support, etc. everything is done with complete confidentiality at the interview...to the extent that i actually did 2 cvs, one with my "regular" qualifications on it (i have studied a few different things) and one with my industry experience on it. the regular cv is held on file with my other employment details, and the industry one is never seen again.

there have been lots of studies recently into the benefits of peer education, especially in the case of the sex industry. ex or current workers can go places that regular health workers just cannot access. also, sex workers tend to see anyone that is not "one of them" as either a prospective rescuer (which they do not want) or a spy. you can see their faces when you first meet them...they ask you a hesitant question on how to do something and when you start with "well, when i was working..." they instantly change demeanor. that simple statement not only puts us on equal footing, but it validates what they do and ultimately who they are.

the other advantage of peer education, is that there is hardly anyone who is as well practiced in the art of condom use as a hooker is! our health authorities (who actually fund us) realise this...oz sex workers' safe sex practices were referred to as "exemplary" in a recent report on hiv. who better to teach sex education?? ;) also, we are a lot more broadminded as far as discussing actual sex acts, which makes communication much easier.

just a little note on hookers being more likely to catch something on the basis of increased exposure...
there's a couple of extra things to consider. one is that the condom breakage rate of (health educated) sex workers is extremely small. they know to use heaps of lubricant which many regular girls don't do; they use different sized condoms to fit different penises, which a lot of regular girls don't even know about, and they also usually will not use a condom provided by the man; they are more aware of tongue rings, fingernails, etc when handling a condom; and most importantly, they do a dc before even starting, while many regular women wouldn't even know what to look for.

the difference with sex workers is fear. they treat every client with suspicion, and therefore take every precaution possible. on the other hand, when most regular women meet someone they are attracted to, they are likely to throw caution to the wind, or be afraid of "offending" their partner with asking questions or looking to closely at his dangly bits! (there is also often the issue of alcohol to increase risks further).

yes, i know this doesn't account for every sex worker, but there are a few other factors to consider rather than just basing it on repeated exposure. and (i hate doing this, it sounds terrible! lol) i worked five days a week, seeing an average of 5 clients a day for (taking into account time off) around 4 years. that's a hell of a lot of exposure. however, and this is the absolute truth, i never caught anything from ony one of them. as i noted in a previous post, the only time i came horribly close to catching something, was a few years before when i was married. because i trusted him...and i certainly never trusted my clients. :)

hey guys....can anyone tell me wat's the risk of getting a BBBJ from porstitutes???......can i get AIDS from that???......plz reply...forgive me for my ignorance....

shakiraa:

we just discussed this very issue in this forum. I would suggest you read the last two or three pages, and you will have a better understanding of the issue.

shakiraa
your chances of getting AIDS from an uncovered blowjob are very very low,,,,nearly 0......but you can get other nasty little sexually transmitted deseases from that blowjob
. Mostly AIDS is transmitted sexually through anal sex. '''Simply put, if you allow a man with AIDS to fuck you in your ass, you are at high risk. Other than that its a difficult virus for a male to get sexually unless he has open sores on his penis. It can be transmitted other ways, but the odds of getting AIDS through any sexual act other than anal are small. In the United States it is mostly transmitted through anal sex or if you share needles to take drugs. In Africa AIDS is much more easily spread because of untreated venereal diseases, cultural practices of genital piercings, the common practice of having anal sex with women to avoid pregnancy and other social issues that are not common in the United States. Some people also sugest that men who are not circumcised may run a higher risk if their hygene is poor(as is common in third world countries), but thats not been proven.

Brett,
Thank you for adding a voice of sanity to the continuing debate over the risks of heterosexually transmitted AIDS. I agree with everything you have written, and I compliment you on the sucinct (sic?) and informative manner in which you have described the actual risks. I have a friend who is a doctor here in Houston - the 4th largest city in the US, with a very large gay, and consequently, HIV-infected population. He has routinely tested patients for HIV infection for the last 15 years, and says that to this day, he has never been wrong when he has predicted a negative result. Not once. If you are not doing receptive anal, and/or sharing needles, your risk of contracting HIV, while existent, is VERY small, particularly in the US. Check out Michael Fumento's "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" for more details.

http://www.cures4aids.com/

Just to muddy the waters a little. I came across an article a few years ago disputing the 'cast iron' connection between HIV and AIDS. Unfortunately I chucked the magazine. Since then I've followed the debate, particularly noting dissenters such as Tabo MBeki (South Africa) and the journalist Bernard Trink (Bangkok Post) who are also unconvinced as to the direct link. If you would care for a more intellectual study on the case. Please look at the following link http://www.nexusmagazine.com/ and scroll down to the story "DOES HIV CAUSE AIDS? Pt.1, Pt.2, Pt.3
- by Valendar F. Turner and Andrew McIntyre". It makes interesting reading.

I like and admire Trink for lots of things, and he's always an interesting read, but this is hardly an area where he has any authority.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seydlitz
[i]Dickhead,

as you say, I am not an American, but I know what you have to put up with.

My own experience is that many american women are shallow, materialistic and somewhat paranoid about women rights etc.

All this makes them very unattractive as companions, although as a European, I have found that I am given a certain "margin" compared to American men. Many American women are willing to accept being told a number of things by a European man, that would make them jump at the throat of the American man who would be foolish enough to say them.

In a way, Europeans are exotic, the more so when they act in a way that contrasts with the US behavior. American women are outraged, but somewhat fascinated.

Still I do not remember ever having had sex with an American woman, because I do find them unattractive. [/i][/QUOTE]

You got that nailed, Seydlitz. Thanks to endless indoctrination by militant educators and feministst, American women are convinced that American men are responsible for the ills of the world. God forbid you be white or towards the conservative end of the spectrum - in that case, you're hosed. I gave up dealing with the games played by American-born women years ago, and will never go back...

I was an Aids Hospice worker for several years. The only hetrosexual Clients I had was one Hemophiiac (Bleeder) A prostitute and a Male wh caught aids from a blood transfusion> This does not discount that aids is not present among Hetrosexuals.
If you are out paying for sex take into consideration were your sex worker was before you came across her. You do not know whether or not she is an IV drug user. Most Curb walkers are getting smart and putting thier needles in places where their tracks won't show. ie between the toes, some Ive heard use thier clit. You do not kow the health habits of their partner before you. For all you know the previous partner was a flaming homosexual who decided to have a one night stand with a female sex worker.
Most Curb workers to begin with have bad health habits. They have fail in the higher class places and they had to resort to street walking. Since they do not eat right, the do not sleep right. They smoke, and 9 out of ten time they are hooked some sort of street drug they have a poor immunity any way so it does not take much for them to become HIV positive.
Thats why I think its suicidal to have sex with a SW with out the use of a condom. The Agency I worked for told me that even with a condom you are playing Russian roulet every time you pick up a street worker.
Heres the even more scary part. The HIV positive part may not even show positive for year. one minute your healthy the next minute you fall with an un explained illness. So as a Fellow *****monger I urge you never to have sex with out the Condom. Bear backing can only mean instant dealth.
One other thing: People with aids get a disease called thrush mouth.(Bleeding gums) You may have a small cut on your penis not detected from a naked eye. This is a big invitation for HIV. So condoms should always be used when getting a BJ

HIV causes AIDs, eventually, get it. Sure? No buts and no ifs. How long it takes depends on how healthy you are, what medications you take (if any) and a few other factors.

The calculated risk per vaginal intercourse is about 1:300-500. The risk from oral sex is lower.

HIV infection rate in Thailand is falling because the government had an enlightened attitude towards prevention (contrast Burma,India and until recently China).

BBJ-well, you make the decision but sex without condom, it is about the same of the risk of death per year of the average age of people on this board.

You can thiank the Islam for the spread of aids in Africa. Because Adultry/ and un married Premiscuity is a lawful sin punishable by stoning most woman take it in the ass so that their Hyman stays in tack

What about the Catholics, who ban their "flock" from using condoms?

I would think the high incidence of HIV in Africa has very little to do with religion, and is very much to do with a lack of education. Their Government refuses to inform the people of the risks, and a number of high ranking officials have even denied that AIDS exists! The only way to slow the spread of AIDS in Africa (and other severely affected countries) is with nationwide sexual health education.

Even if having anal sex for religious reasons WAS responsible for the high rate of infection, anal sex can be just as safe as vaginal sex when done with a condom. The people of Africa simply don't know how to protect themselves. And their Government is to blame for that...not their faith.

Well balanced, and IMHO correct RN.

Education is the key, nothing else. In many cases, not just Africa, it is this basic sexual education that is lacking. Very slowly (too slowly unfortunately) a number of third world countries are starting condom awareness campaigns, making them freely available to sex workers.... The pressure placed on SW’s to work bare-backed (and indeed ignorance on the part of the mongers…) need to be tackled at the same time. Active public awareness is a good start: better still and at the same time is a consistent campaign of education starting with school kids.

Religion, I feel does have some blame. However Luvgirls is wrong to blame Islam. The general ideology of “no sex outside marriage” is accepted by virtually all religions. As I understand it, Islamists (Muslims) are allowed to use condoms, but not have pre-marital. Catholics seem to be more strict in so far as condoms are concerned as well as pre-marital sex.

Education is the key: education for the kids, so the future is safe; education for the politicians so they can see the truth…. Oh yes, education for the powerful pharmaceutical companies so they learn a little more compassion in business and provide cheaper HIV drugs…

Regards,

Havanaman

African areas which follow the teachings of the Prophet tend to have much LOWER rates than areas where Christians or animists predominate. The Muslim faith, like the Jewish faith, also stresses hygiene (washing five times a day and praying to Mecca). Muslim men, like Jews, also tend to be "skiness", a fact some attribute for deflating their HIV rates. Also, in Africa, other STIs and skin infections are rampant and genital piercing is common. Multi partnering does not help either. Its pandemic poverty is also a factor. Interestingly, HIV and STI rates (syphilis in particular) are out of control in SE Asia. Bangladesh (Muslim) and Philippines (Catholic) seem to have very low HIV rates. In sub Sahara, "non Muslim" Africa, HIV is now simply a way of life. Blaiming it on religions which are no so widespread there does not help. Poverty and corruption are more blameworthy than a lack of education (a Western style of thinking about Africa perhaps?). The drug cocktails Big Pharam gave to Africa to help stem HIV recently went on sale - in Germany and Switzerland.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Havanaman
[i]Well balanced, and IMHO correct RN.

Education is the key, nothing else. In many cases, not just Africa, it is this basic sexual education that is lacking. Very slowly (too slowly unfortunately) a number of third world countries are starting condom awareness campaigns, making them freely available to sex workers.... The pressure placed on SW’s to work bare-backed (and indeed ignorance on the part of the mongers…) need to be tackled at the same time. Active public awareness is a good start: better still and at the same time is a consistent campaign of education starting with school kids.


[/i][/QUOTE]

Sorry dude, but the reason why third world countries have such a high prevelance is not becasue of education or the lack thereof, but lack of finance. When I was in Mexico "a third world country" a pack of three condoms was about $3 US dollars. I know that this doesn't sound like much, but when you take into account that they make about $10 a day, that's a hell of a lot of money. Condoms are a luxury that many people in third world countries can't afford. And you can't tell them to not have sex, that's basically impossible.

The E,

You're absolutely right. Cost and/or accessability is a HUGE factor. The Government is again guilty when it comes to this...along with the much-needed sexual health education, should come subsidised (or free) safe sex equipment. I have no idea of actual costs, but I would think that it would cost less to supply free condoms to 10 million people, than it would cost to administer HIV treatment to 10 million people.

There's no point teaching someone to use a condom if they're never going to be able to afford to buy one, and there's no point handing someone a condom and not teaching them what it's for.

The E, RN, skinless,

There is no definitive answer to this thread; it is however realistic to say that the answer is a combination of the knowledge of the subject as well as the availability of contraception. Suffice to say that without education, especially targeted towards the young, the whole concept of disease and contraception is pointless (both for the present and future). Education on the existence, free availability and indeed correct usage of condoms is thus paramount.

The contraception campaigns I referred to, which were first pioneered by WHO & UNESCO, then later expanded by international private charities (as well as “in house” country specific charities), all have FREE condom distribution: see http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/contra/topic10.html

Free condoms are available at every WHO & UNESCO sponsored health clinic (general medicine, as well as G.U.M), in every country they operate in throughout the world. Free condoms are also available throughout Europe from health centres as part of the Pan-European Health Initiative started in 1999. The free condoms are off course the basic “heavy duty” type and offer non of the luxury of the ultra-thin / flavoured / multi-coloured varieties.

Comparing Mexico (a “third world country”) (?) to lets say Uganda (allegedly also a “third world country”) is I feel unfair. The notion of a “fourth / fifth” world needs to be considered for the African nations as well as some of the Asian countries.

A 2002 survey has shown that 44% of pregnant women (urban) in Botswana are HIV+ (Source -UNAIDS). The age range of these women was 14 – 20 years. These women had access to free condoms, and some education. The equivalent figures for rural women (not having such free access to either education or condoms) must be devastatingly frightening.

In conclusion the issue of education isn’t one of pure academia, but one of basic knowledge: what condoms are, what they do, how to use them, where to get them from (free and otherwise), and above all IMHO the knowledge that its “OK” to use them….

Regards,

Havanaman

Like I have been telling you earliar, It does not matter if they come from a third world country or they come from wall street, The profession of prostitution is considered a high risk group. You don't know whether they bare backed with their previous john or not. You do not know what their life style is like before you meet them. or whether they use IV drugs.
Unlike most illness AIDS has no face. I knew a male dentist in San Diego who had aids. He had the money to get properly treated every time he got sick from Aids. So a majority of the time he looked healthy. It was when he was healthy that he cruised the streets and picked up SW's. This applies to a SW. Most of them are not going to be out working when they are sick from Aids. You can never know whether your SW is HIV positive or not. And if she is you can better understand that there is no way they are going to tell you.
I have been an AIDS hospice worker for years. I have seen friends die of the disease. Straight or Gay, Aids does not discreminate. My last patient was a Male who contacted Aids from his wife. She got Aids from tainted blood that she recieved when she got in an Auto moble accident and she had a blood transfusion. Niether couple participated in High Risk behavior. For those who think Aids is an Anal disease you better think twice.
I can finish this by stating that if you choose to go the route of Having sex with a SW you are a fool if you insist on bare backing it.

Luvgirls,

Yes, the profession of prostitution is considered a high risk group. WE are at high risk of infection. People like the dentist you mentioned make me sick...the entire community shouts sex workers down as the "vectors of disease" and blames hookers for the transmission of HIV among hetrosexual couples. But does anyone even stop to think how WE may have caught it?? Does anyone give a damn that there are people like that dentist wandering the streets...knowingly putting each and every girl he sleeps with at risk???

By the way, you said: [i]"You don't know whether they bare backed with their previous john or not. You do not know what their life style is like before you meet them. or whether they use IV drugs".[/i] If you meet a woman who is NOT a sex worker, can you be sure that she used a condom with her last partner? Can you be sure she hasn't used drugs? Do you think she is going to tell you if she is HIV positive, before you have sex with her? More importantly...do you take her word for it???

I'm not arguing with you about the risks...in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence of your post...it's just that I fear sometimes that all this talk about "AIDS infected street workers" may be lulling people into a false sense of security when they are NOT with a sex worker. Prostitute = huge AIDS risk; nice girl = safe. People should be taking these precautions with ANYONE they sleep with...not just hookers.

And on the other hand, it is also unfair to women (and men) like me, who take extremely good care of their health and would never consider putting a client at risk. My best friend has NEVER had an STI test...and after all these years sleeping around, without condoms, she is now too scared to!! Who's safer then? Me...the hooker who's slept with thousands and has regular testing, or her...the "good girl" who could possibly have every disease under the sun. In my country, it's safer to sleep with a hooker than it is to pick up a girl from the pub (that's a Health Dept fact, too!)

Again, I know I'm just being pedantic, but I think people need to start talking about HIV in general terms. The fact is, we don't know ANYONE'S sexual history or health status. Like you said...AIDS doesn't discriminate. We shouldn't be bare-backing with anyone, until we know for sure that they are disease free...hooker or not.

RN,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT. i LIKE THE WAY YOU POINTED OUT sw AND NICE GIRL. yOUR RIGHT ESPECIALLY IN nEVADA THE GIRLS ARE CHECKED OUT ONCE A WEEK BY A DOCTOR, AND THE RUBBER JACKET IS A MUST.
As a single dating male I can tell you some scare stories of some of the women I have dated. Some of which wanted sex within hours on the date and they were the aggresser and Not I. Some even pointed out that I did not need a rain jacket because they were safe. This even scared me more. If they wanted Sex within hour on the date how many unsafe partners did they have prior to Me?
This is why I like your view on precausion. In the medical field we are trained that everyone might be contagious so play it safe use protection.(Rubber gloves).
I mentioned the Dentist in my last post because I wanted to point out that not all people With AIDS looks sick. In fact some are carriers for years before the start geting some of the Aids related illnesses. This is why it not safe to ever go bare back with some one you do not know
It is also suggested that even if you find a steady partner that you both test regularly for the first two years before you even consider bare backing. Because just because you recieve one negitive test, doe'snt mean that you are negitive. It might mean that the virus has not increbated yet to test positive. Some of the people I know suggest that you test in two different places at the same time and you get both results. You do this in a sieries of three test a year for the next two years.
Well got to go....... Well guys play it safe. Fifteen minutes of pleasure can lead to a life long torture if you don't play it safe. Remember There is nothing more foolish the a presistant bare back john

luvgirls,,,,,,,,,,
i have also experienced this from women i think it's mostly a mind game to see if the guy rattles when you shake him some get off mentally on this there are allot of aggressive women out there now but still if you don't know her well it's best to play it safe until you can be sure ,, i have been dating one regular for a year now and i finally got her to ware the female condom but for oral we do bare back and clean right afterwards and i never had any std problems with any girl and i have been around for awhile.

and now that i am on this subject what about porn stars and swingers this group never seems to have safe sex and (wow) there doing anal that's a little heavy for me:)

There is no short cut, however hard we may debate, we have to go with condom in any situation in any country, that is it, even if a single guy misses it, it may effect hundred others, and if a single guy use it, it helps hundred others. Its as simple as that, begining of the 19th century, we had maleria, cholera, pnemonia as the killer disease, now we have AIDS, hepatasis, and it wil go on an on. Now recently we have SARS, when it all going to end. Never, i think, all this debate of spreading aids by toucing kissing anal french is useless, we have to sacrifice a bit of pleasure to get going, that is all, the cuer may be near, considering the past diseases, and the cures, but till then we have to sacrifice a bit.

thx

[blue]Loser, I tried to send you an email, but you have set your email address to reject email from the WSG. Please revise this as soon as possible if you have any desire to be changed to Senor Member status.

Jackson[/blue]

Hello Jackson,

I have not blocked the incoming WSG messages from you, it was an auto feature of my mail account to block adult mails, I have deactivated it, Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Hopefully it should work now. or you may please mail me at lavista4u@yahoo.com

Thanking you,

[blue]Cool[/blue]

Here is a newspaper article about the use of drug cocktails to prolong those suffereing from AIDS.



AIDS Drugs Shown to Slash Death Rates


Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Cocktails of AIDS medicines have slashed death rates by more than 80 percent and now most patients taking the drugs can expect to survive more than a decade and perhaps much longer, scientists said on Friday.

The introduction of life-saving drug combinations known as Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) in 1997 means AIDS is no longer an automatic death sentence.

Death rates were halved shortly after the drug cocktails became available and declined by over 80 percent by 2001.

"Nine out of 10 people could expect to live for 10 years regardless of the age at which they became infected. We haven't reached the medium yet so it could be 17 or 20 years -- we can't really say at the moment," said Dr. Kholoud Porter, of Britain's Medical Research Council (MRC).

Before HAART, only about half of people infected would have expected to be alive 10 years later and even fewer if they were more than 40 years old when they were infected.

Ageism no longer seems to be an issue because older people on HAART do not have a reduced life expectancy. But the research, reported in The Lancet medical journal, shows that people who caught the virus by injecting drugs are four times more likely to die of AIDS than men infected through sexual contact.

Porter said they are less likely to take the sometimes complicated combinations of anti-AIDS drugs properly. Intravenous drug users are also more likely to have co-infections with other viruses, particularly hepatitis C.

"Before, age mattered, now it doesn't. Before, exposure category or risk group didn't matter and now it does," Porter told Reuters.

GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR

While HAART has extended the lives of AIDS patients in countries where people can afford to pay, the treatment is still scarce in poor nations, despite intense pressure for pharmaceutical companies to cut prices.

The World Health Organization welcomed the study, saying it gives added backing to its push to deliver AIDS drugs to three million people in the developing world by the end of 2005.

"Treatment with antiretrovirals works for everyone -- rich or poor. Now the poor urgently need access to these drugs," said Dr Charlie Gilks, of the WHO.

Last month, drug companies said they had doubled the supply of AIDS medicine to Africa. More than 76,300 Africans were receiving cut-price drugs from six pharmaceutical firms at the end of June 2003, compared to 35,500 in March 2002.


But UNAIDS, the United Nations group spearheading the global battle against the epidemic, estimates that 4.1 million Africans desperately need the treatment. Thirty million of the 42 million people worldwide infected with the AIDS virus live in sub-Saharan Africa.

Porter's findings were based on an analysis of 22 different studies across Europe, Australia and Canada, where the drugs are readily available.

HAART refers to a combination of three or more medicines from at least two classes of anti-AIDS drugs. The treatments attack the AIDS virus in different phases of its life cycle.

"We hope we go on seeing survival improvements and that people infected with HIV will end up having the same survival expectations as people who are (HIV) negative," Porter added.

I a huge conusor of BBBJ. Or I should say I was. I am luckily still HIV negative and plan to stay that way. I have as of late, decided to cover up for even a BJ. I recall for years calling the CDC HIV information hotline and being told way back in the early 90's that catching HIV from receiving oral sex was basically non existent! It seems they have now changed their stance. Now they say the risk is significant, but less then other activities! It seems to me that given their formal policies in the late 80's and early 90's giving false information might and perhaps should subject them to a suit of some kind.

I have always felt receiving a BJ is not totally safe, given basic reasoning. Ever brushed your teeth? Ever ate an apple? And your dealing with SW who have bad oral hygiene. Their gums are probably always bleeding! I assure you there is substantial real risk for getting BBBJ. I do it no longer, no matter how good she looks.

And for those of you who think the drug cocktails are going to save your ars. Better think again. The virus is mutating, it changes, it's smarter then the scientists who try and defeat it. Also 1/3 of people taking these cocktails have bad reactions or cannot stomach the strict drug regiments. In time these medications will be rendered useless. I almost assure you of it.

Many strains of new infected HIV patients have drug resistant strains, indicating the virus has already went full circle and is coming back with a vengeance. The average life expectancy of someone who catches the virus today may have jumped, but for how long is still unknown. From what I have read, I would venture a guess of maybe 15-20 years at best. Better then the old 10 year calculations in the past, however you must figure 3-4 of those 15-20 years will be of low quality and be lined with many illnesses. Not fun in my book! Best keep it covered boys, all they way for every activity!

GETTINGTANG~!

As a person who enjoys the BBBJTC, I follow the news on it. Here is an article that discusses just one of the reasons that women do not get AIDS from the BBBJTC. This reason has been newly discovered, apparently.

As an aside, I keep mint Listerine in the room and suggest to the women that they rinse with it immediately, just to make them feel better. I hope they will ask for it from other men or begin to carry it themselves. Listerine has been found to kill both the AIDS virus and the HERPES virus, which actually worries me more.

I also keep 96% alcohol in a spray bottle and clean with it immediately after. No, it doesn't burn the penis. It DOES, however, hurt like hell on the scrotum for about 3 minutes, so you have to be careful there.


Researchers Discover Oral Defenses Against AIDS
Thu Oct 30, 7:00 PM ET

Source: Case Western Reserve University School of Dentistry
by: Susan Griffith


Researchers at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic have discovered a way that the mouth may prevent the contraction of HIV (news - web sites).

The findings, which are reported in the November 7, 2003, issue of the international journal "AIDS (news - web sites)," hold potential for discovering new ways of preventing AIDS and other infections in the body, according to the researchers.

With the lining of the mouth constantly under attack by a barrage of bacteria that commensally lives and grows in the mouth, the lining of the oral cavity has put up an innate and formidable defense line of peptides called human beta defensins 2 and 3 (hBD2 and hBD3) that may prevent humans from getting sick and may promote rapid healing from food abrasions or accidental bites to the tongue and mouth.

"It is the unique properties of the good bugs found in the mouth that are inducing the expression of hBD2 and 3," said Aaron Weinberg, director of research at the Case School of Dentistry.

The study, entitled "Human Epithelial Beta Defensins 2 and 3 Inhibit HIV-1 Replication," was the result of a 12-member research team, including Michael Lederman, an internationally known AIDS researcher from the Case School of Medicine and University Hospitals of Cleveland, and Miguel E. Quinones-Mateu, the first author on the paper and a virologist from the Lerner Research Center at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Their recent discovery, which went on the fast track for publication in "AIDS" is the result of a National Institute of Health-funded study on oral defenses against AIDS, of which Weinberg is the principal investigator.

The discovery suggests that the small peptides produced by cells lining the oral cavity bind to the viral particles directly and can even regulate important receptors the virus uses to infect human cells.

Since the 1990s, Weinberg, a dentist and microbiologist at the Case School of Dentistry, has been studying the natural defenses found in the mouth and how they react to bacteria and viruses.

These latest findings were driven by Weinberg's curiosity about the knowledge that HIV, which leads to AIDS, is rarely contracted through the mouth.

While human beta defensins, particularly hBD-1, are found throughout the body's skin and epithelial cells to ward off general infections, it was hBD2 and hBD3 in the normal lining of the mouth that responded to HIV.

Weinberg said that hBD2 increased by almost 80 fold in the presence of HIV introduced to a monolayer of human oral epithelial cells grown in the lab and maintained their response rate for

72 hours-long after the time the virus could live in the conditions in the mouth.

Information gained from the study, according to Weinberg, has the potential to develop new medical interventions using natural products, such as those being isolated from the "good oral bugs" that induce hBD2 and 3, in other sites of the body that are more susceptible to HIV infection. These products also have the potential as a coating on catheters, intubations and implants to prevent secondary infections within the body, which result in annual health care costs of over $15 billion.


Copyright © 2003 Acurian Inc. All Rights Reserved

Dear Sirs:
re: Blow jobs and AIDS risk.

The risk to the man recieving a blow job is probably non-existent. When I had an HIV test to satisfy an annoying girlfriend last April, the educator went into detail about how saliva is not known to contain the virus. This is why they don't say you can't make out or kiss someone.

In a nutshell, blood and semen contain the virus. If what you do doesn't get the girl's blood or semen (oh, she doesn't have that!) into your body, you are safe.

Accordingly, if you come outside on a girl, she has protected herself from the virus. It hasn't the capability of penetrating the skin of her belly, or ass as the case may be :)

The politics of AIDS support the misconception that is transmissable both male to female and female to male, which is in contadiction to the facts.

Incidentally, I kept the paper saying I was "negative" and it helps to have around, the girl then may be more likely to not be so afraid of having someone come in her mouth.

Relax and have the blowjob. I keep some newman's own lemonade and viva paper towels around. The hard part is some hos are horny and want to be fucked instead!

Regards,
Dash

Data taken from un.org. For the conscious traveler may be worth considering. You can be sure that the actual infection rate is much higher in the cities & resorts where the action is.

2001 HIV Prevalence rate aged 15-49, per cent (UNAIDS Estimate)

Algeria 0.1
Angola 5.5
Argentina 0.7
Armenia 0.1
Australia 0.1
Austria 0.2
Azerbaijan 0.11
Bahamas 3.5
Bahrain 0.3
Bangladesh 0.11
Barbados 1.2
Belarus 0.3
Belgium 0.2
Belize 2.0
Benin 3.6
Bhutan 0.11
Bolivia 0.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.11
Botswana 38.8
Brazil 0.7
Bulgaria 0.11
Burkina Faso 6.5
Burundi 8.3
Cambodia 2.7
Cameroon 11.8
Canada 0.3
Central African Republic 12.9
Chad 3.6
Chile 0.3
China 0.1
China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region 0.1
Colombia 0.4
Congo 7.2
Costa Rica 0.6
Cote d'Ivoire 9.7
Croatia 0.11
Cuba 0.11
Cyprus 0.3
Czech Republic 0.11
Democratic Republic of the Congo 4.9
Denmark 0.1
Dominican Republic 2.5
Ecuador 0.3
Egypt 0.11
El Salvador 0.6
Equatorial Guinea 3.4
Eritrea 2.8
Estonia 1.0
Ethiopia 6.4
Fiji 0.1
Finland 0.11
France 0.3
Gambia 1.6
Georgia 0.11
Germany 0.1
Ghana 3.0
Greece 0.2
Guatemala 1.0
Guinea-Bissau 2.8
Guyana 2.7
Haiti 6.1
Honduras 1.6
Hungary 0.1
Iceland 0.1
India 0.8
Indonesia 0.1
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.11
Iraq 0.11
Ireland 0.1
Israel 0.1
Italy 0.4
Jamaica 1.2
Japan 0.11
Jordan 0.11
Kazakhstan 0.1
Kenya 15.0
Korea, Republic of 0.11
Kyrgyzstan 0.11
Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.11
Latvia 0.4
Lesotho 31.0
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 0.2
Lithuania 0.1
Luxembourg 0.2
Madagascar 0.3
Malawi 15.0
Malaysia 0.3
Maldives 0.1
Mali 1.6
Malta 0.1
Mauritius 0.1
Mexico 0.3
Mongolia 0.11
Morocco 0.1
Mozambique 13.0
Namibia 22.5
Nepal 0.5
Netherlands 0.2
New Zealand 0.1
Nicaragua 0.2
Nigeria 5.8
Norway 0.1
Oman 0.1
Pakistan 0.1
Panama 1.5
Papua New Guinea 0.7
Peru 0.3
Philippines 0.11
Poland 0.1
Portugal 0.5
Republic of Moldova 0.2
Romania 0.11
Russian Federation 0.9
Rwanda 8.9
Senegal 0.5
Serbia and Montenegro 0.2
Sierra Leone 7.0
Singapore 0.2
Slovakia 0.11
Slovenia 0.11
Somalia 1.0
South Africa 20.1
Spain 0.5
Sri Lanka 0.11
Sudan 2.6
Suriname 1.2
Swaziland 33.4
Sweden 0.1
Switzerland 0.5
Tajikistan 0.11
Thailand 1.8
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.11
Togo 6.0
Trinidad and Tobago 2.5
Turkey 0.11
Turkmenistan 0.11
Uganda 5.0
Ukraine 1.0
United Kingdom 0.1
United Republic of Tanzania 7.8
United States 0.6
Uruguay 0.3
Uzbekistan 0.11
Venezuela 0.5
Viet Nam 0.3
Yemen 0.1
Zambia 21.5
Zimbabwe 33.7

Not having protected sex is like walking through a mine field wearing snow-shoes.

Listerine is also a cure for athletes foot.

Giving the girl mouthwash after bbbj is something I AWAYS do. It is a nice thing to do for the girl who should always be shown respect.

Being wrong just once about AIDS is all it takes. We can debate until we all dissappear up our own assholes and this will NOT change the CONSEQUENCES of the risk however low it might be.

Mess with the bull, get the horns.

Be safe my brothers and sisters.

Also be nice and treat the ladies with respect.

Country John

People,

Recently a SW gave me a BBBJ and I went down on her (DATY) after which she offered me unprotected sex, (which probably implies that she has had that with other customers). Of course I did not indulge in that.

My question to you is, what are the chances of contracting an infection such as HIV thru such a person given that she did BBBJ and I indulged in DATY with her?

This question is driving me nuts, hence my question to you!

Regards,

Sharq

[size=-2][u]EDITOR's NOTE[/u]: [blue]Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions to [u]capitalize the word "I"[/u]. To avoid future delays, please use a capital "I" to refer to yourself in future reports. [i]Thanks![/i][/blue][/size]

sharq, it is possible to contract HIV in that manner (bbbj, DATY) the chances are smaller then unprotected sex, but is still there... I would say contact a doctor and talk to him about your problem and arange for an STD/HIV test.

hate to break it to you Dash, but you CAN get AIDS from a BJ and saliva DOES contain the AIDS virus. mind you the amount of the virus in Saliva is SO minute that would have to drink about 2 litres of it to have a fiar risk of infection (put it in other terms for you... you'd have to continually french kiss for about 11 hours for that much of an exchange)

now this isn't cause the virus is "in the salvia", it's cause of minute cuts or abrashions (sp?) in the gums and cheeks that pass blood into the saliva.

now the same hold true for BJs... think of it this way you are poking your dick into her mouth... what about her teeth? all that has to happen is for the most minute scratch of the shin (you may not even notice it!) and a similiar one in her mouth! and then some unlucky contact between the two sores and you're a dead man walking.

Also Vaginal fluid contains the virus as well and in large amounts (roughly the same concentration as semen) that is what makes DATY so dangerous.... once again a cut in the mouth (from her hairs/stubble) and enough fluid and again your a dead man walking.

word of advice, when you want to play, wear the gear.

Rob Brown:

Fascinating data. Thank you for presenting it.

I followed the UN.ORG pages and it makes for very interesting research. After my reading, I’m keeping a number of the African countries (e.g. Zimbabwe) purely as eye-candy destinations: looking but not touching…

Having said that, its all a matter of luck really. As said by many a person: it just takes one… the wrong one…

A lesson for everyone: be safe. A little self-respect and respect for the lady goes to help us all: main point ~ keeping it covered!

Regards, Havanaman

You may all want to read about AIDS on these web sites:

www.iewb.org

www.iewb.org/health.htm

Please pay close attention to the topics under the "Health" section.

"AIDS is a very serious disease -- for homosexuals, drug users, and receptive partners in anal sex from an AIDS-infected partner".

"HIV is extremely difficult to transmit sexually, particularly from a female to a male."

"The transfer of AIDS from a woman to a man is very rare since the penis would have to be either infected with an open sore or tissue torn by extreme roughness in intercourse." Not just by scratches from a Ladies teeth on your penis!

"Because HIV is so difficult to transmit heterosexually, HIV infections that are caused by heterosexual contact usually arise from a regular, long term sexual relationship with an IV drug user."

Now, I am not saying go around and fuck everything and anything without protection! No, I am not! You have to be cautious, and be careful.

-> * Even if your sex partner is STD free and HIV free, you should at least get tested once every six months for STD and HIV. All insurance companies in USA pay for it. At the first sign of HIV virus, the virus can be fought and treated.

There was a reported case were a female police officer was infected when she was helping a battered gay (HIV positive)victim. She had minute cuts on her hand, and while trying to take the victim to the hospital, her hands were soaked in his blood. Unfortunately, she wasn't wearing gloves. Due to the circumstances, the hospital tested her for HIV, and she was tested positive for HIV. She was immediately treated and after 3 months of treatment, she was free from the virus!

BTW, the best way to get tested for HIV is a “DNA - AIDS Testing” that can show if you have been infected within few days of your contact. If you really want to have this test, your doctor can help you to get it and have the insurance company cover the cost.

yes, cause a website used, maintained, and posted by working girls will be FULL of good info and the truth....

want REAL info? Goto www.CDC.gov or www.hc-sc.gc.ca both or any other OFFICAL MEDICAL webpage! If you continue to goto "amatuer" health sites for your info and believe what they tell you..... I got some prime lunar property to sell you at a good price!

and for the record fred.....

hiv virus (the virus that causes aids) is found in infectous levels in the following bodily fluids...

blood
semen
vaginal fluid
breast milk.


the virus is also found, but at extremely low levels, almost non infectious levels , in:

saliva
tears
mucus (i.e: snot)

their is no cure to hiv/aids once you have it, you have it for life. and it will kill you. drugs and drug cocktails can help slow down the speed at which the virus kills you but it will still kill you all the same.

as for your female cop example.... 2 things could have happened... 1: she tested as a false positive and then underwent several months of needless drug therepy for nothing more then piece of mind. 2: the drug cocktails she was on reduced the amount of hiv in her system to a non-detectable level, thus she tested as negative the second time.

for #1, this happens fairly often if you miss the incubation period. all hospitals recommend 6 tests for hiv. one at the moment (or asap) of believed infection, an other test 3 weeks later, then 3 months after the infection , then 6 months after infection, then a year after infection, then every 6 months after that. the tests only become truly accurate around the one year mark cause that is the amount of time that the virus takes to build up in the quantities that can be tested for best results.


as for #2, the only treatment for hiv is mass quantities of drugs taken daily for the rest of your life! there is no cure, no wonder drug, you are simply a dead man walking till some other aids related disease kills you. true that with properly maintained drug levels you can live a relatively normal life for many years with out ill (disease related) effects, you are still dying, and you can still pass that hiv/aids onto anyone else that you have sex with.

don't kid yourself, or others..... a latex condom is the only truely safe way to monger. trying to argue differently is simply stupidity and utter nonsense!

JUST MY INPUT!

And, not kidding myself! I AM NOT PROMOTING UN-PROTECTED SEX HERE!

Another amazing thing you may want to think about: Did any woman ever come forward claiming that she had been infected with HIV, after having sex with Magic Johnson? Zero! Can you imagine the size of that law suit? According to his stories, he used to have so much sex, that his penis bled from scars! Oh please don't tell me he paid them off to keep them quite!

No wars, just some input. BTW, you may want to call CDC & NIH and request some of their updated reports by mail, not what is printed on web sites! CDC and NIH reports all indicate a drop in the statistics, and it is not just becasue of use of condoms!

Actually I've heard what Capt. Fred says is true. If for example you've been stuck with an HIV infected needle and start treatment immediately (within 12-24 hours) often you can eliminate the virus before it gets established. But once it gets established there is no way to get rid of it. But its kind of a one time deal; if you're regularly having unprotected sex, it's not like you can receive the treatment several times a month.

And HIV is not automatically a death sentence anymore. Take Magic Johnson, he is still symptom free after fourteen years and with any luck may survive long enough to see an effective treatment. We're getting closer all the time.

That being said, people do die from AIDS everyday, and the treatment is often horrendous. Taking 20 or 30 pills a day, setting your alarm clock to go off every two hours all night long to take more pills; severe diarhrea and flu-like side effects from the pills; fatigue, etc. So best to be careful, though I think RX-7 you are overstating the risk of infection from BBBJ. For one the the skin on the penis is fairly thick and not prone to tearing. Believe me if a SW tooth makes a break in your skin you'll know it. I mean right now.

Herpes and sypihlis sores make transmission possible. I do definately use a condom for FS.

Civ2K

I am not saying that if you get a bbbj that you are 100% gonna get infected... heck I am not even saying there is a 50%, or a 15% chance for that matter.... What I am trying to simply say is that you have a FAR greater chance of getting infected by a bbbj then a CBJ.

As for the cuts in the penis... you'd be amazed, the cut doesn't have to be a deep one or even bleeding. We are talking about a virus, a singled cell organism.... how big of a cut do you think you need? Chances are you have several cuts in your groin region right now. (Scratched your balls recently?) and don't even know it.

As for the chances of getting HIV from a BBJ from an infected partner.... I would have to out the odds at MAYBE 1-3% and even that sounds a bit high to me. (not a doctor... just have a family member that a microbiologist) but that means that if you got a BBJ from 100 infected people.... you're infected too!

As for Magic Johnson... he's lucky! He's been getting great care, great doctors, was in great shape to start. But eventually he will die fromt he disease... the clock is ticking down for him. Maybe not this year, or the next, or even the next.... but eventually he will run out of time.

As for a cure? God I hope it comes soon! There are so many great people in this world who are sick and dying right now cause of this disease, It would be wonderful if we could cure them all soon. Sadly I think the first thing that will come will be a vaxination which would be great for all of us non-infected, but shitty for those that are.

RX-7, you're waaay high on those odds. I've read that the odds of being infected by HIV from a single needle prick from a contaminated needle are about 1 in 300 (ten times more likely to get Hep C under the same scenario, btw) The figure I've seen says that the risk to the person [i]giving[/i] a blowjob without a condom is basically the same as the risk for someone using a condom while having anal sex with someone whose infection status is unknown -- around 0.04%. The odds while being a recipient of a blow are far lower still.

In other words, it's much safer to receive an uncovered blowjob (in terms of HIV transmission) than it is to have protected anal sex.

interesting.... could you post a link to that source? Or tell me the source? I just want to compare it to the info I have from the links I have listed below and see if I miss-read, or something.

RX7,

On the site "Go Ask Alice" which is conducted by the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons for the student body, they state that the chances of getting HIV from a BBBJ are almost "non-existent." Of course, you can get herpes and a whole array of STD's from a BBBJ. Overall, they feel that BBBJ's represents low risk behavior for the receiver.

"Go Ask Alice" is a highly respected site and is often quoted health and mental health personnel. I'd highly recommend it and I think that you would enjoy the site. I do.

Paddy

thanks Paddy.. I'll check it out.

RX7,

If you or any of the other guys are interested, the website address for "Go Ask Alice" is www.goaskalice.columbia.edu.

Just click on Sexual Health and they cover just about everything imaginable in regard to human sexual behavior. It's a fascinating site. As I read the Q&A's I'm always amazed at the weird stuff that kids are into. They also update the Q&A responses as medical knowledge evolves.

RX-7, the CDC did a study aboput four years ago that reported the stats I mention (can't manage to put my hands on it at the moment, naturally, but I'll go through my history links and see if I can track it down.)

JZ, if it's on the CDC site I can find it... just have to dig deep enough

rx-7 i was just on the cdc web site, and did a search under oral sex. i was surprised it said, they have documented a few cases of hiv from bbbj. i always asumed that they didn't have any cases, but knew it was possible to get hiv that way, but the chances were very very low to almost non-existent.

rx-7, i still feel this way, after reading all this information, so please let me enjoy my bbbj. its one of the few pleasures i left left in life. i been getting bbbj for years, and have never caugh anything from them. once i went to the doctor, because my penis was a little red on the top, and felt a little itchy and weird.
i went to the doctor and admitted i was with a prostitute, but only had oral sex. the doctor said, its hard to catch anything from oral sex, and the girl just sucked too hard. he gave me some antibiotics just in case, and said don't worry about it. he also only gave me a [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109][CodeWord109][/url] test that was negative.

Enjoy all you like Pokey, I am not here to try to rain on your parade. Just someone (I can;t even remember who) asked if you could catch HIV/AIDS from a BBBJ and the answer is "yes" If you find that the level of risk is acceptable to you then go for. Personally, I prefer to limit any chance as much as humanly possible.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=457294&section=news

The agency also reported a 27 percent increase in HIV infections among heterosexuals, but added that 80 percent of the cases were infected in countries with a high prevalence of HIV.

As always totally amazed at the number of you guys doing the DATY and having sex with no protection etc etc

I just wanted to inform everyone that you can get a STD from oral, because I have gotten twice. Luckily it was just Gonnera or Clyamdia, so I was able to get it cleared up. I would suggest usiing a condom for oral and anything else, because the feeling of those STD's is not comfortable at all, and it is just not worth the trouble, IMHO.

Does anybody know what urea plasma or plasma urea is? I have a friend in Europe who has that. I tried to look it up, but I can't find any information about it.

[size=-2][u]EDITOR's NOTE[/u]: [blue]Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions to add standard [u]capitalization and punctuation[/u]. To avoid delays in future reports, please refrain from using the "chat room" style of writing with no caps or punctuation. [i]Thanks![/i][/blue][/size]

AIDS. 2002 Jun 14;16(9):1296-7.

Evaluating the risk of HIV transmission through unprotected orogenital sex.

del Romero J, Marincovich B, Castilla J, Garcia S, Campo J, Hernando V, Rodriguez C.

Centro Sanitario Sandoval, Servicio Regional de Salud, Madrid, Spain.

We analysed a cohort of heterosexual HIV- serodiscordant couples with the aim of evaluating the risk of transmission ascribed to unprotected orogenital intercourse. A total of 135 seronegative individuals (110 women and 25 men), whose only risk exposure to HIV was unprotected orogenital sex with their infected partner, registered 210 person-years of follow-up. After an estimated total of over 19,000 unprotected orogenital exposures with the infected partner not a single HIV seroconversion occurred.

Ann Intern Med. 1998 Feb 15;128(4):306-12. Related Articles, Links

The care of persons with recent sexual exposure to HIV.

Katz MH, Gerberding JL.

San Francisco Department of Public Health, California, USA.

Until recently, patients had little motivation to seek medical care soon after sexual exposure to HIV. However, evidence that antiretroviral treatment prevents HIV infection after occupational exposure has led to the recommendation that prophylaxis be considered after sexual exposure. This recommendation will result in an increased number of recently exposed patients presenting for care. Clinicians should seize this opportunity to reach persons who are at high risk for HIV seroconversion and provide them with evaluation, treatment, and counseling. A comprehensive approach to the care of persons recently exposed to HIV is proposed. Candidates for postexposure prophylaxis should be identified and given appropriate antiretroviral treatment. Physicians must perform HIV antibody testing to determine which persons are already infected with HIV and must do baseline laboratory studies. Follow-up care includes assessment of side effects from postexposure treatment and surveillance for development of primary HIV infection. Most important, clinicians must provide risk-reduction counseling to decrease the chance of future exposures. Public health messages must emphasize that postexposure treatment should be used only as a backup for failure of primary prevention methods, such as avoidance of high-risk sexual exposures or use of condoms.

I'm a very panicky *****monger. Like I'm naturally anxious so I'm wonderin what are the rates of STD transmissal with condom use in heterosexual sex? I know the info's probably somewhere but please help me out. Also, is dousing your penis with alcohol after sex a good precaution to kill any germs that might have slipped thru the condom?

[size=-2][u]EDITOR's NOTE[/u]: [blue]Posting of this report was delayed pending revisions to [u]correctly spell the words "you", "are" and "because"[/u]. To avoid delays in future reports, please refrain from using "u" instead of "you", "r" instead or "are", "em" instead of "them", and "cuz" instead of "because", etc. [i]Thanks![/i][/blue][/size]

Panicky monger, Condoms are relatively good, but only if they are used correctly. Germs typically don't "get through" a condom, unless the integrity of the condom is compromised (pinholes, tearing, etc.) Also, remember that sheep membrane condoms (Naturalamb, etc.) do not adequately guard against the transmission of S.T.I. Secondly, dousing your penis with alcohol after the fact is poor prophylaxis (disease prevention), as any bacteria or viruses will have entered your body via the urethral opening ("[url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140][CodeWord140][/url] slit") at the end of your member, presuming that you have no open wounds, scratches etc. on your penis. Also, do not forget that DATY, while safer than some forms of unprotected sexual contact, can allow herpes, clamydia and other illnesses to enter your body; even DFK can transmit everything from oral gonorrhea to the common cold! Sexual advice is readily available, including a wide variety of online resources. Use them.

And please, play safely.

BL

Just want to throw this in the fray and see what you guys think. I went to the public health center in Denver a year or two ago after some risky behavior in Thailand.

Here's what the counselor said, almost verbatum:

"I don't want to give you carte blanche to go back to Asia and have unprotected sex, but it is very hard for men to contract HIV through unorotected heterosexual sex.

I kind of did take it as carte blanche because I am addicted to BB everything and giving oral but I know common sense tells me that's foolish.

In fact I was just getting ready to go to the Miari RDL in Seoul tonight and get nasty but after reading these posts I'm a little bummed at the thought that I really ought to wrap my rascal.

Thoughts?

Good information Ashton. Enjoy life and don't believe the puritan fear-mongers.

Ashton,

Regarding what the counselor at the Denver Public Health Center told you, he or she should be promptly removed from that position. Just look at what is happening in Africa where HIV/AIDS is rampant. It is overwhelmingly through unprotected heterosexual sex. I am African and I have lost a lot of friends through HIV/AIDS. There are seven doctors in my family and I am in the medical field so I have seen more than you want to see. It is really horrible to watch someone die of AIDS. It is popularly known as the "Wasting Disease" in a lot of African nations. Yes, I am monger and I always wear condom. Please protect yourself and your partner by wearing condom.

Have fun.

Member #1846

Ok guys, we need to set a few things straight and using Clandestine's posted references is a good place to start. Form what Clandestine posted, I think he is trying to suggest there is medical evidence to back up the idea that quick post-exposure medication can stop infection and that HIV is not transmissable through bbbj.

If you delve further into the article from the annals of internal medicine, you will find that "The probability is highest with unprotected receptive anal intercourse (0.008 to 0.032). The risk is higher with receptive vaginal intercourse (0.0005 to 0.0015) than with insertive vaginal intercourse (0.0003 to 0.0009) . No per-contact estimates of risk with insertive anal intercourse or with oral intercourse have been published, although seroconversion as a result of oral sex has been documented." The short and skinny there is that the odds are very low. If you understand statistics, you will realize that those odds don't really apply to you when you stick your wang in someone. Those are average odds for LOTS of people. If you do it with someone once, you can get it, or if you do it with someone 100 times, you might not get it. The thing is, you can get it and if you are one of those who does, you are 100% infected and you are going to die from it. Also, please understand that while those numbers may seem low, millions of people are infected each year and those low odds don't help them.


Another thing to take away from this article is that it is not saying you can prevent HIV infection by quick post-exposure treatment. It says in the text of the article " evidence that postexposure treatment with zidovudine is associated with a significant decrease in risk for occupational HIV infection." What that means is NOT that you can prevent infection. It means that if you count up the people who did not get treatment and were exposed and the people who did get treatment and were exposed, there were less in the treatment group that ended up with disease. There were still people that were infected even after taking the drug, just as there were people who were not infected when they didn't take the drug. Also, The authors of the study admit that their results are statistically insignificant and could therefore be the result of some unknown bias in their study.

As to the other report that Clandestine mentions, the authors state that they didn't find any seroconversion in 19,000 oral sexual encounters. That would corresponde to a risk only ten-fold less than that of insertive vaginal intercourse. I would expect the risk to be much lower than that so this study really doesn't tell us much. Also, the authors trusted the word of the participants that they did not have unprotected vaginal sex. It is well-established that trusting participants statements on these type of things is not a good idea.

BTW, AIDS IS a death sentence. With intensive drug therapy, one can last a long time without symptoms, but there is NO cure. Viral loads can be reduced to below the detectable limit, but there is still virus and that person still has HIV, and unless a cure is found, that person will die from it.

My 2 cents,

After hearing of a woman whom I've had sex with on and off for a couple years was HIV+ I not only panicked, but did some studying. I also got tested and was neg (whew!).

Our intercourse (both vag & anal) were covered, but DATY & BBBJ were also tossed in often.

The facts I came across were similar to your posts, you need an exchange of body fluids through a cut or some other entry into the body (kissing per say may allow fluids into the body, but the stomach acid is too strong for the virus).

Therefore us gentlemen who are the inserters (hopefully?!?) are less likely to pick up the fluids of our partners. Oral, if you have no cuts, is safe for that reason but let's face it, you could have a small cut from some food that could allow some fluids in. The same with the genital areas.

Like Bradman said they are odds, in our favor, but only odds.

What's the old saying, 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'.

I had a lot to think about while I was waiting my results and my biggest concern was spreading it to others, hey if I played the game and lost that's my fault. If I prefer BBBJ and get the virus, only my blame.

Anyway, my rant sorry guys

migrant

Attached is a link to Internal Medicine News regarding a new oral HIV antibody test which may be available this summer. Notice the statistic that 40% of those infected with the virus only find out after they have been diagnosed with AIDS.
[url]www2.einternalmedicinenews.com/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=full&id=aqm04037901d[/url]

I am just so amazed by all contributors to this discussion doing nothing else but quoting from medical journals and researches and doctors opinions and etcetera.

Do not anybody do their own thinking here?

AIDS is a multibillion dollar business as is all kind of "healthcare". In fact it should be called "sickness care" as good health is no business for no one. Disease on the other hand is the business. Therefore you are led to believe that you need to spend so much money to care for your "health".

I think that good health is for free. It costs nothing. And also you cannot buy it. It is just a mental state when you discard all the bullshit that comes at you through your eyes and ears and you do your own thinking. First of all you avoid those who profit from the selling of disease, medicines, etc. The doctors, researchers, scientists.

Therefore nobody profits from people having good health. But creating mass histeria about some invisible enemies, invaders, germs, viruses that you can fight off by applying some powerful weapon medication, ointment, pill, surgery is great business. Money, $$$. (And also it is great business to create mass histeria about evil terrorists. That being another story but closely related.)

So, just take all the medical researches with a great amount of scepticism. Whoever doesn't agree with the system that makes the money will not be funded anymore. Finished, cut off. There are scientists who have concluded that the whole AIDS scare is bullshit but their voice is very small because of course they are not allocated research funds any more.

Also, researches conclude whatever they were supposed to conclude. Figures show what they are worth in $$$. There is no point at all to publish figures that are not worth $$. Researchers and scientists are people too. They have lives, families, pets, mortgages and most importantly they have women in their lives.All these things cost $$$. (Especially the latter one).

Please calm down and do some thinking of your own. Whoever wants to die will die. Whoever wants to live will live. Eventually we all reach the point when we no longer want to live then we die. Whoever wants to live will not die and whoever wants to die cannot live. This is beyond science and has been proven ever and ever again. Is this correct?

So, why all this scientific sounding jargon about viruses and bacterias and enzimes and shit. Just make sure that you have willpower to live and you will live irrespective of any microscopic creatures in any bodily fluid of yours. Also, if you have no zest for life, you don't want to live, no amount of medications will keep you alive.

All these things cost zero money therefore are no great business for no one. So, the voice is very little. But after reading some of the discussion on this subject I had to laugh and to make this note.

It's so funny. Adult men taking things that they read or hear at face value and believe that they are true because they have been told so. (Same goes for "international terrorism" too, I guess).

So, who dies of AIDS today? And who dies of car accidents? And of malaria? And so on. The point is not what you die of but that you die. Bugs do not get into a healthy tree. Make sure that you are healthy and at peace and you will live to the longest possible extent. And when your willpower is dead then you are dead too. Then the bug of whatever takes you.

The motto of our platoon in the Army was "Vigilance". That is the point. Just to be vigilant for life.

I don't mean this to be a religious teaching any more than you could call a movie "Natural Born Killers" (with Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis) a religious film. Do you remember the line when they ask Mickey (Harrelson) why he kills people? His answer is: "I don't kill anyone. These people are already dead. I just put them out of their misery."

And so does AIDS and malaria and head on collisions. So, who's going to put you out of your misery today? And what pill are you going to take against it?

Did all this make any sense?

About the writer:

If you do a search you will find that Alexander is no missionary of any sort but has done some serious pussy hunting and is intending to do so for another few years. Nevertheless there is a philosophy behind all the game. It's better to do it that way, I guess.

wow!!!! alexander, that is truly one of the most astonishingly large piles of crap that i have ever read.

as one of those scientists who researches those "viruses and bacterias and enzimes and shit" (and one who knows we don't make very much money at all), i can tell you that i don't take anything i read at face value. i am, however, educated enough to know when research is sound and when results of studies are worthwhile.

i certainly don't do what i do for the money. i could have been a surgeon and earned craploads of cash, but instead i work in a lab earning shit and trying to solve problems to help people, even people like you who don't believe you need help. you said that whoever wants to live will not die and that it has been proven. when has that ever been proven? i tell you what, you come into my lab, and rub some of the bacteria that i work with on yourself. i guarantee that however much you want to live, you won't. the only chance you will have for survival is to take medicine developed by the "sickness care" business.

i can also tell you that the conclusions of the research i and every scientist i know are not dependent on anything but scientific evidence. i am sure there are people out there who are corrupt, just the same as there are corrupt cops, politicians, lawyers, schoolteachers, and everything else. but the outcome of most science is not determined by who writes the check. what you don't realize is that when people do fake their science, there is a peer review process that allows other non-crooked scientists can decide whether the work is crap or not. that is the reason those "scientists" who believe the aids scare is fake have no voice. they don't get funded anymore because real scientists know they are full of shit and don't want to waste money on worthless studies.

everything we do in life has risks. some more than others. it is possible that you could catch malaria, or get killed in a head-on collision, or get aids. the reason that some of us are quoting from medical journals in this forum is because the studies done in those journals provide us with estimates of that risk. that way, those of us who want to make informed decisions on where to stick our wangs, can do so without blindly wondering if we have enough zest for life to survive hiv infection.

the reason your army platoon had a motto of "vigilance" was not so that you could imagine you would be safe, but so that you would be vigilant and not get killed while being a dumbass and not paying attention. i'm sure your commander would allow you to walk into enemy fire when you told him "it's ok, i want to live, i won't get hurt by that bullet coming straight at my head."

so i guess the answer to your question is "yes, some people do their own thinking here."

Nice post, Bradman. Good, scientific information is always welcome on these boards.


I believe that 'The Truth about AIDS' is as follows:

(1) HIV/AIDS is primarily transmitted via blood and sexual organ fluids.
(2) Wearing a condom (if it doesn't break) is a great deterrant against contraction of this disease. Primary prevention is the key.
(3) If one is worried having HIV/AIDS, one should see a physican and get an ELISA test. Early treatment can prolong your life.
(4) If one's ELISA test is negative 6 months after potential exposure, then that person is about 99.9% likely to not have contracted HIV.
(5) 1 million people in the US are HIV positive, but only half or less currently know it. That's about 1 in 250 people living in the US.

We all take our own calculated risks, and we are all entitled to our own opinions and actions. In my opinion, I agree that the drug/medical industry is monetarily driven. Nonetheless, it is also saving and helping lives and, without it, we would all be at a loss.

Alexander, if the industry simply wished to make money, they would never make ads to support primary prevention; after all, they would lose customers. Nonetheless, it is a well-known fact that many companies (ie. Pfizer, etc.) take the time and spend profits in order to advertise primary prevention, and it has been a key in what physicians and other medical providers preach. The system isn't perfect, but it provides enough for us become educated and help ourselves.


Alexander wrote, "The point is not what you die of, but that you die."

Again, you are entitled to your philosophy. However, my weary eyes have seen too many people stricken by AIDS, mutilated by head-on collisions, and, even in the states, inpacitated by malaria. The majority of these people do not simply embrace fate as stoically as you stated in your soliloquy. In contrast, many of these people ardently wish that they could have prevented their tragedy, and they work at educating themselves, their friends, and their families, so that others will not make the same mistake that they had made. The point 'truly is' what they are 'dieing of' or 'hurting from.'

I cannot believe that the Army simply defines vigilance in the l'aissez faire manner that you have written, Alexander; as you hopefully know, your context was a bit off in that soldiers should "simply be vigilant of life." Indeed, I believe that soldiers must be extremely vigilant and well-prepared at all times.

Personally, I take risks, as well, but they are calculated risks that I have studied carefully. One cannot fault others for becoming worried and asking for advice. Their paranoia is not simply our unwanton burden; their paranoia is exposed for others to educate and empower.



That's my two bits. You can take it or leave it, my friends.

i agree with everybody here, even with those who do not agree with each other.

the aids industry is a multi billion dollar industry. i will be at the aids conference in bangkok in july and i will be doing field work to see how many bangkok hookers do bareback, bbbj, anal etc. unfortunatley, i have to fund my own research. if any of you guys can help with frequent flyer miles (on virgin airways or on thai hookers) that would be good. vouchers for pizzaland near nana would also help.

i too am a scientist and i would have cured aids and cancer years ago only i am too busy fucking hookers to do the final push on my research. the world will have to wait until i get over this hobby.

if your elisa test is negative 666 months after potential exposure, then you are about 99.999% likely to not have contracted hiv. though you could have the measles for all i know or care.

""please calm down and do some thinking of your own. whoever wants to die will die. whoever wants to live will live. eventually we all reach the point when we no longer want to live then we die. whoever wants to live will not die and whoever wants to die cannot live. this is beyond science and has been proven ever and ever again. is this correct?" yes it is correct alexander (the great.) and whatever about science, it is beyond me. i have taken your advice and calmed down as i am on lithium, taking a break from viagra which the kind drug peddlers of pfizer supply me with.

whacko scientists are still funded by creationists and others. i am an exception in that no one will fund my field research. this is so even though i publish my findings here for it to be peer reviewed.

i like your line that "bugs do not get into a healthy tree". that is good news for my wooden leg. i must remember to repeat it when i am trying to convince thai skanks/trees of the advantages of going bareback with me. maybe i should just fuck |thai trees instead.

the motto of my platoon was also "vigilance". i once knew a hooker with that name. she got pregnant. maybe her motto was "no vigilance".

i am also glad you take your philosophy from "natural born killers" (with woody harrelson and juliette lewis). it should be required watching for us all.

as to your question of " so, who's going to put you out of your misery today?" i am. i am going to eat a few king sized pizzas, stop reading this for today and watch natural born killers(with woody harrelson and juliette lewis a pizza packed 3 sum).

"did all this make any sense?" no, it didn't. i must have dropped a bad tab of acid.

peace & pizzas.

Gentlemen,

I never thought my poss. biggest contribution would come in this section!

I have been to Brazil 5 times since my friend had a wedding there 2 years ago. Obviously, I fell in Love with way of life and everything, but most of all the wonderful selection of hotties. Anyway, my 1st time there, I really got carried away, we went to Porto Seguro as well and there were many girls available and one night I picked one up from a club, no money ever discussed, we went to the beach and had sex,……..with out condom! She was a beautiful college student of 20, I was drunk, had no condoms in some tiny village at 5.00am, the odds were stacked against me and my little head gave in! This was unusual for me as I always have protected sex with one nighters or casual lovers. So, my behaviour was playing a little in my mind, but this quickly went after the next trip. I managed to stay safe again in Brazil until last October where I ended up with a GFE for 6 days (3 days unprotected!) – she was what I call a semi gdp who I met with her friends on the beach in ipanema and took out to Melt that night, an 8 easy, tough to resist – have had gfe’s before but not unprotected, this girl was hot and was crazy for me to come insider her (I took her to pharmacy for pills next day before you ask!) Anyway, she had a rich boyfriend who was sending her money every month so did not do helpi or agency – I only paid her 1st 2 nights and then bought her a few gifts. As she put it, she did not need any money and had sex if she was herself hungry for it with someone she was attracted to - boyfriend only there 6 months a year to have sex with her and this was not good enough – this is probably a separate lesson for some of us guys! Anyway, she was having an operation to enlarge her beautiful breasts which this guy was paying for! Sorry, what I am trying to say and my point is she was all checked out before her operation which was in a week – I went to the doctor with her myself as she was a bit nervous before her operation – this girl was surely clean! Still in touch with this girl.

Now, back to the UK and it still played with me that I had unprotected sex with 2 girls even though risk was low and recent porn star guy new catching it did not help – my main worry, the one nighter as I had lots of protected sex in Rio before and my dick was a bit battered and bruised from condom sex - was also receiving messages through things (call it paranoia for now) that I should have an HIV test to overcome any doubts.

So finally last week (after deciding I went to go to Rio again soon), I booked an appointment at the local health centre to have a needle prick test as I didn’t want to wait 2-3 days for lab tests - was confident to be negative of-course. Went in on the day and was called, the test took like 5mins, but the whole process including the wait felt like 5hrs. Anyway, came back 20mins later for the result and she calls me in the room again which I thought unusual. Then she says she needs to do the test again as this one came up with a very faint line! I said, well what does this mean? She said that she has not seen one and she needs to do the test again and also take my blood through needle to send to lab just in case the next finger prick one comes out the same. So I again come back in 20 mins and this time the counsellor wants to see me!!!!!!!!!!! I SHAT MYSELF AT THIS POINT! I have survived a very bad car accident 2.5 years ago and a high fever bug I picked up in Malaysia 6 years ago. Anyway, this was a worse feeling even though no physical pain - I went totally empty – had my mongering finally caught up with me? Was it my one night stand in porto seguro or gfe last October! Anyway, he sat me down and said they could not get a result again and he could not tell me about the faint line! I asked him is it supposed to be clear totally if negative and he says YES from his experience, but also that when positive, there is clear red marks. He says we will know for sure when blood tests come back from lab in 2 days! YIKES!!

I went home and looked at this site and others for some info – I was very nervous and decided to call up further health centres to see if they had any experience of this faint red line. Got hold of this lady at a biggest health centre for HIV tests and I was relieved to hear her say they had 1 incident like the faint line and the guy was negative,..pheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew!She said the senior advisor would call me though. Felt a bit better although still in shock about the whole thing. Now the senior women rings me 3hrs later and says IF THERE IS ANY LINE THEN YOUR POSITIVE!! BOMB, again! I went null. I swear guys, like I said I have faced really bad pain and nearly died before, but this was different, HIV+, what would my family go through knowing am going to die from sex disease– this was my main concern. The senior ***** (explain later!) said she was there for counselling and I could call her or the other guy – I said, how is it possible, only 2 unprotected encounters with girl none anal, am not gay, no drug abuse, chances must have been so low, no symptoms either (although this may not be a determinant) – she said, did you have unprotected sex with a girl in Brazil and I said yes – she said well that’s how you have it! What could I say, she was right! She said there is an almost 2% chance I am negative, but we will know 100% in 2 days!

Anyway, tried to be positive the next day but it was hard – managed to do some more research and it was not all good, what with most sources citing 99% accuracy on finger prick tests.

I called the “result line” in 2 days – I did not want to wake up that morning and called more nearer afternoon! It was the same senior ***** lady who said, why did you not call us sooner, your councillor needs to speak to you. Didnt say anything else. I was sure I had it now as why would I need to speak to the councillor if I have called the result line for my results. Finally speak to the councillor who tells me that I am NEGATIVE! Oh man, what a roller coaster ride! I felt relief, but still empty. I suspect I was told positive as they could not risk me having sex with anyone whilst waiting for lab tests! Slightly harsh don't you think?

Anyway, he said he needs to still see me as he wants to make sure I am ok mentally after the experience. Well, I am ok, but it was another big eye opener in my life. That’s 3 lives used already. Went in and he said I must have a guardian angel looking after me cause the prick tests (how appropiatly named!) are very accurate. Anyway, they used 2 methods, one Elisa and another which totally proved I was negative. He said the prick result was probably due to massive blood transfusion I had 2 years ago after my car accident – even if blood given to me is negative, it can mess with the finger prick result. Hello!! I gave you this information before i had the test! Obviously now I would recommend anyone just go for the proper lab test results! I told him that people with so called faint lines should not be diagnosed as HIV+ like the ***** told me over the phone. He said they are still learning and this experience would help them and not many cases like me so this helped chill me out that I knew this experience could help others.This post as well guys, take it as you will and am not here to spoil anyones fun. I am certainly not going to stop my mongering but I will never put myself in that situation of unprotected sex again – am even going to give up BBBJ (and poss DATY - this is tough!) – covered sex from now for me unless I know girl is tested or know history. You might think this is extreme or sensible or whatever,…unless you go through 2 days thinking you have got HIV then you will never be able to feel how I feel about it. Durex Performa will be the tool of my trade from now ;)

It’s a really nasty disease and I hope the brilliant scientists and doctors find a cure for it – it’s a harsh price to pay cause even going BB, we as men and women are only doing what is human nature, but it sure is a deadly game to play so stay safe guys!

On a brighter note, I am going back to Rio for lots of PROTECTED sex in Sept :)

Rezza,

DAMN!!! I'll bet that was the scare of your life!!! Still, I'm glad everything turned out OK.

Maybe those guys at the clinic should familiarize themselves a little more with their tests; I know you said they haven't run into too many cases like yours, but we're talking about a mans' LIFE here for God's sake!

That isn't the time to NOT be sure.

Damn Rezza!!!

That is a harrowing, fucked up story. Glad you're alright though.

Rezza, that was a hell of a story! I'm glad things worked out for you and that everything is okay. I am even happier to hear that you aren't giving up mongering, but will never go it again unprotected!

I think protection is the key. As long as you protect yourself, you should be fine. I myself have been tempted to stop DATY and BBBJs, but I think the risk is low. But, then again, I don't want to live the experience that you described either!

Rezza,

Everytime I think about going unprotected, I just remind myself of a T-shirt I once saw: a johnson puttin' on a condom saying, "COVER ME - I'M GOING IN!"

Keep it in mind and stay safe!

Amen to that last sentiment, Boxcc. Rezza's story is as close as one can get to an object lesson without being a complete disaster.

If I were you, Rezza, I'd be getting follow-up tests for the next six months, just to be safe. As I'm sure you know by now, icubation periods vary, false positives do happen, and a clean test at any one instance doesn't necessarily mean absolute safety. I say this not at all to alarm you, (because you've clearly been through more than enough!) but as a way toward complete peace of mind.

Rezza,

Thanks for that harrowing report. As a newcomer to this site, and a rookie mongerer who is planning his first trip to Asia, your words really clarify the stomach churning fear that can become a part of anyone's life. All for passion. Yes, it is sooo hard to do the right thing at times, yet just imagine explaining to your children, or parents, or others close to you that you have this scarlet letter of a disease.

Best of luck in the future, and have a great time in S. America!

Lastly, thanks for all the honest reports on this site. Any dishonest writers, F.U.

I read that all cases of HIV transmission via oral sex has been that the one doing the "sucking" was the one to become infected. In the same article I read that there has not been any confirmed cases of becoming HIV+ from recieving oral. Can anyone confirm or deny this and perhaps provide a link for proof??

Fast tests and slow tests.

My understaning is that a test can be biased to show either false positive or false negative for various nasty bugs and other condidions.

The medical community for fast tests prefers false positives as the errors, since if they have a bug killer and give it to you then there is probably no harm done. Fast tests produce false positives as the desired type of error. Better than false negative wher your death could have been avoided if they had only given you the magic pill in time.

Having said that, their is no pill for AIDS and not likely to be any time soon.

Avoid crack *****s, needle addicts and women that look unhealthy like the plague. Or like AIDS to be more precise.

Germany is a good yard stick to use in measureing your behavior and that of your temporary partner.

AIDS Symptoms NIH

Although symptoms are not always present (asymptomatic), it makes good sense to inspect your partner. If she has any brains, she has probably already inspected you. Again, countries with real health systems and liscensed prostitutes are your safest bet. See Germany.

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000603.htm

AIDS-related complex - ARC; Chronic symptomatic HIV infection
Definition Return to top

Early symptomatic HIV infection is the stage of viral infection caused by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) where symptoms have begun to manifest, but before the development of AIDS (which involves life-threatening infections).
Causes, incidence, and risk factors Return to top

Early symptomatic HIV infection is characterized by signs and symptoms typical of HIV infection that are not AIDS-defining. These symptoms are usually not present in asymptomatic HIV infection.

The onset of symptoms signals the transition from HIV infection to HIV disease. However, at this stage of HIV infection, the person does not have AIDS-defining diseases of immune deficiency, such as opportunistic infections and/or certain cancers or a CD4 count of less than 200.

Risk factors for HIV infection are sexual contact with an infected sexual partner that includes exchange of semen or vaginal secretions, intravenous drug use, receipt of blood transfusion or blood components, or being born to an HIV-positive mother.

Symptoms Return to top

mouth disorders
hairy leukoplakia of tongue
oral thrush (a yeast infection of the mouth)
gingivitis
prolonged diarrhea
skin disorders
seborrheic dermatitis
molluscum contagiosum
dermatophyte infection (fungal infection of the skin or nails)
swollen lymph glands
sweating, excessive -- night sweats
bacterial pneumonia
prolonged fever
prolonged fatigue
malaise (vague feeling of discomfort)
weight loss
joint pain
peripheral neuropathy
pap smear that shows cervical dysplasia
recurrent herpes zoster -- herpes that occurs over a very discrete patch of skin
a rare disease called ITP (idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura) -- where your platelets are destroyed
Signs and tests Return to top

HIV ELISA/Western blot positive for HIV antibodies
Lab tests that indicate immune system suppression include:
CD4 lymphocyte count decreased
CBC, WBC less than 4,000
platelet count less than 100,000
skin test anergy -- no response to special skin tests used to test for infection or immune function
Treatment Return to top

Many of the symptoms of early symptomatic HIV infection can be successfully treated with medications. More important, the treatment of the HIV infection can prevent the onset of many of these conditions.

Antiviral therapy suppresses the replication of the HIV infection in the body. A combination of several antiretroviral agents, termed Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART) has been highly effective in reducing the number of HIV particles in the blood stream, and as a result, increasing the CD4 count.

Although people on HAART have suppressed levels of HIV, they can still transmit the virus to others through sex or needle sharing. HAART is not a cure for HIV, but the treatment slows disease progression and may strengthen the immune system (immune reconstitution).

Support Groups Return to top

For additional information and resources, see AIDS support group.
Expectations (prognosis) Return to top

There is no cure for HIV infection or AIDS. However, anti-retroviral therapy and HAART can dramatically improve the length and quality of life for people infected with HIV, and can delay the onset of AIDS. The treatments for conditions associated with early symptomatic HIV disease are variably effective, with some infections and disease processes being more readily treatable with medications.
Complications Return to top

Advanced HIV disease (AIDS), characterized by the development of opportunistic infections and malignancies (cancers), may develop.
Calling your health care provider Return to top

Call for an appointment with your health care provider if symptoms of chronic symptomatic HIV infection are present.

Call for an appointment with your health care provider if you have chronic symptomatic HIV infection and develop new symptoms.
Prevention Return to top

Safer sex behaviors may reduce the risk of acquiring the infection. There is a risk of acquiring the infection even if "safe sex" is practiced with the use of condoms. Abstinence is the only sure way to prevent sexual transmission of the virus.

Do not have sexual intercourse with:
people known or suspected to be infected with AIDS
numerous partners
people who have multiple partners
people who use IV drugs
Do not use intravenous drugs. If IV drugs are used, do not share needles or syringes.

People with AIDS or who have had positive antibody tests may pass the disease on to others and should not donate blood, plasma, body organs, or sperm. They should not exchange body fluids during sexual activity.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q: How long does it take for HIV to cause AIDS?

A: About half the people with HIV develop AIDS within 10 years after becoming infected. This time varies greatly from person to person and can depend on many factors. Today, medical treatments can slow the rate at which HIV weakens the immune system, thus preventing the onset of AIDS.

Q: How can I tell if I am infected with HIV?

A: The only way to determine for sure whether you are infected is to be tested for HIV infection. You cannot rely on symptoms to know whether or not you are infected with HIV. Many people who are infected with HIV do not have any symptoms at all for many years.

Q: How good is the current treatment for HIV infection?

A: The current treatment for HIV infection, termed HAART or highly active anti-retroviral therapy is very good. It suppresses the amount of HIV in the blood, allowing the immune system to recover. Mortality from AIDS has dropped since the introduction of HAART.

This treatment, however, is not a cure. Several patients become resistant to the benefits of HAART, and require "rescue" or "salvage" therapy be given in an attempt to continue to suppress HIV in the blood. Why some patients become resistant is unclear, but it may have to do with the strain of the virus and how compliant the patient was with taking his/her medication.

Update Date: 2/3/2004

Updated by: Kenneth Wener, M.D., Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/africa/03/aids_debate/html/default.stm

Quite a lot on AIDS on the BBC recently.

Would anyone admit to actually meeting or knowing an AIDS case? General question.

Sure, Rayman, I'll bite. I've known a pretty fair number of people with AIDS -- a large number in the gay community who were infected and died fairly early on, as well as one who's one of the longest surviving people (got it back in the early eighties) with the full-blown disease, several who got it via drugs, a handful of sex workers or ex- workers (though for the most part they're HIV positive rather than with full-blown AIDS) and I've also met any number of people while I was in Kenya and India who had it and a couple of hemophiliacs who got it via blood transfusions waaay back before the blood supply got cleaned up. I've also watched it take its toll on a couple of these folks down pretty much to the end -- it's not pretty.

Yes, Rayman, one of my greatest friends, a wit, raconteur, intellectual and twenty-five years ago he was as silly about being promiscuously gay as Muri is now about fucking prostitutes.

Difference? That was then, this is now. In 1980 he enjoyed the summer of his life, pre-AIDS, fucking any and every man. Meanwhile, Muri was chastely faithful to girlfriends, then wife.

Now Muri is divorced, and does his mongering clad in love's rubber armour. His friend is dead. Came from a good family, his parents forgave/understood him, he had all the love and medical care possible, but died young, slowly, horribly. And about TWELVE years ago, so why should there be any doubts about AIDS in the year 2004?

Ask the same question in Southern Africa and sit back for the harrowing answers.

Stay safe, AIDS is for real:

happy fucking,

Mur

Good Post Muri.

Can't say I know anyone personally, just anecdotal stories from guys I have worked with, and they (the stories) are getting a touch more numerous.

As for my situation: I am not much of a paying mongerer, but I indulge in 'rubber free' freebies most weeks, although never DATY. This I must stop.

I guess the following is slightly related to Rezza's post.
Early morning today a fellow co-worker came into my office white as a sheet and all nervous like, puffing away at his fag. Turned up that he had a rubber split on him whilst doing a russian pro., and asked me some advice on AIDS testing, and how long the incubation period was as he is also concerned about his girlfriend and a married woman he is having a fling with. Knowing him as a shallow sort, he will be bonking them both without protection within a few days after he calms down, and i guess this also goes to show how quickly the virus COULD spread. Thats all.

[quote]Yes, Rayman, one of my greatest friends, a wit, raconteur, intellectual and twenty-five years ago he was as silly about being promiscuously gay as Muri is now about fucking prostitutes.[/quote]Muri, do you ever worry about getting HIV even with the armour? I've had sex now with three prostitutes, each time using a condom. Yet I'm shitting myself. The last time, I ended up with a mate at this brothel in Lisbon (long story), we both had a girl, and the day after he started worrying himself sick about HIV. Now it's like I've caught his paranoia, going over every little thing that could have gone wrong. I think, I hope, I'm just being paranoid. It doesn't help having to wait three months for the results. Does it ever bother you, bearing in mind what happened to your mate?

Dear Mongers,

I have been reading on the net about aids. Hulda Clark (inventer of "zapper" a natural doctor) defends the opinion that Aids is caused by a intestinal fluke and benzene polution in the body. Benzene is a solvent and these two always excisting in the body who ever has aids. There are also many cases of aids where there is no HIV antibodies.

If you type on a search engine "benzene aids" will come up a lot of sites that talks about this.

Please give me your opinions.

Netsik

Dear Mongers

This a part of an e-mail I received from a health yahoo group that I belong. I think it is interesting.

" As a member of the local San Diego gay community, I am and have been very concerned about the gay community and HIV/AIDS. I understand that you work with Dr. Douglas Richman whom was just honored for his work in HIV/AIDS and AZT research. My concern is that with my 20 years here in San Diego, I have seen many of my friends die, supposedly from HIV/AIDS. But as I look back, I see that the only ones whom died were the ones that took medications, especially AZT, and/or those whom had been in extremely intense emotional pain. I also personally know many, many very long term HIV positive people right here in the San Diego Community, whom have always refused to take medications or have anything to do with the AIDS medical community, and all of the ones I know, are still alive and well and want nothing to do with the medications. Not a one of them has as yet died from AIDS. I even know personally several people that had tested positive for years and without ever having taken any type of HIV/AIDS drugs, suddenly no longer even test positive to HIV! As such, I really just end up believing that very possibly, and even most probably, the medical profession, in its very sincere and best efforts to help and do no harm, and zealousness to defeat HIV, has ended up killing more people than ever with deadly medications and is also most probably on the wrong track in pursuing the mysterious and elusive HIV retrovirus as the cause of AIDS. Also, with the help of the media and a fear filled mass hysteria driven public, and also driven by studies underwritten by pharmaceutical companies that stood to make fortunes by selling their drugs and gaining research money, people that have tested HIV positive have been filled with fear and despair that their immune systems would not function and would give out in the coming years. The never ending stress of even having that kind of belief is enough to kill anyone! These deadly medications, along with depression, fear, and despair that all people that test positive have succumbed to, has more than anything, in my opinion, caused their deaths. Do you know that none of the people that I personally know that have ever tested positive, has even been told that there are quite a number of PROVEN things that could be in their blood that would also cause a positive test? They go to UCSD and other doctors and are simply told to HIT HARD and HIT EARLY with expensive and toxic drugs. To this day, the supposed HIV retrovirus has never even been isolated. And to this day, there is still no proven connection that HIV even causes AIDS. I am sure that no one in the medical community wants to be wrong, and none wish to lose the jobs that they have all truly believed in for so long, and all involved would feel absolutely awful if it were to be found that the community is off track and has been since early on, but I see it as a very very strong possibility. Can you imagine how Dr. Richman himself would feel if it were to be found out that his drug trials had killed many many people? I truly doubt that He could allow himself to believe or even conceive it as it would be such a blow to him that he could not even live with himself."

Netsik

Netsik, it would be nice if somewhere, anywhere, there was even a mention of any kind of actual scientific testing process or study that had been done by either Clark or Byrnes (the other big proponent of Benzene as a cause) or anyone else to look at this. Thus far I've been unable to locate any, and given that Clark's theories are over a decade old, that's rather problematic. If this is something that actually works or is true, it surely would not be terribly difficult to set up clinical trials. It would also be nice if any of the people pushing this were actually trained as MDs as opposed to simply having PhDs in various chemical sciences.

I also find it highly problematic that Africa is essentially (and conveniently) dismissed within these equations and discussions as not being relevant, because it is "an epidemic of malnutrition and drought." There are also few, if any, references I can find to Asian AIDS victims, etc. Gee. Given that the culprit here -- benzene -- is something that's seen as primarily a byproduct of western civilization, this is very troubling.

Netsik,
Do you also believe in the toothfairy?
Good God buddy, be real, these people are nuts! We are way past the connection behind HIV=AIDS=DEATH!!

People who get this little simple nasty virus, always get sick and die! Only a few handful of very rare instances are there people who do not always progress to AIDS, with these less then, 01% they suspect their bodies produce a natural rare protein that blocks rapid reproduction of HIV. Other then these VERY rare cases, those who catch HIV will eventually always progress to an AIDS diagnosis. Modern medicines used to treat HIV only slow this progression but are not a silver bullet. as it stands today, if you catch HIV, you will still likely die from it. Only difference is, you might stand a chance at living 15-18 years rather then the old 7-11 years. The median life expectancy rate has yet to be determined since the new line of drugs has come about.

Also, yes, I do agree with you, that if they find medication to fully control HIV, you will likely eventually die from the side affects of of those medications, they are very toxic.

I think for all practical intents and purposes, a person who catches HIV today, can expect to live about 20 years MAX!

So yes, you still need to keep it covered or DIE young!

TANG~!

Does the name Magic Johnson mean anything to you? He announced he had the virus in 1992. 2004-1992 = 12 years and he is healthy. It's also worth noting that wife Cookie did not get the virus.

MAGIC = My Ass Got Infected, Coach

Facts about HIV and medications

1. The medication used to treat HIV are extremely toxic, so much so, that about 15% of those given them cannot sustain the regimen.

2. Many of the HIV medications used today are failing, this is called resistant HIV. Most scientists feel the virus is much smarter and in the long run will win the battle against the meds being thrown at it. The virus lies dormant deep within the bodies brain and lymph nodes, the virus is changing and mutating constantly! It will always emerge again within its host.

3. There is no way to know for certain the average life expectancy for those who catch HIV today, because the meds have only been out since about 1996. Most sceintists agree it will be about 20 years, for a healthy person who catches HIV and gets very early treatement. If you HIV for years and don't know it, then your life expectency would decrease significantly, as much damage would already be done prior to treatment.

4. Numerous people who began taking the miracle drugs in the mid 90s (protease inhibitors) are either developing resistant strains of HIV, thus seeing treatment failure, and HIV numbers jumping dramatically, or are having serious liver, kidney, cancer, intestinal problems causing death in many cases associated with the side affects the medication they have been taking.

None of us know for certain Magic's overall health status, he is just one of millions of people who have the disease. There are rumors that his liver has begun to have problems. The list of meds he is taking grows every year, due to intense side affects from the drugs he is on. He also appears bloated, and his skin is blotchy. He does not look like the picture of health these days and remember whenever you or I see Magic, he is made up for television, makeup and all.. I guarantee you, his health will deteriorate sooner or later. He is noted for making, more and more frequent doctor's visits also.?? There are also rumors that he recently had to switch drugs for the third time in the past 12 months as the protease inhibitors he has been taking are failing and the virus jumped dramatically, causing a reduction in his T-cell counts. Magic, fails to address these issues publicly.

Dickhead, it's your life, if you really believe HIV is so damn hard to catch, why do you think so many fricken people have it? Because it's so hard to catch right? WRONG buddy!

The WHO, is predicting a huge epidemic of HIV throughout Europe and Asia coming in the next decade. Half of Africa already has it. These disease is not going away and will flourish. It's easier to catch then we have all been lead to believe. There are many strains mutating all the time. Get real and play safe, or die. It's really a rather simple concept.

TANG~!

I never said [b]anything[/b] about how hard or easy it is to [b]catch[/b] AIDS and I never have. I was question your assertion that eveyone who gets it dies. Well, everyone who gets it [b]does[/b] die because the death rate is one per capita, but do they die of AIDS? That is what you haven't supported.

I haven't noticed Magic being blotchy but I will admit I have pretty much given up on the NBA and am watching mostly college hoops. But is he bloated or did he just gain some weight after retiring like most competitive athletes do? Magic's been pretty open about his whole AIDS situation so I would think he would be open about a significant deterioration in his health also. I could be wrong.

To avoid AIDS, either avoid sex or wrap it up. Also don't shoot up drugs or butt fuck. Me, I think if I avoid shooting up and butt fucking, getting BBBJ is an acceptable risk although certainly non-zero. The way they drive down here I'll be lucky to last 20 more years anyway.

But if I get AIDS or any type of cancer, I am not going to take a bunch of drugs that make me feel like shit. I am going to die on my feet and not live on my knees. Same goes for prostate problems. Not gonna take drugs that make me impotent. Gonna live til I die.

This I totally agree with.
As they say, get busy living, or get busy dying! This applies to life in general.

I would never let them cut out my prostate. I'll die with hard-on and a smile, before I live an extra few years with no pecker. Life is about quality and not quantity. I like you wrap it up for everything but receiving oral. I also won't go down on the girls even though I enjoy this a lot. I save that for my regular faithful girlfriends, whom I'm sure have no diseases of any kind.
To me a covered blowjob is not a blowjob at all. I will accept this risk and only this risk, as i agree it is low. However, the possibilities due to blood in the mouth is always there. I have never been into anything anal and have never taken any form of street drugs in my life. The only possible risk I have even taken is receiving oral sex without a condom, this I have done 1000s of times and I do get tested regularly.

TANG~!



Dickehead quote: "I am not going to take a bunch of drugs that make me feel like shit. I am going to die on my feet and not live on my knees. Same goes for prostate problems. Not gonna take drugs that make me impotent. Gonna live til I die."

I have gone down on 100s of hookers and I have gotten a few sore throats that [b]may[/b] have been related. Nothing else. Of course alcohol does help kill germs so I try to keep a fairly high level in my system at all times.

Down here, it is impossible not to eat some of these sweet, sweet girls. I use the rule my brother taught me when I was 14: "If it smells good, eat it."

Certainly the scientific community is divided and they are cases such as Magic wife (and Paul Michael Glazer (Starsky fame)) whose infected partner did don't pass on the virus. BUT until this debate is finalised I am bagging it up EVERY time with pros, never DATY and at my discretion with non-pros. As a p.o.v. we should be balanced when looking at the risks and BTW, I have just received my health card and it is all aok..great :-)

Netsik,

Please don't take this the wrong way.

Your reference for your beliefs is an e-mail you got through a yahoo health group. So what? There are yahoo groups where people will tell you, in all sincerity, that the earth is flat.

Yes, people argue "If HIV causes AIDS, why are there documented cases of AIDS without HIV?"

Good question. Let's also ask, "If the influenza virus causes influenza, why arethere documented cases of influenza without the influenza virus?" The answer is that the diagnosis of a disease like influenza or AIDS is from a bag full of symptoms. And you can get influenze from chemical exposure.

The benzene connection is an interesting one as long as you believe, like people did 20 years ago, that AIDS is a disease of homosexuals. Yeah, homosexuals are exposed the the materials in certain lubes. But the really explosive growth in AIDS infections is among heteros in Africa, India, and China. Not places known for lube use.

The vast majority of people with AIDS have verifiable elevated HIV antigen levels. That is evidence that they have HIV in their systems. The extremely high levels of HIV antigens in those who die shows that their bodies are fighting hard against HIV.

Your quoted message says that the folks with HIV who died of AIDS either took drugs or were unhappy. Well, being sick makes people unhappy. Makes them feel bad. Many such folks will go to a doctor and take drugs. So yes, there are few people who never take drugs and never get unhappy and who have already died of AIDS. The word "already" governs here.

As you pointed out in your first post, "Dr." Hulda Clark is behind lots of the opinions you hold. Check her out on "Quack Watch".
She bases her 'treatments' on her degree as a 'naturopath.' She bought the degree for $695 from a correspondence school (unaccredited) in Clayton, Alabama.

"Dr." Clark also claims to treat all cancers, 100% of them, all patients recover, in 5 days. Also all other diseases. She does this by removing any fillings from your mouth, then administering a purgative. She says this clears up liver fluke (it does not) which along with metal fillings are the source of all disease.

Now think about this: Metal fillings are just a few hundred years old. Was there disease before there were dentists? If so, Clark would seem to be a fraud.

Hot Diggidy Dog,

I fully agree, we are past the "does HIV cause AIDS" debate. Yes it does! It's been proven long ago. However, the college you mention is accredited and the leader in holistic medicinal values in the world. They are for real. Mrs. Clark, is indeed a quack.

My biggest and only fear about HIV, is can you get the disease from receiving a bbbj, (BLOWJOB WITH no CONDOM) I've had quite a few of these in my days and with numerous girls. I do everything else with a condom. I accpet the risk, I just wish I knew for sure, how much risk, I am in fact accpeting?!?!?!

I do get tested every 6 months, for peace of mind, all negative to date. Will my luck run out? About 70% of men who seek out the services of a prostitute, also take their BJ bareback. I just figure is there was a huge risk, many mongers would be coming down with HIV.

I personally think there is a much bigger risk going to a local nightclub and taking home a girl and having unprotected sex with her, then there is getting a BBBJ from a working girl and screwing with a condom on.

Tang~!

GettingTang:

Getting AIDS by BBBJ is certainly possible, but not more likely than your plane crashing. In both of these, you're sure to die, but the chances of facing that deathly situation is tiny enough to be ignored. Briefly, if you're not afraid to use airplanes, you shouldn't be that much afraid of getting a BBBJ.

I had unprotected sex once, and I was scared shitless about catching HIV. I phoned the local AIDS line and asked a few things.. He said, unless you're the one performing the oral sex instead of the one getting it, chances of contracting HIV are extremely slim. Unless your willy, your partner's pussy or ass, or her gums have some open scars, your chances of getting AIDS from an infected woman is less than 2%.

As long as you avoid uncovered anal sex, you have no reason to tremble with fear of AIDS. But then again, I have to give my friendly advice too: Once you get fear strucken by the thought of a possible STD, even seeing your negative test result will cease to help at some point. I lost my health for quite a while because of that, and had to use medication to get back to my mental health.

Right now, if someone pointed a gun at me and told me to either eat a pile of dung or get a BBBJ, I'd certainly eat the pile of dung, although I know the risk of a BBBJ is tiny. Remember even some lesbians end up with HIV, and this is way too serious to leave to chance. You're probably lucky enough not to get the virus, but if you're not, you're dead.. :-(

So you'd better get your sucks covered at least when you're doing a street hooker.



Dickhead:

Magic Johnson never announced whether or not he was cerropositive (?). Which means, some people will carry the virus, but the virus won't be capable of damaging their immune system like it does to normal people. No stats have been taken regarding this issue, but a common wild guess by the authorities say 1 black person in every 300 have this thing, and are basically immune to AIDS. But we white asses are shit out of luck. The same wild guess says 1 white woman out of every 800 is likely to carry this cerropositive gene, while the number in white men is almost funny compared to that. My uncle's friend shot some porn flicks in Germany, caught HIV, and of course he fucked his wife too! Now his wife carries AIDS, but she's as healthy as you and me because the virus can't do shit to her. But if someone fucks her, he'll get the virus and most likely die. And the man is spending his last years as an alive person.. :-( (All these people are pure white arian)

So don't you ever get fooled by the Magic Johnson case, he might be cerropositive, or hell he could even be in it for the sake of advertising and simply lying! You know those people, Britney was a virgin too..



Slightly off-topic, but I also want to share something I learnt while I was afraid and searching about AIDS for that reason. If you get into a suspicious intercourse, and have the fear of having caught AIDS, you can apply for an antibiotic profphilaxy within the first 72 hours following the intercourse. This is basically loading your body with a whole lot of antibiotics, and causing your body to produce so many anticors that the virii will have no chance to reproduce as they'll be busy fighting these anticors. When they can't reproduce enough, they'll fall weak and start dying rapidly. That way, even if you got the virus and there's no medicine to heal it, all the virii in your blood will die and you'll no longer have HIV in your blood. When you go for such a treatment, you have to go under a PCR test every week within the first month, and then a regular Eliza test every 3 months for a year. That way you'll be certain whether the virus has fucked off or is still around. But you have to do this within 72 hours of the intercourse, and take the PCR tests regularly.

PCR test is a test that differs from the regular Eliza in way of seeking out the virus. Eliza searches for the anticors in your blood, which means it won't give a healthy result if you apply it before the time your immune system requires to produce a sufficient number of anticors. PCR test on the other hand, searches directly for the virus itself, and it'll give a healthy result as of the first month after the suspicious intercourse. This test is unfortunately rather expensive, starting from 200 bucks or such. And the antibiotic prophilaxy is nowhere cheaper.

please don't feel like i'm contradicting what you just said...i'm just adding some more to it. :)

post exposure prophylaxis (pep) is quite a risky treatment. not only can it make you pretty darn sick, but it can - possibly - cause more trouble than it solves. like cachondito said, it aims to stop you from contracting the virus with large doses of medication. however, if you are unlucky enough to have the virus survive and you become infected, there is a chance that all that medication could have made the virus more resistant to future treatment. pep is effective, but, like most medications, certainly not 100%.

pep is usually only recommended when you are absolutely, positively sure that the other person was hiv+ (for example in an occupational setting, where a doctor may get a needle stick injury from a known hiv+ patient). unless your doctor is a money-hungry creep, he/she would more than likely talk you out the treatment (or refuse it) after having unprotected sex with a sex worker. (that may be different in countries with very high infection rates among sex workers, i guess). the chances of a man contracting hiv from a woman are really very small and although you shouldn't be complacent about the risks - you shouldn't panic too much, either. you have much, much more chance of catching some other nasty. i would recommend an sti test as soon as possible after having unprotected sex or a broken condom...but pep probably shouldn't be considered as an option.

can i also just add...
yes, with bbbj and unprotected sex the risks to you may be minimal - but please spare a thought for the woman involved. as the receptive partner, it is much easier for us to contract hiv from a client, than it is for a client to get it from us. sex workers are at particular risk of having small tears or irritation inside their vaginas, due to thing like frequent, rough or prolonged sex sessions, recent use of sex toys and regular sti screening (the doctor scrapes around inside when he/she does the tests).
and don't forget that there are probably lots of guys in your area getting bareback services, from a small number of girls. if one of you passes something on - you could all end up getting it.

Cachondito, I believe Magic Johnson did announce he was seriopostive for HIV. I believe his exact words at the time were" "I've tested postive for the HIV virus."

To say he might be lying and making the whole thing up for advertising is absolutely the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

When he tested positive he was at the pinacle of the game which he deeply loved. He had to give up playing basketball and as such has lost over 100 million dollars in salaries, product endorsements, you name it. I don't for a second believe he would give all that up to put his face on HIV.

By your own admission that flying in a plane is just as dangerous if not more so than receieving bbbj; then one must assume that if someone pointed a gun at your head and said get on this airline and fly to Paris or eat this pile of dung -- then you would surely eat the pile of dung.

That whole thing about the guy getting HIV and giving it to his wife and him being sick but not her is non-sensical as well. Everyone has differing lengths of times it takes to start showing symptoms. Some in a year or less and others may take twenty years or more even without treatment. It is well known in the medical establishment that for some reason not everyone dies even from a virus such as HIV. There have also been plenty of white men (aryan as you say for reasons unknown to me, I know of no studies testing non-Jewish causcasians) that have been seriopostive for extended periods of time and have shown no symptoms.

Greetings,

There's one story that I found quite interesting. This happened quite a few years back now, but still seems relevant to the current discussion.

Paul Micheal Glaser (Starsky, from Starsky and Hutch) was married to a woman who caught HIV through a blood transfusion. She was unaware of this fact for several years. I assume that they had a fairly normal sex life and yet, he never caught it from her.

They had unprotected sex for years and he never contracted the virus from his own wife. This would seem to go along with current evidence that normal intercourse isn't a very effective means of transmission.

It would also seem to make sense that a BBBJ wouldn't be very effective either. On the other hand, other factors such as co-infection with other STD's greatly enhance transmission. This is especially true if both partners have some other kind of infection such as chlamydia or herpes.

You could also look at things from a common sense viewpoint. Let's say a prostitute (or any girl) told you straight up that she was HIV positive. Would you still want put your bare cock in her mouth? NO? I didn't think so. It's easy to convince yourself that "she probably doesn't have anything, and even if she did I probably won't get it because it's just a BJ".

I work as a health-care professional. Many of my patients have stuff and you would never guess it. Serious stuff like herpes, HIV as well as Hep C, and those are the ones who are willing to tell me about it.

It's easy for guys to reassure themselves with thoughts about how low the risk is. It's still a risk though.

Rock

Civ2000,

Please post only about stuff you know something about. Your style is rude, and your ignorant approach is appalling.

The woman does have the virus, and she's had it for too long not to show any symptoms. She had PCR tests and all, and the proposed number of the virii in her blood and the T cells have been constant for the last 3 years, which simply means she's cerropositive and not sick withstanding the fact that she was diagnosed as HIV+ 6 years ago. The doctos still advise her to get checked at least annually, but they're pretty sure she's the type that's resistant to HIV. And I'm sure they all know better than you do!

As for Magic Johnson, I didn't say he was lying, I just said it was always a possibility. And he might also be one of those HIV-resistant people just like that woman. Being diagnosed as HIV+ 99% means you'll be six feet under in 12-15 years, but the %1 still exists. And that's what I meant by cerropositive, someone that has the virus but doesn't die.

As for the dung, you can go and eat it if you like. Have you ever heard of the word "analogy"? I meant I wouldn't do it because I was scared shitless of AIDS for quite a while.


CAPITO?

Cachondito, Excuse me but I do know what I'm talking about. I never said the woman wasn't HIV-resistant -- I was merely pointing out that it takes different lengths of time for someone to become sick. For some it can take as little as a year -- for others as long as twenty. Just because after six years she's healthy and he's not doesn't really mean a thing. Where did you come up with the idea that six years is too long to have the virus and not show symptoms?

I know of several white males as well who were diagnosed in the eighties and have yet to develop symptoms or progress into full blown aids. After six years the majority of people with HIV are still symptom-free. Last I heard it took on average 8 to 10 years to progress to the point where they're getting sick. With the anti-viral cocktails that number continues to rise.

With the new drugs very likely you would be alive and well after 12-15 years, just like Magic Johnson. And in 12-15 years there could possibly be more drugs that could further extend your life. At a clinic where I worked I actually heard a doctor say that he would rather have a HIV diagnosis before a HEP C diagnosis as he feels the prognosis is better.

Sure you didn't say Magic lied -- just that possibly he lied. I don't see a lot of difference and you have yet to explain why someone would give up all he did to "possibly lie about having HIV". Doesn't make any sense to me at all. You're the one who brought up the possibility and yet fail to provide even a semi-plausable reason as to why. I've heard many people talk about Magic and AIDS and you're the first one to suggest he might be making the whole thing up.

Also, female to male transmission is difficult even with unprotected anal or vaginal sex. Would I do it? No. But as long as you don't have any breaks in the skin lining your penis (such as with herpes or syphilis) the chances are fairly low. The virus needs direct blood to blood contact and doesn't survive the arduous journey up the male urethra. Of course some skin breaks could be microscopic so I wouldn't test it.

Facts:

Still as it stands right now, if you get HIV, you're probably going to die young. Not as young as you would have ten years ago, but still young.

Most scientists are worried they are doing more harm then good with the current regime of HIV cocktails. Why? Because they are now seeing this little nasty virus mutate faster then they could have anticipated or expected. Most estimate that if a new line of miracle drugs are not down the pipe in 6-8 years, the virus will change to the point, the current drugs are useless.

At the current rate of treatment, which again, most scientists do not believe it will last, one can safely expect to live 20-30 years assuming the following: You are infected in your teens, 20s or 30s and are otherwise healthy. AND you get early treatment! If you are unhealthy, old, catch a resistant strain, or do not catch the virus before it has done significant damge, your pretty much fucked no matter what.

All this aside, the drugs you use to treat HIV, make you lethargic, make your skin a mess, give you cancers, ulcers, liver problems, vision problems, toxic and allergic reactions, In other words, it's not a walk in the park. You will often look more sick, then before you even started the meds!

Most idiotic mongers believe, "oh well, if I catch HIV I'll just go see my doc and get my bag of meds and all will be fine." You are so very wrong. The media really did the youth in America a real disservice when they proclaimed HIV now a chronic disease. True, for 20 years, if, if, if, if, if, all the stuff I mentioned above AND during those 20 years, you will still suffer horrendous side affects from all those meds you will need to take and take FOREVER, you will never be able to escape them!

Last, to be fully honest, this all coming from a guy who has probably received about 2000 BBBJ from a good 400 or so different providers. I always use a condom for fucking, I never have or will do anal and I never go down at the Y. I test for all STDs every 6 months, like clock-work

I believe science has proven that getting the blow job is relatively safe, but giving one, or eating out, is not safe. There are studies that have shown, that going down on a female with no protection has transmitted the virus in as high as 6% of the exposures of known HIV positive cases! Sure, some studies show a far less chance. But it amazes me how many of you guys report about going down on the working girls. Are you guys nuts?

It really comes down to this......................"be safe, or die a miserable young death!"

Tang~!

GettingTang's last post should be the final word on this subject; truer words could not have been spoken!

I agree --excellent post Getting Tang. :)

Cachondito,

"Please post only about stuff you know something about. Your style is rude, and your ignorant approach is appalling. "

I have read some ridiculous things on this board, but I have to say that this one is close to the top of my list. When you ***** about someone not knowing what they are talking about, you should make sure that you are better informed than they are. And believe me, you are as ill-informed as anyone I've seen.

First, Civ2000 correctly points out that people can be infected for years before showing symptoms.

"Magic Johnson never announced whether or not he was cerropositive (?). Which means, some people will carry the virus, but the virus won't be capable of damaging their immune system like it does to normal people."

Completely WRONG!!! If someone is Seropositive, it means that they have tested positive for the HIV virus, either by ELISA or PCR. It has nothing to do with being resistant to HIV.

"No stats have been taken regarding this issue, but a common wild guess by the authorities say 1 black person in every 300 have this thing, and are basically immune to AIDS. But we white asses are shit out of luck. The same wild guess says 1 white woman out of every 800 is likely to carry this cerropositive gene, while the number in white men is almost funny compared to that."

There is actually a phenomenon whereby some people are resistant to HIV. Lots of stats have been taken, and it is due to a mutation in the gene that codes for one of the proteins required by HIV for entry into macrophages and T cells. This gene is actually HIGHEST in northern Europeans and practically non-existent in those of African and Asian descent.

You are also completely wrong in your description of post exposure prophylaxis. Antibiotics have absolutely ZERO effect on viruses, they only effect bacteria. HIV is a virus, which is more different from bacteria than we are from mold. You mention that antibiotics will cause your body to produce anticors. I assume by anticors you mean antibodies. Antibiotics have nothing to do with antibodies, and they won't make your body produce them. Also, if you get HIV and you have antibodies to it, you are still screwed. In fact, the ELISA test which tells you if you have an HIV infection is a test to see if your body is producing anti-HIV antibodies. Those antibodies are ineffective in ridding the body of HIV. Otherwise almost everyone who tests positive for HIV would have nothing to worry about.

You are correct in your statement that PCR is a test for the actual virus and that ELISA is a test for antibodies. You must remember though, that just because PCR fails to detect virus, you aren't safe. There is a threshold below which PCR can't detect the virus. And, since HIV is a retrovirus, it inserts its genes into the genes of its host cells. This means that while there may be no virus in the bloodstream, but the virus is still sitting there inside your cells, waiting to come out. This is similar to herpes or shingles where an infection from years ago does nothing until one day it pops out and makes you sick. So even if you somehow get rid of all virus in the bloodstream, you are still going to have an HIV infection. The idea of PEP is to use a shitload of anti-retroviral drugs (which have nasty side effects) and try to kill or inactivate as much virus as possible before the virus can establish an infection.

Maybe you should post only about stuff you know something about.

I am not a Doctor nor do I claim to be one, however just to drop my opinion in on this subject I belive there is not enough research being done on AIDS HIV because of the religious right wings morals due to the most common methods of transmission.

That said I hope they spend more time and money working on this as we are all at risk from it.

not a gay problem, with no moral value tied to it you say? read this.

gay males simply don't give a shit. a gay male prostitutes who is hiv positive, tell his potential clients he has hiv and gives them the option of using a condom, most turn the condom down!

the average gay male will have sex with 64 different partners per year in this country, some as many as 1000 in a year! no moral ties?

86% of people with hiv even today in the us, got the disease from gay male sex, or iv drug use! still no moral ties?

sort of leaves one to conclude the following............."if you don't want aids, then don't get it" sure it's not always that simple, but most often, that is how it plays out!



san francisco -- paul torello is upfront about his life. he sells sex on the streets for drug money, and he's hiv positive. it's a story he tells all of his male clients before he lets them chose whether to proceed with or without a condom.

but more often than not, his words have little effect.

``it's sex that they really want to have,'' torello said. ``that's primarily the attitude in the city. it's a fun thing for them.''

that attitude is partly responsible for an alarming new report released wednesday that finds the hiv infection rate has more than doubled among san francisco's gay men in four years.

the report estimates that 2.2 percent of the 37,000 gay men in san francisco who are not infected with hiv will contract the virus -- up from 1.04 percent in 1997. if nothing changes, 748 gay men in san francisco will fall prey to hiv this year, the report projects.

that draft analysis, released wednesday, combines more than 25 studies by the university of california, san francisco, that surveyed some 10,000 gay men.

"we've been at this for 20 or 21 years, and people are tired of it,'' said dr. tom coates, director of the ucsf aids research institute and one of two dozen researchers and experts on the panel that released the report. ``people would rather not have to talk about difficult issues and not take precautions if they think there's a form of chemicals available to help them.''

indeed, the new antiviral drugs responsible for extending the lives of many hiv patients may be the biggest catalyst driving up the incidence rate of new infections.

long life spans make it possible for victims to spread the virus to more people, said mike shriver, mayor willie brown's adviser on aids and hiv policy and an organizer of the research panel. in addition, he said, the drugs -- first released in the mid-1990s -- have eased the horror of watching loved ones die a slow, agonizing death.

"why is it going up among men having sex among men?" said coates, who's been hiv-positive since 1985. "the whole idea of gay liberation is having sex with whom you want to have sex. it's breaking down old moralistic barriers. but it carries with it something lethal, and it's hard for the gay community to come to grips with.''

coates said he's seen a 50 percent decrease in hiv rates among intravenous drug users. he also hasn't seen any increases in the heterosexual population.

yet a quarter of the city's estimated 46,800 gay men are hiv-positive. and 80 percent of hiv infections in the city are among gay men, the study found.

that means stories like torello's aren't uncommon.

a native of hamden, conn., torello, 36, came to san francisco three years ago and contracted hiv in the past 18 months. he was sharing dirty needles to shoot-up speed and having unprotected sex with whomever would pay. he's not sure how he contracted the virus.

still, he continues to prostitute himself.

``every person who i ever hook up with, i tell them. always,'' said torello. ``but i've only been turned down once or twice.''

the increase isn't unique to san francisco. coates said numbers are on the rise in sydney and vancouver. in addition, the centers for disease control and prevention in atlanta reports an increase in syphilis and gonorrhea among gay males in los angeles, miami and seattle.

``we're definitely concerned about gay men across the county,'' said robert janssen, the cdc's director of the division of hiv/aids prevention. ``we're pulling together and have begun to look at a variety of ways to improve intervention and prevention programs for gay men and to begin to look at specific things we need to do.''

What an utter pile.

"86% of people with HIV even today in the US, got the disease from gay male sex, or IV drug use! Still no moral ties?"

What the hell does that mean -- tying the two together? Because of one stupid story? That's an utterly specious argument.

According to the CDC, in the US, 57% of all AIDS cases among women have been tied to drug use, compared to 31% of cases among men. (If we want to talk immorality, how about ending needle exchange programs when they've been absolutely proven to lower HIV infection rates among drug users? How is that a "moral" position?)

And the WHO still estimates that 80-90% of all those who are HIV positive worldwide have become so via heterosexual sex.

As far as condoms and high-risk behavior I suggest you simply look through the Thailand section (or elsewhere) and notice how many pics show condomless sex or take a read of Opebo's views on disease transmission risks.

A drug user who is a street prostitute hardly sums up the world at large, or its moral issues. People who frequent street sex workers, whether gay or not, are almost always engaging in higher risk behavior.

Could you please cite your source for saying "The average gay male will have sex with 64 different partners per year in this country?" That is higher than any other number I've read that uses current statistics. There's little question that the gay community has higher-risk sexual behavior in general, but tying that to morality is simply your personal perspective. And anyway plenty of mongers here have sex with more partners than that -- oh, wait, I forgot, you consider us all morally decayed, yourself included.

Tell me -- how many partners have you had in the past year or two? If it's a lot, do you deserve AIDS, since that is apparently the silly implication you're making?

You people don't get it, I do. Here are some more facts, from the photo board where I was getting hasseled about commenting on a prostitute likely having HIV

I worked a stint as an intern in a drug and aids rehab center in Phoenix, Arizona over half of the summer. I had to take a 90 hour course on HIV and write six, 4 page essays on the matter.

Here is a fact, look it up, if you don't believe me. 85% of HIV positive people have a little ailment called seborrheic dermatitis. Now this varies in severity from person to person, but almost all will develop it and have a harder time treating it as the disease progresses.

We also know, that in the general population, less then 3% of people have seborrheic dermatitis, outside of HIV, yet 85% with HIV have it!

When seborrheic dermatitis is found anywhere but the scalp area, it raises the percentages it is related to HIV. When it is found anywhere else on the body besides the face and or scalp, this almost certainly means HIV infection!

And if that is not enough, 75% of those with seborrheic dermatitis on the face are men, outside of HIV.

So here we have a photo of a prostitute, who takes loads up her snatch and has seborrheic dermatitis on her face. (look closely at the close-up BJ shot) It does NOT take a rocket scientist to figure there is about a 95% chance that fine lady has HIV!!!!!!!!!!

The reason so many HIV positive people have seborrheic dermatitis, is it has NOTHING to do with a deteriorating immune system, it has to do with the immune system itself on high alert and very active as the HIV virus is present in the body, this causes things like increased allergic reactions, and yeast naturally found on the face and scalp to over produce and shed (thus seborrheic dermatitis) So before you all go calling me a fool and make fun, go educate you stupid asses on the matter.

For starters, try "seborrheic dermatitis HIV", in the google search engine, that should be a good start!

Tang~!

PS. oh yes, about 5 years ago, the American Medical association sent out a memo to all doctors across the USA, that when a patient is presented with seborrheic dermatitis, anywhere but the scalp, they should ask the patient if they have been at risk for HIV. It's that common, in HIV positive people!

Getting Tang,

You post some interesting stuff here, thanks for sharing.

What's your position (no pun intended) on DFK? Which STD's are included your battery of tests performed every six months?

Tang, Excellent report as usual.

Only problem is I looked at all the New Zealand Photo's very carefully and saw no evidence of seborrheic dermatitis.

True she had a very poor complexion -- probably a combination of poor nutrition and drug use, but I compared her photos to pictures on the Google sites you recommended and they just don't look like it to me.

To me it looked more like "coke bugs" which is a phenomenon IV cocaine users experience where it feels as if bugs are crawling under the skin and they itch -- it heals -- and the cycle goes on and on.

That being said I completely agree with you that the photos were disgusting and a person would have to be a suicidal idiot to have bareback sex with her.

IMHO, any prostitute willing to go bareback either for bj's or FS either has HIV or is going to get HIV. She obviously cares little about her health.

The reason for this is simple. A SW willing to go bareback is almost always a heroin or crack cocaine user. She feels completely powerless to give up her addiction and believes the addiction is going to kill her before HIV ever will. If she gets a few extra bucks going bareback -- oh well -- she believes she's already dead anyway.

Civ2000

Once again a regular poster on this board is exaggerating to the extreme. I researched HIV classes for interns and it is a four-hour class. This is the class that even HIV counselors take. I would be impressed with this posters knowledge even without his making up taking a 90 hour class in between religious conversions, trips to Thailand and Seattle, and the like.

Please, if you will, could you share some of your HIV essays with us? A ninety hour class? That would be fourteen weeks at most colleges.

Civ2000

It was a type error, but you'll never believe me, it was a 6 hour course, given on two separate days. This was the sit in portion, in addition, we had to do for homework, 6, 4 page essays, that added up to an additional 85 hours or more on my own time. I spent this time researching quite extensivly about the disease.


I would consider myself damn near an expert on the topic. Not boasting, but facts are facts and I can dish anything anyone in here would like to know about HIV, if you find anything I post wrong, tell me. I assure you, you won't. The post below is 100% factual.

Also, in certain parts of the world seborrheic dermatitis is all but non existent. I believe it was Samoans and a few other ethnic cultures, they almost never get seborrheic dermatitis, so when someone of this ethnicity comes down with this minor ailment, they are almost always 100% positive. Doctors even use it as a marker.

Now it's been a while, so I could be wrong on the race. I'll check and test my memory.

Bottom line, if you're in your 20s,30s, 40s, and suddenly come down with a case of seborrheic dermatitis on other places then your scalp, you might want to reassess your risk history for HIV and get a test.

Tang~!

Civ, as rude as you can be, I do agree. Most hookers who do not use condoms either, A. Do not care about their life and are basically suicidal and on a "final drug run, or B. Already have the disease.

In the internship I did, over 50% of the prositiutes in the rehab tested positive for HIV. Most caught it from sharing needles. These girls absolutely did not care who they gave the disease too. It really sort of blew my mind. Also, about 55% had one form of hepatitus, or another, many with Hep C. It's scary when you really think about it.

I still admit, i get the occasional BBBJ, I do not believe that unless there is a very large amount of blood in her mouth and you don't have an open sore, then it's safe. Always look for signs of blood.

Also, keep in mind, most street hookers who have HIV are under NO treatment, thus the virus is running rampant in their system, they are much, much more contagious, then someone who is being treated for HIV. However, even when a male's HIV virus levels are undetectable, the virus still is very high in the prostate gland, thus ejeculation, carries high concentrations of HIV, even when the person is being treated. I just thought I would throw that in for all the gays in the room.

I must admit, after reading numerous posts, there is a LOT of bullshit here. However, GettingTang has most of the facts down cold. I have also done lots of research on HIV and would make a couple of observations:

There is a reason the ELISA test is the most accepted worldwide.

Magic has HIV. No doubt about it.

There is a big difference in attitude between those whos HIV has "progressed" and those who are "non-progressors." Magic's claim to fame on beating HIV, I beleive to be true. He says one needs to eat a healthy diet and get plenty of excercise and rest. Taking certain vitamins in conjuction with protease inhibitors, anti-viral, and anti-retroviral medications will certainly prolong your life. Magic has had HIV for 13 years. I would bet he'll be around in another 13 years.

Early treatment may help an HIV patient but one should look at the famous case of Rae Lewis-Thornton. She has had full blown AIDS for almost 12 years now (although I haven't seen any updates about her in almost 2 years now).

Last observation: the best treatment for HIV/AIDS is the PREVENTION of HIV/AIDS. Easily said for those who already have it already. For those who do, medicine, diet, vitamins, excercise, and rest combined WILL help you prolong you life the most. For those who don't, I'm sorry if you don't want to hear this, but sex is a part of life most of us don't want to give up. So, WRAP IT UP!!! I must admit, I have had many BBBJ's from suspect girls. About 9 months ago I had one and a few weeks later I had rashes all over my body (I have found out this was just some exacerbation of psoriasis, perhaps from stress, which I have had for 16 years). Then, not to long ago, I began experiencing some headaches, sweating at night, and a little diarrhea. I panicked like a mother-fucker, but today I breathe easily because my test results came back negative.

I have changed my life for the better because of this scare. I believe this was god-willed. I haven't had any more headache or diarrhea and my psoriasis has mellowed out. I will NEVER have any unprotected contact (including BBBJ) ever again.

Yes people, BBBJ has risks. Blood CAN travel to the urethra and most SG's I have come across don't have Delta Dental or any form of dental hygene for that matter and even small amounts of blood can do you in. Or, think if your provider just gave a BBBJ to someone else who was infected and still had some of his cum in her mouth. Do you want some infected guys cum on your pecker?

Be safe all, but don't stop mongering, it's a way of life!

1620

FYI, anyone interested in reading an excellent article on AIDS and heterosexual men, here is a link to a reprint from Details Magazine, March 2004.

It is a very well written article with a lot of information and details about your risks of contracting AIDS. As well, for those of you who enjoy DATY on pros, it also touches on the risk of oral sex.

After reading the article, it basically summarizes the fact that it is very difficult for men to contract aids from heterosexual sex, even without a condom. However, because of other STD's you should absolutely still use a condom.

Whatever Happened to AIDS and Straight Men?
By Kevin Gray

http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/risk_realities/whatever_happened.html

Great link, Mock A Bee. It basically states that there is little risk with oral sex, as most of us know, but why gamble? I am DONE with any form of unprotected sex for a while now. All of you should follow the same; WEAR A CONDOM!!! It's not that hard.

1620

Mock A Bee,

There is both truth and a misconception in your last post.

True, HIV is harder for a male to catch in straight heterosexual acts, then say butt screwing homos. Very true. However, the risk is very high for the receptive female. Think about it, first she gets rammed by an infected guys penis, possible irritating the lining of her mucous membrane in her vagina. It's essentially air tight way up in there, and keep in mind the inside of a vagina is nothing but a large mucous membrane. If it's irritated, or openly bleeding, no matter how slight, this increases her risk. Ok, so then the guy shots his wad of semen, containing the highest concentrations of HIV, next to blood, up inside her. Walla, she catches HIV. Now reversing that, the penis, is not a huge mucous membrane. It's basically covered with skin, although fairly thin, it's better then a mucous membrane. However the urethra, is not intact skin. Get her vaginal secretions down into the tip of your penis, and you're at some risk for the disease, especially if you're already packing another disease.

Another fact to consider is what I said before. The stats you quoted are true in the general population. But we are not talking the general population here. We are talking about strung out street walking prostitutes, who do not give 2 cents on the dollar worth a crap about their health. They have some of the highest HIV virus levels on the planet, thus are far more contagious then a female, who keeps good health and is being treated for her disease.

All you really have to do is read numerous articles on "hot spots" right now in the world regarding HIV transmission rates. It will blow your mind! Look at India, where it's common practice for males to use prostitutes and most do not use condoms. These men are catching HIV by the millions in these regions. So it can't be all that difficult to catch from heterosexual acts with a high risk hooker.

You must remember this, in many inner city areas, right here in the good ole USA, as high as 58% of the known street prostitutes are HIV positive! Those are not numbers I'm willing to play with! You have to wear a condom for intercourse, or this nasty disease will get ya! You can count on it!

Tang~!

"You must remember this, in many inner city areas, right here in the good ole USA, as high as 58% of the known street prostitutes are HIV positive!"

Can I just point out that those sex workers had to catch it from SOMEONE - and you can bet your bottom dollar it wasn't from shagging a gay guy or a lesbian lover.

Obviously drugs are a factor, but if female sex workers around the world are contracting HIV at those rates, then there are probably a lot of HETROSEXUAL MEN giving it to them as well.

It may be harder for a man to catch than a woman, but obviously its not THAT hard! :)

RN,
The vast majority of them catch it through IV drug use. I pick up SW's in Baltimore, Maryland, and there is an estimated 70,000+ IV drug users in the city. It has been estimated that there are 25,000 SW's here. Nothing more scary than getting a BJ from one of these lovelies, and having her needle fall out of her pocket and on the bed or car seat. These girls have no morals, and many are willing to go condom free (including anal) if it will earn them a small ($10-20 US) tip to buy more dope. $300-500 per day crack cocaine habits also add to the problem. You wouldn't believe what many of them would do for an extra rock. I do not believe in condom free sex outside of BBBJ. There is a very good needle exchange program here, but I've seen them share another's if they don't happen to have their own available. They don't care if they live or die for the most part, as long as they get their dope fix. They probably won't live long enough to die of AIDS anyhow.
[quote][s]Getting Tang Wrote:[/s]
All you really have to do is read numerous articles on "hot spots" right now in the world regarding HIV transmission rates. It will blow your mind! Look at India, where it's common practice for males to use prostitutes and most do not use condoms. These men are catching HIV by the millions in these regions. So it can't be all that difficult to catch from heterosexual acts with a high risk hooker.[/quote]
The HIV rate is no higher than the US, in fact it might be a little lower. There are about 1.3 billion people in India, so a microscopically low percentage of of any disease prevalence rate will look like huge numbers as far as total overall cases. While sex, and new births of HIV infected babies is the leading cause of new cases, IV drug use is becoming a greater problem in that part of the world as well. There is no part of the world, however, that can hold a candle to Africa in the HIV/AIDS problem. How accurate these numbers are, and what is the major transmission method is a matter for debate.
[url=http://w3.whosea.org/hivaids/factsheet.htm][b]HIV/AIDS statistics[/b][/url]

Peace,
K.J. Baltimonger

Getting Tang,

Please note that I did not write the article contained in the link, nor do I quote any statistics from the article. As well, I don't specifically claim to make a case for or against the author's writing.

I only posted the link to the article as a benefit for everyone out there on the forum to offer a very well written and researched article that does not come off as particularly biased, but rather in my opinion fairly objective.

Reviewing my posting, I think it is pretty clear that I am just posting the article and do not claim authorship. In fact I included the author's name.

MAB

Baltimonger,

I certainly wasn't trying to exclude IV drugs as a significant factor - I was just attempting to remind people that sex workers don't just 'have' HIV. They have to get it from somewhere.

In Getting Tang's post, he says things like "We are talking about strung out street walking prostitutes, who do not give 2 cents on the dollar worth a crap about their health" and "Look at India, where it's common practice for males to use prostitutes and most do not use condoms. These men are catching HIV by the millions in these regions". In your own post you say that "These girls have no morals, and many are willing to go condom free (including anal) if it will earn them a small ($10-20 US) tip to buy more dope".

What I feel people here tend to forget sometimes, is that girls only do it without a condom if it is ASKED FOR, or her offer of unprotected sex is ACCEPTED BY, a client. I'd just like people to take a harder look at the part they themselves play in this problem. Requesting bare back sex and then accusing the GIRL of being immoral or unclean, is ridiculous - and dangerous.

As sexually active people, we ALL have to accept some responsibility for the health of ourselves AND each other. One guy has sex with a hooker and gives her the clap. The next guy has sex with her and - due to the increased risk caused by the internal irritation from the clap - gives her HIV. The next guy who has sex with her has herpes and - thanks to the increased risk from the open sores on his penis - he takes HIV away with him. Obviously that's over-simplified, but it could happen. We all have to take responsibility for our own actions, rather than just blaming it on someone else.

RN, I posted this on 9-10-04:[quote]Bradman,
I think you missed my point. This is what these women do for money. I don’t think they are going to stop doing it because they’ve been outed here. I don’t think their business is going to decrease because they’ve been outed here. Jose the laborer or Joe six pack who might not have even heard of this board will be none the wiser and pick them up. They might in turn catch something and give it to another SW, who in turns gives it to me. Who do I blame? The SW who gave it to me, the monger who gave it to her, or the SW who gave it to him? The answer is: Me.

Many more out there have nasty infections other than those who may get a mention here. Did you know that your G donor had it prior to picking her up? No. Did you take the proper precautions? Obviously not. So why blame her? Let’s put some responsibility on our shoulders for a change. We should be determining the level of risk we are willing to accept. [/quote]
This was done in response to another post from a monger who said to avoid 2 particular SW's because he caught the clap from one of the two. BTW, one of the 2 SW's named in that post died last night from her drug use. She was one of the smarter ones who understood the risk she was taking, and still lost. I spent time with her landlord and a friend (another SW) talking and reminiscing about her. It was a strange sight. I have many fond sexual and non-sexual memories of her. Mostly the latter. I donated money in her name to a local prostitution resource and outreach center. They had just provided her with new glasses free of charge, and this seemed like a good way to remember her.

I hope I didn't offend you with the usage of the word "girls". Unfortunately, when I look around these streets, I see way too many "girls" working, who haven't reached adulthood. It is quite depressing to say the least to talk to a 26 year old SW, and have her tell you she's been a SW for 13 years. All of the education they receive on STD's is rumor and hearsay they get from others. You would not believe how many of them think that syphilis is an incurable disease. The same ones don't realize that there is no more effective HIV transmission method than sharing needles. Condoms are free and easy to access. They come on the needle exchange van, which comes into the neighborhood several times per week. The can take all they want. Many choose not to. I have been offered bareback several times, if I would give them an extra tip. I simply decline their offer, and place them on my "do not pick up again" list.

However, I do agree with your statement that the men request bareback from their provider and she agrees, then accuses the provider of being immoral or unclean is ridiculous and dangerous. The provider is no more immoral or unclean than their client in this situation.

Peace,
K.J. Baltimonger

Condoms work. Use them.

Baltimonger,

That was a fantastic post - thank you for showing it to me and for posting it in the first place (and for putting it in this section, where people come looking for responsible sexual health information such as that).

And please accept my heartfelt sympathy for your loss. Your friend, and the other girls you spoke of, are exactly the reason why I first started in sex worker advocacy/activism. I was so very lucky to have such a truly wonderful experience of the sex industry. So many others around the world are not so lucky. My heart aches every time I hear of another life lost.

does anybody know what the risks are with oral sex with all the diseases such as hpv, hsv, hiv, and hav? is there a web site that goes into any detail?

also i hear quite often it is more difficult for a man to get a disease from intercoarse. is there a good site that goes into those statistics and breaks out each disease?

for instance the likelyhood of a person contracting hpv when a herpes outbreak is not occuring is fairly low even without a condom.

also i always [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord111][CodeWord111][/url] and wash as soon after intercoarse as i can. is there any statistics about how that affects transmission?

----
another item is condoms. i seem to have them break to often. they have been properly put on, i am big but by no means huge, i use lubrication with women who need it. i tend to have the most problems with durex sensitive which i have found to provide as much sensation as possible. i realize they are thinner but even so the failure rate shouldn't be between 1 in 5 to 10. i normally only use them to prevent an unwelcome surprise versus a unwanted disease because of this. so they are left only for trusted girl friends that i would have unprotected sex with. also the condoms provided here in china seem to have a pretty high failure rate. for the last year i have been having trojans sent from america and haven't had a failure but also might as well had sex with a blow up dolls.

anyone found a condom that provides great protection but also lets you feel naked?

have there been any studies of transmission with the different thickness' of condoms?

I use the ultra-thin Durex condoms, too (marketed as Durex Featherlite in Australia) and I've never had a problem with them breaking. With such a high failure rate, it could very well be the fault of your retailer. Are the condoms kept in a hot store in full sunlight? Are they past their use-by date?

Some general tips for condoms:
* Always make sure the condom is the right size - I don't know about overseas, but Durex Featherlite only come in 'regular' here. Four Seasons also make a 'Sensitive' condom, as do Glyde (in Australia at least) - but both are also only available in a 'regular' size here.
* Watch fingernails, zips and tongue rings - especially with ultra thin condoms.
* Make sure they are kept VERY COOL - if they are exposed to heat or direct sunlight, they will become brittle and break easily. (This includes carrying them in your wallet, pocket or glove compartment). Keep them in the fridge or in a cool, dark room.
* NEVER use oil or oil-based lubricants. Oil rots the latex in minutes. Only ever use water-based lube.
*** Strange fact: Anti-thrush pessaries (tablets pushed into the vagina to treat thrush, which foam up as they dissolve) can rot a condom in SECONDS. Obviously this isn't going to be something you come across often, but watch out if your girl has used a pessary in the last 12 - 24 hours.

As to the other stuff:
* HPV is the genital warts virus. Women could have genital warts on their cervix or vaginal wall and you won't be able to see them. If she does, a condom should protect you from it (but if she has them on the outside of her vagina or her pubic area, your condom won't help at all).
* Herpes is also contagious just prior to, and just after, an outbreak. There may be no visible symptoms at all. Again, condoms will only protect the penis from the virus - not the rest of your pubic area.
* There is a pretty high risk of catching genital herpes getting a blowjob from a girl with oral herpes. A really large percentage of the general population has oral herpes (coldsores).
* It is more difficult for a man to contract HIV from a woman. For all the other sexually transmitted infections - the odds are pretty much as bad for you guys as they are for us. :)

Someone's also written a great post on herpes in the 'Safe Sex' section, that you might wanna check out.

RN: So what type of condom broke on you when the Zimbabwan guy was fucking you?

You have an excellent memory!!! Would have been a Four Seasons Extra Large - if they're big and black and beautiful, a Four Seasons Extra Large is the only way to go! :) From memory, he was too big for the extra large, which would be why it broke. Never had a Durex Featherlite break on me, though.

PS. Ultra-thin condoms are EXCELLENT for oral sex on a woman. Get some scissors and cut one side from the base right up to the tip and then fold it out. You'll end up with a triangle which is almost a perfect fit and if you place it lube side down, it will even stay put. She'll be able to feel every move you make, right down to the warmth of your breath. Take it from me, it beats the hell outta those dental dams! :)

Wicked SH,

"For instance the likelyhood of a person contracting HPV when a herpes outbreak is not occuring is fairly low even without a condom."

That liklihood would be extremely low because HPV doesn't cause herpes and herpes doesn't cause HPV.

HPV is the human papillomavirus that causes warts and in some strains, cervical cancer.

Herpes is caused by the herpesvirus.

You can get both even with a condom if they are outside the vagina and come in contact with skin not covered by a rubber.

That's why purel or any anti-bacieria spray or gel is good to wash your area that is outside the condom protection. Using alcohol wipes would be great also to carried with your person.

RN,

I WOULD NEVER TRUST A DUREX!

Maybe they are good in Aussie, but in the US they are crap!. I have several occasions where they have broken(Thankfully on GF's). Living in South Africa now, I actually buy ten 36 packs of Trojans, I have never had a problem with that brand.

But I guess ANY condom brand can break. Just curious, if I used a super thin condom for oral sex with a woman, what if it broke? After all wouldn't a regular non-lubricated condom be better? I guess if you have used a dental dam before you HAVE PUT yourself at risk already so what would be the point of a super thin?

I can understand that people wil take your advise, and it's great advise. Thing is that if they have already been exposed to the risk then what is the point? The best way is NOT TO PERFORM ORAL SEX ON A SW!. Just think of all the guys that she fucked before you. And now you are licking her out? But I guess that's what some nasty buggers like!.

Cheers.

Ron Weasley,

Thanks for sharing about the US Durex condoms. I can't vouch for the quality of condoms in other countries. And I don't think we have Trojans here (not that I've seen, anyway) so I can't comment on them at all.

Unless you've got a tongue ring (I have and it means being a little more careful) I can't see how anyone could break a condom when DATY. A regular condom would be fine, but the whole point of me writing about the ultra-thins was because the sensation for the woman is much better. With a lubricated ultra-thin, the layer of latex is thinner and the lubrication on the bottom helps the condom slide across her clit instead of it sticking to her. Dental dams are designed to give maximum protection during oral sex, but I've found them close to impossible to use (yes, I've used them on girls) and when on the receiving end, you can barely feel a thing. You might as well be doing it through her jeans.

As for "if they have already been exposed to the risk then what is the point?" - are you serious? I've got carried away and had sex without a condom before (in my private life, of course) so should I just not bother using condoms any more, seeing as I've already put myself at risk??? I'm hope I'm just misunderstanding your post and that wasn't what you were saying.

If doing oral on a working girl isn't your thing, then nobody's saying you have to. But I can assure you, LOTS of men want to do it and if that's what they want, then they need to know how to protect themselves and the worker concerned. Most of them also like to make it feel GOOD for her as well, which is why I brought up the ultra-thins.

And with a dental dam or condom covering the area, you're not really "licking her out", so it doesn't really matter how many men have been there before you, does it?

QUestions....so I've just had a little condom malfunction recently. Through which I picked up Gonorhea. I'm also getting an HIV test. Naturally I'm more than a little concerned so I've been reading up.

I can understand the scientific reports that talk to the lower likelihood of HIV transmision from woman to man through vaginal sex. I've been to several of the websites that even questions IF HIV has been proven to cause AIDS. Or if HIV even exists?

What I can't figure out is if its NOT vaginal sex...then how is HIV/AIDS spreading in hot spots identified throughout the world?

I'm just trying to put my mind at ease through the weekend while I wait for my test results and it doesn't sound like I can believe anyone since even the Dr told me that tests can show false positive and false negatives....i.e. tells me they aren't very confident in the testing they are administering.

I don't want to open up a can of worms, just trying to educate myself better.

BTW. In response to those comments below. I think there are plenty of reasons why to practice safe sex regardless if HIV/AIDs spreads that way or does or does not exist or whatever. I think THAT is the point.

Alan Cain,

Don't panic! (Yeah I know - easy for me to say! :) )

As you can see from Domino's post below, I had a scare myself a few years ago. Unfortunately, all you can do is wait.

"...even the Dr told me that tests can show false positive and false negatives..."

HIV takes some time to show up in a test, so having a test soon after the condom breakage may not give you an accurate result. You will probably have to have another test in a couple of months time.

There's nothing I can say that will make you feel any better, but just remember - in comparison to other STDs, HIV is really not all that easy to catch. Think about how many billions of people are out there having unprotected sex and then think about how many people actually end up infected.

It sounds to me like you didn't get too much pre-testing counselling from your doctor, which is pretty poor form on their part. If I were you, I would ring an anonymous health line or HIV info line and just blurt out everything that's on your mind. Ask them every question that pops into your head. I did exactly that and felt a lot better after it.

Good luck, honey, and try to keep smiling. :)

Alan Cain

First and foremost, we are way past the debate as to whether hiv causes aids or not. It does, end of subject.

Next, your chances of catching hiv from a single exposure where the condom broke, is very, very low, but possible. Getting tested is a good idea.

Next, female to male transmission is on the lower end of the spectrum, when it comes to risk, however, it is far from impossible. Basically you're dealing with a virus, it's harder to catch then most viruses, because it has to find a way into your blood stream, whereas other viruses, i.e., cold and flu, simply have to come into contact with any mucous membrane.

HIV needs a solid implant into your blood stream, this can be achieved by a small cut, open sore, or wound and her vaginal secretions, or blood, coming into direct contact with that cut or sore. The presence of other STDs will increase your risk, by about 500%, assuming hiv was present.

What concerns me most about your case, is did you have the gonorrhea, prior to this exposure and perhaps not know it? This would increase the chances of you becoming infected, assuming she was infected.

All in all, the odds are tremendously in your favor. So much so, you can probably bet you life savings on it.

Tang~!

Watch for,
one other sign to watch, is 90% of people who become infected will have severe seroconversion illness. If you know specifically when your risk was, you can monitor yourself for possible seroconversion. Now, don't be alarmed if you catch a common cold, or virus, as most people who go through seroconversion become VERY ill.

The medical establishment does not really like to tout these statistics, because they don't believe in people assessing their hiv status on symptoms and this is true. You should never guess your status on symptoms, however, facts are facts.

90% of those infected will seroconvert between 2-5 weeks after exposure, they will become violently ill, so much so that 80% will seek medical attention, although most doctors will not associate this as hiv infection (something the AMA, is working to correct) you will get very Ill, possibly with numerous symptoms, including, but not limited to, severe fever, fatigue, night sweets, possible strep throat infection, diarrhea, severely swollen glands, over 60% will get a large raised rash covering numerous parts of the body, especially the hands and feet, etc., etc., most people develop numerous aliments during conversion. However, a few, get none, or very little. So watch for any signs of conversion illness, be somewhat alarmed, if you become extremely ill in the coming weeks. Remember, I'm not talking a minor cold, or a sniffle, but seriously sick, this could mean you were exposed to hiv. Wait about 5 weeks, get tested, then test again at 13-16 weeks for a final conclusion. It's hell i know, be a neccessary evil of this little hobby we all partake in.

Tang~!

Getting Tang and RN: Thanks for the advice.

I don't think I had Gonorhea to start...I think I received it. With that said there was no REAL way for me to tell.

Do you have some suggested websites links where you are pulling your %'s from? I'd like to do more reading.

BTW. I did come down with a cold this week. HOwever I think it has to do with people coming into work sick than this. So far 2 weeks from the incident and nothing serious in terms of illness. It took about 7 days before something showed up for the Gonorhea in the form of painful urination. But nothing else so far.

In case of an incident with probability of becoming infected (such as accidental stick by contaminated needle) there are some good prophylaxis guidelines (and treatment) available.

http://www.rki.de/INFEKT/AIDS_STD/AZ_ENG/AZ_E.HTM?HIVPEPK_E.HTM&1

RN,

I WAS NOT JOKING.

Wheither it be unsafe sex, or whatever the case is. If you have had unprotected sex with anyone, and I stress anyone(Man,woman, whatever) Then ANYONE WHO has had unprotected sex potentially has been exposed.

I understand your point fully, not trying to argue but the potential of any diesese could be there. You surely CANNOT tell me that I am wrong on that?

Personal question: There is a well known member of this site. He does post in the NEW ZEALAND boards. He does post pics and has the most on that board. Would you have sex with any of those girls? They have been exposed because this gentelman DOES NOT use condoms or dental dams etc.

Just my thought

After all you are an RN I assume. so you would know better than most(NOT being sarcastic, givign complement.)

Cheers

No, I'm not an RN - its just a shortened version of my old forum handle. But I did work in sexual health for several years, plus I was a sex worker, so I had to learn how to protect my own sexual health as well.

I apologise for misunderstanding your last post. I thought you were saying that once you'd been exposed, there was no point using protection.

There is always the potential of getting some sort of infection, like if the condom breaks or you come in contact with a skin-to-skin disease. However, condoms are pretty darn effective and when used properly, the risk for MOST infections is pretty low. And don't forget that a large number of infections are totally curable and if you have regular testing, you can identify and treat them quickly.

As for your question - no, I would not have sex with any of those girls. Nor would I have sex with that particular monger. I wouldn't have sex with anyone who offered me sex without protection (or asked for it) because that says to me that they probably ALWAYS do it. And you're dead right - when you know full well they don't care about their own health, its probably not worth the risk, even with protection.

However, if I was to go to a working girl and she offered me a dental dam (or a client insisted on condom use) then I would trust that they are doing their best to protect themselves and I would trust the condom or dam to do its job. At least that way if the condom broke, I could be 'relatively' safe in the knowledge that the other person was looking after their own health. DATY with a dam or condom I would do without hesitation, because its highly unlikely that I could be exposed to an STD.

RN,

Well spoken.

Question: What is the risk factor of giving oral to a woman without protection? (IE clean escort type clean shaven etc)

And what is the risk difference between a lubed condom and a non-lubed one? Besides the lube?

Thanks man.

Cheers.

"Question: What is the risk factor of giving oral to a woman without protection? (IE clean escort type clean shaven etc)"

There is still a bit of debate about HIV transmission during oral sex (on a woman). The risk would be very, very small, but I guess its still a risk all the same.

The risk of YOU catching oral herpes (coldsores) from her is certainly there, but the risk of HER catching genital herpes from your coldsore is much, much greater. Studies done in my country proved that STD rates in sex workers was much lower than the STD rates of the general public - except herpes, which was almost twice as common in sex workers than in other people. This is probably because coldsores are so very common (1 in 6 people have the virus, from memory?) and the majority of sex workers who offer DATY, do it without protection.

You can catch gonorrhoea of the throat from performing oral sex on a woman (or a man). There are some other STDs, like syphilis, that can also be passed from mouth to vagina and vice versa.

And at the risk of really grossing everyone out - there are 'other' things that could come out of there that wouldn't be very pleasant, like period blood or (I warned you this would be gross!!) someone else's semen. As a woman, I can testify that what goes up, can take a very long time to come back down! :) She may not be doing unprotected sex at work - but she could have had sex with her husband last night or that morning.

"And what is the risk difference between a lubed condom and a non-lubed one? Besides the lube?"

None, I don't think. In theory, the lubricated ones would be safer because they should have less chance of breakage caused by friction. In practice, they never have enough lube on them to really make it worthwhile. Personally, I don't like lubricated condoms much. They taste disgusting (and I like to put condoms on with my mouth!). I prefer to use the brands with little or no lubricant and just add lube out of a bottle, which smells and tastes a lot better and provides much better protection from condom breakage.

Condoms with spermicides on them, however, are a risk to your female partner. The spermicide irritates her vagina, leaving her insides raw and inflamed - a dangerous condition to be in if the condom breaks.

I got this report moments ago and it broke my heart:

CHAIYAPHUM: -- A German national is believed to have deliberately infected more than 450 young women with the HIV/AIDS virus in Thailand's northern Chaiyaphum province.

The one-legged naval veteran is in jail for overstaying his 30-day tourist visa by three years. His non-immigrant visa had expired in 2001.

Hans-Otto Schiemann, 56, who has lived in Thailand for nine years, said he went on a sexual rampage after testing positive to HIV/AIDS in 2001.

He would cruise in his car, looking for groups of young people after school and offering them the equivalent of their parents' monthly wages to have unprotected sex. They generally agreed.

His core prey consisted of young girls, 15 and older. "They sell their children here," he said. "The only reason I'm in jail is because I had sex with a policeman's daughter."

Schiemann, who was living off a German disability pension, had also offered loans to poor people in return for use of their daughters.

A spokesman for the German embassy said Schiemann had been detained for overstaying his visa but the embassy was not aware of other allegations.

The deputy head of the provincial police station, Kampol Nonuch, said that under Thai law Schiemann could not be held for deliberately spreading the AIDS virus. "Look, we have him on visa charges, but we want to make it much harder for him than that . . . if we let him go, he might just end up in Cambodia, Laos or Burma and keep spreading this disease," he said.

The Public Health Ministry wants Chaiyaphum's young women tested for HIV, regardless of whether they have had sex with Schiemann. Local hospital staff had posted more than 2000 warnings about the German, urging girls to have blood tests. In response to the appeal, 66 girls had tested positive out of a town of 30,000 people.

"We don't know how many people he has infected, but it's somewhere in the vicinity of 400 to 500," a health official said.

Schiemann's common-law wife, Noi, is dying from AIDS and has allegedly suffered several violent attacks by Schiemann.

--The Age, AU 2004-10-12

I hope this fucker rots!

"I got this report moments ago and it broke my heart...

...I hope this fucker rots!"

I'd love to say something about this piece of ______ , but I can't even find the words. I'm with you, honey. I feel sick at the thought.

This is a new definition of low in human depravity.

I would like to ask RN or any other informed members whether there is any correlation between the amount of time spent bareback and the risk of catching an STD.

On the few occasions when my raincoat has fallen off or been torn during vaginal intercourse, I've been able to find out and pull out in a matter of a few seconds, but do those few seconds equal an entire unprotected session in terms of risk, or I'm I likely to be 'home-free' due to the early detection?

This article is simply BS. Let's get back on topic. The truth.

This story from Thailand is complete BS. You can take a syringe, fill it with 2 cc of highly infected HIV tainted blood and directly inject it into people's blood stream and not have the infection rate as this article claims. HIV in normal heterosexual acts is not very contagious. True, it is more contagious for the female recipient, but it still usually take hundreds of exposures before transmission occurs. If they had of claimed he infected 3 or 4 girls, maybe even a dozen, it would be believable, but 400-500? common, he would have to be having sex 200-300 times a day to achieve this feat.

Tang~!

The point is not whether or not the guy infected X or Y number of people, it is the intentionality of the behavior.

"The point is not whether or not the guy infected X or Y number of people, it is the intentionality of the behavior".

And for me, as a mother, the fact that he targeted children. I don't care whether he infected 1 person or 1000 people. He was bribing kids to have sex with him, which is bad enough in itself - let alone when he knew full well he was HIV+. That's just sick.

RN I agree

Anyone targeting kids shot be strung up by their d...

Also with the knowledge of his infection, compounding the problem.

Much of the problem IMHO is our press nowadays. Not just in this arena, but in all other aspects of life. Free press is wonderful, sensationalism isn't. The numbers quoted in the article seem to high as mentioned here.

The facts on AIDS transmission appear to vary by expert, with some commonality. I had a big scare, found out a lady I had been seeing on and off for 3 years was diagnosed as positive, her doctors best guess was about a year or so before we met.

All our intercourse (both doors) was covered, with only one blowout, but we always started with mutual oral, sometimes to completion. Math a little hazy, don't hold me to particulars but around 20 trips over 3 years (different countries) each trip averaging 10-12 days, generally 2 sessions a day so quite a bit of contact.

migrant

Fact is I will probably die from my high cholesteral before I ever get aids. I should be eating more pussy red meat and less animal fat.

Npaul,

Guess you should stick to skinny girls. (sorry folks, I couldn't resist)

Let's assume, for a moment, that the story is true. Why not just announce his release date and location and be done with it ? My money would be on him not making it to a taxi.

FD

Well said Domino,

This story stinks from all angles. For the record, any person who tries to intentionally infect another person with HIV, should be given the death sentence, (in my opinion). So if this guy, even attempted to give it to just one young lady, he deserves no mercy.

However, the facts in this story just don't add up. I for one, feel HIV is somewhat more contagious then what some of us are lead to believe, but I also recognize it's not as contagious as it would have to be, for one guy to infect 400-500 others.

Statistically, if a male who has HIV screws a female, unprotected and cums in her vagina, it takes an average of 100 exposures for her to become infected. If the female is the infected one, it takes about 3000 tries on average, for the male to become infected.

So this guy would have had to have had sex, hundreds of thousands of times, to have infected 500 girls!

As I stated before, even if he were to inject them with HIV tainted blood, the infection rate still lies around at only 15% for this act.

If you took HIV infected blood and pulled it from the HIV infected person's veins, shot it into 100 non HIV infected persons, about 15 on average would catch the virus.

The Thais, as much as I love them all, are famous for sensationalizing things. This is another prime example of this.

These girls were either infected by long term acts of being prostitutes and were complied together to make a case that this single guy got them all, or the story is complete BS. I guess a price one might expect to pay, for screwing the local police man's daughter, in Thailand.

Tang~!

Tang, Once again -- I disagree. When a man has vaginal sex with a women the small blood vessels lining the vagina are always torn to some extent, and semen is loaded with HIV. There is a case in western Washington right now about a guy with HIV who knowingly had sex with about 30 different women -- some only once or twice -- and now about 25 of them have tested positive for the strain of HIV this man carries. It's a lot easier to pass than you might think.

To think that a guy who has been infected for three years (possibly longer) could have sex with six or seven hundred women is not too implausible at all. I'm sure the 400 to five hundred infected by him alone is an exageration, many may have been infected by Big Schlong, LOL! But half that number wouldn't surprise me.

Civ2000

Domino,

Your points are well taken, but you seem to have overlooked my opening qualifier: "Let's assume, for a moment, that the story is true". Someone who could do such a thing deserves what he gets.

I think that you know me well enough to know that I would not advocate denial of due process, normally. Granted, this is Thailand we're talking about, not the hallowed halls of western judicia, and I would view "proof" or evidence with scepticism. But, if guilt was sure, I could live with street justice trumping due process. OJ walked. Richard Ramirez (the Night Stalker [Thanks Chubby]) would have been beaten to death by his citizen captors had the police not intervened. Now he sits on death row nearly 30 years after his crimes.

Being affected by the emotion of an issue does not make me a simpleton. It is a human response and I am grossly human.

You are a valued contributor to this board, but you can be rather condescending. Your "choir" take is an example IMHO. And this is an opinion section. Mine are not invalidated simply because they differ from yours anymore than yours are invalidated by mine.

I'm sorry that I felt the need to defend myself, but I felt that your post was more of an attack on me than on the validity of the story.

Beer ?

FD

Richard Ramirez was not the hillside strangler, he was called the "Night Stalker." Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianci were the "Hillside Stranglers."

I guess I am part of the choir eventhough I perfer to be recognized as an independant pain in the ass/nosey motherfucker.

I'm not really that smart of a guy, average at best, so I'm having trouble figuring out why someone (Domino in this case) that offers so many opinions (some good/some bad) has such distaste for opinions.

Ok, so granted the thread is entitled "the TRUTH about Aids", but whenever a dialog is in place there are going to be opinions expressed, it just happens.

Domino, this is a question directed towards you, in my pathetic attempt to "brain" storm I came up with an idea to run by you. If we had a doctor or research scientist among us that would come forward as such (I'm sure there are plenty out there) and they were asigned "moderator" of this section to answer questions and defeat mistruths would that satisfy your needs?

Endless reproduction of the same post and repetition of insults is not "discussion" -- it's a Monty Python skit.

Joe,

"argument is an intellectual process intended to establish a proposition" "no it isn't"

Yes, I'm wasting bandwidth.

Domino,

Sorry for flying off the handle. You just pricked a sensative spot.

I am flattered by making your "top 10".

As for the Philippines. Glad to help. If you think all would like to hear, post a question in the appropiate section. But if you'd rather, PM me with questions. Outside chance I'll be there in Feb. (Phuket and the RP)

Luv Chubby,

Yes ! I was racking my brain but came up short. Thanks for the correction.

FD

Firedick,

There was a top ten as well?? Tell me...did I happen to make it into the top ten by any chance?? ;)

The data on HIV transmission is frequently clouded by political correctness, NGO agendas and a general lack of good scientific study. That said, there appear to be some reliable studies published in the last few years.

Receiving blood from an infected person is a nearly surefire way to acquire the infection. The rate of sero-conversion will depend on the ammount of the inoculant and the viral load in the infected individual. This kind of behavior is a no no.

Another no no is to engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse with an infected individual. The major role of the colon is to conserve water through absorbtion. The colon is lined with a very thin layer of cells and is easily abraided. It is well documented that a single act of receptive anal intercourse is enough to catch the disease. Remember, the whole epidemic started with a Canadian airline steward who had single sexual acts with multiple receptive males and the rate of transmission was tremendous.

The rate of HIV transmission from getting a BBBJ is virtually nonexistant, but you can catch other things like gonorrhea.

Now what about other methods? Any sore on the penis or surrounding areas or in the vagina or vulva of women is a welcome wagon for contracting HIV or any other STD for that matter.

Quinn et al conducted a study of concordant couples in Africa. That is a situation where either the male or the female was positive for HIV. They were offered condoms, but most refused. They were followed for 3 years. The results were very interesting. If the infected partner had less than 1500 viral particles per ml, the other partner never sero-converted. No circumsized male ever sero-converted. And it took hundreds of sexual acts (nearly 500) to contract the disease.

In South Africa, it has been reported that only 10% of the males are circumsized. The average male may have as many as 8 partners per day (what are they taking) and other STDs which damage the skin of the penis are rampant. Bathing immediately after sex may not be an option as well. (90% of males in non-muslim SE Asia are uncircumsized).

What to do? Use a condom. It will protect you from 99% of STDs and make it very unlikely you will ever contract HIV. You can still get warts and molloscum and possibly herpes, but bathing immediately after sex will help a lot. If you have the resourses to have your partner proven not to have a disease then you can go bare back. Never engage in receptive anal intercourse or IVDA.

I hope this is of some use.

Garotoz

[url]http://www.palmbeachpost.com/health/content/health/aids.html[/url]

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4039583.stm:[/url] Genital herpes is ok and no big deal? Would you fuck her?

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4032699.stm[/url]

This HIV article has some good links for anyone interested.

Circumcision: Just to take one element. That is something that can be measured so academics write papers on that. The US has a relatively high circumcision rate so these protected morons can do lots of studies on that, comparing irrelvant group A to irrelevant group B. In Africa, some tribes are cut, others not. Muslims and Jews tend to be but both religions also have lots of laws about cleanliness. In Africa, anyway, figures and studies don't mean shit.

Bottom line: if you are cut, don't think it gives you one iota more of protection. Better sacrifice a chicken to the gods. And that is despite what any gang of libertarians such as Libertarians for Christ aka Pheonix Dave may say.

I say that as one who is currently fucking hookers in Northern Thailand who have very high HIV rates.

I received a PM from a member about Hepatitis B. It is well documented that about 80% of native born asians are Hep B positive. They are born with the infection and they do not develop an immunity to the virus. Their viral titers are high and they may pass it to others through sexual intercourse, or through oral/fecal contamination.

There are two ways to avoid the disease. One, use a condom. And two, get immunized for the disease.

Garotoz

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041215/ap_on_he_me/aids_drug[/url]


Here is another bunch of lies from these well funded libertartians. It would make more sense to put these assholes on trial for war crimes than Saddam: they are responsible for a lot more damage. But the caravan will roll on and the parasites will continue to gorge on the Aids industry. Mistruths about Aids would be more appropriate.

Garotoz, while I absolutely agree with you on your recommendations regarding Hep B safety, I'm unable to track down your 80% statistic, which seems very high. Could you refer me to a source? Most things I've seen say that around 75% of those who are chronically infected (and thereby carriers) of Hep B live in Asia, but that's obviously different than sayng three-quarters of the population is infected. The CDC says that 90% of those infected at birth and not immunized become carriers, and China supposedly has the worst problem overall, as it has 100 million who are chronically infected, but that's still far less than 10% of the population. If 80% are infected at birth the chronic numbers would be much higher.

I must stand corrected, the 80% figure is indeed incorrect it is 10% in Thailand. But remember it is 100 times as infectious as HIV and is spread in the same way as HIV.

Sorry about the percent error.

Garotoz

I found a reliable infectious disease resource which states that in highly endemic areas such as Africa, Asia and Oceania about 20% of the general population are chronic carriers of Hep B. And about 40% of these acquired it at birth. Their immune systems failed to respond to the virus and they have no antibodies against the disease. And they have high viral titers and are infectious. The actual percentage of chronic carriers will vary from region to region. Thailand 10%, Taiwan 20%, etc.

It doesn't matter really. These are very high numbers for the general population and I expect sex workers, and IVDAs to have much higher percentages - well above 50%.

Just tell me what Medical science has contributed to sex in the first place.
All they did is scare people from sex with dreaded diseases they find now and then with names like AIDS, Herpes, Hepataisis, gonnorea and may be 100 more i don't know off, these are the "stars" of medical field that make billions of dollars every year to these so called medical experts.

All they do is find diseases first, then try to find the cure so that they can in mean time suck millions from ignorent fearfull masses of the word "disease "and they don't even gaurentee your survival from the next big event.

sex is now acrynon for fear, thanks to these guys, why can't they just give clear cut answers and say once and for all that, OK so here we go, from now on no more diseases to ye people of humanity we have found the cure for all disease that incur the planet earth.

I was so scared of all the diseases on my young days after getting extra knowledge on the medical front on sex that i just shagged my way to adult hood.

you can't touch girls lips 'cos saliva may be infected, you can't do a BBBJ, as her saliva may infect your open dick head, she may have cuts in her lips from you can get infected if you let her suck it, you can't DATY as her squirt may contain harmfull bacteria to cause you gonnorea, syphllies, herpes and god knows what else and what not. we call ourself men, if we can't fuck decently.

Its like women have become some kind of a disease magnet, if you touch her you are dead. you can't do anal sex as thats more likely to contain the virus
and what else and what not, will someone give a break to what these guys have in store for us.

It took me 10 years to come out of the shakles of the medical phycomania on sex that these guys are proleferating.

wish i was in primitive times, it was really free then, no need to bother anyone just fuck fuck fuck eat eat eat sleep sleep sleep, these three words were enough for survival back then and they lived more than a century.

sex is the most wonderfull event between a man and a women created by god for us to enjoy, can you just even think, yes think of the moment that you orgasm, no one can and no will ever be untill he cums, there was never a word in dictionary to describe the true feelings that comes with orgasm with both man and women alike.

Such a sorry state of affairs that we have come that even we had conquered the moon we ain't close to conquering the so called diseases, isn't that odd, the more humanity progresses the more chained we seems to become.

Be free from all the negative energies, practive yoga(pranayama) and I challenge if there was any disease on this planet earth, that connot be cured by constant yoga practice. well if you do yoga, you won't fall sick at the first place.

Believe in prevention better than cure and get a sex life thats like in KAMA-SUTRA.

Loser =

You actually believe that fricken YOGA will keep you from getting VD ??

Well , I guess it might help = if your Yoga style's Lotus Position involves wearing a Condom

You also wrote =

[quote][i]Such a sorry state of affairs that we have come that even we had conquered the moon we ain't close to conquering the so called diseases, isn't that odd, the more humanity progresses the more chained we seems to become.[/quote][/i]

The Situation is much , much Worse than even you imagine , Loser =

Man·kind is currently in a losing War against microbes of all sorts ; and it's only a matter of time before either sexually transmitted diseases or the emergence of a Flu Virus there's no vaccine for , wipes out most if not all of Humanity

If Horror Stories are your 'thing' , I'd suggest you put down your Stephen King novel and pick up
a copy of Laurie Gann's [b]The Coming Plague[/b]

This book is non·fiction , and will leave you sleep·less for [i]weeks[/i]

It's available from amazon.com =

[URL]http://*******.com/6kuav[/URL]

Here it is,

HIV causes AIDS.
There is no cure.
There's no vaccine (not one that works worth a damn anyways).
There will be no cure or vaccine anytime soon.
Those who carry the virus live in virtually every country on earth.
Most of them (millions and millions) will die from it.
If you come into intimate physical contact with them YOU may get it.
For many people, being on anti-retrovirals is almost as bad as having AIDS itself.
If you don't want to get it, stick with a safe partner and/or wear protection.

Anyone who tells you otherwise (with regards to the above statements) is full of shit.

Rock

[QUOTE=Rock Dog]Here it is,

HIV causes AIDS.
There is no cure.
There's no vaccine (not one that works worth a damn anyways).
There will be no cure or vaccine anytime soon.
Those who carry the virus live in virtually every country on earth.
Most of them (millions and millions) will die from it.
If you come into intimate physical contact with them YOU may get it.
For many people, being on anti-retrovirals is almost as bad as having AIDS itself.
If you don't want to get it, stick with a safe partner and/or wear protection.

Anyone who tells you otherwise (with regards to the above statements) is full of shit.

Rock[/QUOTE]

Actually I agree with what you posted here, but on the brighter side of things, a cure for HIV is coming soon.

There have been 5 breakthroughs in the past 6 months regarding scientific studies on treating HIV. The latest promising venture is from Israel where they used a vaccine to block HIV from connecting to uninfected cells, they then combines this with current inhibitor treatments, they were able to eradicate HIV from monkeys using this method. Looks real promising for people too, although those studies are still about a year away in people.

In France, they treated 80 patients with nothing but a single dose vaccine injection recently designed, from just one injection, they were able to reduce the viral load BY 90%, or greater in 78 of the 80 volunteers! Most have sustained the 90% plus reduction for going on 18 months. Some are still seeing the virus be reduced even at 18 months out. Several are now at undetectable levels, or less then 50 parts per sample! This is not a cure, but if this procedure holds in the pattern it is, it would mean a once per three year, maybe even only once per five year vaccine injection and this would be able to suppress the virus indefinitely.

There are scores of promising studies from the USA too, these are more aimed at long term treatment and suppression through single dosing, eventually the goal is to reduce dosing to a once per month pill or injection.

I read an article last month, that most HIV top scientist estimate a cure, or long term, easy treatment will be widely available in the next 5 years or less.

However, all this being said, it's still best to keep it covered. Until they have a proven affective cure, or vaccine, my schlong wears the raincoat for everything but a BJ and so should you!

TANG~!

Tang,

I read your post with a great deal of pleasure. It's nice to see that promising new treatments are on the horizon. The key point is that these are still just treatments, not a cure.

As such, you would be dependant on them for the rest of your life.

You would still be stuck with the status of "HIV positive" with all the social implications that this status carries with it.

You'd still be facing the very real possibility that the treatments effectiveness may decrease over time as the virus continues to adapt and evolve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for better treatments... even a cure. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for either though.

Rock

ps. Even without HIV there's still be hepatitis, herpes, drug resistant syphillis, chlamydia, venereal warts etc. etc. I doubt things will ever change that much. Someday I think we will all look back on the post-antibiotic/pre-herpes era as the Golden Age of risk free sex.

PsyberZombie, Rock Dog

Buddy,

We have not come to Planet earth thinking its all bed of roses.

Lets just put things in perspective, think about the thousands dead in Psunami, some describe it as a worst form of death that could come in way, without warning, taking there loved ones away in a flash, think about the thousand's of children dead before reaching adult hood, on estimate there will be 100,000 thousand dead . Thats just mother natures "ONE" way of reminding, you can't beat me up. I'm like that "infinitum pain", if you look back to history, no century was bed of roses, every one had to go throw misery and pain, no century was bloodier than the last one, the more we seem to know nature the more she strikes with pain. Even as you say we find the cure for AIDS tomarrow, can anyone give me gaurentee that a killer disease won't emerge again more powerfull than aids itself, none, as the case is it would be more deadlier one.

Its all in priorities, In every generation the mother nature comes up with some shit, earlier it was Maleria, TB, Plague, cancer etc, just when we thought yeah alright we conquered that all and now we can live in paradise, there was more on offer, now its aids, hapatatis, sars etc, give me a break, can't you see the game here, whats hapenning, will the earth ever be a paradise, will they ever allow us to lead a normal life, the truth is this world was horrible thousand of years ago and it still is, inspite of people and goverments trying to make it look all good and trying there best to do so, we all are still stuck up in this horrible planet we call earth, the same pain, the same fear lurks each one of us, its a vicious circle, at best being called a tantalus hell.

Even if one is 100 percent healthy, still he got to die one day buddy, even if you get cure for all the diseases in the world, still you got to die , even if you don't fuck and become a father, you got to die still, like homer would say if lincolm was soo smart why did he die.

Death is the only reality in this world and no matter how you try to improve, it become more bloodier, its like chronic rheomatism, you take it out from head it goes to your heart, you take it out from your heart, it goes to your legs, its like never ending vicious circle. the best "law of average at work", you ain'tgot more than your neighbor's share.

Its just a big picture i'm trying to project, I mean to say don't we die anyway more horribly than any diseases thats could come. why so much attention to AIDS, Do you think the whole of humanity will become extinct, if we do not propogate whats in it and whats not, give me a break. Its just one way to your death. thats all. even if you don't die of AIDS, you die :)

you do or not do, you be the nicest guy in town, or the villian in society, like who cares, you fuck or not fuck, She does not care at all "when your time comes you got to go", no matter how good the person you are, you might have donated 1000's to charity and may not have told one single lie all your life, but still you got to go, why mother, i being the best guy, i went to church every day, i never told a lie all my life, i never fucked anybody, i did my best to be the best, but why me, why i have to die like the bad guys, why the bad as well as the good die, why no concession there, infact the good dies much earlier than the baddies, why mother why yours ways are soo horrible to comprehend, why you keep on playing with me, why can't you just leave me alone, and allow me to make this earth heaven by my good work,
thats what you want right ??, thats what everyone taught me from my parents to teacher, that be good be good and now i hear that, even the good guy dies, why the hell you cheated me, i was doing all the good work to this world by charity, protecting your environment from bad guys, being a good citizen, finding cure for diseases, building for better tommarow, then why me, i'm doing all good to you then why i have to die.

Why you come in between, who the hell are you to take my life away, WHY CAN'T I CHOOSE THE DAY, TIME AND PLACE OF MY DEATH.

I being the nice guy that i'm and what she does, she don't give a damm, no matter what i do. and its true with all the inhabitants of planet earth and the one and only way of getting out of this horrible mess is "spiritualism", going to god in a practical way, no medicines can save you from death save god.

'MAN IS INDEED SPIRITUAL", no man was ever born and no man will ever die, thats why we found out re-births, there got to be some explanation of being doing good to others and thats what we call "karma". the theory of re-incarnation, of ghost and of spirits, of being in the shadow of "god" and becoming god itself, thats practical vedanta and thats eastern philosophy of life, and the first step is yoga( joining with god).

Hatha yoga, the lotus position you described is the first step on the long journey were you will be the master of your self.

One and the only "permanent solution" to day to day misery that we call life.

Death is nothing now, its just a change of state, you die and get birth again and the cycle continous, and when you realises you are not the miserable body but the spirit itself you get liberated.

There is more to what meets the eyes, practice "raja yoga", and be free forever..

Yes, we all gotta die someday, but that's hardly a good argument for playing in heavy traffic.

As to why so much attention gets paid to AIDS -- ever watched someone die from it? I have and it ain't fun. And saying that millions of people are gonna go that way is legitimate cause for concern, in the same way all the other nasties you mention were causes for concern.

It's beyond ironic to hear you tout a lifestyle as "the answer" and yet say that being careful (a lifestyle adjustment) is somehow foolish. Bravo for yoga or whatever else floats your philosophical or spiritual boat but slap on a condom and get your hepatitis vaccinations as well.

Loser,

I read slowly through your post so I could know where you're coming from. I can see your point and I agree that we all gotta go sometime.

You seem to have restated some points that I'd made in my last post. Even if there was no such thing as AIDS, there's still all kinds of other nasty things out there waiting for us. Your attitude regarding these things seems to be "whatever happens, happens".

However, I feel that it's possible to protect oneself against certain things that are avoidable. It follows that this would be the smart thing to do. Many of us don't share your somewhat fatalistic attitude. If we've got to die eventually, let it be from something we can't control, avoid or escape.... not from taking a stupid chance for a brief moment of pleasure.

One last thing. To answer one of your questions, I think one of the reasons why AIDS gets so much attention is that many of us can remember a time when you could enjoy a good fuck and the worst thing you had to worry about was catching the clap ( and that some of your friends might find out). You didn't have to worry about dying. Sex is a part of everyones life. Nobody wants to die. With AIDS, there becomes a connection between sex and death and this is kind of disturbing when you think about it.

Peace,

Rock

Loser writes =

[quote][i]WHY CAN'T I CHOOSE THE DAY, TIME AND PLACE OF MY DEATH.[/i][/quote]

You [i][b]can[/i][/b] choose the day , time , place , and even the Cause and Manner of your Death , Loser

It's called [b]Suicide[/b] . Some people would say that having bare·back Sex with
a Prostitute is Suicidal Behavior [ although I've done it twice in my mongering career ,
and I'm still here ]

You also write =

[quote][i]Death is nothing now, its just a change of state, you die and get birth again and the cycle continous, and when you realises you are not the miserable body but the spirit itself you get liberated. [/quote][/i]

This 'Eternal Return' Theory on the Fate of the Universe [ and YOU with·in it ] is based entirely on the empirical observations of the Cyclicity of some aspects of Life

Fer ex = day becomes night becomes day ; the Seasons are cyclical ; as are the phases of the Moon ; the motion of the visible Planets ; etc ; etc . The wholly un·supported Leap in Logic you Zen guys then make is = Why shouldn't the Human Soul also be cyclical in nature ??

What you guys for·get is that all this cyclicity is just part of a big 'winding down' of the Universe that will ultimately result in its 'Heat Death' [ a/k/a [b]Entropy[/b] a/k/a The Second Law of Thermo·Dynamics , expressed mathematically as :
dS = dQ / T ]

If you believe in Entropy , as I do , then the most rational behavior is to try to extend your Life Forces as much as possible ; whether that means throwing another log on the fire , or wearing Condoms and getting the Hep·B Vaccine

Speaking of the Hep·B vaccine = it's a series of three injections , although two will be protective for over 95 % of people . After my second injection , my fricken arm almost fell off from the reaction , so I never bothered to get the third one

I never had my anti·bodies checked , either . I guess that I like to live dangerously just like you do , Loser... just not to the Same Degree

Hello All,

Wishing you the best of the best for this year :)

During my educating days, we were overly educated on sex and its negative aspects, it reached such a point that we were made to believe that sex is not a good thing to do, whats with AIDS, Hepatasis, Herpes, gonoreaa et all, they picturised in every details the horrer's of sex without protection, far from telling the beauty of what sex is all about ( which i had to find out on my later stages of life), they focussed on after effects of sex to the extent that we were made to believe that sex is indeed not a natural instinct in human beings and it has to be avoided.

I was 16 then, and somehow it gotten to me to the extent that i made lot of researching to find out what its all about, and to my horrer, even outsiders give 90 percent thumbs down to sex, mostly everyone seems to project sex in negative and horrible way, even with "CONDOM", some write that there are chances of getting STD's.

Sex was one of the four horseman of the apoclypse, considering the sexual instinct we have in teens with no pressures of earning it was good life with no sex.

I shagged my way to adulthood, fearing for the worse, with whats if's and what not, i choose to be safe than sorry, and swallowed my sexual urges for one decade.

Then the internet hapenned and found that there are scores of people like me who are equally horrified with the evils of sex yet taking risk with "condom" and I mean haven't they learned or read even in this forum itself that there are chances of getting STD even with condom and what if it broke.

And moreoever what more you do anyway, rather than being mecahnical, like you can't do BJ, as her cuts in mouth or lips may infect your dick or worse her saliva may contain Hep. virus, you can't do DATY as her vaginal fluids may contain viruses that may cause herpes etc, you can't suck her as her fluids there are found to contain viruses, and whats else and what not, you know better, TELL ME , you call this sex, all you can do is to be on the safer side, is just touch your dick and her pussy with two coats for protection or lest her body may infect you for ever. Judge yourself, was the cave man ever better than the times you live in.

The only way for me to get rid of this hugomonastic-Zombaderie of mental torture by the so called "Medical experts", media and the society was to "GET OUT" and find your own way attitude.

Instead of focussing on myself i focussed on the society, media and the Medical experts them self's and after my studies "IT AIN"T lOOKED GOOD FOR THEM TOO", all they did was to make us live on limited scope that they call life.

life is much much much bigger than anyone can even get words for it to describe, our life is universe itself, its beyond any diseases or social customes, its infinite, for one its even beyond your bodily existence.

Now for day to day survival, what they call life is no life at all, were is the freedom, society wants you to believe in whatever they percieve it to be true and we believe it blindly and as a result we remain in the "Law of averages" like blind leading the blind, we remain in the mesh of illusion.

As i wrote earlier, if you look at the lifes facts, its indeed a horrible planet to live on, at best a "tantalus hell", we get food, clothing and shelter and remain satisfied, thinking that we achieved alot in relation to society and in the mean time we take a lot of crap from it too, in short whoever follow social norms he is bound to remain slave from the contradicting forces of nature which will always have negative and positive impact on the life. the positive ones that you feel good about -- the negative ones, even if you don't want, you get the complete package :)

Thats why there is a cry for spirituality, some one to take you away from both good and bad and make you in a state of bliss,

Thats why jesus the christ, budda, allah, shiva came into existence, there main job was to take you away from the clutches from contradicting forces that some call hypocrisy, irony, evil, death, birth, life, diseases etc to a place were there is no misery.

I dared myself for sexual freedom, I took the courage to suck, to lick, to fuck and BECOME A MAN, and i see many thousands in every corner of the world who are so scared like i was to even venture once with condom for sex, they can't, they are too tied down by society, by so called "EXPERTS", you read these forums and you can yourself gauge the extent of fear phycosis that has gotten into once called man.
Even if you have sex with condom, we are so scared about the after effects that we have read in books, we just wait for it to happen and if not, we get some relief till the next adventure.

I call upon each and every individual who was too scared to monger for sex fearing all those diseases that society thrust upon you, for starts take a pack of condom and just FUCK, suck and lick, nothing will happen to you, stand up for your life and be free.

I want these "experts" to give back my 10 years of youthfull life, when my libido was ooozzzziiigggg, and i had everything except sex the way it should have being, i mean i cry for the oppourtunities i missed by passing women, i was young and restless, I never dared casual sex or one nighters fearing for the worse or like they say "think about the future pal", Now what !! I'm in my 30's and i cry for the oppourtunites lost 'cos of sexual misconceptions.

I just want young and teen guys to know that sex ain't that bad as society, media had made out to be, change your mental set up by having sex "Atleast with condom".

Psyber,

In spirituality, entropy theory may be called "MAYA", its meta-physical and interesting, its like action has equal and opposite reaction :)

Rock,

Not only AIds, we fear about there are scores of diseases that make you not to come closer to women, I request you to search for "raja yoga" in google and read some topic, hope it may be usefull, i think we need complete "New set of mind " to be free.

Rock here,

Just read through your latest post. I get the feeling that you have a few issues.... especially regarding sex. That's not hard to understand. I myself can remember the good old days when sex and death were 2 completely unrelated topics. It's a horrible idea and it really sucks whenever I see a hot chick and I start wondering what are the chances she "has something". I think this has really affected you in a deeply personal way.

What you are doing now is kind of like a counterattack against your fear. Just like WWII bomber crews or seamen on the Uboats. They lived with the knowlege that many of them would die, so they really cut loose with the partying. It almost seems like you're doing the same thing.

Loser, you can go on the path you've chosen. Hump as many different women as you want, wherever and whenever with whoever. It's all up to you. I guarantee you that someday, sooner or later, you're gonna get something you can't get rid of. If and when that day comes, don't go crying for everyone to feel sorry for you. Just remember that it was your choice to take such a chance.

As for the rest of us, we'll take whatever level of precautions we see fit. Personally, I think going bareback is great, but only when it's with someone special who has earned my trust.

Just sharing my thoughts,

Rock

I'm going to try to respond in part to your posts. This may prove difficult as they are long and a tad difficult to digest. I might have to break it into smaller chunks.

You say that all the discussion of disease, etc., we were led to believe that sex was not a good thing to do and that sex was not a natural instinct in human beings and thus to be avoided.

I say, speak for yourself. That doesn't sound like me, my friends, and most of the mongers on this board. I've never avoided sex out of fear of a disease. Sure, I usually put on a condom to have FS with a SW, that's only common sense. I've also been vacinated against Hep A & B, which I feel is common sense as well.

That being said, I've performed DATY countless times on hookers and don't worry about bbbj. I just make sure I'm their first customer of the day and that they're freshly showered.

I don't think that exhibiting common sense and taking a few precautions is tantamount to avoiding sex. I think maybe you had or have some neurosis which caused you to have an excessive fear of disease at one point.

Some of the stuff you say frankly doesn't make much sense. A few posts ago you talked about ancient societies that only had to eat, sleep, and fuck. I've studied anthropology quite extensively and have never heard of such a culture. Disease has always been prevalent, and they've always had to hunt, forage, provide shelter and fire. I think back then sex was secondary to survival and then more for propagation rather than pure physical pleasure.

You also mentioned that since TB, Malaria, and Cancer have been conquered that now AIDS comes upon the scene. Since when? Malaria still kills 2 million people a year and cancer scores more. AIDS doesn't even come close.

So, my advice to you is do like I do. Suck, fuck, DATY, bbbj, with all the SW's you can. But use common sense and take a few precautions. You'll have fun and probably not die prematurely. You do look both ways when crossing the street don't you? This is kind of the same thing.

Civ2000

Well said, Civ2000. While I agree with Loser that sex education tends to focus on the negative aspects (pregnancy, disease) as opposed to positive, the idea that most people are [i]overly educated on sex[/i] is rather laughable. Education certainly isn't keeping kids from having sex, and teenage pregnancy rates in the US make clear that condom use is far from universal.

There's a risk to walking across the street, but we still do it. There's a risk to just about everything, but life goes on. That doesn't mean it's not sensible to look both ways before walking, and it doesn't mean you should willfully ignore risks because it might crimp your style. It means you need to use good judgement and make your own choices.

I came of age during the pre-AIDS era, and I've changed my behavior accordingly in light of the disease. It hasn't changed how I think about sex, only my risk-analysis and thereby behavior. Like Civ2k, I still enjoy BBBJ and DATY, but I am more aware of the risks I'm taking (and I feel the risk of AIDS there is so low as to not be worth a lot of worry) and so it's a specific choice made with a clear understanding of the risks involved and not one I always make, as I also use condoms and dental dams at times.

You want to have condomless sex fairly safely? The answer isn't yoga -- it's a mutually monogamous relationship. You want to have condomless sex in general? That's your call, but please don't pretend you're doing anything but engaging in high-risk behavior. Belief if Jesus or Buddha or yoga or whatever is fine, but those beliefs don't automatically provide a pass for stupid behavior.

If you plan to monger, be safe. And to help you out, Consumer Reports recently tested and rated the performance of condoms. Here's a link to a story about the top performers, [url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/01/04/best.condoms.reut/index.html[/url]

rock, joe , civ2000, psyber zombie,

ok,

i just want others to realize what game is going on here.

for a minute just "think for yourself" the "facts", forget about what you learned from outside, just be yourself for sometime.

just see the game here, first the mother nature gave you the greastest stimulent ever for sex the man has ever seen, the "v" and then what she do she in turn gave us the biggest threat to human existance itself "aids". i mean is this a joke or what. what fun is left of now if you pop the pill and put on two coats to be "safe". ha ha. gotcha, thats what i'm trying to figure out all along, why is there always tremendous contradiction in whatever we seem to do.

its being couple of years i being banging with "v" and with two coats , and i never tasted pussy with my dick, i mean whats the point in saying that we progessed a lot in science, when all we do is go in a vicious circle.

just think for yourself, why the heck this viagra thing did not come into existence even a decade earlier, forget about what others think or write, why did this has to come when the threat to sexual intercourse is at its peak. why? now don't counter argue with medical science progress takes time crap, then why the heck, they did not exterminate all diseases by this time , why the heck each day diseases keep on increasing as civ2000 said even today we die of maleria.

why the f**k i cannot enjoy the full pleasure of "v", in my opinion the greatest gift to "mankind", give me an answer, we are no better than the cave man, with all this [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord116][CodeWord116][/url]-pah over develpment, we are still the same, the more we seem connected to other countries for pussies the more diseases come into existence. i know development is not only for sex, yet its a indicator for everything thats happening around, think for yourself.

is our life any better now, we are as helpless as were our medivel brothers, we may conquer moon and everest but there seems to be tons of more problems to get in with, its all ultimately comes to "law of averages", you ain't no better than your neighbor.

consider this, we take most of the thing for granted or just do it, take for instance, we eat thrice a day, then it goes down the drain in the morning , again we eat and again it goes down the drain, i mean hello, were you going with all this, ( its a low topic, but its what we call living life) i have eaten once, then why the heck i need to eat again and again, yes to live your life otherwise you die, yeah yeah, mother, i know even if i eat to full stomach, i will die anyway, and more over in the last 100 years of so called development, our average life expectancy is 74 years still, when will they make it 100-200-300 and so on, i mean why moore law does't hold good for human life. why with all this vitamins and protiens i become old and even if i "be safe", life doesn't seems to move forward same old ego that makes me feel accoumplished.

just take asian psunami for instance, first she made a man fall in love with the most beautiful girl in town, he is being the best sincere guy in town, never did no harm to no one, they got married, they had two cute twins, all wells till three years later they went to thailand for vacation, on 26 december, they were in phi=phi island, they saw the huge wave and were soo scared were stunned to the ground, all four were swept by the waves, only the girl survived, her hubby and children were taken by the sea, never ever to see even the body.

now were is the justice and logic tell me guys !!, why the heck mother nature first made them fall in love, why did she gave them cute twins when all her motive was too take them away so ruthlessly, can you now imagine the pain she going through right now, joe said that dying of aids is the most painfull thing to do, can anyone now go and tell the mother of two, who has lost her two babies and hubby in psunami that its nothing, we have seen more tragedy than this. she will rather have aids ten times then being in this condition rest of her life, and if you ask her choice, she would probably ask give me aids if you can give my love and babies back, i know its too freaky talk, my whole point is, aids or no aids, life's like that the cycle won't stop, its a ruthless world, the more we propagate aids and negative things, you making life more difficult.

why the heck she gave me dick when i can't use it properly, is this a joke or what, why did she gave it to me in the first place, when all she did was to scare me away from the horrible diseases, whats in her mind, i fail to understand, she is not mother nature, yeah she is a *****, yeah now i feel good by calling her by what she is, *****, live me alone, let me live my own life, i won't follow your dictat, i will do as i wish, as when i follow your life, anyway you don't do much, all you say is be safe, look left and right to live or else i will kill you, hahaahahaha, now u wont fool me again...

the first sign itself is here, there is no topic in wsgforum itself for positive aspects of sex and life, there must be a thread for "the most beautifull way to have sex" along with american women (-ve one) truth about aids(-ve one), the whole mentality is now of negative energy.

to my finding, to get out of this contradiction and irony and being free
for ever is "yoga", man has to be indeed spiritual, thats why jesus the chirst came in and showed the way, thats why allah, shiva and buddha came in and showed us the way to get out of this hell, that we call planet earth.

guys, no amount of so called research and development or progress of humanity crap will save us, only god and being god is the one and only way out and the practical way to do is "yoga".

millions have taken the challenge to "improve" this world to make this world a better place, hahaha, what a joke, guys this world is as it is, with a mixture of good and bad, they both are contradictory in word itself so our life is, there can never ever be any more good added or subtracted to this world nor more evil added, it is as it is, the ***** won't let this world take away from her, only god, god and god can save us and who say's sex is not part of it, even with sex the most beautful way for expresing love can be used as a tool for being free and thats called tantra.

go for yoga, tantra, mantra et all and save yourself and others...

loser

Loser,

first off I want to say that your posts are getting better each time. You have a good point. It is ironic that we have a cock, but mother nature won't let us use them properly. By that, I take it you mean going bareback. Not just that, but going bareback with whatever willing woman who crosses your path.

I myself do it the natural way quite often. Usually once a day on average. The thing is that I have this awesome woman who I am with. She's as close to 100% trustworthy as you can get. So it's ok, the risk there is virtually zero. My girl is 15 years younger than me, with a beautiful face and a near-perfect body (no BS I swear!) So, I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything at all. In fact, I would have to say that mother nature (in the form of my woman) has treated me just fine.

If and when the time ever comes to do it with someone else I'm going with a combination of protection and careful selection of my new partner. You might be able to hump 10, 20, 50 or even a 100 different chicks bareback and not catch anything. But someday you're gonna go one time too many and that's gonna be it for you..... never mind yoga tantra etc.

I'll play it safe. Who knows? Maybe I'll have a heart attack, or get cancer or even die in a car accident. You might catch HIV and still outlive me, it's all one big crap shoot when you get right down to it. As for me, I'll still do what any smart gambler does and try and give myself the best odds I can.

Rock

To many things happened since the last massages, couldn't be in touch.

Rock,

The problem is our society concentrates only on development, development and still more development, we define the world by third world or first world thats it.

Has any country or society ever put its whole energy on finding the truth of this universe none. only some few groups tried it and they really found some wonderfull truths but it still has to be known to the whole wide world. we only concentrated on progress of society, no one ever told you to think on yourself, say about bang-bang theory :), about the orgin of this universe, we in school took it on face value that our universe was created by big ball of explosion and now its expanding and all that crap, now as i come to think about my self, just for a moment close your eyes and imagine the explosion and the big ball, on the face of it, its crap, how can it explode without space, the moment you close your eyes, you see the circular space and the ball, then the obious question is from were did the space surrounding the big ball come from to expand and the biggest blunder is how can you create something outof nothing, its a big joke, even a primary kid, if he is made to think of himself would ask similier questions.

The scientific society just wants you to believe what ever crap they tell you, thats it and if you are a lawyer, docter, taxi driver or a monger, they tell you don't put your head into these things, they are meant to be for Ph'ds and its there "scientific studies" the same goes with docter who every day seems to develop new diseases and tell you its curable - uncurable and no medicine are yet born to kill that virus and you got to take it from us, don't put your head in finding a cure for diseases thats our job, you be what you are or best climb mount everest to show the world an ordinary guy can get his addreline rush going on.

No one will ever tell you the truth, "YOU" got to find it for yourself, the whole society just seems to be on development not on the truth about this world.

Just go on a mission to find the truth for yourself, with a regular job or work or mongering, in few weeks you will know who you are and whats its all about.

This whole world is a big humbug and an ocean of lies onto lies, a big cover up, a massive contradiction in living itself, just live by patch work, thats what they tell you, those who believe in progress of society.

You have no diseases, the only disease the whole world seems to have is that of hunger, that feelin of thrist and hunger, three times a day, from the past 30 years i have being taking food non stop and it does not seems to go anytime soon. Mother! why is it that i feel hungry again and again, I have being eating from the past 30 years, Stupid: If you don't eat you will die, don't ask questions like a kid, be mature, then mother !! you mean to say if i eat i will live forever, No son !! you still gonna die, what !! even if i eat with all calories and protiens calculated i will eventually die, yes son !!!!, You are 30 now and soon by 40's and 50's you will have what i call ageing, yeah yeah don't bull shit me, i know your whole crap even if i live to the best with all luxiries you won't let me live in peacefully, some were or the other ways, you come with all scary things that i don't wanna talk about, why can't you let me live alone and just give me only the wonderfull things in life with all creapy things negated.

Mother !!, why is so much suffering in this world, you are the biggest hypocrite, condradictory, humbug women in the whole wide world, on one side you give us the most beautiful babes in town and on other side you tell me no no don't fuck bare back with this beautiful lady you might catch some dreaded STD's and you be sorry forever. yeah yeah, i know your whole crap, you give me viagra and tell me not to fuck with it bareback, means you take away the 50 percent fun out of it, then why the fuck you give "v" and AIDS at the same time, why the fuck are you after me, i have being the nicest guy in town, the most charitable, i just go mongering, but never disrespect women and i pay them fine, then why me. why the fuck you gave us beautiful beaches and kill us all of sudden by your psunamis, why the fuck yee::: you mother nature !! you give and take it all away in such a horrible manner, what's wroung with you ***** !!, first you give me love of my life, then why you take it away, you give me stomach and then tell me to go and find your ways to feed it or else you die, why the fuck you gave me stomach in the first place, if it ain't for this fucking stomach, you won't find no more hookers in street, no more pain in this world, just take this fuckin stomach out of me and let me live peacefully , no you won't let me live that way, you are just jealous of my freedom, i'm just sandwitched between good and bad thats all, either i have to live by telling all lies and lead a hypocritical life and even if i do that too, you say that god will punish me if i commit sin.

What the fucking fuck, either way, i'm dead, if i being nice, then too you are after me and if I being bad you tell me god will punish me. what's wroung you.

In short, I'm in your play, you just playing with this world, as shakespere rightly said, now I understand what he really meant, you and your ways, only you know, we are just fucking tools in your hand, right, Not any more *****, I will now find the truth and be free, no more in your web, you just kept me in this tantulas hell, giving me candies with one hand and a big stick right up in my ass with other:). No more cheating, I'm FED UP !!, yeah really FED FED the fucking up with you ***** nature, you ***** !!, I have found the way out of your web, no more of your ways, now its my way and I will do whatever I wish to do freely with none of your fucking things attached!

All i want is freedom and sexual freedom too, the days of pure bliss, which can only began by spirituality, don't believe any crap who says, you can't be spiritual if you have sex. Don't belive in anything unless you find it out for yourself. thats freedom, these scientific asshole's have given us only pain and misery, with there so called findings, all they do is fucking find the mystries of this mother nature !! hahaha what is joke. will there be any truth in these finding's when you know what she does all along and all these scientific guys just do to approve what she does and we know she is just a bunch of lies lies and still more lies.

How can ever ever, some truth come out of these so called scientific findings when they are all after the wroung facts at the first place.

Its out of this world, not into this world, we need a path away from this world, not to intensify this world, by so called "findings" that these Phd's and docter's propose. thats the reason, why from the past millions of years, our world is still the same, same amount of misery, same amount of happiness, no one was ever being able to add even one inch of more happiness to this world, both good and bad seems to go in equal proportion in this fucking world, what we all do is just find some facts facts and more facts and make some more development on it.

Guys, believe onto yourself, don't fucking believe what even these docters and Phds say or even you mamma, its difficult, cos we have being programmed this way from our childhood and this fucking society is like that, can't help it, help yourself and be free.

Those who does not believe in the powers of yoga and meditaion, mantras and tantras, just, if you have any minor problems of health, try it out and see the results for yourselfs. in days you will see changes, then you will slowly climb the ladder up and be free.

The issue is whole society should adapt itself to truth instead of mindless development and then we will have a safe and better society, its when few tries to do it and others don't that we get these diseases, if everyone starts doing yoga and meditation and follows the path of truth, then really the human kind will be free and it will usher in the era of golden age.

"No one will ever tell you the truth, "YOU" got to find it for yourself, the whole society just seems to be on development not on the truth about this world."


Indeed ... the truth is out there, and much of it is on this board. Excellent post, BL5. Life is hypocrisy, but I prefer to simply enjoy it to the fullest. If I were to 'think too much,' I wouldn't have it within me to keep my perpetual hard on for ladies of all shapes and colors.

As, like the gallant Indians who survived the massacres of Wounded Knee, I look back at the credits and debits of my long dying life, I find such a static analysis has limited appeal. I think of my first girlfriend, the one who broke my heart and later died from Aids and I know I would gladly trade everything since her for her. I think of her and other great women I have been with and I can recall fragments, the fragmentary insights that make the other 99% of life livable. I remember that great movie love story, Dracula, the love Dracula and Elisabeth shared, and Dracula’s diamonded tears of love for her, the one love in his unfortunate eternity. I empathize with him.

And now, as death draws nearer, I while away some time reading posts here and wonder why you all bother. Some of you are manic depressives and fuck so you may alleviate your dark demons. Others of you fuck because you are stressed, just as the stressed out Nazis in the bunker with Hitler fucked as the Soviets drew the noose around them. (Make love, not war:)) More of you fuck simply to put the time in. Most probably fuck simply to forget the unforgettable. Few of you fuck for the right reasons.

My mind, or what is left of it, often wanders to the many issues HIV gives rise to. Viagra is, of course, unnatural and it has to be a debit. The gay community engage in unnatural acts; man was not built to have 3,000 different sex partners a month. But what about the Africans and Golden Triangle hordes. One seldom sees them in the flesh. Are they and their afflictions real? Is something else afoot? And does it really matter to us now as we prepare to embrace the void.

Sex is like alcohol. A little is designed to go a long way. And young women are designed a certain way to make young men horny so that the entire circus of life may be endlessly but not pointlessly repeated.

Even though we here drink the world’s sexual dregs we should, whenever possible, keep our eyes on the stars. We should also read TS Elliot. And, of course, the love songs of the Navajo

In beauty, happily I walk.
With beauty, before me I walk.
With beauty, behind me I walk.
With beauty, above me I walk.
With beauty, all around me I walk.

May there be happiness.
May there be success.
May there be good health.
May there be well-being
……………………..
And may there always be Navajo! And Buffy St Marie - man, how I lusted after that vampire slayer:)

Freeler: if you are reading this garbage, I would love those tracks again. But, like so much else, it is not important. Not now.

Having sex knowingly that you have deadly or damaging STD for prostitutes or mongers must be interpreted by Law as All out assault with a deadly weapon. This will make *****s more responsible and place these dirty mongers who have no respect for other people's health behind bars.

LOL, Buffy St. Marie in the AIDs thread -- what next. (But what an absolutely awesome voice and gorgeous woman!)

You guys unfortunately have no idea how corrupt and politicized medical science, public health agencies and the media are. AIDS is a false construct and self-fulfilling prophecy. The same blood sample can be HIV positive in one country and negative in another, because there are no uniform standards for evaluation of the so-called "HIV tests." Even the test manufacturers themselves admit this in their fine print.

Over 70 different, common conditions, including the flu, the common cold, vaccination and recreational drug use have been proven to cause false-positive HIV tests.

The positive test itself is such a profound shock to the psyche, that people sometimes committ suicide and murder upon receiving their results. The shock to the psyche induces severe depression as well as ostracism, which themselves are proven to depress the immune system and make someone get sick and die. That's what makes the test a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The AIDS drugs are toxic chemotherapy compounds that act the same way cancer chemotherapy acts -- they destroy healthy cells, make muscle tissue waste away, cause cancer, anemia, nausea, nerve damage, heart attacks, liver failure, blindness and many other conditions that, when they happen, are mindlessly attributed to "HIV."

Over 2,200 scientists, doctors and academics doubt the HIV theory of Aids. The media don't tell you this. I'm sure most of you are not even aware that "HIV causes AIDS" is only a theory and has never been proven.

I have no time to get into a big debate about this, but if you are interested you can find a lot of information here:

[url]http://aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm[/url]

[url]http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.htm[/url]

The Times reports the following stats:

An estimated one million Americans have AIDS or are HIV positive. 75 percent are male.

There has been a steady decline among adolescent and young women.

Of those with AIDS:

45 percent are gay men

27 percent (men and women) were infected by heterosexual contact

22 percent (men and women) were infected by injecting drugs

The balance were infected by childbirth, accidental exposure, etc.

************************

Interesting stats

Is the Aids industry the world's biggest industry or is the arms industry bigger? Still. lets be happy the UN thieves can afford to still buy their hookers. Maybe they need an increase; after all, $22 bn can only buy you so many skanks.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050622/hl_afp/unhealthworld_050622164521&printer=1;_ylt=Aty8tvZYTppZu6pfMknP6L2KOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-[/url]

AIDS fight will cost 22 billion dollars by 2008, UN says Wed Jun 22,12:45 PM ET

Around 22 billion dollars (18 billion euros) a year will be needed by 2008 to fight HIV/AIDS in developing countries, the United Nations said.

Funding needs are rising steadily, and are set to reach 15 billion dollars next year and 18 billion dollars in 2007, UNAIDS, a UN joint inter-agency project, said.

Meanwhile, donations are expected to lag far behind, it added.

According to the agency's latest projections, a total of 8.3 billion dollars will be available from all donors to fight the disease this year.

That is set to increase to 8.9 billion dollars in 2006 and 10 billion dollars in 2007.

"We have come a long way in mobilizing extra funds for AIDS, moving from millions to billions, but we still fall short," said Peter Piot, head of UNAIDS.

Funding is needed to cover everything from prevention, treatment and care, to support for orphans, management of AIDS programmes and training of medical workers, UNAIDS said.

"AIDS poses an exceptional threat to humanity and the response needs to be equally exceptional, recognizing the urgency as well as the need for long term planning and financing," said Piot in a statement.

Worldwide, approximately 39.4 million people are infected by HIV, around two-thirds of them in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Some 4.9 million have fully-developed AIDS.

More than 8,000 people die every day from AIDS-related conditions, and the disease has left 15 million orphans

[QUOTE=Beelzy Bubb]Over 2,200 scientists, doctors and academics doubt the HIV theory of Aids. The media don't tell you this. I'm sure most of you are not even aware that "HIV causes AIDS" is only a theory and has never been proven.[/QUOTE]

Your garbage has been rehashed time and time again, to all contradiction of medical science. Claiming HIV doesn't cause AIDS isn't only ignorant, but also promotes unsafe sexual behavior that may threaten the lives of millions.

If you're so certain HIV doesn't cause AIDS, why don't folks like yourself inject yourselves with HIV and prove us all wrong?

I have read that the Philippines has the lowest AIDS rate in Asia. I have also read that they have the highest consumption of coconut oil. Is it just a coincidence?

[url]http://www.coconut-info.com/aids.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.coconut-connections.com/hivandaids.htm[/url]

Oh no, it's not a coincidence. In fact, a highly respected R1 university recently published findings not only indicating a high inverse correlation between the consumption of coconut oil and the prevelance of AIDS/HIV, but even indicating that lubricating the penis with coconut oil is actually [b]more[/b] effective for the prevention of STDs than using latex condoms.

See:

[url]www.esunabroma.com[/url]

and

[url]www.urnaive.com[/url]

DH, the only site truly deluded people need is... [url]www.fuckwit.info[/url]

Cheers,

Sporadic

DH, Sporadic,

LOL. Made my day. [url]www.elchistemuychistoso.com[/url]

Regards, Havanaman

PS. Please DO NOT combine the coconut oil and condoms... Interestingly enough, I attended a medical congress in Thailand, believe it or not 9 months after I came back the population had increased by a whole percentage point.... go figure.

I have been working in my laboratory to formulate a special blend of Haitian coconut oil which may be used with or without condoms. The end product should have a viscosity similar to that of vaginal secretions with a lower solubility in water for the monger who enjoys aquatic activities. It will be marketed in Argentina under the brand name "Aceite de Cola". The preventative properties of this product against AIDS is thought to exceed that obtained by paying a BA provider a 600 pesos fee as a guarantee against HIV transmission.

Though it is unfortunate that BB has misinterpreted the facts about HIV/AIDS, the facts he stated are true.

Almost each developed country has a DIFFERENT standard by which someone is determined to be HIV+, and by which someone is considered to have full-blown AIDS. The problem arises because ALL the test for HIV/AIDS are indirect. There are no DIRECT tests for these conditions because there are no DIRECT indicators of HIV or AIDS.

ALL the test for HIV look to confirm the presence or absence of about 20 proteins and enzymes which are BELIEVED to be associated with being HIV+. As BB stated, the health departments of different countries have different opinions about which proteins are most highly associated with HIV and therefore which are the most important in deciding whether a person who test positive for a particular protein has in fact been exposed to Virus. These proteins are divided into 3 groups, of 3-6 proteins each. Most countries have a standard that to be HIV+ a person must have a reaction for at least one protein in all 3 groups, or 2 or 3 proteins in 2 groups and none in the third. Which proteins must be present differs by country, and here in the US also differs by health agency. The CDC and the DHHS have different standards for being HIV+! This information is available on the Internet. Search for keywords like "HIV, test, standard, research" and you will find sites that provide the published research articles upon which the development of HIV tests is based.

As BB stated, the proteins, whose presence contributes to the HIV+ determination, can be caused by common illnesses such as a cold or influenza.

AIDS has similar sorry story. There is no AIDS disease; there are only already known diseases that opportunistically strike those who are HIV+ more frequently than they strike those who are not HIV+. So basically, the standard for having AIDS is based on statistics, not a definitive diagnosis. As the frequency of different diseases is also differs by country, the determination of having AIDS will also differ by country.

Where BB falls down, is in his statement that "HIV doesn't cause AIDS". Due to the wide variation around the world over what it means to be HIV+ and to have AIDS, research using worldwide data has not found a strong correlation between HIV+ status and AIDS. But, as I claim, and I hope convincingly, that is due almost entirely to differences around the world in the definitions of being HIV+ and having AIDS.

Be safe, but also don't fall for hyped up nonsense.


[QUOTE=Beelzy Bubb]You guys unfortunately have no idea how corrupt and politicized medical science, public health agencies and the media are. AIDS is a false construct and self-fulfilling prophecy. The same blood sample can be HIV positive in one country and negative in another, because there are no uniform standards for evaluation of the so-called "HIV tests." Even the test manufacturers themselves admit this in their fine print.

Over 70 different, common conditions, including the flu, the common cold, vaccination and recreational drug use have been proven to cause false-positive HIV tests.

Over 2,200 scientists, doctors and academics doubt the HIV theory of Aids. The media don't tell you this. I'm sure most of you are not even aware that "HIV causes AIDS" is only a theory and has never been proven.

In reference to the statement that BeezlyBub made containing the word "theory." (And I only bring this up because I was trained as a chemist and the misuse of this word makes my colon clench.)

[QUOTE]Over 2,200 scientists, doctors and academics doubt the HIV theory of Aids. The media don't tell you this. I'm sure most of you are not even aware that "HIV causes AIDS" is only a theory and has never been proven."[/QUOTE]

NO NO NO!

Could we please use the word "theory" in the right way? No theory is ever proven, as they are ALL provisional (Newtonian Theories, etc). And a theory is meant to be something that explains something that ACTUALLY HAPPENED/ HAPPENS. So, barring outside interference, most people with HIV (whatever that is) will develop AIDS-- but a few won't (I have read that some groups of whites have some type of resistance to HIV). But this makes it not one bit less true that HIV will generally lead to AIDS. And it just so happens that BY DEFINITION, a T-Cell level below some point is the criteria for AIDS. I forget what the exact number is, but when you use this definition for AIDS, the semantic differences between who uses what antibody to define HIV are irrelevant. There is probably more than one different cause for AIDS.

If you are interested to read a little more about what a *theory* actually is, you can click on the link:

[url]http://ourworld.cs.com/jamessfreeman16/TheoryandLaw.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=George90]Though it is unfortunate that BB has misinterpreted the facts about HIV/AIDS, the facts he stated are true.

Almost each developed country has a DIFFERENT standard by which someone is determined to be HIV+, and by which someone is considered to have full-blown AIDS. The problem arises because ALL the test for HIV/AIDS are indirect. There are no DIRECT tests for these conditions because there are no DIRECT indicators of HIV or AIDS.
QUOTE]

The reason different countries have different guidelines for HIV diagnosis and AIDS diagnosis, is that different ethnicity have different normal CD4 count ranges. For example Caucasian will typically have a normal CD4 cell range of 500-1500, Asians are 200-400, huge difference there.

Also, I'm so sick of hearing this crap that HIV does not LEAD to AIDS. All HIV does is prevent your CD4 cells from being able to reproduce by attaching to them. Eventually your immune system wears down. Usually once those CD4 cells fall below 400 symptoms will occur, although at this level they will be mild, such of skin disorders, loss of energy etc, as they drop to around 200, this is when the major problems start popping up, below 150 and at any time one of hundreds of potential opportunistic life threatening illnesses can take over.

Current life expectancy for someone infected TODAY with HIV stands at 17 years. But I ask, how many of those 17 will be enjoyable? 10? 12? Maybe. This all depends on the strain of virus you may have caught. Get a strain from someone who has been on meds for years and has resistance, well then you have picked up where they left off. Options will be very limited for your treatment. You would die sooner. Get a virgin strain and you do well with meds, you could live 20-30 years.

There is no exact science to HIV infection. Some decline and die fast, some can take the meds and almost not notice them while others curl into a ball, while their body rejects the toxic potions and die rapidly.

Bottom line, stick your willy in places without a condom on and at best your gambling with the possibility of a horrible life or no life at all. It still amazes me the mongers here who do a different woman every night with no condom

"Duerr and colleagues[15] presented further evidence for clade-specific transmission from men to women by comparing the efficiency of transmission of clade B HIV in 51 Italian couples (1.1 per 1000 episodes of intercourse) to clade E in 78 Thai couples (2.4 per 1000 episodes of intercourse); however, these differences were not significant."

"The most important cofactors are those that cause trauma or inflammation to the genital mucosa."

"It will take considerable time to complete studies of clade B vaccines in the United States because of the low prevalence and limited transmission of HIV in that country."

..."Evidence of the benefit of circumcision was provided by Buve and coworkers.[45] They reported on a community-based, cross-sectional study comparing African communities with high and low HIV prevalence. Two thousand people were studied in each of 4 towns. Subjects were interviewed, examined, and tested for STD pathogens and HIV. The investigators found that in Yaounde, Cameroon, and Cotonou, Benin, the prevalence of HIV was 3.8% and 4.4%, respectively. Ninety-nine percent of the men studied were circumcised. Conversely, in Kisumu, Kenya, and Ndola, Zambia, where the HIV prevalence was 21.9% and 25.9%, respectively, only 26.8% (Kisumu) and 7.6% (Ndola) of men were circumcised. Statistical analysis, including adjustment for sexual behavior, marital status, ethnic group, herpes simplex virus-2 antibodies, and syphilis, demonstrated that circumcision appeared to provide significant protection from HIV acquisition. The authors concluded that at least some of the regional variation in HIV prevalence in Africa could be ascribed to circumcision, and that this procedure might be introduced as an HIV prevention measure."

"A total of 187 HIV-negative men were in sexual partnerships with HIV-infected women. In the discordant couples, none of 50 circumcised men acquired HIV from his female partner. HIV was acquired in the uncircumcised men at a rate of 16.7 per hundred patient-years. In a related analysis from the same group,[47] Serwadda estimated that circumcision could prevent as much as 44.8% of cases of HIV acquisition."

[url]http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418963[/url]

"Of the adults and adolescents2 with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,

* 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
* 22% were injection drug users (IDU)
* 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 8% were both MSM and IDU."
[url]http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm[/url]

The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is not spread easily. You can only get HIV if you get infected blood or sexual fluids into your system. You can't get it from mosquito bites, coughing or sneezing, sharing household items, or swimming in the same pool as someone with HIV.
Some people talk about "shared body fluids" being risky for HIV, but no documented cases of HIV have been caused by sweat, saliva or tears. However, even small amounts of blood in your mouth might transmit HIV during kissing or oral sex. Blood can come from flossing your teeth, or from sores caused by gum disease, or by eating very hot or sharp, pointed food.

To infect someone, the virus has to get past the body's defenses. These include skin and saliva. If your skin is not broken or cut, it protects you against infection from blood or sexual fluids. Saliva can help kill HIV in your mouth.

If HIV-infected blood or sexual fluid gets inside your body, you can get infected. This can happen through an open sore or wound, during sexual activity, or if you share equipment to inject drugs

Revised statistics:

58% said they were queer
22% said they shot drugs
20% were lying

Adults and children living with HIV: 39.4 million
Newly HIV infected: 4.9 million
AIDS deaths: 3.1 million

13/11/2005 12:02:50 PM
( Source: Reuters)


Man claims to have beaten HIV virus
LONDON (Reuters) - A man claimed on Sunday to be the first person to become clear of the HIV virus, which can lead to AIDS, after earlier testing positive for it.

If true, the case of 25-year-old Andrew Stimpson -- reported in two newspapers -- could reveal more about the virus and possibly even provide a breakthrough in the search for a cure for HIV/AIDS.

A spokeswoman for Chelsea and Westminster Heathcare Trust in London confirmed that one of its patients had tested negative for HIV about 14 months after testing positive in May 2002.

"He did test positive and then later negative, but in terms of curing himself, we don't know because he hasn't been back for further tests," said the spokeswoman.

"We very much want him to return so we can try to find out what exactly has happened," she added.

There is no known cure for HIV/AIDS, responsible for the deaths of millions of people and especially virulent in parts of Africa. Some experts say there are nearly 35 million sufferers around the world.

Scientists cite anecdotal accounts from Africa of people shaking off HIV but say they have never seen firm evidence.

"I feel truly special and lucky," Stimpson, who is a sandwich maker, told the News of the World. "All the doctors have told me it is a medial miracle that I am clear.

Patrick Dixon, a doctor and HIV expert, told Sky News this was the first time someone had kicked the virus out of their body.

"(AIDS) is a hugely significant problem which at moment we have no cure for," said Dixon.

"It's just possible inside this man's body is a biological key. If we can find an antibody that he's produced that has enabled him to kick this virus out, we could in theory find a way of engineering that antibody and giving it as some sort of treatment," he said.

The hospital spokeswoman said subsequent DNA checks had proven there had been no mix-up in the identity of the patient and the HIV tests, but said she did not know whether there could have been any other error in the original test

[QUOTE=Pedro Chilli]13/11/2005 12:02:50 PM
( Source: Reuters)
Man claims to have beaten HIV virus
LONDON (Reuters) - A man claimed on Sunday to be the first person to become clear of the HIV virus, which can lead to AIDS, after earlier testing positive for it.
[/QUOTE]

This is interesting. An individual was tested positive for antibodies that are linked to HIV and later was tested negative. There are two ways to explain this.

a. This fortunate individual owns a body that has been able to eradicate singlehandedly not only the deadly virus for which there is no known cure, but also all trace of the antibodies to that virus that made him test positive in the first place.

b. The HIV tests are unreliable.

In science, the easiest explanation is often the best one. In all fairness, if the second test had been run consecutively rather than after a long time, this would have been called a "false positive" and the lucky guy would hav been told he was OK right away.

The real problem with accepting that the tests are unreliable is that those possibly worthless tests are the only reason why people are diagnosed HIV positive and submitted to dreadful drug cocktails that are likely to destroy one's immune system as effectively as HIV itself is supposed to do it. This is called AIDS by prescription.

There is definitely something fishy about the whole AIDS theory.

For those IT/Internet savy users out there... a grid SW that uses spare computer cycles (screensaver) to help find drugs to battle HIV based on the molecular structure.

[url]http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/projects_showcase/viewFaahResearch.do[/url]

I think that the main thing one needs to worry about with a sex worker is hiv. Now, here is my question for the medical savy, what is the chance for someone who uses sex workers to get hiv if he insists on condom. I know that many people say that the chance to catch hiv with a condom is low, but that does not make any sense. Because if that was the case how do you explain that as I read many sex providers in Thailand have aids. So what is the trueth there?

Not every sex worker in Thailand is useing a condom. Condoms are not 100% protection from HIV but they do lower the risk to almost nil.

While fucking with a young (she said 19 yo) Thai girl (professional prostitute) taking her from the back my condom brokes.

I realized it just when I came out, so I have been fucking her for about 2 minutes with my glandis in contact with her vagina and sexual fluid.

I immediately washed it carefully with plenty of soap and water, I pissed, and I watched and carefully examinated my penis: no any sign of little scares, or cuts, or wounds or red skin, the skin was normal as usual.

Supposing that the girl is 100% HIV positive.

What do you think is the risk of getting HIV?

What the risk to get other diseases?

Should I use any special cream or medicaments to prevent other diseases?

Thanks for sharing your experiences and knowledge!

actually I'm quite sure that, as all the skin of my penis was perfectly intact, there is no way HIV could have been transmitted to me, but who knows?

The risk is not high, according to loads of info I read on web after a similar accident, it is like 5% or something. The problem is that when you are risking your life even 5% is a big number. I would recommend to take a viral load test, not the antibodies test but viral load. It can detect in a month after exposure. You problem is psycological at this stage and testing helps a lot.

[QUOTE=Lorenz]While fucking with a young (she said 19 yo) Thai girl (professional prostitute) taking her from the back my condom brokes.

I realized it just when I came out, so I have been fucking her for about 2 minutes with my glandis in contact with her vagina and sexual fluid.

I immediately washed it carefully with plenty of soap and water, I pissed, and I watched and carefully examinated my penis: no any sign of little scares, or cuts, or wounds or red skin, the skin was normal as usual.

Supposing that the girl is 100% HIV positive.

What do you think is the risk of getting HIV?

What the risk to get other diseases?

Should I use any special cream or medicaments to prevent other diseases?

Thanks for sharing your experiences and knowledge!

actually I'm quite sure that, as all the skin of my penis was perfectly intact, there is no way HIV could have been transmitted to me, but who knows?[/QUOTE]

that a man has a 1 in 214 chance of contracting hiv from unprotected vaginal sex with a hiv positive woman and a woman has a 1 in 14 chance of contracting hiv from unprotected sex with a hiv positive man.

Philippines HIV cases double over three years Tue Jan 31, 9:49 PM ET



MANILA (AFP) - An AIDS crisis threatens the Philippines as the number of people who are HIV carriers has doubled in just over three years, the health department warned.

A health department study projected the number of Human Im***odeficiency Virus (HIV) carriers to have risen to 11,168, from about 6,000 in 2002, Health Secretary Francisco Duque told reporters.

The widespread practice of unprotected sex makes AIDS a serious threat in the Southeast Asian country, he added.

Many people who are likely living with the virus are mixing with the general population and are unaware that they are infected, Duque said.

Men who have sex with other men, female sex workers, their male clients, and injecting drug users are the groups most at risk, Duque said.

However, these groups account for only 2,942 of the total HIV carriers estimated in the Philippines, said health department epidemiologist Enrique Tayag.

"A significant change in this estimation is that 8,000 of these HIV positives are now found in the general population. This means that current interventions miss a hidden population that would benefit and thus avert a major catastrophe," Duque said.

In the health department survey, one percent of injecting drug users in Cebu, the country's number-two city, are HIV-positive, Duque said.

"For the first time after nearly a decade of surveillance, another IDU (injecting drug user) has tested positive. This means that the transmission among IDUs has begun and, if left unchecked, will cause the repetition of an epidemic similar to that of Thailand," Duque warned.

World Health Organization country representative John Marc Olive said the discovery of HIV-positive injecting drug users should serve as a "red flag" for the Philippines taking into consideration Thailand's experience when those infected by the virus transmitted HIV by sharing needles.

Duque said many injecting drug users had multiple sex partners, did not practice safe sex, and shared needles.

Duque said the government had set aside 20 million pesos (383,000 dollars) to stockpile anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS sufferers. The virus destroys the human body's im***e system.

"It's a dilemma for the (health department) to have to manage opposition from the (Roman) Catholic Church because it views condoms also as a family planning method and not just a tool against HIV/AIDS," Duque said.

He urged the church to allow the government to promote condom use among the faithful in this mainly Catholic country.

I don't know why anybody would believe any statistics concerning HIV and AIDS transmission coming from a third world country with astronomical populations. These are the same countries were fake birth certificates and health records can be produced. Common sense is the best way to prevent getting sick with something. Honestly, it would not take very much to get infected WITH or WITHOUT protection. In the course of a year, a bar girl for instance can potentially come in contact with hundreds of men from different parts of the world, who had their own partners elsewhere. These men also fuck other girls (sometimes bareback) in the host country and these girls also fuck other men. It does not take long for a domino effect to occur.

HIV/AIDS might be the worse of all scenarios because it is a slow and evitable, but how about other STDs that perhaps can equally fuck up your life. Imagine getting herpes and breaking out in rashes. It helps to use a condom, but really there is no gurantee.

Reality is condom or no condom every time you have sex you are playing russian roullette. I personally love bareback sex, however is ten minutes of pleasure worth your life? I think not. Face it as a person who mongers for a hobby it is pretty risky. However many other things in life can kill you, and are not half as much fun.

[QUOTE=Lorenz]While fucking with a young (she said 19 yo) Thai girl (professional prostitute) taking her from the back my condom brokes.

I realized it just when I came out, so I have been fucking her for about 2 minutes with my glandis in contact with her vagina and sexual fluid.

I immediately washed it carefully with plenty of soap and water, I pissed, and I watched and carefully examinated my penis: no any sign of little scares, or cuts, or wounds or red skin, the skin was normal as usual.

Supposing that the girl is 100% HIV positive.

What do you think is the risk of getting HIV?

What the risk to get other diseases?

Should I use any special cream or medicaments to prevent other diseases?

Thanks for sharing your experiences and knowledge!

actually I'm quite sure that, as all the skin of my penis was perfectly intact, there is no way HIV could have been transmitted to me, but who knows?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, it does not matter if your skin was intact, all the infected fluid has to do is get inside your urethra (hole in head of penis) to infect you. Does not mean if you got her vaginal secretions in there that it will happen for sure, but this is how many become infected. You see the urethra is lined with what is known as CD4 receptor cells, a form of white blood cells, these cells in the urethra are "on guard" to prevent infection of many types, when they detect an invading germ or virus they immediately attack it. They attack it by grabbing the germ (in the worse case HIV virus) and quickly backpacking it to your lymph nodes. BIG MISTAKE in the case of the virus being HIV! This is where your bodies own immune system works against you and how it actually causes infection in this type of circumstance.
Your protective white blood cells that your penis urethra is lined with actually can cause the infection by doing their job. They actually carry the HIV back to the lymph nodes where supposedly the white blood cells in the lymph nodes will kill an invading virus, only one problem, the HIV virus now has a field day and a feast of CD4 cells to replicate and attach itself too. By the time the rest of your immune system recognizes there to be a major problem it's too late and you have seroconverted.


This is why people who are uncircumsized are more then 7 times more likely to be infected. This is because the foreskin is lined with a large area of the receptor cells. Wear a GD condom and quit trying to beat mother nature! It always wins!
Do some google searches and see for yourselves.

I get really freaked out too.The only thing I can add is that a doctor told me if you've slept with someone that has hiv and you know it you can take a cocktail of drugs(I dont know which ones) and that will kill it providing it's done within a certain window of opportunity.Check with your doctor and see what he says.
My weakness is eating pussy.If I didn't do that I'd jump off a bridge.I go through the same thing...freaking out but I'd freak out even more without it.I hope it works out for you.

The most effective means of preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is preventing exposure. The provision of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection after unanticipated sexual or injection-drug--use exposure might be beneficial. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Working Group on Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis (nPEP) made the following recommendations for the United States. For persons seeking care <72 hours after nonoccupational exposure to blood, genital secretions, or other potentially infectious body fluids of a person known to be HIV infected, when that exposure represents a substantial risk for transmission, a 28-day course of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is recommended. Antiretroviral medications should be initiated as soon as possible after exposure. For persons seeking care <72 hours after nonoccupational exposure to blood, genital secretions, or other potentially infectious body fluids of a person of unknown HIV status, when such exposure would represent a substantial risk for transmission if the source were HIV infected, no recommendations are made for the use of nPEP.
-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Sex is a calculated risk whether you are engaging sex with a professional or non-professional. Each time you engage in intercourse you accept a certain amount of risk for disease and death. The only thing between your penis and the virally loaded vaginal fluids is a latex condom. If the condom fails the only thing you can do is to begin immediate therapy with antiretroviral drugs. After 72 hours have passed it is too late to begin therapy as a preventative measure. The best that you can do for peace of mind is to have your Thai hooker tested for HIV.

The other thing to ask yourself is what was her reaction when the condom broke?If it didn't concern her then that would make me concerned.Some of these girls are flakey to begin with but that should be a good judge.

hi Lorenz
I hope you got tested and are fine!
I just had the same experience last week in Sosoua, Dom Rep.
Please let me know how this experience turned out for you. Alltough one can never know, it would help me to know you are ok. In my head at least...
Tom

[url]http://www.illuminati-news.com/aids-is-man-made.htm[/url]

to all,

during my talks in las vegas last weekend i revealed a few things about aids that i have been keeping close to my chest. i have already revealed that i saw that aids was man made to eliminate the undesirable elements of society while i was attached to naval security and intelligence. i stated this fact in my paper "the secret government." now for the rest of the story.

the first study was made in 1957 by scientists meeting in huntsville alabama. that study resulted in "alternative 3." another study was made by the club of rome in 1968 to determine the limits to growth. the result of the study was that civilization as we know it would collapse shortly after the year 2000 unless the population was seriously curtailed. several top secret recommendations were made to the ruling elite by dr. aurelio peccei of the club of rome. the chief recommendation was to develop a microbe which would attack the auto immune system and thus render the development of a vaccine impossible. the orders were given to develop the microbe and to also develop a cure and a prophylactic. the microbe would be used against the general population and would be introduced by vaccine administered by the world health organization. the prophylactic was to be used by the ruling elite. the cure will be administered to the survivors when they decide that enough people have died. it will be announced as newly developed. this plan was called global 2000. the cure and the prophylactic are suppressed. funding was obtained from the u.s. congress under h.b. 15090 where $10 million was given to the department of defense to produce "a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired." "within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease causing organisms.

most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease." the project was carried out at fort detrick maryland. since large populations were to be decimated the ruling elite decided to target the "undesirable elements of society" for extermination. specifically targeted were the black, hispanic, and homosexual populations. the name of the project that developed aids is mknaomi. the african continent was infected via smallpox vaccine in 1977. the u.s. population was infected in 1978 with the hepatitis b vaccine through the centers for disease control and the new york blood center. you now have the entire story. the order was given by the policy committee of the bilderberg group based in switzerland. other measures were also ordered. the one you will be able to check the easiest is the haig - kissinger depopulation policy which is administered by the state department.

when you put this information out do not edit it and please give me and this board full credit as the source of the information. please post the board phone number with this file. that is how i stay alive. this board is the citizens agency for joint intelligence, sysop - william cooper, (602) 567-6725

to aid you in your research of this crime the name of the report was "the limits to growth" a report for the club of rome's project on the predicament of mankind. in april 1968 the study began in the accademia dei lincei in rome italy. they met at the instigation of dr. aurelio peccei. the top secret recommendations of the results of the study were made by dr. aurelio peccei who pledged not to use the prophylactic and not to take the cure should the microbe be developed and should he contract the disease. dr. peccei was hailed as a great hero for deciding to take the same risk as the general population. the public results of the study were published in 1972. the mit project team that participated in the study are listed below:



dr. dennis l. meadows, director, united states

dr. alison a. anderson, united states (pollution)

dr. jay m. anderson, united states (pollution)

ilyas bayar, turkey (agriculture)

william w. behrens iii, united states (resources)

farhad hakimzadeh, iran (population)

dr. steffen harbordt, germany (socio-political trends)

judith a machen, united states (administration)

dr. donella h. meadows, united states (population)

peter milling, germany (capital)

nirmala s. murthy, india (population)

roger f. naill, united states (resources)

jorgen randers, norway (population)

stephen shantzis, united states (agriculture)

john a. seeger, united states (administration)

marilyn williams, united states (documentation)

dr. erich k. o. zahn, germany (agriculture)



when the study was completed in 1969 u.n. secretary general u thant made this statement:

"i do not wish to seem overdramatic, but i can only conclude from the information that is available to me as secretary-general, that the members of the united nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. if such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then i very much fear that the problems i have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control." u thant,1969

mknaomi was developed by the special operations division (sod) scientists at ft. detrick, maryland under the supervision of the cia and for the cia. a reference to the project mknaomi can be found in "the intelligence community" by fain et al, bowker, 1977.

i swear that all of the above information is true and correct to the best of my memory and knowledge. i give this information to the people of the world in hopes that someone will have the courage and resources to help me end this madness. the illuminati (the order) are in complete control of most of the world and they have declared war against the general populations of all nations. we must stop them at all costs. please help me for i cannot do it alone. please send this file without editing to everyone that you know and ask them to do the same. god bless you all.

william cooper

[url]http://www.keelynet.com/interact/arc_1_99-4_99/00000071.htm[/url]

hi folks!

with regard to healing, in the last few years there have been claims
that a zinc tablet, placed in the mouth and allowed to dissolve would
produce an electrical flow from the mouth to the nose which will kill
'the' cold virus.


i have tested zinc tablets on myself when i have had a cold and found
that zinc tablets do indeed radically alleviate cold symptoms, including
watery eyes, draining sinus and sore throat. commercial versions of this
include coldeze.


the point here is that increasing the electrical conductivity between
tissues seems to have positive results.


michael slivinski recently posted this email to me which i am reposting
to the list as an item of interest with regard to increasing
intracellular electrical potentials for the purpose of healing.
------------------------------------------------------------------
tetrasil: cure for aids


author: eellinwood <eellinwood@aol.com>
date: 1998/01/07
forums: hiv.aidsweekly
-------------------------------------------------------------------
foundation for incurable diseases
28 overland avenue, cranston, ri 02910
(401) 942-8399 voice/fax -
please limit faxes to 2 pgs (no cover needed)
06 january 1998 release no.: 980106


for immediate release:


cure for aids at hand!


the foundation for incurable diseases is pleased to announce it
has come to an agreement with dr. marvin antelman of antelman
technologies, which will provide to those suffering from aids
a cure for little or no cost!


dr. antelman has developed tetrasil (r) (tetrasilver tetroxide)
which is a patented bioinorganic antipathogenic molecular crystal
device. tetrasil kills pathogens by electrocuting them!


dr. antelman, whose work throughout the years has varied from
innovative designs for nuclear submarine reactors and smart card
batteries, discovered that silver (ag) actually is formed by ag
and ag3, and it is this discovery that lead him to the development
of tetrasil. (tetrasil is not colloidal silver.) through the
construction of a molecular sized semiconductor, dr. antelman was
able to force natural silver (which is actually ag2) into its two
separate components of ag and ag3 and to keep them separate, thus
retaining the potential for an electron discharge. in layman's
terms, one section of the tetrasil machine contains an extra
electron charge that desparately wants to cross to the other side,
but cannot due to the manner in which the molecular machine is
constructed. the molecular machine is, thereby, polarized and
charged, and remains so until triggered. the tetrasil machine is
triggered when it comes into contact with a pathogen (thus the
reason for the name "anti-pathogenic molecular crystal device").
pathogens (bacteria and virii alike) are drawn to the device by
strong covalent forces, and when they come into contact with the
machine they are locked into place by these forces. the extra
electron charge is then free to make its way to the other side of
the tetrasil machine by traversing the cellular membrane of the
pathogen, which it immediately does. the 2 volt discharge
electrocutes the pathogen in the process. a chelation process is
triggered as a result and both the tetrasil machine and the dead
pathogen bound to it are removed by the liver. the liver is
stressed, but not damaged.


tetrasil is classed as an epa class iv substance - the safest
rating available, which means it is safe for human consumption.
epa class iv status is equivalent to fda stage one approval.


tetrasil has redefined the standards by which the govt. judges
efficacy against e-coli: nothing works faster and more effectively
than tetrasil.


in human clinical aids trials, a single iv injection of tetrasil
cured 8 of 10 terminal aids patients, who showed no sign of disease
one year after treatment. the two other patients succumbed due to
the damange already inflicted by the disease. it was too late for
them.


tetrasil will be distributed:


- as a cure for faids (feline aids - 30% of all cats suffer from
the disease) in the usa, for which fda approval is not needed.
- as spray disinfectants and wipes
- as treatment for drinking water and waste water (no poisonous
chlorine needed any longer)
- as disinfectant for cooling towers (no more legionaires disease)
- as a cure for human aids
- and many other uses


dr. antelman turned down millions of dollars from an nih associated
group that wanted all rights to tetrasil because he knew they would
make the treatment too costly or suppress it altogether.
(dr. antelman knows how the system works and is disgusted by it.)


tetrasil has the potential to cure practically all disease caused
by pathogens, from tb, to the common cold. dr. antelman, an
orthodox rabbi, is a righteous man, who seeks to help ease human
suffering, not profit from it. (rabbi marvin s. antelman is
a member of the supreme rabbinic court, aka 'the sanhedrin',
the oldest established court in the world.)


the foundation for incurable diseases needs public support to
bring this modern miracle to the people of the world.


the pharmaceutical industry is already rallying to stonewall
distribution of tetrasil, because it will replace all their
poisonous (and highly profitable) treatments for aids -- all of
which will kill a healthy person. help us fight the true killers
-- the pharmaceutical industry. more people die from treatment for
aids than from the disease itself. the time has come to cease this
nonsense.


no one need ever die of aids again.


for information, please write to the above address, or e-mail
[email]eellinwood@aol.com[/email]
[email]redheifer@juno.com[/email]


edwin ellinwood
fid public relations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
note:


as of 12/16/01, i recieved an email requesting the contact information
be removed from this discussion archive. although it isn't illegal
to use a public name, in the spirit of cooperation, i have removed it
as requested.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
# # #
-------------------------------------------------------------------
re: colloidal silver


author: eldon <eldon@ziplink.net>
date: 1997/02/17
forums: misc.health.alternative
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>


there is at least one patent for silver that implies its tremendous
antibacterial effect:


united states patent 5,571,520 [also: us patent 5,676,977]


[url]http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/patlist?icnt=us&patent_number=5676977&x=31&y=7[/url]


antelman nov. 5, 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------
molecular crystal redox device for pharmaceuticals
inventors: antelman; marvin s. (rehovot, il).
assignee: antelman technologies ltd. (providence, ri).
appl. no.: 286,007
filed: aug. 4, 1994
primary examiner: hulina; amy
attorney, agent or firm: salter & michaelson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
abstract
-------------------------------------------------------------------
the employment of molecular crystals as bactericidal, viricidal and
algicidal devices, and specifically the molecular semiconductor
crystal tetrasilver tetroxide ag(4) o(4) which has two trivalent
and two monovalent silver atoms per molecule, and which through
this structural configuration generates electronic activity on a
molecular scale capable of killing algae and bacteria via the same
mechanism as macroscale electron generators.
===========================
hmmm - oxygen and silver...... can kill bacteria anerobic (pathogenic)


the fda wants to regulate it as a drug to keep me from turning blue
while i die from an antibiotic resistant infection.


how noble of them.


maybe someone can explain the trade off between, turning blue
(if it does happen with a pure colloidal solution) and dying from
an antibiotic resistant infection.


--- jerry wayne decker / [email]jdecker@keelynet.com[/email] [url]http://keelynet.com[/url] / "from an art to a science" voice : (214) 324-8741 / fax : (214) 324-3501 keelynet - po box 870716 - mesquite - republic of texas - 75187

previous message: jerry w. decker: "re: gas from coal/aero club"
next message: ken carrigan: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
next in thread: ken carrigan: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: ken carrigan: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: jay j. krull: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: jay j. krull: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: dusty rhodes: "re: tetrasil as a cure for aids?"
maybe reply: fred epps: "re: tetrasil as a cure

Three I,

I just read your post (although waded through it... is more like it).
That was some pretty good entertainment if I daresay. Your claims of Illuminati conspiracy to rule the world are, at best, farfetched. I doubt that anyone had the advanced level of genetic engineering necessary to do what you said they did back in 1968, never mind 1957. Oh wait, they did have it.... they just kept it a secret until later. :D

As for tetrasil, if it works as good as you say..... they'd be fighting each other to be the first to bring it to market. There's always some smaller pharma outfit who doesn't have any big selling drugs. Just like you say, they'd do anything to get in on the game and start making money. Therefore undermining any attempt at suppressing tetrasil as a treatment or cure.

As for limiting mankinds growth? Here's MY theory...... we will, in the next few decades, be entering a negative feedback stage with regards to human population. Climactic changes caused by human activity will begin to SERIOUSLY impact food production over widespread areas of the globe. Some areas may actually benefit, but the overall effect will be overwhelmingly negative. This will result in widespread famines and wars being fought over scarce resources. I propose that, at this stage,the human population will actually begin to decrease. This decrease in population will lead to a reduction in industrial activity causing a reduction in the factors that led to global warming in the first place.

Time frame for all of this? Another couple of decades should go by before it REALLY starts to kick in. I personally plan to have a room in my house stocked with several years worth of food, water and other supplies. That might sound wacko to some people...... but nowhere near as crazy as that AIDS conspiracy stuff that you were talking about.

Rock

I use to be a liberal then, I became a conservative, now I am just an American.

I have read books past and resent about lies the American Government along with several European Governments have fed us and we need to wake up.

Who is telling us there is a food shortage?

The same group telling us that this is an oil stortage.

The same group that invaded Iraq.

The same group that sents out jobs to China and Mexico!

Now they would like to legalize 12 millions which is really 20 million illegals in my country.

Not to mentions GATT and NAFTA!

These groups are the same group that would like the world population under 2 billion people.

In my lifetime I have witnessed several diseases appear on the seen all of which are deadly:

HIV-AID
Ebola
Marburg
Bird Flu
Sars

All of these have came within my last 28 years on this planet.
Most were discovered in Africa or Asia.

I don't believe the standard media BS anymore I am not a Republican nor Democrat!

We are living in the last days of this Earth and we have to wake up!
I believe you have valid points and I can't type nearly as well as I would like, so please forgive me but please research yourself again.

P.S.

Jackson

I know this is not the forum for this topic but please allow further discussion of this topic if you will.

[QUOTE=Rock Dog]Three I,


Time frame for all of this? Another couple of decades should go by before it REALLY starts to kick in. I personally plan to have a room in my house stocked with several years worth of food, water and other supplies. That might sound wacko to some people...... but nowhere near as crazy as that AIDS conspiracy stuff that you were talking about.

Rock[/QUOTE]

Dude that isn't wacko! I think you are using common sense!

All government hill thing from the people that serve them, that's right we serve them!



Why isn't the Rothchild Family listed as on the of world most wealthiest (bad spelling) family's. Lord Rothchild still lives in England. He still controls several banks.

[url]http://www.cowurine.com/aids.html[/url]

this site claims that aids can be cured with drinking cows [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109][CodeWord109][/url]...and they have a ducumented research paper of sorts in their site.

well...in india we know cow is not just a cow it becomes a "holy cow" literally...worth a look for serious researchers out here...

born loser 5

the site is interesting from a novelty point of view. from a serious science point of view it is ridiculous. there is no essential difference between cow [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109][CodeWord109][/url] and human [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109][CodeWord109][/url], indeed their own data supports this (on the second page) with the exception of swama kshar ~ whatever that is.

the idea that cow [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord109][CodeWord109][/url] has therapeutic benefits is very dubious. to lay claim to cow [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140][CodeWord140][/url] having anti viral (anti-hiv) properties borders on the insane.

an un-powered “trial” of n= less than 100 tells us the degree of ridicule these [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140][CodeWord140][/url] drinkers deserve.

this kind of thinking was left behind in the dark ages, and i pity the poor ignorant population actually believing that they are getting somewhere with the [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140][CodeWord140][/url] drinking treatments because the cows are holy… very sad.

regards, havanaman

It's a little bit technical, but I thought it was interesting.

[url]http://home.uchicago.edu/~eoster/aids.pdf[/url]

There was a lady in the UK who despite being HIV positive still slept with a number of men. The police contacted 4 of her previous lovers and one of them was infected. Whether he caught the virus from her or another was undetermined.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1801584,00.html[/url]

Well, i guess after you read this you chaps will whip of the condom and roger away contented... or perhaps not as the scientific article by Clandestine concludes that intervening to treat STD's will dramatically reduce HIV transmissions - so that basically comes down to the necessity of having open sores, blood contact.

In the west STD's are quickly treated, but in the rest of the world... perhaps not.

mate,

thus, the golden rule applies, "take precautions", always. to think, this is just four guys they know of, could be loads of guys. it amazes me how careless europeans are, with regard their own safety.

without fail, protection needs to be adhered to. wherever!

amazing story. bitter lady.

speed13

[QUOTE=Rayman]There was a lady in the UK who despite being HIV positive still slept with a number of men. The police contacted 4 of her previous lovers and one of them was infected. Whether he caught the virus from her or another was undetermined.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,1801584,00.html[/url]

Well, i guess after you read this you chaps will whip of the condom and roger away contented... or perhaps not as the scientific article by Clandestine concludes that intervening to treat STD's will dramatically reduce HIV transmissions - so that basically comes down to the necessity of having open sores, blood contact.

In the west STD's are quickly treated, but in the rest of the world... perhaps not.[/QUOTE]All the recent reports are correct, and it has been known for a number of years that having another STI increases the chances of getting a dose of HIV. However, in that paper, the author fotgot to mention that it isn't only the 'open sores' STIs that cause a problem. Any STI- even the 'minor ones' like Chlamydia, will cause irritation in the lining of the urethra- this is where the virus gets in. Yeah, the sores can be an entry point, but that warm, moist, damaged tube is the go!
I'm not discounting anything that has been said- but just for the invincible men out there who think that not having sores gives them a better than fighting chance of not contracting HIV, bear in mind that if your urethra ( [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140][CodeWord140][/url] tube) is infected or inflamed- even from too much sex with a clean girl, then the chances of infection are increased.

As has been said so many times, if you don't wear a condom, you are playing Russian roulette!

Clandestine,

That report was useless. I have 2 college degrees and still cannot figure out what the fuck the guy was saying. He is the idiot, not you or I !

[QUOTE=Npaul1]Clandestine,

That report was useless. I have 2 college degrees and still cannot figure out what the fuck the guy was saying. He is the idiot, not you or I ![/QUOTE]Honestly Npalu, I am not being an areshole, but the paper did make sense and I understood it. I'm not saying that a lot of it wasn't bollocks, because it was, but through all the sociology crap it made sense. I admit that it coud have been a lot more concise. Bite your lip and read it again in a better frame of mind!

Pete

I have recently had some P4P experience, always using a condom. After having read some of the reports in this thread I am getting concerned. The condom has never broken and I have never let any of the girls do BBBJ. I normally try to finish with a COF/CIM.

I have taken preventive actions such as:

Not having BBBJ
No DFK
Making sure the condom isn't broken

Can I get HIVinfected by BBBJ?

What sympthonms do you normally get shortly after you're infected?

Kirsia

[QUOTE=Kirsia123]Can I get HIVinfected by BBBJ?

What sympthonms do you normally get shortly after you're infected?

Kirsia[/QUOTE]

I can't believe that someone is still so ignorant of HIV/AIDS after 25 years and LOADS of information on the net.

Just FYI, there are no, or only very mild, symptoms shortly after infection. Some people may get a mild cold or mild flu symptoms. That is precisly why AIDS is insidious. People don't know right away that they have been infected. They then spread it to many other sex partners.

For more info, do a Google or Yahoo search with HIV or AIDS symptoms, or HIV transmission as key words.

I was just thinking:
If this section is called "The truth about......" , why all posted here is just endless repetition of the mainstream propaganda that we are brainwashed with every day? Is it the "truth"?

You as a distinguished sex-tourist surely must have your doubts occasionally: Is everything they tell me true? After all you are yourself not-mainstream. If you were then you would prefer to stay home with ol'mama and choose to copulate in the old boring positions twice a month, licking saggy tits and rooting a dried out hole.

Why do you instead choose to travel to find young fresh meat, when it is actually considered a very politically incorrect act, and is being despised publicly every day? Hmm..., Hmmm...

Dear gentlemen, instead of giving a piece of "our own mind" advice to each other, repeating the same old thing over and over, why not consider at least the following?

///////////////////////////////////////

1. Crime is caused by "law". (Of course this is extreme, but) If there was no law and eagerness by some to enforce it, no-one would be guilty of crime. The effect of more laws is in fact more "crime". And if you happened to build your livelihood on "fighting crime" then it is in fact good business for you.

2. Disease is caused by the eagerness to "treat it". It is created only by definition, calling "sick"something that is only different in some way, and not necessarily harmful (again, what is harmful?) .

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

So here too, if you happened to build your affluent lifestyle on "treating diseases" then you would be just too keen to defend their validity, in order to continue living as you do, to derive funds, to get recognition, to signify your own importance in the picture.

Even if you haven't built five castles and bought ten cars from "fighting the evil course" and you are just a third class nurse or assistant streetcop it is still your livelihood. Without it you would be floating out in the open space of hopelessness, out of job. Full stop. So, it is just one very significant reason why so many keep defending the cause of holy wars against diseases, crime, terrorists and so on.
.......................................................

Drugs are expensive. Jails are expensive. Court proceedings are damn expensive. Even if the end user does not pay for the cost of these, someone else will. The citizen, the taxpayer, the donor. However the one who always wins is the provider of the service or the product.

"Free medicines" for Africa are not free as such. Actually they are very expensive. The greater is our own fear the more keen we donors are to pay for them for the Africans. And as you can see: no expense is spared to make the monster of "aids, cancer, terror, etc" look more huge and dangerous.

..............................................

The truth is: as long as someone makes even one cent profit, even enough to go down to the corner shop and buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of beer after a hard days "research against cancer" or "fight against terror", you will always be told their own perspective of the "truth". And as sure as hell this "truth" will not ever be unbiased.


conclusion:

What I am saying that we have all have to realize the following. Some sooner, others later:

1./ This is a rotten, dark age we are living in.
2./ Keeping things muddled feeds an extremely large number of beings, directly or indirectly. While there is fight, there is funding, research, and all the accessories of good life for the fighters and researchers. The rest, out of pure fear for the dark and unknown, will fund their luxuries. Be that fight against terror (what the fuck is terror anyway?), cancer, global warming, aids, poverty or whatever"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just the final paragraph of the argument by a "scientist" is quoted below. The whole (massive) text can be read at these addresses:

[url]http://www.righto.com/theories/nohiv.html[/url]

[url]http://www.righto.com/theories/lanka2[/url]

The "scientist says:

He seems not to have realised that he has thereby taken the ground from under the whole AIDS construct, for, were it not "official" that AIDS can afflict anyone, the enormous public funding for AIDS research ($96 annually per heart patient vs. $36,000 per AIDS patient) would not exist;

and equally, if the vast profits accruing to Wellcome through AZT fell by the wayside, the whole edifice of direct and indirect funding of HIV research would grind to a halt.

As Kary Mullis observed a while ago "who wouldn't be infinitely fascinated by how HIV causes AIDS if there is a $2000 million price tag attached to the question every year". As an assiduous student of epidemiology Harris might ask himself, why has HIV not spread, as according Farr's Law it should have done?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Gentlemen,

just for fun, why not search some engines with the keywords: aids+profit, aids+business, crime+business?

After all, being a sex-tourist you are already a sceptic.

Humble Turd, alas, this propaganda effects even those of us who are not taken in, in this way: it is very hard to find bareback sex in many places, because the girls are taught to be so insistent upon the sex-ruining condom. The real question is, how to pursuade them to have real sex?

Perhaps again we come back to your oft-elucidated point about solidarity - if all men insisted upon the Real Thing, I suppose they'd be driven by necessity to provide it. I'm not holding my breath though.

I do agree propaganda has a lot to do with the aids scare. What is real truth or not is very hard to figure out cause theres so much BS out there. IF you think about it Its really all about MONEY. CONDOM companys would lose BILLIONS of dollars if HIV/AIDS was to be cured or a vaccine was some how discovered. Could it be possable That 30 years ago comdom companys and drug companys got together to create a epidemic that would scare the shit out of the masses only to get everyone to Buy their product? Its in there best interest to keep the the possablity of catching HIV going in order to keep selling there condoms. Its in the drug companys interest to sell drugs to people that get sick. Us out here in the general public May never know what the real truth is regarding HIV.

Well stated report. I hope it stimulates thought, rather than criticsm. I am also very reluctant to take a doctor's advise because of his (hers) protection of their livelyhood, and/or their vulernability to legal action (defensive medicine).

So a large number of Africans, and an estimated 30% of Papua New Guinea people, and millions of others who are infected with HIV got it from the Easter Bunny? No queers, no IV users, hetrosexuals. There are some funny cunts here, honestly, somehow believeing that sex with a prostitute does not carry the risk of HIV. Mind you, smokers are the same, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and they can prove it!

HIV is a made up virus, AIDS is a made up disease. All those people who die are killed by condom manufacturers, drug manufacturers, or governments as a means of economic and social control. Fuck me, now it makes sense!

[QUOTE=Petemcc]So a large number of Africans, and an estimated 30% of Papua New Guinea people, and millions of others who are infected with HIV got it from the Easter Bunny? No queers, no IV users, hetrosexuals. There are some funny cunts here, honestly, somehow believeing that sex with a prostitute does not carry the risk of HIV. Mind you, smokers are the same, smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and they can prove it!

HIV is a made up virus, AIDS is a made up disease. All those people who die are killed by condom manufacturers, drug manufacturers, or governments as a means of economic and social control. Fuck me, now it makes sense![/QUOTE]
You need to go over your notes again. NOWHERE does it say that 30% of Papua New Guineans are infected. It says that there is a 30% rate of increase. Incidentally, this is the SAME rate of increase as is found in China. [url]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/253161/116466679039.htm[/url]

There are some risk factors for the infectivity of HIV, but sexual transmission of HIV is FAR lower than drug transmission or mother to baby transmission-- by orders of magnitude.

[QUOTE=Clandestine782]There are some risk factors for the infectivity of HIV, but sexual transmission of HIV is FAR lower than drug transmission or mother to baby transmission-- by orders of magnitude.[/QUOTE]

Sexual transmission of HIV depends on your sex and the sex acts you usually engage in. Because semen contains more HIV "thingies" than do female secretions, and because we men inject our semen into women as part of the sex act, and because it our semen often STAYS INSIDE a woman after sex, it is far easier for a heterosexual woman to become infected with HIV than a heterosexual man.

[QUOTE=Clandestine782]You need to go over your notes again. NOWHERE does it say that 30% of Papua New Guineans are infected. It says that there is a 30% rate of increase. Incidentally, this is the SAME rate of increase as is found in China. [url]http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/253161/116466679039.htm[/url]

There are some risk factors for the infectivity of HIV, but sexual transmission of HIV is FAR lower than drug transmission or mother to baby transmission-- by orders of magnitude.[/QUOTE]
Sorry mate, just quoting from an ABC ( Australian) television documentary I watched last week.
The point is, it's increasing through heterosexual sex.

The truth about AIDS is that it's only ONE of a myriad of infections that can be transmitted by unprotected sex (as well as unwanted pregnancy). Unlike most STIs it's incurable, which is why it frightens people so much and why Governments pour so much more money into it.

And yes, condom manufacturers have probably made a whole lot more money since the advent of HIV than they used to - but they were already trying hard to promote condom use [i]before[/i] HIV. It's just that with the other STIs being so 'easily' treatable (with that new-fangled wonder drug, penicillin), nobody gave a damn about sexually transmitted infections until one came along that meant engaging in indiscriminate sex could now be punishable by death.

But when the AIDS advertising campaigns started and everyone became terrified of wetting their willy for fear of contracting this deadly disease, something else happened - the incidence of other infections started to decrease. Teen pregnancy numbers dropped. Syphilis was almost wiped out in many developed countries. Finally, people were looking at sex as something that could have serious consequences.

But sadly, when the initial HIV scaremongering settled down and people started looking into the facts, they soon discovered it really wasn't as easy to catch as they'd thought it was. And with AIDS no longer considered a personal threat by many individuals, condom use started to decrease and the other infections increased accordingly. Diseases that were almost non-existent a few years ago, like Syphilis, are now rampant again. Many of these 'easily treatable' infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics - how long do we have before 'harmless' infections, like the clap, become a life-long illness?

The ease of transmission (or, heaven forbid, the existence) of HIV/AIDS should not be the deciding factor in whether or not you use condoms.


[QUOTE=Opebo]...it is very hard to find bareback sex in many places, because the girls are taught to be so insistent upon the sex-ruining condom. The real question is, how to pursuade them to have real sex?

Perhaps again we come back to your oft-elucidated point about solidarity - if all men insisted upon the Real Thing, I suppose they'd be driven by necessity to provide it. I'm not holding my breath though.[/QUOTE]

You would never get ALL men to insist on unprotected sex, because MOST men have half a brain.
Commercial sex is not the 'Real Thing'. If you want the 'Real Thing', get a girlfriend.

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]The ease of transmission (or, heaven forbid, the existence) of HIV/AIDS should not be the deciding factor in whether or not you use condoms.[/quote]

Correct - that factor should be: Does it feel good?

[quote]
Commercial sex is not the 'Real Thing'. If you want the 'Real Thing', get a girlfriend.[/QUOTE]

No thanks! The sex is no different, just more expensive and less varied. It would be like giving someone half your salary to make you oatmeal thrice every day instead of eating out in a different restaurant at will. Which sounds better and makes more sense?

"Sexual transmission of HIV depends on your sex and the sex acts you usually engage in. Because semen contains more HIV "thingies" than do female secretions, and because we men inject our semen into women as part of the sex act, and because it our semen often STAYS INSIDE a woman after sex, it is far easier for a heterosexual woman to become infected with HIV than a heterosexual man."

Yes, but in every case the odds of transmission are still much lower than what they are for either drug injection (near unity) or mother to baby (about 35%). Reference: Royce et al: [url]http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/15/1072[/url]

[QUOTE=Clandestine782]"Sexual transmission of HIV depends on your sex and the sex acts you usually engage in. Because semen contains more HIV "thingies" than do female secretions, and because we men inject our semen into women as part of the sex act, and because it our semen often STAYS INSIDE a woman after sex, it is far easier for a heterosexual woman to become infected with HIV than a heterosexual man."

Yes, but in every case the odds of transmission are still much lower than what they are for either drug injection (near unity) or mother to baby (about 35%). Reference: Royce et al: [url]http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/336/15/1072[/url][/QUOTE]

Yes, this is true. But to elaborate further on the above. A man's semen is alkaline with a higher PH level than a woman's vaginal fluids. The alkaline fluids are the fluids that carry HIV in large quantities. A woman's PH level in her vagina is below 5.0 neutral thus it is more acidic and doesn't carry the virus. But when the semen is unleashed inside her it raises the PH level inside the vagina and makes it more hospitable for the virus. The more semen the more chance the virus will survive and enter the bloodstream.

But it's not at all practical to say this is a common method of transmission. It is not. Many more women get it through anal sex than vaginal sex. So while the risk of HIV infection through unprotected vaginal sex is much greater for the woman than the man it is still pretty low.

If you want further proof of this just look at the Porn star Darrin James who caught the virus in Rio. When he came back to the US he had sex with a multitude of women while his viral load was high and he only passed on the virus to three. Just so happens that all three he infected were anally creampied.

Opebo, good work in defining what "Real sex" is all about. :)

[QUOTE=Opebo]Correct - that factor should be: Does it feel good?[/QUOTE]
And the financially desperate, likely uneducated sex worker suffers with PID and the resultant infertility, or HPV and the resultant cervical cancer, or HIV and the resultant DEATH SENTENCE, or an unplanned pregnancy and the resultant abortion or extra mouth to feed (which, of course, increases her financial desperation and forces her to take [i]more[/i] risks next time), all so you can 'feel good' for ten minutes. That is so incredibly selfish.

[QUOTE=The Corn Hole]Yes, this is true. But to elaborate further on the above. A man's semen is alkaline with a higher PH level than a woman's vaginal fluids. The alkaline fluids are the fluids that carry HIV in large quantities. A woman's PH level in her vagina is below 5.0 neutral thus it is more acidic and doesn't carry the virus. But when the semen is unleashed inside her it raises the PH level inside the vagina and makes it more hospitable for the virus. The more semen the more chance the virus will survive and enter the bloodstream.

But it's not at all practical to say this is a common method of transmission. It is not. Many more women get it through anal sex than vaginal sex. So while the risk of HIV infection through unprotected vaginal sex is much greater for the woman than the man it is still pretty low.[/QUOTE]

Neutral PH is 7.0, not 5.0. The acidity of a woman's vagina varies with her cycle, not with the man's semen. Around ovulation, she becomes more alkaline so that a man's sperm can survive longer and make it more likely she will conceive. Vaginas are ususally acidic because fewer viruses and bacteria can survive in acid compared to alkaline. This leads to far fewer vaginal infections, and why many douches are vinegar based.

[QUOTE=The Corn Hole]But it's not at all practical to say this is a common method of transmission. It is not. Many more women get it through anal sex than vaginal sex. So while the risk of HIV infection through unprotected vaginal sex is much greater for the woman than the man it is still pretty low.
[/QUOTE]

This implies that, in those countries where HIV infection among women is very high, (Central African Republic, South Africa, Botswana, Thailand), anal sex is very commonly practiced.

Is that something you are willing to claim, Corn Hole?

I have been to Africa and did not find anal sex very common at all. My caveat is that Islam was pacticed by much, but not all, of the population where I was and Islam is VERY conservative.

The following statistics (American) are very interesting. Note that infection rates among injecting drug users are decreasing, transmission from mother to baby has dropped considerably and infection by heterosexual contact is RISING in both men and women. And I certainly couldn't find anything that suggests women are contracting it via anal sex rather than vaginal sex.

[url]http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2003report/table3.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=George90]Neutral PH is 7.0, not 5.0. The acidity of a woman's vagina varies with her cycle, not with the man's semen. Around ovulation, she becomes more alkaline so that a man's sperm can survive longer and make it more likely she will conceive. Vaginas are ususally acidic because fewer viruses and bacteria can survive in acid compared to alkaline. This leads to far fewer vaginal infections, and why many douches are vinegar based.[/QUOTE]

Certainly true. However, The acidity of a woman's vag does vary with a man's semen as well. The PH level in a vagina rises when it comes into contact with semen. The more semen the more alkaline it becomes and the longer viruses can survive and replicate.

When you say fewer viruses survive in an acid state I'm assuming you're including HIV as one of the viruses. I completely agree with that which is why it is commonly believed that HIV can harbour in the rectum easier than a vagina most of the time. Any blood present will cause the state to change dramatically from acid to alkaline. Assuming a woman's not menstrating there is no blood present. With anal sex the tissue is thinner and more prone to tearing. Blood is haven for the virus which means it will replicate faster. Even if semen is left in the vagina for an extended period of time the HIV virus would die off quicker because the PH would be lower because of the absence of blood.

The bottom line with all of this is anal sex is the sex act that carries the highest risk both for men and women.

Dear Gentlemen,

What Do We Really Know?

Thanks for the reports by Mr Clandestine 782, Mr Rubber Nursey, Mr The Corn Hole plus others. I call you "Mr" because I believe you are all men. Therefore you think. Simple, isn't it?

You listen, you hear, you consider, evaluate and make decisions as a result of a careful process. You are primarily not hysterical, non-impulsive, not emotionally driven (fear is an emotion). You are a man. It is so good for you. Even though you are practically wiped away in a flood of propaganda, maybe down deep you still have your doubts about all that you hear and are "supposed to believe".

You are men. Not women and not homosexuals (men who imitate women).


Please consider the following:

When a man looks in a mirror what does he say? "-This is a damn mirror."

And when a woman looks in the mirror, what does she say? "-This is me!"

Do you get my point? We are men because we look deeper than the surface of things. We are not so easily wiped away in propaganda, we are not hysterical and we do not experience "fear" on such levels as a woman would (or a homo/female imitation).


I am so glad I can talk with you.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

May we go step by step from here on?



#1./ I really liked phrases in the reports, such as: "death sentence, aids sufferer, acidity of vagina,american statistics, infection rates, aids virus, real thing/girl friend vs. commercial sex, etc."

#2./ I would also start with a sentence quoted from one of our respected members:

"HIV is a made up virus, AIDS is a made up disease. All those people who die are killed by condom manufacturers, drug manufacturers, or governments as a means of economic and social control. Fuck me, now it makes sense!"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Let me say, this issue is not much to do with governments or condom manufacturers or drug companies, or the medical establishment, if you think about it.

Are we using phrases here that we fully understand? Really, what is: "government, drug companies, or virus, aids, disease, vagina's acidity, infection rates, commercial sex, etc.???

Many of these words can mean many things to each different one of us. Most of these we borrowed from short media reports and we just keep repeating them over and over again and again, maybe sounding knowledgeable before our friends but really these are meaningless words unless we know what they really mean and we agree on their meanings.

Actually, this is not the place to go into discussing what a "government" is or a "virus" or even "commercial sex".

That much may suffice that any government is just a collection of people who all try to make a living, so are drug companies (or any company or organisation such as hospital or even police force). Similarly, once we may have been shown some colored foto of some blob that they told us was called a "virus" or "infection". That's is all about as far as our knowledge goes.

(And which sex is "free or commercial" is a very grey area.)

The deeper we study either of these just the more confused we become. But really most often we do not study much of these but rather simply keep repeating the same meaningless words preferably in the company of our friends and this continuous repetition kind of comfortably fills out our time and life until we become old and die, without ever knowing anything but just repeating over and over again what we heard.

So, why do we keep repeating these same old words over and over again such at #1 above? They carry no meaning at all, they are just repetitions of things we do not understand.

Why???
----------------------------------------

I have to say, maybe we have been had deeper than these levels. I also have to say that we have been fooled into believing everything we hear and follow authority without questioning. This is where "disease, virus, aids, terror, and the like" originates.

Would you believe that you were sentenced to death the moment you were born? Would you believe that penicillin does not cure anything (or any std) but instead channels one form of dis-ease into another form of dis-ease. If the initial symptoms disappear it is accepted that they are cured but in fact they reappear in another form of dis-ease.

As a result, you die anyway,suffer more by the "new" disease maybe years later than if you let your original dis-ease take it's own course and either kill you on the spot or let you fully recover. After all you die anyway, no-one has ever lived for ever. Some live 80 years, others 20. That's fine.

And your suffering is just the same (call it "dis-ease").

You would believe all this, if you were bombarded with these messages day after day, every day of your life? Of course we would all believe it and we would testify for all it as being "true". It would be just as true as any other truth. Except nobody would buy even a secondhand rusty toyota from the profits, let alone a new lexus or a hummer.

-----------------------------------------

It is all just common sense. Common man-sense, so to speak.

Men are not easily manipulated by emotions (such as fear). That's why the women had to be given rights and power. Feminism had to be born and grow like cancer. This might well be where all the current histery of aids, tumors, terror, +++ originates.

When did you have a good, "meaningful" conversation with a woman? Probably that was when you were "infected" with aids and terror and who knows what else other kind of dis-ease.

-----------------------------------------

If you consider the following articles and think about them, you may even be constantly healed of any of your diseases (or the fear of them):


Guys, be a man and think!

------------------------------------------------------------

[url]http://www.geocities.com/aprilhouse/SEX-PLOYTATION.html[/url]

SEXUAL POWER


The average woman is a spoiled child, a selfish and arrogant bundle of desires, raised to be a rapacious taker from men. By the age of 5 or 6 a little girl has learned to scramble up onto Daddy's lap and to manipulate him with flowing tears or a sly look or a downturned face. He responds by taking care of her every need. Daddy is only nobly trying to insulate his little girl from what he knows to be a hard world, but unfortunately he's green-lighting her future as an abuser of men.

She has already begun to grasp the raw power of her femininity-by acting "female" she can get anything she wants from a man.For some reason these tactics don't seem to work very well on Mommy, so she understands that her power draws its energy from the opposite gender. By the time her breasts begin to swell and her figure rounds into soft curves, she's discovered exactly how this power works. She is well aware of the effect she has on the boys around her, how much they seem to lust after her ripening body.

The more they want her, the more she realizes the value of her commodity. She exults in her new-found strength, sensing its awesome potential, and even chuckles haughtily to herself at the boys who ogle her when she wiggles by. She understands that she is in control-this is something she can use to her advantage. It is the birth of an attitude which will ruin normal relationships with men for the rest of her life.


Meanwhile, Mom and Church, witnessing the verge of her womanhood, begin to instruct her to withhold sex, sermonizing that her body is a "gift" which she must save to give to "someone special". But it's too late. She's already learned that it's not a gift, but stock in trade-boys are waiting in line to bring her presents and compete for her attention. She really doesn't understand what all the fuss is about, why they are so intent on "getting into her pants". She has already assimilated the knowledge that her body is a tool, to be used for gain, not pleasure. Her mother continually warns her that "nice girls don't", and the more she holds out, the bigger the pile of pres- ents grows.

She doesn't realize that "nice girls don't" is just a euphemism for dishonest prostitution; that as she flirts and sticks out her breasts and wears sexually provocative clothing she is exchanging the promise of sex for gifts (money). And Mom is frantic to make sure that she remains a "good girl" (dishonest
*****), so she teaches her that if a boy really likes you, he'll: take you out (spend money on you); date you exclusively (he's willing to let you train him, and he won't be wasting the resources he could be giving to you on other girls); and not demand sex in return (play the game by your rules, so that you can extort as much money as possible from him without obligation before surrendering your "gift", if you do at all).

Mom is teaching her that for women, love is power; for men, it is enslavement. The greater a man's sexual needs, the more obedient he will be forced to become. If she manages her "gift" astutely, the payoff will be a lifetime of ease without her ever having to lift a finger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[url]http://www.geocities.com/aprilhouse/TheFailureOfFeminism.html[/url]

Excerpts From Sex-Ploytation:

CHAPTER THREE
I Am Woman,
Hear Me *****
(The Failure of Feminism)

By the unscrupulous exploitation of the male sexual urge, women have controlled the world since recorded time: the history of the human race has been written in menstrual blood. By convincing men that they are weak and needy of protection, women ship men off to squander their lives on foreign battlefields while they stay safe from harm and luxuriate in the homes their partners have paid for.

By conditioning men to be dependent on a sexual reward, women manipulate them to endure soul-destroying toil to "bring home the bacon". Men are psychologically poisoned to feel guilty and sinful about their natural lust, and brainwashed to rejoice like heroes when they pay for their mates. Women
dominate the male gender. A man can spend years striving to build a lucrative career, but it takes a woman only half an hour to perfume herself and slink into a curve-hugging dress and she can gain access to all his earnings. Men spend long hours in universities to prepare themselves for success;

women spend the afternoon in the gym and at the make-up counter. All women-from the purring sex kitten to the most remorseless power *****-want to be taken care of by a man.

Women live in a fantasy world of magical thinking. "If it's meant to be, it's meant to be" is their pastel philosophy. This is the passive reality of a taker. As we have seen, women are *****s, albeit dishonest *****s, deliberately leeching off men and then denying their prostitution. It is in this climate of personal deception that the feminist movement has gained an uneasy momentum in the latter half of the twentieth century, masquerading as an ideology whose goal is to promote equality between the sexes. But this, as with all female affairs, is a lie.

Just as women are dishonest prostitutes, so they are equally dishonest feminists. Women may campaign for gender equity, but they don't want to
pay the price which such an equality demands. In fact, it doesn't even occur to them. They still cling to their age-old scam of being bought and pampered like courtesans, while at the same time clamoring for the very jobs which men need in order to be able to pay for their bodies. They want their cake and eat it, too. They want equal rights until the check comes.


Feminism is a failed social movement because at its root is not a genuine desire for social change, but an insatiable and grasping avarice. Its legacy is a generation of lonely women out of sync with their inborn natures. The honest, natural woman (if she ever existed in our unhealthy society) has become a casualty of the sexual revolution. Feminism is a philosophy eroded by greed and homogenized by self-deceit; a credo of glaring inconsistencies and wanton hypocrisy. Women want to eat their cake-and gluttonously at that-but they insist on someone else baking it for them and giving it to
them without charge.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also, might care to look at another one of Asshole's shitty reports, just to clear some more things.....maybe.
[url]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=534647&postcount=759[/url]

To That Asshole,

I am not going to agree or disagree with your statements. I just want to comment that, by your definition of how woman are and behave, there a LOTS of MEN in the US, who behave like women!

dr. kary mullis, biochemist, 1993 nobel prize for chemistry:
"if there is evidence that hiv causes aids, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. there is no such document." (sunday times (london) 28 nov. 1993)


dr. heinz ludwig sänger, emeritus professor of molecular biology and virology, max-planck-institutes for biochemy, münchen. robert koch award 1978:
"up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of hiv. not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (letter to süddeutsche zeitung 2000)


dr. serge lang, professor of mathematics, yale university:
"i do not regard the causal relationship between hiv and any disease as settled. i have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning hiv and aids have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of aids." (yale scientific, fall 1994)


dr. harry rubin, professor of molecular and cell biology, university of california at berkeley:
"it is not proven that aids is caused by hiv infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)


dr. richard strohman, emeritus professor of cell biology at the university of california at berkeley:
"in the old days it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. now there's none of that in standard hiv-aids program with all its billions of dollars." (penthouse april 1994)


dr. harvey bialy, molecular biologist, former editor of bio/technology and nature biotechnology:
"hiv is an ordinary retrovirus. there is nothing about this virus that is unique. everything that is discovered about hiv has an analogue in other retroviruses that don't cause aids. hiv only contains a very small piece of genetic information. there's no way it can do all these elaborate things they say it does." (spin june 1992)


dr. roger cunningham, immunologist, microbiologist and director of the centre for immunology at the state university of new york at buffalo:
"unfortunately, an aids 'establishment' seems to have formed that intends to discourage challenges to the dogma on one side and often insists on following discredited ideas on the other." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)


dr. gordon stewart, emeritus professor of public health, university of glasgow:
"aids is a behavioural disease. it is multifactorial, brought on by several simultaneous strains on the immune system - drugs, pharmaceutical and recreational, sexually transmitted diseases, multiple viral infections." (spin june 1992)


dr. alfred hässig, (1921-1999), former professor of immunology at the university of bern, and former director swiss red cross blood banks:
"the sentence of death accompanying the medical diagnosis of aids should be abolished." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)


dr. charles thomas, former professor of biochemistry, harvard and john hopkins universities:
"the hiv-causes-aids dogma represents the grandest and perhaps the most morally destructive fraud that has ever been perpetrated on young men and women of the western world." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)


dr. joseph sonnabend, new york physician, founder of the american foundation for aids research (amfar):
"the marketing of hiv, through press releases and statements, as a killer virus causing aids without the need for any other factors, has so distorted research and treatment that it may have caused thousands of people to suffer and die." (sunday times (london) 17 may 1992)


dr. andrew herxheimer, emeritus professor of pharmacology, uk cochrane centre, oxford:
"i think zidovudine [azt] was never really evaluated properly and that its efficacy has never been proved, but it's toxicity certainly is important. and i think it has killed a lot of people. especially at the high doses. i personally think it not worth using alone or in combination at all." (continuum oct. 2000)


dr. etienne de harven, emeritus professor of pathology, at the university of toronto:
"dominated by the media, by special pressure groups and by the interests of several pharmaceutical companies, the aids establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven hiv/aids hypothesis received 100% of the research funds while all other hypotheses were ignored." (reappraising aids nov./dec. 1998)


dr. bernard forscher, former editor of the u.s. proceeding of the national academy of sciences:
"the hiv hypothesis ranks with the 'bad air' theory for malaria and the 'bacterial infection' theory of beriberi and pellagra [caused by nutritional deficiencies]. it is a hoax that became a scam." (sunday times (london) 3 april 1994)

just to be fair there are many scientists who believe there is enough evidence to link hiv to aids but that held opinion is far from unanimous in the scientific community.

2006/2007. We know more now. Many of the sources quoted in the last post are shite and quoted by someone who obviously never studied biology. Look at the history of the HTLV viruses for example.
Any fuck head can find an expert to say that 2 + 3 isn't 4, but there are many more who can prove it is.
Tell you what mate, go to Africa and fuck a few girls who have HIV and see if you get it, or maybe a conspiracy theorist will inject you when you are asleep.
Please, get a life.

Pete,

The guys here that come up with this shite have got rocks in their head, surely you realise this.

Obviously they are trying to fool themselves into a false sense of security or are plain living in a dream world.

Maybe someone can organise a trip for them to visit one the Thai hospices that
look after people about to die from AIDS.

Yeah, Kary Mullis (nobel laureate), Serge Lange (Yale math prof), and Duesberg (NAS member) have rocks in their heads. If you go by the 'judge a theory by the accuracy of its predictions' credo the hiv/aids hypothesis is just crap. Pay attention, look at the predictions, read some studies. Funny how the epidemic has confined itself to impoverished Africans and fast-track gays but not spread to the general population as predicted - ummm, what could they possible have in common?

CKD

PS: Don't take this as advice for unprotected sex - aids isn't the only STD to be had.

Who ever argue that HIV does'nt cause AIDS should inject HIV virus into them selves to see if HIV can cause AIDS or not.

Sloth,

In case you haven't noticed, all your citations are quite old, most of them before 1995. Around 1995, highly active antiretroviral therapy was introduced which dramatically improved prognosis of HIV and AIDS patients. These new drugs all build on the HIV-AIDS theory you think the jury is still out for.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the weird ideas some people have about HIV/AIDS. My only problem is if they use it as an excuse for their barebacking.

[QUOTE=McJohn]In case you haven't noticed, all your citations are quite old, most of them before 1995[/QUOTE]

There's a reason for that; by about 1990, as HIV/AIDS approached its 10th anniversary, the observed epidemiology made it apparent that there had to be something really wrong about the hypothesis presented as fact by the CDC, whereas no new information had been presented to support it in years. Lots of money had been spent, and continues to be spent, in a vain search for a vaccine to a virus which supposedly exists in such small quantities in the body it cannot be observed, but yet destroys the immune system (and that, under rather bizarre circumstances). So the period 1990 through 1995 (very roughly) was a rich period in which some people began researching and telling the other side of the story.

For a while Africa was kind of the savior to the HIV/AIDS establishment, because they could say that what they had predicted would occur here, but never did, is in fact occurring "over there". But the only thing going on in Africa is the same thing that's been going on for as long as anybody can remember, people dying of malaria, parasites from dirty water, malnutrition, etc. Is there something different biologically about Africans? All I've heard for years is that the difference is only skin color, and that is superficial. Strange the virus should behave so differently with them than it does with us.

Remember Kaposi's Sarcoma? It was practically the defining disease (of the almost 30 that CDC claims makes up AIDS) in the beginning. Whoops -- only people who abused nitrite inhalants got that one. Should have been a clue, but by the time cooler heads realized the signficance of this, the virus had been invented, and the money was flowing.

HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, and will continue to be for several more years, until finally it's apparent to even the dimmist that it's ridiculous. But even then, perhaps it will linger on, like farm subsidies.

The only people with rocks in their head are the people, on this forum and in so many others on the Internet, who don't know what they are talking about but are oh so quick to attack other posters because the information conflicts with what they have been told already, whether by their parents, the church, or their government. At one time people believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Thank god someone had the balls to stand up and say it wasn't true.

Another person who thinks he has a Phd in virology by googling the internet.

Do you actually know anybody who has Aids?

My friends brother has it and he too googled the internet and came to the same conclusion as you. He decided to take himself off the cocktail of drugs since it wasn't a virus so the anti virals are no use.

Needless to say he almost died in a few months before people forced him to take the anti virals again and luckily he is still alive 10 yrs later.

If its not a virus then why do the anti viral's work , Mr Phd of Google University?

I feel this threat of HIV/Aids (or whatever you want to call it) to the heterosexual population is and always was way overblown. We were all told throughout the 80's and 90's that this could become an epidemic. That you should always use a condom or you will die. I know alot of people who engage in risky sex practices and I'm sure many others here do also. I have a couple of friends who make me seem like a lightweight by comparison when it comes to extreme promiscuity. One is very indiscriminate about who he nails without a rubber. They get blood tested often and the results are always HIV-. I myself have gone bareback with a number of Pro's and nons. I get tested often as well and the results are the same. Everyone I've talked to in other countries who monger all say they are negative and know of nobody who is positive. I do not know of anybody who has this virus myself. I do not know of anybody who knows somebody who has it.

My question, does anybody know of a certified heterosexual male who is
HIV +?

I do know some Thai working girls (and these are higher end girls) who have HIV.

One was diagnosed after she gave birth and her kid died.

They must of gotten it from somebody and maybe even given it to some unlucky customer.

[QUOTE=The Corn Hole]My question, does anybody know of a certified heterosexual male who is HIV +?[/QUOTE]The Corn Hole, That is a good question.

Yes, I know several guys who have/had AIDS (RIP). All of them claim they got it from smack but one of them, an under sized runt, did do time in the States and I would not be surprised if some big Black dudes did a number on him. No telling now as he is dead. Even though he made no secret of his HIV status, loads of ladies wanted him to fuck them, as we was charismatic and a character. I don't think he used condoms.

Lots of Africans and Indians have it and they most of them must be straight.

I am checking out the Pattaya thread and Evil Penivel says lots of Eden customers like to be dildo fucked, gayboys coming out of the closet no doubt. There must also be a lot of overlap with Boyztown, lots of AC/DCs in other words. I would also imagine there is a lot of denial. Most guys going to Thailand probably tell their friends they are going golfing. Few would say they are going to be butt fucked in Boyztown.

With both the smack and bnutt fuck brigade, hepatitis C is also very common so you can never be too careful.

A lot comes down to following the money trail. Providers want you to keep fucking regardless. The Aids industry want you to keep them in jobs. I imagine plenty of Thai hookers have Aids but they can't tell as they need to fuck on.

Some guys will tell you not to worry. But if you get Aids, they won't pay your bills.

If you are fucking around, you have to be lucky every time. The HIV virus only has to be lucky once.

Dear Gentlemen,

It is safe to say that most of us on this board are no doctors, politicians, researchers, missionaries or other dirt that draw their income from induced mass-public hype and live comfortably on the proceedings, breeding and feeding families while also reaping great public respect from misleading them (or just being plain stupid?).

Many have already realized their mistakes, however once in it, getting out of the rat-race is nearly impossible


*********************
Our little voices
*********************
We reap no greater benefits than some company, conversation and maybe sharing a piece of our opinion with others like us. Our voice is little and dwarfed by public propaganda to the contrary.

Our opinions bring no profits to us, unlike some opinions that are "main stream".(Also note, thankfully there are not many women on this board, so we can be rather frank.)


****************
Is it Important?
****************
While we discuss here issues regarding "bacterias, HIV virus and the like", shouldn't we also ask: Do these have the importance that they are supposed to have?


As stated in a previous article, the writer seriously doubts the mainstream "authorities" about these as well as about other related current issues.

A report has been posted in the "opinions" section. It would be too long to reproduce here, so below is a link. I think it explains everything there is to know about "aids" .



[url]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108[/url]

[url]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108[/url]


******************
Lower Case
******************
(Let's write it all lower case because that's what it deserves. And so for "hiv". All HIGHER CASE is just part of the propaganda. It looks more scary that way, so pays better. Why is STOMACH CANCER always spelled low case? It is also supposed to be a nasty one. Allright, I know it is abbreviation, but still it has a point.)

Dude..You rock..You hit the nail in the head nay A8ss..

These disease thing is a big fraud..there is some truth in it..but they high jack and portray as the biggest sickness on human kind.

More people even today die from Maleria than aids..guess what malerial tabs..cost pennies and they ain;t highlighted..hiv tabs cost in dollars and they just need more hype to pump out more money.


[QUOTE=That Asshole]Dear Gentlemen,

It is safe to say that most of us on this board are no doctors, politicians, researchers, missionaries or other dirt that draw their income from induced mass-public hype and live comfortably on the proceedings, breeding and feeding families while also reaping great public respect from misleading them (or just being plain stupid?).

Many have already realized their mistakes, however once in it, getting out of the rat-race is nearly impossible


*********************
Our little voices
*********************
We reap no greater benefits than some company, conversation and maybe sharing a piece of our opinion with others like us. Our voice is little and dwarfed by public propaganda to the contrary.

Our opinions bring no profits to us, unlike some opinions that are "main stream".(Also note, thankfully there are not many women on this board, so we can be rather frank.)


****************
Is it Important?
****************
While we discuss here issues regarding "bacterias, HIV virus and the like", shouldn't we also ask: Do these have the importance that they are supposed to have?


As stated in a previous article, the writer seriously doubts the mainstream "authorities" about these as well as about other related current issues.

A report has been posted in the "opinions" section. It would be too long to reproduce here, so below is a link. I think it explains everything there is to know about "aids" .



[url]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108[/url]

[url]http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=556892&postcount=5108[/url]


******************
Lower Case
******************
(Let's write it all lower case because that's what it deserves. And so for "hiv". All HIGHER CASE is just part of the propaganda. It looks more scary that way, so pays better. Why is STOMACH CANCER always spelled low case? It is also supposed to be a nasty one. Allright, I know it is abbreviation, but still it has a point.)[/QUOTE]

I'm being directed down the same road as you guys on this subject. I'm not even going to dwell on Africa because I think that is a completely different situation compared to the lifestyles of all of us. I think it's interesting how the sections in Africa that have been hit hardest by HIV epidemic are all coincidently impoverished.

The turning point for me was the recent news of former pro boxer Tommy Morrison who tested HIV + a decade ago now all of a sudden is HIV -. I have heard these stories many times over. Hundreds of cases in Africa where someone who was unhealthy tested positive and later tested negative when their health underwent a significant improvement. Think it shakes the whole foundation of the HIV/Aids theory to put it bluntly. I'm not even sure this test means all that much anymore.

[url]http://www.thailandguru.com/health-hiv.html[/url]

Guys, this is crazy talk. Let's just, for one second, say that you are right and that HIV does not cause AIDS. There is still SOMETHING out there causing people around the world to DROP DEAD BY THE MILLIONS!! Does it really matter if the boffins got it wrong and HIV is not responsible? [i]Something is![/i]

You guys, as - and I am making a sweeping generalisation here - educated, healthy, wealthy (by world standards), predominantly heterosexual MEN, belong to the group least likely to contract the virus. It's understandable that many of you do not personally know people with AIDS (or at least you don't THINK you do - many good friends of mine would say they've never met a hooker, either ;) ). Most people in developed countries have ready access to good quality condoms, needle and syringe exchanges and, most importantly, they are educated and empowered to make decisions to ensure their personal safety. It's no surprise that in the countries where AIDS has flourished, many of the population live in abject poverty, with limited (if any) access to medicine, education and safe sex/IDU supplies. Women are also at particular risk in these countries, where sexual violence is commonplace - most stats seem to suggest a direct relationship between the social status of women in a particular country and the incidence of HIV transmission to women via heterosexual sex.

Actually, in the American stats I posted here a couple of months back, there was also an obvious increase in HIV transmission to heterosexual women, which begs the question.....who are these women catching it FROM, if it's not heterosexual men??

But I, for one, couldn't care less whether the 'HIV theory' is proven or not. In 'at risk' communities (gay men, IV drug users and sex workers) sexual health education and ready access to safe sex/IDU supplies have led to a marked decrease in new AIDS cases. WHATEVER it is that causes AIDS, it's obviously less likely to be transmitted if you take those precautions. And (as I always feel compelled to add, because I think it's much more important), there is NO doubt that those same precautions stop the transmission of a multitude of other sexually transmitted infections, which themselves can cause illness, infertility, PID, cancer or even death. Debate the existence of HIV all you like, but please don't put sex workers, other mongers and your own wives and girlfriends at risk of all those other STIs, just because you feel you have bugger all risk of getting AIDS.

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]Actually, in the American stats I posted here a couple of months back, there was also an obvious increase in HIV transmission to heterosexual women, which begs the question.....who are these women catching it FROM, if it's not heterosexual men?? [/QUOTE]

RN,

That was a very good post. What I have learned about HIV/AIDS conflicts with what the media report. Though I agree that there are other STDs for us to worry about, and I do.

In the US, women are NOT contracting HIV from heterosexual men. In the Black American community among poor Black women, they are catching HIV from men who have been to prison and engaged in male-to-male sex while in prison. After they get out, they have sex with women and pass on any diseases they caught in prison. Because prisoners are not supposed to be having sex, they don't give out condoms or the like, so STDs are rampant among those prisoners who are sexually active.

I don't want to minimize the risk of HIV infection, but the risk of infection is [I]behavioral[/I]. If a person is not engaging in those behaviors which are highly correlated with HIV transmission, then that person is pretty safe. Last time I checked the top HIV transmission methods were intravenous drug use and sex with men.

[QUOTE=George90]I don't want to minimize the risk of HIV infection, but the risk of infection is [I]behavioral[/I]. If a person is not engaging in those behaviors which are highly correlated with HIV transmission, then that person is pretty safe. Last time I checked the top HIV transmission methods were intravenous drug use and sex with men.[/QUOTE]

I agree - but when we're talking about risk assessment, the only behaviours we can be absolutely sure about, are our own. YOU may not have homosexual sex or use IV drugs, but that means nothing if the woman you're having sex with makes a habit of engaging in risky behaviour. Or her partner before you did. Or his partner before that...

(The existence of HIV debate aside) I know non-drug using, heterosexual men realistically have VERY minimal chance of infection and I'm certainly not trying to say that it's [i]easy[/i] for you guys to catch - just that it's not impossible. Using your example below, let's say the next sex worker you book was infected by her HIV+ ex-prisoner boyfriend. She's been onshift all day and has had fast and furious sex with five or six guys, leaving her insides red raw. You are OS for a poon-fest with your mates, frantically shagging at least 3 girls a day for 7 days, which has likely left your own meat pretty well tenderised as well. Even as a non-drug using heterosexual man, aren't your risks greatly increased if you have sex with this woman without a condom (or if it breaks)? Even greater if anal sex is on the menu.

Again, I'm not buying into the hysteria. I know HIV is pretty darn hard to catch and, as you said, people who don't indulge in certain behaviours probably have less risk of being exposed to the virus. But every time you have sex with someone, you are effectively having sex with their previous partners and [i]their[/i] previous partners and so on...the numbers of 'behaviours' you are exposing yourself to, grows exponentially. And some of you guys DO engage in risky behaviour, by having unprotected sex with women who have had unprotected sex with hundreds of other men before you - particularly when you're doing it in countries where HIV is rampant.

BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese province has taken the unusual step of fining hotels and bars more than $600 if they do not provide condoms, part of efforts to fight the spread of AIDS, a newspaper said on Friday.

The booming eastern province of Zhejiang, with 1,859 recorded infections by the end of last year, started enforcing the rules on Thursday, the Beijing News said.

"Condoms or condom-vending machines must be placed in hotels, bars and designated public places, or the managers will be fined 5,000 yuan ($650)," the report said.

The Chinese government originally stigmatized AIDS as a disease of the decadent, capitalist West -- a problem of gays, sex workers and drug users. Traditionally, none of these officially existed in communist China.

It has belatedly woken up to the problem, and health experts have warned the virus is now moving into the general population.

But a lack of sex education and unwillingness to talk about sex still hampers the fight, health

They have been around for years.

They are packed together with tampons, disposable underwear, etc, in some silly box with an innocuous name that is placed on the minibar. The price tag will be 100, 150 rmb with a warning tht if the seal is broken you are responsible. The girl (especially hotel massage girl) will open it to take the condom, without telling you, and you won't know until they charge you for it at checkout. Then, when you go to dispute the charge at the front desk, with several other customers lined up dick-to-ass behind you, the hotel staff will explain to you what it is.

This is just another minibar rip off by hotels.
CJW
[QUOTE=Robbaf]BEIJING (Reuters) - A Chinese province has taken the unusual step of fining hotels and bars more than $600 if they do not provide condoms, part of efforts to fight the spread of AIDS, a newspaper said on Friday.

The booming eastern province of Zhejiang, with 1,859 recorded infections by the end of last year, started enforcing the rules on Thursday, the Beijing News said.

"Condoms or condom-vending machines must be placed in hotels, bars and designated public places, or the managers will be fined 5,000 yuan ($650)," the report said.

The Chinese government originally stigmatized AIDS as a disease of the decadent, capitalist West -- a problem of gays, sex workers and drug users. Traditionally, none of these officially existed in communist China.

It has belatedly woken up to the problem, and health experts have warned the virus is now moving into the general population.

But a lack of sex education and unwillingness to talk about sex still hampers the fight, health[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]Guys, this is crazy talk. Let's just, for one second, say that you are right and that HIV does not cause AIDS. There is still SOMETHING out there causing people around the world to DROP DEAD BY THE MILLIONS!! Does it really matter if the boffins got it wrong and HIV is not responsible? [i]Something is![/i]

.[/QUOTE]

Newsflash: Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now a lot of people really believe that.

You're right Rubber, if HIV doesn't cause it then we have a fucken big problem on our hands trying to find out why people are dying of AIDS. It also means all the research is bullshit.
Ah well, maybe those that do believe in it would like to look at the latest good news story about HIV, the virus that doesn't cause AIDS.

[url]http://health.msn.com/healthnews/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100157237&GT1=9145[/url]

[QUOTE=HeadGames]HIV/AIDS is a billion dollar business, and will continue to be for several more years, until finally it's apparent to even the dimmist that it's ridiculous. But even then, perhaps it will linger on, like farm subsidies..[/QUOTE]This is the crux of the problem. There is too much money to be made in HIV/AIDS. The scientific evidence leaves plenty of room for doubt.

[QUOTE=Petemcc]Newsflash: Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now a lot of people really believe that.[/QUOTE]

I don't, and I don't smoke, but I certainly wouldn't agree that smoking is unreasonable. Remember Pete, you're going to die very soon anyway.

People live from money. Without it they become very slim, emaciated, cold and without friends.

This is about "cancer". But what is the difference? It's just money and more money for the clever.

[url]http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/cancer091505.cfm[/url]

But it's your choice to believe....

aids, my ass.......give me the cancer shit.....or the terrorist crap?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a few quotations from the report. The link to the full text is below.
There is nothing surprising here though. Did you ever-ever expect any human being to "help" you without getting something out of it for themselves? The issue of whether it is CANCER or aids is irrelevant. One horse is like the other.


You ride it well, you get somewhere. You eat well and get laid well. Did Caesar said: "Money has no smell.." when he decided to tax the public conveniences? Even though a few hundred years passed since, have we changed much? Why do you trust anyone who comes to you smiling "I will help you..."? Don't all the "helpers" have stomachs that needs filling, cocks that wants to be buried and bare asses that needs cover?


My friend, much the world lives well from repeating phrases that they heard somewhere and yet know nothing about. And they loathe to learn more about it, in case it turns out to be false and then the sure bread disappears from the table.

Give me a salary of 100 grand a year for rehearsing incessantly that "cancer kills, aids kills or terrorists are evil" and I will do it for you non-stop, no questions asked. Unfortunately nobody has offered it to me yet. But many others did a lot better and sure as hell they will find evil on every corner, as long as evil pays. Fuck it does. Ever saw a doctor begging on the street corner or a nurse or a cop or a pharmacist?

Well brothers, what is "truth"? Shit, who has time to think about that. Let's have a root instead. See what I mean?

Quotations from the full article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a debate this year, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society did not deny the agency's connection to corporate interests. “The American Cancer Society views relationships with corporations as a source of revenue for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Thun. “That can be construed as an inherent conflict of interest, or it can be construed as a pragmatic way to get funding to support cancer control.”

So it is in fact true that the ACS' 22-member board was created in 1990 to solicit corporate contributions. It's also true that board members include Gordon Binder, who is the CEO of Amgen, a biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products. Another board member, David R. Bethune, is president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. In fact, many board members seemingly stand to make more money by treating cancer than preventing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the past few years the ACS has taken corporate "sponsorship" money. Here's how it works: Sponsors pay the ACS to have the society's logo donned on certain products. SmithKline Beecham, producer of NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking aids, paid the ACS $1 million for the right to use the American Cancer Society name.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main target of criticism: The ACS' controversial "Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management." This Committee reviews unorthodox or alternative therapies, putting many of these treatments on the "Unproven Methods" list. Appearing on this list can mean literal ruin to any health practitioner. Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., Ph.D., felt the full weight of just such an appearance. He was refused research money and raided by the FDA, which seized 200,000 documents from his clinic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


The experts speak on The American Cancer Society The American Medical Association (AMA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Cancer Institute (NCI), and American Cancer Society (ACS), as well as certain large corporations profit from the cancer industry. It is important to emphasize that this confederation of interests known as organized medicine consists principally of medical politicians and business interests, not practicing doctors. Physicians themselves have often objected to the unscientific rejection of alternative therapies and to restrictions on their own freedom to research or administer them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Corporate sponsors have formed "partnerships" with a number of leading nonprofit organizations in which they pay for the right to use the organizations' names and logos in advertisements. Bristol-Myers Squibb, for example, paid $600,000 to the American Heart Association for the right to display the AHA's name and logo in ads for its cholesterol-lowering drug Pravachol. The American Cancer Society reeled in $ 1 million from SmithKline Beecham for the right to use its logo in ads for Beecham's NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette anti-smoking aids.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 435 Another propaganda film with a similar approach was produced by the American Cancer Society and is called Journey Into Darkness. Featuring guest star Robert Ryan as the host, the film is a masterpiece of scripting and acting.

Weaving several stories into one, it portrays the mental torture experienced by several cancer victims as they grapple with having to decide whether they should take the advice of their wise and kindly doctor and pursue proven orthodox treatments, or allow their fears and doubts to overcome their judgment and seek the unproven treatments of a medically untrained quack who promises miracle cures but whose only real interest is in how much money the patient can afford to pay.

In the end, some make the "right" choice and resolve to follow the guidance of their doctor. Others make the "wrong" choice and begin their long and tragic journey into darkness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of quotations

****************************************

Nice lovely "public benefactors". Work for "free". And they obviously get laid for "free" too. Only we fuck-tourists pay for fuck and work for money. So, my friend, what do you "know" apart from what you have heard and "believe"?

aids killllsss......cancer killlssss......terrorisssssts killl......killllll......evillllll......I willllll save yyyouuuuu.......savvvvveee yooooouuu.......evvviilll aidddssss killllssss......cannnnnceerr....kiiillsss....tterrroorisssstt.....killlllllll......killlllll....killlll

Hi,

I was having sex with a pros. And the condom broke while I was having sex with her. I am very scared. I told the pros, but she seemed not to take it seriously as if it happened to her often (broken condom). That made me more scared. It has been about 14 hrs now and I am not able sleep or eat. I was new to mongering, but always used to practice safe sex, but now this incident has made me think twice.

I read a similar incident reported by Lorenz on this site, and a reply from "Chocha Monger" stating "therapy with antiretroviral drugs". Will it help me or not, or do I have to wait for 3 months to know the status of HIV infection. I am scared to death. Please advise ASAP.

Thanks in advance to all of you.

Please ease my pain.

How times have changed. Not so long ago, a woman in the streets arrested with a condom, was consudered to be ipso facto, a prostitute. Similarly, finding a condom is a room raid was considered evidence of prostitution.

China wakes.

[QUOTE=Flamepvt]Hi,


I read a similar incident reported by Lorenz on this site, and a reply from "Chocha Monger" stating "therapy with antiretroviral drugs". Will it help me or not, or do I have to wait for 3 months to know the status of HIV infection. I am scared to death. Please advise ASAP.

Thanks in advance to all of you.

Please ease my pain.[/QUOTE]

Relax. The chance of you getting HIV like this is less than 1 in 1000. Remember, she has to be infected before you are infected. To put it into perspective, if you are 40, your average chance of dying from all causes is around 1 in 500.

[QUOTE=Flamepvt]Hi,

I was having sex with a pros. And the condom broke while I was having sex with her. I am very scared. I told the pros, but she seemed not to take it seriously as if it happened to her often (broken condom). That made me more scared. It has been about 14 hrs now and I am not able sleep or eat. I was new to mongering, but always used to practice safe sex, but now this incident has made me think twice.

I read a similar incident reported by Lorenz on this site, and a reply from "Chocha Monger" stating "therapy with antiretroviral drugs". Will it help me or not, or do I have to wait for 3 months to know the status of HIV infection. I am scared to death. Please advise ASAP.

Thanks in advance to all of you.

Please ease my pain.[/QUOTE]
You should see your doctor and try to get on antiretrovirals immediately if possible. This is standard procedure for health professionals who get needle sticks when attending to high risk patients. However, your risk should be low if you withdrew immediately when the condom broke and washed off all bodily fluids with soap and water. Hopefully, you did not keep pounding away until you blew a load in her pussy after the condom broke.

[QUOTE=Chocha Monger]You should see your doctor and try to get on antiretrovirals immediately if possible. This is standard procedure for health professionals who get needle sticks when attending to high risk patients. However, your risk should be low if you withdrew immediately when the condom broke and washed off all bodily fluids with soap and water. Hopefully, you did not keep pounding away until you blew a load in her pussy after the condom broke.[/QUOTE]On your advise and after consulting a AIDS counseller, I have started the antiretrovirals from today at about 66 hrs from the incidence. I have started Duovir (combivir) twice daily for 28 days. I am now hoping for the best. I am very scared and very frighten as to what my family and relatives will think of me. But I have faith in god and am keeping my finger crossed.

[QUOTE=Flamepvt]On your advise and after consulting a AIDS counseller, I have started the antiretrovirals from today at about 66 hrs from the incidence. I have started Duovir (combivir) twice daily for 28 days. I am now hoping for the best. I am very scared and very frighten as to what my family and relatives will think of me. But I have faith in god and am keeping my finger crossed.[/QUOTE]Ridiculous guy. You are describing an extremely low risk exposure. Chill out dude.

[QUOTE=Chesterfield]Ridiculous guy. You are describing an extremely low risk exposure. Chill out dude.[/QUOTE]What is ridiculous about it. All of you say its like some 1 in 1000 odds or something to get HIV, but what if you are that one person in that 1000? What will you do? I once had lost my complete life in front of me. My name, my job, my friends, everybody hated me for a small mistake of mine, so had to move to another place to start over again, and I know how it feels like, when the society rejects you and you loose everything just in a flash. Which you hace accured over the year. So its better to be safe than sorry. I don't want a chance even though if its less.

P.S. : The medicines have now started to show side effects and very strong one. I am nostaligic all the time and keep on vomitting. I cosulted the doctors and they say. Now its my call wheather to stop them or not. And I am feeling like shit. PEP is not easy. I am getting weak too.

HIV Does Not Cause AIDS says Doctors' Group
Report By Becky Blanton
HIV does not cause AIDS. That was one of the most startling pieces of information to come out of the 21st Annual Meeting of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP), held recently in Phoenix, Arizona July 19.
Dr. Donald W. Miller, Jr. an attendee at the meeting, said “It’s a shocking statement but it will very likely prove to be true,” Miller said of the claim.

“Once people realize this is true, it will turn the way things are done on its head.”

Those who contract AIDS, not those who contract HIV, are the patients who die. The conventional wisdom about HIV is that once a person has HIV they will automatically and eventually get AIDS. That, Miller says, is simply not true.

The meeting, entitled, "21st Century Threats and Conflicts," was organized by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – considered, Miller noted, the “pro-market, libertarian alternative to the American Medical Association.”

“It’s a small organization,” Miller said, “But there are some very notable members.”

Miller himself is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.

Dr. Peter Duesberg, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, another attendee, was the man who isolated the first cancer gene in his work with retroviruses. The AIDS virus is also retrovirus.

Dr. David Rasnick, a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at UCB, presented the evidence on his AIDS research, Miller said.

The evidence isn’t totally new, Miller said. But it is hotly contested, “If you can find someone willing to debate facts, you're lucky. Most won't. They can't."

Rasnick and Duesberg, have written a book entitled: "The AIDS dilemma: drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus" (1998).

The men have co-authored another book entitled: "The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition" (2003), with Claus Koehnlein. “You don’t hear a lot about it (this evidence),” Miller said. “What you do hear is Rasnick is a kook or Duesbuerg is way out. They attack the messenger and discard the message.”

Not everyone is so reluctant to listen.

According to Miller, the premier of South Africa was very interested in the message. “He (the premier) was somewhat annoyed that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) wouldn’t debate this,” Miller said. “He wanted to know what to do about this problem. Well, the people in South Africa don’t have sex anymore than anyone else, probably less than most. They certainly can’t afford the AIDS test. So, how do they know what the percentage really is? If someone loses weight or get pneumonia they say they have AIDS,” he said.

“Based on a ruling by the World Health Organization, people in Africa can be diagnosed as having AIDS without having to have an HIV test. According to Miller, twenty-three years ago the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that a growing number of male homosexuals and intravenous (IV) drug users were experiencing a mysterious epidemic of diseases, which included several odd types of pneumonia, a rare malignant tumor called Kaposi’s sarcoma, lymphoma, dementia, tuberculosis, weight loss (anorexia), fever, diarrhea, etc. The CDC defines the epidemic "AIDS" (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), as comprising 26 different diseases.

From 1981–2001 AIDS has afflicted 800,000 people in the US, 250,000 in Europe, and 1,000,000 in Africa. In the United States, AIDS strikes young male homosexuals (66 percent of all AIDS cases), male and female IV drug users (32 percent of all AIDS cases, 75 percent of them male), hemophiliacs and other transfusion recipients (1 percent), and children borne to drug-addicted mothers (1 percent).

Miller said the research points not to sexual transmission, but more to long-term drug use. “Well, now we’ve seen that homosexual males use recreational drugs in greater amounts and duration than straight males,” Miller said. The recreational drugs in question are cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants and amphetamines.

If HIV is not the cause of AIDS, then what is? Miller said Rasnick presented strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by three things, singly or in combination:

1) long-term recreational drug use (cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines); 2) the anti-viral drugs (DNA chain terminators, like AZT, and protease inhibitors) that doctors prescribe to people who are HIV positive; and 3) especially in Africa, malnutrition (and lack of drinkable water). The noninfectious chemical bases for AIDS is supported by a lot of important data, facts like this one: HIV-positive people treated with anti-viral drugs have an annual mortality rate of 6.6–8.7 percent, compared with an annual mortality of 1.4 percent in HIV-positive people who refuse treatment with anti-viral drugs.

Over the last 20 years the US government has carried out a program to eradicate the HIV virus. They’ve used 100,000 government-funded doctors and scientists and have cost taxpayers more than $100 billion. “There’s growing evidence,” Miller said, “that the premise upon which this eradication program is founded is wrong.”

The good news the evidence shows that those who do have HIV can lead long, healthy lives. "It's like having herpes," he noted. "It's not the best thing, but it's not the end of the world."

“Those with HIV need to stop the drug use, eat healthy and live healthy lives,” Miller said. “Having HIV is not a death sentence,” he said. It’s not a message the mainstream media is likely to pick up on however.

“The media, if you read the articles out there, always links HIV with AIDS,” Miller said. “You don’t read HIV or AIDS by itself. It’s always HIV/AIDS, and that’s just not accurate,” he said.

Re-education is only part of the problem. Getting the drug companies to let go of the $1,000 a month per person, or $12,000 per person per year money they’re making on each person prescribed the AZT cocktail will be hard.

Getting hospitals and other medical facilities to change their protocols will also prove difficult. Miller, who is a surgeon, has seen the problem first hand.

“In surgery I’ve seen nurses get stuck or cut with something sharp,” he said. “When we’re working on a patient with HIV, the protocol is that they immediately start the AZT drugs. They do and they feel awful. I told them, don’t take them.”

It’s radical , but Miller believes the statistics back him up. “The mortality rate has proven to be so much higher for those taking the drugs than not,” he said.

For more information and professional papers on HIV and AIDS visit Dr. Millers website: [url]www.donaldmiller.com[/url].

Ok that is not true. HIV does cause AIDS. These people are a fringe group of scientists. Take a look at South Africa where people believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS. These lies are killing people.

"It is good fortune for the governments that the masses don't think. Otherwise, human society as we know it might not exist..." (Adolf H.)

"To rule, give the people bread and circus..." (J.Caesar)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Get Rich Quick - and stay honest!

*** Get Slim Fast - No Effort Needed!

*** Become Healthy Fast - just take one pill three times a day and wear a condom - no other effort ever! It will make you healthy!

Do you believe these? We all ridicule the people who fall for the "get rich quick" schemes. Why then do we accept the doctors' claim that we can stay healthy without effort, just by popping a pill or wearing a condom? Is "health" so simple?

Please pride yourself for being a "man" and not falling for "effortless weightloss" promises like women like to do. We are men. We do not believe that anyone can get rich quick, without effort -while staying honest. We also do not believe that anyone can be healthy without effort, just by taking pills, or wearing condoms. We also do not believe that anyone can be safe from violence unless he resolves to be non-violent himself.

Sorry, you have been fooled. Some people want to make money from you and you fell for it.


******
Engrave this in your mind: There is no AIDS or "Bird-Flu" beyond profits just as there is no "Terrorism" unless someone makes money from it.
******


And the profiteeers are not little microscopic guys and do not wear big black beards and neither do they wave guns madly. They simply sit in airconditioned offices, slurp coffeee at leasure or rest behind a doctors desk or in the comfortable research laboratory. Often they also like write articles in newspapers detailing the dangers of this or that micro or macro organism or organisation. Then they put it in print and watch the result. The cash rolls in without end.

-------------------

About doctors:
Some doctors (at the top) might be intelligent. However most (at least 80%) are robots. Able only to recite passages of text and pass university exams.

From the top they are told to sell you "diseases, medicines and treatments". So they (the plain robotic commoner guys) can stay in the club. They do so without thinking about it. I repeat: There is no AIDS, only business. Big, big business.

Believe me. My pay is exactly the same whether you are sick or healthy. Many others cannot honestly say that much.

@Sloth

This AIDS myth theory is ages old and despite the fact that they seem to have had a recent conference all their arguments are outdated and have been refuted 1000's of times in the scientific literature and on the net (just take a look at wikipedia "AIDS reappraisal" and the links there). I also wonder why a cardiac surgeon should be an authority on HIV??

For some odd reason these AIDS reappraisal stuff resurfaces regularly on sex boards. Seems some people just accept any kind of excuse for barebacking...

@Asshole

Not sure what you are trying to say. Of course many people want to make money on all kinds of things. But your argument that HIV is just a money-making invention is way off mark. What do you suggest all the people which have AIDS are dying from if it's not the virus? - Honestly, I don't even want to hear your opinion on this. It's a waste of time to debate.

Vulcan AIDS? - the Buzz - television series "Enterprise" portrays AIDS-like disease - Brief Article
Advocate, The, Feb 4, 2003

Paramount's Star Trek franchise is going boldly into the AIDS pandemic, as first officer T'Pol (Jolene Blalock) faces an incurable Vulcan disease on the February 5 episode of the UPN series Enterprise.

Called Pa'nar Syndrome, the illness is transmitted through intimate telepathic connections, a taboo practice deemed "unnatural" by the conservative majority. The parallels drawn between the ailing Vulcan mind-melders and gay men in the early days of AIDS are distressingly accurate, down to Pa'nar sufferers being called an "undesirable subculture" who deserve their fate.

"We're hoping to raise people's awareness that our culture still stigmatizes people with HIV and AIDS," says series co-executive producer Rick Berman, who also cowrote the "Stigma" episode.

Not that the Star Trek franchise itself couldn't use a lesson in inclusion. "I think it's commendable that they're doing an episode to promote AIDS and HIV awareness," says a former Trek producer. "But it's sad and ironic that Star Trek remains terrified of acknowledging the existence of gay people. I guess it's OK for Enterprise to tell gay story lines as long as we don't see any gay people in them."

Bibliography for "Vulcan AIDS? - the Buzz - television series "Enterprise" portrays AIDS-like disease - Brief Article"
"Vulcan AIDS? - the Buzz - television series "Enterprise" portrays AIDS-like disease - Brief Article". Advocate, The. Feb 4, 2003. FindArticles.com. 04 Sep. 2007. [url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2003_Feb_4/ai_97175007[/url]

I have to voice my opinion that the "social evils" of "aids", etc.

. Are purposefully exagerated for resons of political and financial gain. The reason might be complicated but makes one think that it targets certain social/economic sectors of our society.

------------------

We easily picture "bread, milk, beef" and even "beer" as food for humans but it takes more imagination to think of "aids" as food. Yet indirectly it is in fact, and undeniably feeding an ever growing number of people around the globe. Starting on the bottom rug of the foodchain it feeds the ordinary African tribesman who if coming down with "diarrhoea" or similar malady can easily obtain free food, clothing and attentive care if he applies for or accepts "aids treatment" instead of treatment for diarrhoea.

Ignorant as he is, he knows nothing about the facts of either. He only sees the immediate benefits of "aids". It becomes his food. Even to death. After succumbing to the medical poisons, he dies but gets fed like a king for the rest of his life. Only someone constantly starving can appreciate the lure of a good feed.

Then indirectly it feeds the nurses taking care of him. Their families such as children, friends, relatives will be fed as well. Then there are the doctors supervising the nurses and the distribution of the "medical poisons". They also get fed. Then the transport company distributing the substance and carrying it in special vehicles from the factories. Then of course the employees of laboratories get fed. This includes the chemical engineers, researchers but also the common employees such as the factory workers, even the guard and the cleaner.

Then of course the lawyers who fight back the multitude of attacks from disillusioned "ex-patients" and other enemies of the establishment. Then the media also gets fed who carry their advertising. The journalist, the editor, even the typesetter and the graphic designer of colorful brochures. Plus the cleaner and the driver for the company.

And the countless of "activists" who are hired to raise awareness of this great social evil: "aids". And their families, kids, dogs, cats. This goes on and on and on. You cannot tear down a tower this high. "Aids" will be growing as long as it can feed this large number of humans. And presently few "industries" are as successful and employ as many as the "aids industry. " When you look at the validity of their claims then consider all the above.

Then imagine what the world would be like without "aids". Put it quite simply, it would be a painfully "hungry" world for many.

The other social evils are:

1. Prostitution

2. Cancer

3. [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908][CodeWord908][/url]

4. Child-abuse

5. Drugs

All of them are successful industries in feeding millions worldwide. Imagine the world without "drugs" or "cancer", for example. Yuck, it would be a terrible "hungry world" for millions more.

I want to understand:

A lot of prostitutes around the world drink sperm and fuck pussy and ass without condom by 5/10/20 customers per night. I never heard prostitutes have HIV because they had sexual performances but only because of infected syringes. Instead I see a lot of prostitutes have a normal family and life after they finished prostitution.

So my question is: why haven't prostitutes got HIV if HIV is sexual widespreading?

[QUOTE=Acolonizer]I want to understand:

A lot of prostitutes around the world drink sperm and fuck pussy and ass without condom by 5/10/20 customers per night. I never heard prostitutes have HIV because they had sexual performances but only because of infected syringes. Instead I see a lot of prostitutes have a normal family and life after they finished prostitution.

So my question is: why haven't prostitutes got HIV if HIV is sexual widespreading?[/QUOTE]


I do not know pros doing that.... only ones are some Nigerians in Italy, and then they will not survive long... Mind that even if you have AIDS totay with modern anti-retrovirus drugs you might live a normal life for may be 10-20 years...

IT

the ultimate anti-aids vaccine:

***does "aids" exist at all? ***

does anyone suggest that "humanity" at large has made any advances in the level of general population intelligence since the middle ages of the 16-17th century? during these mere 400 years have we become more "intelligent" people in general? or simply we have become "educated" and "programmed" in a different way than those "barbarians" of 400 years ago?

does the common farmer, craftsman, labourer or even company director. of today or long ago- have the time to actually "think" about the meaning things? rather than simply learning and repeating some information or data that has been presented to him by others. does the inevitable necessity of making a living. or just to get by- afford him the luxury of sufficient free time for reflection, evaluation and consideration?

*** the ancient savages ***

the "savages" of long ago used to firmly believe in "ghosts, saints, fairies and werewolves". all of which most of them never actually seen with their own eyes, never touched with their hands. but were described to them by others who had claimed to have seen them, observe them, communicate with them. whether truthfully or otherwise. either really believing or not themselves, most were forced to agree by social pressure, economical need or just for the simple desire to be accepted by their fellows. and for these same reasons they never hesitated to demonstrate their belief in front of the public. by acts of faith. which ultimately always culminated in physical violence and even wars against those who did not share such beliefs. or at least did not pretend to share them. (among others: galileo galilei and his stupid ideas of the earth being round, etc.)

*** the modern savages ***

the great question is: are we the "people of today" actually more intelligent than our middle-ages ancestors of 400 years ago? or have we simply discarded those "beliefs" in ghosts and fairies and zombies in exchange for simply "another set" of beliefs in "bacterias, viruses, cancers and terrorists"? again in things which we do not understand ourselves but are too keen to repeat until even death. even though we might be wrong. but at least get accepted and accompanied. even to death. all it takes is just belief. or if you don't have any then try to pretend that you do. show your faith by ready to be violent against "non-believers" and you fare even better. this is life. changed nothing in 400 years, and will not change in even a thousand more.

*** hit the bastards ***

yes, right now! such "non-believers" are subjected even to physical violence every day. today too! for not believing what they should "officially" believe in. such as "aids kills! " "tobacco smoking harms humans! " "drugs destroy society! " "chidren are being abused! " "lenin is our light, stalin is our hero! " "we are being attacked by terrorists! " "women are equal with men! " "disease is caused by bacteria and viruses"

-----------------------------------

this is certainly not about anyone being stupid here. but rather about many of us not having the time to even think. we have no time to think! as an easiest alternative solution we replace evaluation, reflection and consideration with endless repetition of things we hear. repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition, repetition..----

*** at least we have company ***

and since we really know nothing, we must demonstrate our faith in some visible way. that is: by hitting all those who disagree. even hitting them until they are quite cold and dead. this wins us social approval. and it seems to work. we are accepted by all others who know nothing. just like ourselves. yet we feel so miserable every day. just like others. because we still know nothing. and we fear all the unknown things. which are numerous. because we refuse to think. so we just repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and------at least we seem to be accepted. accepted into the club of misery, that is.

*** what is aids? ***

so, what does really cause aids? i cannot tell you in a few brief words. it is a very long process until you understand. words are limited in meaning and expression. instead of asking me and others about what causes aids, i rather urge you to find a time and sit down every day to think about it. then after a long time you will "know". yet you cannot tell others because you will look stupid. not because you are stupid but because they are dark. yet if they took the trouble and started thinking too, they would know too. you will stop "believing" and you will start "knowing". i would say.

"knowing" that. aids does not kill, lenin is not light of the world, disease is not caused by bacteria and neither by virus, women are not equal with men and there is no terrorism.

*** the vaccine. ***

so, the ultimate "anti-aids vaccine" is within you. and so is the "anti-terrorism" vaccine. and "anti-crime". please sit down every day a few hours for twenty years or so. and think about it all. it takes a long time? better start today. and stop fighting! against those who don't believe what you "believe". you only believe. it's only a belief. not worth fighting for it.

the following text extracts are not your answer to cancer and aids. rather simply a pointer to those who think a bit differently. it is not the solution. but you can start by thinking about it. especially when you see those gruesome pictures on tobacco packaging. which is the killer? the tobacco or the suggestion? the aids or the treatment? the terrorist or the police department? the bacteria or the antibiotics?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. / power of suggestion

ethnologists and doctors studying tribal communities put down similar accounts. for example, american doctor garry wright relays the following case in his book eyewitness of sorcery.

lusung, a sorcerer in one of south african tribes, told a man who had committed a crime: "you will die in three days! " then she sprinkled water and sprayed some red powder around the hut of the condemned man. the sorcerer repeated her incantation for the benefit of the villagers. "her words were a death verdict, " says wright in his book. "none of the villagers laid hands on the criminal yet he was found dead three days later, " adds he.

source: [url]http: //wintersteel. homestead.com/power_of_suggestion.html[/url]

-----------------------------------------------

2. / galileo galilei 15 february 1564 – 8 january 1642

galileo's championing of copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. the geocentric view had been dominant since the time of aristotle, and the controversy engendered by galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the catholic church's prohibiting the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because that theory had no decisive proof and was contrary to the literal meaning of scripture. [6] galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the inquisition.

source: [url]http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/galileo_galilei[/url]

------------------------------------------

3. / diagnosis (a "sick" individual)

in medicine, diagnosis or diagnostics is the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its signs, symptoms, and from the results of various diagnostic procedures. the conclusion reached through this process is called a diagnosis. the term "diagnostic criteria" designates the combination of symptoms which allows the doctor to ascertain the diagnosis of the respective disease.

source: [url]http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/diagnosis[/url]

-----------------------------------

4. / defining "crime" (a "sick" society)

a normative definition views crime as deviant behaviour that violates prevailing norms, specifically, cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave.

source: [url]http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/criminal_offence[/url]

---------------------------------------------------------

example: definition of one offense "public masturbation" [url]http://www.legis. state. ga. us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/hb1187. htm[/url]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. / *** germ theory ***

the germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases. although highly controversial when first proposed, it is now a cornerstone of modern medicine and clinical microbiology, leading to such important innovations as antibiotics and hygienic practices. [1]

source: [url]http: //en. wikipedia.org/wiki/germ_theory[/url]

the germ theory of disease is the single most important contribution by the science of microbiology to the general welfare of the world's people, perhaps the single most important contribution of any modern scientific discipline. it also is the single most important contribution to the practice of modern medicine, essentially defining the term with the invention of antimicrobial chemotherapeutics.

source: [url]http://www.mansfield. ohio-state. edu/ sabedon/biol2007. htm[/url]

------------------------------------------


6. / *** anti germ-theory ***

we do not catch diseases. we build them. we have to eat, drink, think, and feel them into existence. we work hard at developing our diseases. we must work just as hard at restoring health. the presence of germs does not constitute the presence of a disease. bacteria are scavengers of nature. they reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. germs or microbes flourish as scavengers at the site of disease. they are just living on the unprocessed metabolic waste and diseased, malnourished, nonresistant tissue in the first place. they are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. flies, maggots, and rats do not cause garbage but rather feed on it. mosquitoes do not cause a pond to become stagnant! you always see firemen at burning buildings, but that doesn't mean they caused the fire. source: [url]http: //tuberose.com/germ_theory.html[/url]

what most people call a "disease" is really a symptom or a collection of symptoms. for example, cancer tumors are symptoms, which is why trying to fight them has resulted in the epidemic we have today. what people commonly think of as causes of disease, are symptoms.

source: [url]http: //tuberose.com/germ_theory.html[/url]

the germ theory, virus theory, genetic theory and autoimmune theory--contemporary disease causation theories--are all based upon and rely upon immunology. immunology is based upon and must be supported by darwinian concepts of evolution. pull out the evolutionary foundation and all the prevailing theories collapse; the highly publicized, but nonexistent, advances of modern medicine are exposed as rep001ologists! nonetheless, the germ theory is still believed to be the central cause of disease, because around it exists a global supportive infrastructure of commercial interests that built multi-billion-dollar industries based upon this theory.

source: [url]http: //tuberose.com/germ_theory.html[/url]

---------------------------------------------------------

i hope you will draw the parallel in the definition of "crime" and the definition of "disease". all seek the wrong in some other outside factor and none in themselves. this way reach no useful solution at all. sorry man but if "you" are sick, why blame the bacteria and the aids virus? similarly, blaming someone for "publicly mastubating" does no favor to society in general. there was a (long, long, long) way that led him there. if he is sick, so are all others. the next one is just waiting to come. and so is the next pestilence as long as the "virus and bacteria" are chased. but it's a stupid, stupid world. never mind. keep fighting. it's all good. keeps the bacterias occupied. as well as the doctors and the cops paid.

end of post aids

Asshole, Sloth,

Pretty good and compelling arguments.

There is a hell a lot of ambiguity surrounding hiv and aids (small caps) and as is the case in these situations; there are a lot of people making money out of the haze and ignorance.

History has a lot of such examples of people/companies making money in times of war, strife, dictatorship.

The whole thing about hiv/aids have made the simple pleasurable act of having sex a worrisome affair.

But then I guess it is better to be safe till we have evidence to prove otherwise.

A. Jay

Somebody metioned below that the HIV denialists have been refuted 1000s of times. Bald faced lie. They have been rebutted 1000s of times over but never have their arguments been refuted, and they're hardly outdated. There is an overwhelming amount of current data that supports them. The movement of dissidents is growing steadfastly every year and the list of scientists who question the orthodox views on HIV is growing rapidly.

A standard response to denialists from the perpetuators of medical orthodoxy is "if you believe HIV is harmless inject yourself with it." For them I say that is only plausible if they are required to take anti-retroviral drugs every day for the rest of their lives. Then we'll see who expires first.

[QUOTE=Acolonizer]I want to understand:

A lot of prostitutes around the world drink sperm and fuck pussy and ass without condom by 5/10/20 customers per night. I never heard prostitutes have HIV because they had sexual performances but only because of infected syringes. Instead I see a lot of prostitutes have a normal family and life after they finished prostitution.

So my question is: why haven't prostitutes got HIV if HIV is sexual widespreading?[/QUOTE]A substantial number of those prostitutes actually got HIV.
Note that in Europe, roughly 40-50% of the new HIV infections are through heterosexual contact and another 30-40% through homosexual contact. Only few infections through syringes anymore as drug users at least in Switzerland get clean syringes for free. So there is substantial sexual transmission going on.

On the other hand, transmission probabilities per sexual contact are very variable but mostly low (except in special circumstances), especially if the HIV+ partner is on well-working antiretroviral therapy. It will also depend on the prostitutes immune system whether she get's infected at all and how quickly. So, some will get infected very early on while others will remain HIV-free despite extreme high-risk behavious. Biology is a complicated thing and there's always a lot of variability.

It depends upon the person that you get to have sex with, if she is stunning, you would not think twice about it. AIDS would be the last thing on your mind, it is a risk but someone given the opportunity to have sex with a beautiful woman is not going to think much about the hazards. That being said AIDS is definitely lethal and should be taken seriously but people are still fucking anyway.

[QUOTE=McJohn]A substantial number of those prostitutes actually got HIV.
Note that in Europe, roughly 40-50% of the new HIV infections are through heterosexual contact and another 30-40% through homosexual contact. Only few infections through syringes anymore as drug users at least in Switzerland get clean syringes for free. So there is substantial sexual transmission going on.

On the other hand, transmission probabilities per sexual contact are very variable but mostly low (except in special circumstances), especially if the HIV+ partner is on well-working antiretroviral therapy. It will also depend on the prostitutes immune system whether she get's infected at all and how quickly. So, some will get infected very early on while others will remain HIV-free despite extreme high-risk behavious. Biology is a complicated thing and there's always a lot of variability.[/QUOTE]


Sorry for him, I mean our Alcool friend of course, not you, I think he has to read a biology or a microbiology manual (as I did a lot of years ago)... and simply understand what a retrovirus is. It's not so complicated. You can live with him 20 years or 6 months... theraphy make a lot of difference! Mind that antiviral are NOT antibiotics....

IT

# The magic cars # Let's suppose you had a car. You drive it hard every day. Only fill the tank with gas but do no maintenance whatsoever. Don't pump the tires, don't top the oil. Don't tighten the bolts. Don't fill the radiator. Let the scratches rot and become rust. Now, when the rain comes you cover your wrecked car with a plastic tarp. Will you save it from falling apart?

Now, someone more brighter also owns a car. He runs it just as hard. But does all the maintenance. Fills the radiator, tops the oil. Tightens the nuts every so often. Polishes out all the scratches and repaints them as soon as they happen. He is a sensible guy by all means he takes pride in his car. Now when the rain comes he does not bother to put the tarp on. He reckons, the paint is strong enough. Will his car fall apart as a result? According to you it will. Hmmm, makes sense.

# Painted "health" #

Someone has to be a fucking genious to say that a plastic tarp is all the maintenance a machine needs to stay healthy. Now you say you are no machine? Are you also saying that you need no maintenance other than a raincoat?

It is indeed criminal to lead people into believing that wearing a raincoat will keep them healthy. Yet this is what you are told every day by news, radio, television. The only way it is possible if the world is being run by "criminals". Who actually make the law and enforce the law.

This is the feminist thinking of a senseless female who keeps painting her face (while rotting inside) and hopes to stay young by it. This is the propaganda of the feminist regime that controls all the media. In fact, in the author's opinion, feminism and female thinking (un-thinking) is the greatest evil the world ever has seen. All evident from the current madness of aids-scare, cancer scare, drug scare, terrorist-scare, chicken-flu scare and the rest. Hopefully, if you are a man of any sense, you will not take part in it.

# Joke of the century, hahaha #

Let the women believe in "maintenance-free" cars and "painted-health and well-being". Guys, sure you will not advocate this senseless craziness and believe fabricated statistics. So funny. Please try running your car without oil for a year. But put on the tarp every day. See what happens. And make sure you wear the mask against chicken flu too! So funny, hahaha. Hehehe. Gonna fall off the chair laughing.

So, keep giving each other good advice: "Cover up. Stay safe! " Hehehe. Fuck, my belly hurts now. Stop ticleing me. Hahaha.

[QUOTE=That Asshole]# The magic cars # Let's suppose you had a car. You drive it hard every day. Only fill the tank with gas but do no maintenance whatsoever. Don't pump the tires, don't top the oil. Don't tighten the bolts. Don't fill the radiator. Let the scratches rot and become rust. Now, when the rain comes you cover your wrecked car with a plastic tarp. Will you save it from falling apart?

Now, someone more brighter also owns a car. He runs it just as hard. But does all the maintenance. Fills the radiator, tops the oil. Tightens the nuts every so often. Polishes out all the scratches and repaints them as soon as they happen. He is a sensible guy by all means he takes pride in his car. Now when the rain comes he does not bother to put the tarp on. He reckons, the paint is strong enough. Will his car fall apart as a result? According to you it will. Hmmm, makes sense.

# Painted "health" #

Someone has to be a fucking genious to say that a plastic tarp is all the maintenance a machine needs to stay healthy. Now you say you are no machine? Are you also saying that you need no maintenance other than a raincoat?

It is indeed criminal to lead people into believing that wearing a raincoat will keep them healthy. Yet this is what you are told every day by news, radio, television. The only way it is possible if the world is being run by "criminals". Who actually make the law and enforce the law.

This is the feminist thinking of a senseless female who keeps painting her face (while rotting inside) and hopes to stay young by it. This is the propaganda of the feminist regime that controls all the media. In fact, in the author's opinion, feminism and female thinking (un-thinking) is the greatest evil the world ever has seen. All evident from the current madness of aids-scare, cancer scare, drug scare, terrorist-scare, chicken-flu scare and the rest. Hopefully, if you are a man of any sense, you will not take part in it.

# Joke of the century, hahaha #

Let the women believe in "maintenance-free" cars and "painted-health and well-being". Guys, sure you will not advocate this senseless craziness and believe fabricated statistics. So funny. Please try running your car without oil for a year. But put on the tarp every day. See what happens. And make sure you wear the mask against chicken flu too! So funny, hahaha. Hehehe. Gonna fall off the chair laughing.

So, keep giving each other good advice: "Cover up. Stay safe! " Hehehe. Fuck, my belly hurts now. Stop ticleing me. Hahaha.[/QUOTE]


It is all the work of medical community..the way they are projected, just scares people.

Looking at the history...One could see a pattern in over hying things......medical community over hypes them and destorys normal life.

It all started way back from maleria, TB, cancer, plague..every decade there is a DOMINANT disease..unfortunately, this time it is associated with sex and got the extra hype from the press..

Though ebola or some african disease could be more dangerous..it won't take the top spot for now untill the medical community establises a cure or semi-cure for HIV and then they would go out and seek some thing else..its kinda their job to find a domniant disease that scares people.

We could almost guarentee that....Even if some scientist comes up with a cure for hiv..they won't allow us to live in peace..they would come up with some other disease and make the life of people more miserable by just thinking over it half of the time.

Every man has its own karma to go with.. ...its 1 million times better to live a life of spitituality, have sex and enjoy life and Accept Death AS IT IS, than ponder over pages over pages of wikkipedia to figure out things..

Over my experience, i have found spiritual life to be much much better than medical existance of someone else facts and experience.

90% Of US, DO NOT Have A NORMAL LIFE...We JUST DIE THINKING OVER Miseries Created by none else than us

Here in the USA one of our national television networks (CBS) is noted for its PSAs (public service announcement) titled "CBS Cares". They typically involve some type of emo bullshit or after-school special type of theme. But there is a new one that has actor Hector Elizondo telling us about the lurking peril of HIV in the retirement home and increasing infection amongst the elderly, and he underscores his point with this cheerful denouement:

[i]"You didn't think you needed to talk to your parents or grandparents about safe sex now, did you?
.... CBS Cares!"[/i]

This commercial gave me a [b]major[/b] douche chill. It is funny and creepy all at once.

The video:

[url]http://www.cbs.com/innertube/player.php?cat=&vid=165784&format=wmv|flv&auto=0&source=0[/url]

I mean, your old and going to die anyway, so why not just say "fuck all" and hump like old jack-rabbits? You think these geezers have the dexterity to manage putting on a condom? Is old Grandpa Jack spending all his retirement money on crack *****s?

Here is some bloggers funny take on the whole 'epidemic'.

[url]http://mockazine.typepad.com/mockazine/2007/11/old-aids.html[/url]

Can you just imagine grandpa standing there all turgid trying to put on his Trojan Ribbed with his freakish drooping balls all getting in the way?

2J

[QUOTE=Too Jaded]Is old Grandpa Jack spending all his retirement money on crack *****s?...Can you just imagine grandpa standing there all turgid trying to put on his Trojan Ribbed with his freakish drooping balls all getting in the way?[/QUOTE]

Errr...yes, and yes. There's plenty of old boys still getting their groove on with hookers. I've certainly had my fair share of elderly clients.

Don't be so ageist! :)

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]Errr...yes, and yes. There's plenty of old boys still getting their groove on with hookers. I've certainly had my fair share of elderly clients.

Don't be so ageist! :)[/QUOTE]

You do realize that:

a) there are 40 million seniors in the US. Are the all cruising the curb, or calling 1-800-DIAL-A-HO?

b) we are talking about people in retirement homes, most likely assisted living. I think the implication is that they're fucking each other.

And I hate political correctness. Just for using the word 'ageist' in your reply I say go screw.

Of course the oldies are fucking each other. Your libido doesn't suddenly switch off when you hit a certain age.

Good Lord...I added a smiley so you'd know it was meant as a light-hearted post, but considering the tone of your response, I'll say what I wanted to say in the first place - grow the hell up. Only teenagers chuckle about the idea of older people having sex.

Yeah why would this not be true? They fuck each other ALL the time in old folks homes dude! I'm surprised anybody would be ignorant enough to assume otherwise.

[QUOTE=Rubber Nursey]Of course the oldies are fucking each other. Your libido doesn't suddenly switch off when you hit a certain age.

Good Lord...I added a smiley so you'd know it was meant as a light-hearted post, but considering the tone of your response, I'll say what I wanted to say in the first place - grow the hell up. Only teenagers chuckle about the idea of older people having sex.[/QUOTE]

First off, it was a joke post, because who wants to have the safe sex conversation with mom or dad, let alone grandma.

God bless them for staying active. But I neither want to see it or talk to them about it. At their age they should know all they need to know.

There is a reason there is not a market for geriatric porn. Old people screwing is not sexy.

Midget sex? Check.
Foot fetish? Check.
German Hermaphodites? I am sure you can find it.

...Bingo Hall Hookups? Not gonna find it. No one wants to see it.

But if you feel good about yourself arguing otherwise, go ahead and talk until your blue and the face. Don't stroke out though.

2J

More than 1 percent of the unhabitants in Ukraine have aids it's an hight level. 3 cities have the record f the country, it's Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk. For exemple in Donetsk 1 prostitute on 4 has aids. The sex workers work all with a condom.

[QUOTE=Sloth]The movement of dissidents is growing steadfastly every year and the list of scientists who question the orthodox views on HIV is growing rapidly.[/QUOTE]It's encouraging to have greater opposition expressed by physicians and researchers because, let's face it, most people are simply too lazy to think on their own and therefore rely on the consensus views held by a majority in the medical field. That said, to truly destroy the house of cards that is AIDS, lay people will need to bring themselves to a state of awareness that the basis of health science encompasses sound lifestyle practices, not piecemeal, allopathic treatment of disease symptoms.

I was surprised at how ignorant some people are about AIDS. I actually met a doctor from Europe, a female, who thinks only homosexuals and drug addicts get AIDS. Tell that to all the porno actors and actresses who get infected all the time.

What I don't get, are all of these people promoting "natural" cures for AIDS. I'd like to see if any of them have the balls to intentionally get infected with HIV and then try these so-called "cures" on themselves' and see just how good they really work. I don't see that happening.

[QUOTE=Sloth]Somebody metioned below that the HIV denialists have been refuted 1000s of times. Bald faced lie. They have been rebutted 1000s of times over but never have their arguments been refuted, and they're hardly outdated. There is an overwhelming amount of current data that supports them. The movement of dissidents is growing steadfastly every year and the list of scientists who question the orthodox views on HIV is growing rapidly.[/QUOTE]Anything to support your claim about a growing number of denialists? Somehow I can only see the same old faces and nobody new of any scientific repute joining the dissident movement (if you even want to call it a movement, it's more or less dead as far as I can tell...).

Everybody working in science is aware that no theory is perfect but I for one find the standard HIV/AIDS theory pretty convincing. One of the main arguments of the dissidents is the ineffectivity of Zidovudine monotherapy. Unfortunately, while Zidovudine has some efficacy, this statement is almost true. It's just that in the last decade at least, patients don't get Zidovudine monotherapy anymore and there's a tremendous amount of literature supporting the efficacy of combination antiretroviral therapy.

Have a look at Wikipedia or 100s of other sources in the net which critically discuss every single one of the dissidents claims. I find the critiques much more convincing than the dissident's claims.

[QUOTE=Sloth] A standard response to denialists from the perpetuators of medical orthodoxy is "if you believe HIV is harmless inject yourself with it." For them I say that is only plausible if they are required to take anti-retroviral drugs every day for the rest of their lives. Then we'll see who expires first.[/QUOTE]
Nobody claims antiretrovirals don't have side effects. They are no free lunch but they just happen to prolong live of HIV infected people tremendously.

There are basically two "natural" camps.

The first subscribes to the concept of infection and therefore its approach is curative, that is, the application of modalities to combat an invading pathogen (HIV). They substitute prescription drugs with "natural" herbal concoctions.

The second group views AIDS as a collection of body-initiated symptoms, chronic in nature, that has their antecedent causes and therefore aims for the removal of these causes. To them, there's no such thing as infection.

The medical industry in most countries will never allow the first camp to flourish. Too much money involved.

The second camp will never grow beyond a fringe minority until governments allow people to choose an approach to health care they believe is best.

I suspect that's why even anecdotal examples of AIDS being "cured" by natural approaches are seldom publicized.

Well. If there's still some educated people think that AIDS is only for homosexuals and those drugs addict people, what about people in developing countries then. There are not enough education for them, they don't even now what STD is and for some countries named themselves as Moslem countries, sex education is banned for the sake of religious reason.

aids? the world has logic:

1./ *** the "aids" press ***

i went to our local library. now they have a whole "section" labeled hiv. it must be quite a popular subject nowadays. what i noticed was: the number of new titles about this sorry subject is massive. all are the "mainstream" type. lots of crying, screaming evil, riding the emotions about innocent victims, african dead-villages, legions of orphaned children,general hopelessness and terror.

------------------------------

2./ *** look who's talking ***

also noticed, nearly all the "aids" authors have female sounding names. i peeped into a few, but have a principle of not reading any book by a female author. obviously, because -"s'truth, s'truth! i saw it on tv!" -is what women all can say.

we sex-tourists rather save the braindamage and not listen to them. recommend the same to any man. you can go to cambodia, thailand, indo, china, s.america. root yourself silly and never have to talk with a woman. in effect you stay sane and sensible. don't need to prostitute your soul and sell yourself for "fuck". you can root "cheaper than free".

---------------------------

3./ *** no competition ***

i also noticed that the only one alternative title: duesberg's "inventing the aids virus" was gone. it might be out on loan. or it might have been removed for good. it is a pretty clever book. makes you think twice. too dangerous for the "aids business".

from the books on the shelves it was clear, most everyone who writes is a "full time paid activist". that is: they live from it. they built their houses from "aids". they bought their cars. in fact they still owe on the mortgage so the show must keep going. the business is good.

----------------------

4./ *** lion must eat ***

life is just. the lion must eat. no lion is evil. neither are doctors and "aids activists". leo does not attack the strong. but always the weakest zebra in the flock. similarly the poorest and stupidest humans fall prey to doctors and "activists". like the "poofters". they are pretty wasted lot anyway, it's quite obvious. so doctors eat them. cancer patients are full of personal problems, strife, confusion. so doctors eat them. men who "communicate" too much with women are pretty polluted too. down they go.

the world is very logical and very well made. even if i could save the "wasted humanity" from the doctors and activists, i wouldn't bother. they must go down. hyenas, vultures, doctors, cops and maggots do an important job. cleaning away the wasted.

-----------------------------

5./ *** cobra's eyes, doctors fangs ***

the snake looks the bird in the eyes. she is hypnotised. she believes and cannot escape. food for the predator. then the cobra strikes. feeds and shares food with his family. all is well. it was a sick, weak bird anyway. it is all justice. long live doctors, cops, maggots, the law and the "aids" and cancer business. bird flu too.

[QUOTE=That Asshole]I also noticed that the only one alternative title: Duesberg's "Inventing the aids virus" was gone. It might be out on loan. Or it might have been removed for good. It is a pretty clever book. Makes you think twice. Too dangerous for the "aids business".[/QUOTE]Back in the 90's I had a hardcover edition of Roger's Recovery From AIDS: How One Man Defeated the Dreaded Disease" and gave it to a health student a few years ago. But a softcover edition is still available at amazon.com. Unlike Dr. Duesberg's treatise which probably focuses on refuting the current theory on HIV, this one outlines the principles of natural hygiene through self-discovery as recorded by a practicing physician tending to an AIDS patient. It's a quick read and potentially illuminating for those who still drink the allopathic Kool-Aid.

There are still people who believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus???????

[QUOTE=Crypton]There are still people who believe that AIDS is not caused by a virus???????[/QUOTE]For sure. Me for one. And probably others who don't subscribe to the germ theory of disease.

GoGo Internet Doctor!
This shit is about as laughable as when people try to play Internet Lawyer or Internet Tough Guy.
AIDS *not* a virus? Come the fuck on now.
Whether its a virus, a government/medical industry conspiracy, if there is a cure, and no matter who stands to gain/lose from it;
What ISN'T at question is that it DOES exist, HOW you get it, and that it CAN kill you.

For the dissenters- instead of spreading a bunch of BS misinformation about lions and cobras (wtf?) why not just own up to the reality?
That being, some people are willing to risk their lives for sex, and some people are not.

I would agree that there is a certain amount of anit-HIV hysteria in the US. Do you know why that is? Because idiots on the other side of the argument say retarded shit like "Does Aids exist at all?" and "the ultimate anti-aids vaccine is within you" when clearly its killing motherfuckers left and right. Its a battle for public opinion- and I for one, am glad of the hysteria that causes most of the US to lean towards condom use. Without that kind of hysteria, know what happens? Its called Zimbabwe.

So unless you ARE an infectious disease specialist (and I don't mean, if you know one, are married to one, have read a book by one, or seen one on TV) trying to paint the disease as something its not its just so much BS propaganda.

Some of you seem to have researched this for hours, days, months, years- so much so that you consider yourselves experts. Instead of spending that time reading books by kooks and fake doctors, take 30 minutes and drag your favorita to the local AIDS clinic and get both of you tested. Then you can bareback to your dirty little heart's content, WITHOUT spreading potentially dangerous misinformation that could get some OTHER poor idiot killed.

Testing is widely available EVERYWHERE, even in the developing world. There is now even an fairly accurate, hand-held tester that works from oral swabs (OraQuick or something like that). IMHO, anyone that is too lazy to test, and yet feels the need to proselytize to others for hours on end about the "AIDS conspiracy"- deserves to be removed from the gene pool, along with any stupid enough to swallow their tripe.

Laziness and ignorance go hand in hand. In summary:

If you want to bareback, but your fucking lazy, then TAKE THE RISK.
If you want to bareback carefree and not die, TAKE 30 minutes and GET THAT ***** TESTED, then get your party on.
But whatever you do, don't pretend, and certainly don't tell others that there IS NO RISK.

Seriously. I'll take the opinion of someone who spent 8 years getting a medical degree, over some random asshole who can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to protect HIMSELF, anyday. I'd avise those actually buying into this crap to consider the same.

[QUOTE=Xion149]GoGo Internet Doctor!
This shit is about as laughable as when people try to play Internet Lawyer or Internet Tough Guy.
AIDS *not* a virus? Come the fuck on now.
Whether its a virus, a government/medical industry conspiracy, if there is a cure, and no matter who stands to gain/lose from it;
What ISN'T at question is that it DOES exist, HOW you get it, and that it CAN kill you.

For the dissenters- instead of spreading a bunch of BS misinformation about lions and cobras (wtf?) why not just own up to the reality?
That being, some people are willing to risk their lives for sex, and some people are not.

I would agree that there is a certain amount of anit-HIV hysteria in the US. Do you know why that is? Because idiots on the other side of the argument say retarded shit like "Does Aids exist at all?" and "the ultimate anti-aids vaccine is within you" when clearly its killing motherfuckers left and right. Its a battle for public opinion- and I for one, am glad of the hysteria that causes most of the US to lean towards condom use. Without that kind of hysteria, know what happens? Its called Zimbabwe.

So unless you ARE an infectious disease specialist (and I don't mean, if you know one, are married to one, have read a book by one, or seen one on TV) trying to paint the disease as something its not its just so much BS propaganda.

Some of you seem to have researched this for hours, days, months, years- so much so that you consider yourselves experts. Instead of spending that time reading books by kooks and fake doctors, take 30 minutes and drag your favorita to the local AIDS clinic and get both of you tested. Then you can bareback to your dirty little heart's content, WITHOUT spreading potentially dangerous misinformation that could get some OTHER poor idiot killed.

Testing is widely available EVERYWHERE, even in the developing world. There is now even an fairly accurate, hand-held tester that works from oral swabs (OraQuick or something like that). IMHO, anyone that is too lazy to test, and yet feels the need to proselytize to others for hours on end about the "AIDS conspiracy"- deserves to be removed from the gene pool, along with any stupid enough to swallow their tripe.

Laziness and ignorance go hand in hand. In summary:

If you want to bareback, but your fucking lazy, then TAKE THE RISK.
If you want to bareback carefree and not die, TAKE 30 minutes and GET THAT ***** TESTED, then get your party on.
But whatever you do, don't pretend, and certainly don't tell others that there IS NO RISK.

Seriously. I'll take the opinion of someone who spent 8 years getting a medical degree, over some random asshole who can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to protect HIMSELF, anyday. I'd avise those actually buying into this crap to consider the same.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree what you say. But it's not some random asshole. This guy chose his name and lives to it. Dr. wannabe Opebo is another one.
Make sure your girl doesn't fool around with some random Asshole/Opebo within the incubation period when you get tested.

[QUOTE=Xion149]I would agree that there is a certain amount of anit-HIV hysteria in the US. Do you know why that is? Because idiots on the other side of the argument say retarded shit like "Does Aids exist at all?" and "the ultimate anti-aids vaccine is within you" when clearly its killing motherfuckers left and right. Its a battle for public opinion- and I for one, am glad of the hysteria that causes most of the US to lean towards condom use. Without that kind of hysteria, know what happens? Its called Zimbabwe.[/QUOTE]

Part of the reason why there is that "other side of the argument" is because there is merit to it. The problem is that we have not yet been able to quantify, measure, and replicate that merit in double blind tests.

It has long been known that many individuals infected with the virus that leads to AIDS do not develop the AIDS disease very quickly, if at all. Some have lived with the virus without symptoms, and therefore without treatment, for 20 years. Others die of AIDS within 2 years of getting infected. Why the variablity? Because there is something "within us" that fights the virus. The issue is how well that something performs in a particular individual.

In January I read that some researchers found genetic differences between long-term survivors of HIV and those who died quickly. They hypothsized that long-term survivors had genes that produced proteins that made it difficult for HIV to replicate itself. Hence HIV never increased enough to make that individual ill, get AIDS. In essence, these individuals naturally produced the equivalent of the medicine that is given to those to treat HIV/AIDS.

Since we (mankind) doesn't yet know what those specific genes are or they proteins they produce, we need to do the next best thing; rely on commercially produced treatments when a person is HIV+ and on condoms to prevent HIV transmission.

I want to make we are all on the same page regarding viruses versus bacteria. I am not a doctor, but I did take biology in college as a compulsory science course and I had a good professor. Any comments that correct or enhance are invited and appreciated.

Bacteria are live animals. My professor claimed (30 years ago) that the jury was still out on viruses. The issue was in how viruses reproduce. Bacteria reproduce by splitting one cell into two cells. I forget the technical name of the process (mitosis?). However, viruses do not have cells, they cannot split into two. They reproduce by invading the cells of a host and using the DNA of the cell to make more viral DNA, and other cells structures to make a protein coat around the viral DNA.

Bacteria can be killed like any other animals; starve them, suffocate them (some bacteria are anerobic but die when exposed to oxygen), burn them, etc. Viruses don't eat, don't breathe, can go dormant for millions of years inside their protein shell. Only heat can "kill" a virus, which is why we get fevers. Our body raises its temperature to kill viruses.

Our bodies also use proteins to "neutralize" viruses. These proteins, called anti-bodies, attach themselves to viruses in a manner that prevents the virus from attacking the body's cells. The virus then cannot invade host cells and reproduce itself. The body them eliminates the neutralized viruses by sneezing, coughing up phlegm, diahrea, etc.

My point is that there are NO "medicines" that can kill viruses. Only our bodies can heal themselves from viral infections. We take mdecines to protect ourselves form the bodies defenses should they go into over drive. We can be damaged (hearing loss, etc) or die (kidney failure, etc.) from too high fevers. We will dehydrate from too long diahrea.

The only way we, as individuals and as a species, are "cured" of a viral disease is for a genetic change to occur which prevents viruses from attacking and entering our cells. This always occurs, according to my former professor when the cell membranes change so the virus has nothing to attach to. The protein coat of a virus is like a key and our cell membranes like locks. When viral protein coat matches the cell membrane it can unlock our cells and invade them. Animals and viruses have been in an evolutionary war since life began in which we animals have been trying to stay a step ahead of the viruses by changing the locks on our cells and the viruses have been developing new keys with which to pick our locks.

The "cure" for HIV/AIDS lies in our genes. As it did for other species infected with viruses similar to HIV, such as SIM (simian for monkey) and FIV (feline for lions).

Xion149,

We have vastly divergent viewpoints on the nature of the disease process. That's fine. It happens. ;)

Every individual will weigh risks and make choices based on the science he accepts as truth. It'd be a waste of time for me to tell certain people not to bother with condoms because they're absolutely sure that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact. Conversely, there are others who would simply scoff at vaccinations based on their accepted truths. All told, I'm not remotely interested in converting others to my line of thinking. But I do want to remain open and avoid the laziness and ignorance you described. And so what I've found helpful is to constantly remind myself that propaganda doesn't always stem from those who hold views contrary to my own. Cheers.

[QUOTE=George90]
...
[/QUOTE]

Everything you said below is essentially correct. I was not arguing against the fact that:

1. The disease itself, as well as its effect, are highly variable on a person to person basis. This could be for any number of reasons (genetic disposition, strength of the individual's immune system, etc)

2. You can have HIV and not get AIDS. A good example is Magic Johnson, who next year will celebrate his 18th year since diagnosis. My personal guess is, his being at the peak of human physical condition had alot to do with that. I mention him specifically, because his case directly refutes the following:

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]
The second group views AIDS as a collection of body-initiated symptoms, chronic in nature, that has their antecedent causes and therefore aims for the removal of these causes. To them, there's no such thing as infection.

The medical industry in most countries will never allow the first camp to flourish. Too much money involved.

The second camp will never grow beyond a fringe minority until governments allow people to choose an approach to health care they believe is best.
[/QUOTE]

This viewpoint seems to suggest that AIDS can spontaneously appear in the body due to some unspecified "antecedent causes" - ostensibly as a result of poor natural hygiene, bad eating habits and drug use, or an already weak immune system. The Roger Cochran story is cited, yet what Orange Sunshine so conveniently omits is that Roger was an IV DRUG ABUSER during the Vietnam War. So I ask, which scenario is more likely:

1. Roger took too many drugs, weakened his immune systems, and AIDS magically appeared.

2. Roger, being in Vietnam at the time, in less than sterile conditions with limited supplies and against the backdrop of a hellishly brutal war- may have used a dirty needle or five.

The second part of the argument is that AIDS can be treated naturally (note, I said TREAT, not cure). I will let this slide, because there is an obvious correllation between doing things that ENHANCE your immune system (eating right, exercise) and slowing down the virus. Does it help, yes. Better than the drugs cocktails? I wouldn't wager MY life on it! To even put forth this theory based on one book about one guy, is frankly very silly. I can easily show you thousands of people that are doing BETTER because of the drug regimens. You'd be hard pressed to find five hundred, hell, even fifty people who have claimed to cure the thing naturally. As everyone seems to agree the effects of the disease are widely variable, how do we know Roger wasn't just another Magic Johnson?

And I'm with you on the gene therapy thing, I think that's the next step after the recent vaccine trials failed. Stems cells may offer a new avenue as well.

[QUOTE=Xion149]This viewpoint seems to suggest that AIDS can spontaneously appear in the body due to some unspecified "antecedent causes" - ostensibly as a result of poor natural hygiene, bad eating habits and drug use, or an already weak immune system. The Roger Cochran story is cited, yet what Orange Sunshine so conveniently omits is that Roger was an IV DRUG ABUSER during the Vietnam War. So I ask, which scenario is more likely:

1. Roger took too many drugs, weakened his immune systems, and AIDS magically appeared.

2. Roger, being in Vietnam at the time, in less than sterile conditions with limited supplies and against the backdrop of a hellishly brutal war- may have used a dirty needle or five.[/QUOTE]Not sure that's relevant here. The premise of the book isn't whether Roger developed AIDS through dirty needles or sexual contact but that his recovery was based on protocols that do not subscribe to HIV as cause. This then indicates that something else had caused his symptoms.[QUOTE=Xion149]The second part of the argument is that AIDS can be treated naturally (note, I said TREAT, not cure). I will let this slide, because there is an obvious correllation between doing things that ENHANCE your immune system (eating right, exercise) and slowing down the virus. Does it help, yes. Better than the drugs cocktails? I wouldn't wager MY life on it![/QUOTE]I would, any day of the week.[QUOTE=Xion149]To even put forth this theory based on one book about one guy, is frankly very silly. I can easily show you thousands of people that are doing BETTER because of the drug regimens. You'd be hard pressed to find five hundred, hell, even fifty people who have claimed to cure the thing naturally. As everyone seems to agree the effects of the disease are widely variable, how do we know Roger wasn't just another Magic Johnson?[/QUOTE]I look at it another way. If even one person is free from AIDS symptoms despite being tested as HIV+, then wouldn't it be prudent to explore the possibility that the virus is not a causative agent? A cause is a cause only if the effect ensues in all cases. Countering that, if we then use latency to explain away Magic Johnson, then potentially the next virus of the decade could be neatly claimed to be the cause of any other disease. Now that's being too lazy IMO.

So maybe Roger IS another Magic Johnson insofar as the nature of the disease is concerned: in the former case, recovery was secured without drugs or treatments to combat HIV; and in the other, the presence of HIV has failed to produce typical symptoms.

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]For sure. Me for one. And probably others who don't subscribe to the germ theory of disease.[/QUOTE]

LOL.. What century are you living in? If you don't believe in germ theory, will you drink unsterilized water in, let's say, India? Why not? There are no fucking germs in there.. and even if they are.. they don't cause disease. What else do you not subscribe to? Round Earth? Evolution? That people landed on the moon?

[QUOTE=Crypton]LOL.. What century are you living in? If you don't believe in germ theory, will you drink unsterilized water in, let's say, India? Why not? There are no fucking germs in there.. and even if they are.. they don't cause disease. What else do you not subscribe to? Round Earth? Evolution? That people landed on the moon?[/QUOTE]Let's fire up google.com and find out when Pasteur's germ theory was first proposed. Knowing that, what kind of medical science did we have before germs became the bad guys? Let me give you an example: shutting window shutters at night to prevent malevolent spirits from attacking the body. If you think that's archaic (and there are more like that I'm sure), then you know what I think of the germ theory.

While we're at it, please look up Koch's Postulates and then let us know if it bears any weight on this discussion.

To answer your question, of course you always want the cleanest source of food and water.

Now let me ask: if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would it ruin your day because of your belief in the germ theory?

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would it ruin your day because of your belief in the germ theory?[/QUOTE]Crpyton, sorry, the question is too vague. Let me clarify: if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would you worry about developing diabetes because of your belief in the germ theory?

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]Let's fire up google.com and find out when Pasteur's germ theory was first proposed. Knowing that, what kind of medical science did we have before germs became the bad guys? Let me give you an example: shutting window shutters at night to prevent malevolent spirits from attacking the body. If you think that's archaic (and there are more like that I'm sure), then you know what I think of the germ theory.

While we're at it, please look up Koch's Postulates and then let us know if it bears any weight on this discussion.

To answer your question, of course you always want the cleanest source of food and water.

Now let me ask: if a diabetic person coughed in your face, would it ruin your day because of your belief in the germ theory?[/QUOTE]


No, I would not... because those of us who accept scientific method (and in fact practice it - I am a professional biologist) realize that diabetes is not caused by any pathogenic organisms. It is caused by defective cells in pancreas and therefore not contagious. Germ theory does not mean that every disease is caused by a germ.

Koch's postulates are from the 19th century when viruses could not be isolated!!! They certainly apply for some organisms but not all. Viruses cannot be cultured outside a cell, period.

I am not sure I understand the drift of your argument. May be I misunderstood you. I thought you said you did not accept germ theory. If I misunderstood your post, I accept the blame.

Going back to your earlier post about viruses and bacteria.... whether viruses are in fact living things. It depends how you define life. If it means making more of your own kind (rocks do not), then viruses qualify. But they are obligate parasites - they cannot live for very long (or reproduce) outside another living cell. As for viruses "not eating" - well... eating is essentially a way of getting raw materials to make proteins and other essential substances. If a RNA virus, such as HIV, becomes a part of the host cell genome, then all the work is done for it by the host cell. There is no need to eat. Imagine you being connected to another organism by a tube which does all the eating and supplies you the nutrition. You no longer need to eat. And you are right about viruses being stopped only if they have no receptors on cell surface on which they can attach themselves. But at the same time, viruses undergo rapid changes in their protein coat - which is why it is so difficult to come up with a vaccine for HIV.

George - from your earlier post, it does not sound like you don't believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. Whether you do or not - ultimately science is a self-correcting process. There is SO MUCH evidence supporting the theory of natural selection; yet millions of people in the US and elsewhere REFUSE to accept it. Similarly, there is SO MUCH scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of destruction of immune cells in humans - yet people REFUSE to accept it. People like this would certainly not refuse specific antibiotics if they were infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Yet, the fact that there is a large prevalence of drug-resistant TB is a CLASSIC case of EVOLUTION. Denying science is just basically stupid. Scientists are not always correct and neither are doctors. But when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular theory, continuing to deny it is simply ignorance.

[QUOTE=Crypton]No, I would not... because those of us who accept scientific method (and in fact practice it - I am a professional biologist) realize that diabetes is not caused by any pathogenic organisms. It is caused by defective cells in pancreas and therefore not contagious. Germ theory does not mean that every disease is caused by a germ..[/QUOTE]OK, I think it's safe to assume that you accept there are other disease conditions that are NOT contagious. e.g. atherosclerosis, stroke, asthma, glaucoma, etc. Would you now agree that in each of these conditions, the symptoms are essentially acute/chronic inflammation, hardening or degeneration of the affected tissues?[QUOTE=Crypton]Koch's postulates are from the 19th century when viruses could not be isolated!!! They certainly apply for some organisms but not all. Viruses cannot be cultured outside a cell, period.[/QUOTE]But now we have electron microscopes and tons of sensitive equipment that can detect all kinds of critters. So if a supposed pathogen (viral or bacterial) cannot be found despite the development of (disease name) symptoms or if the same symptoms arise without the presence of said pathogen, then, by the scientific method, it cannot conclusively be considered a causing agent, yes? [QUOTE=Crypton]Similarly, there is SO MUCH scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of destruction of immune cells in humans - yet people REFUSE to accept it. People like this would certainly not refuse specific antibiotics if they were infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Yet, the fact that there is a large prevalence of drug-resistant TB is a CLASSIC case of EVOLUTION. Denying science is just basically stupid. Scientists are not always correct and neither are doctors. But when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular theory, continuing to deny it is simply ignorance.[/QUOTE]I agree it would be inadvisable to deny science. But I also feel it would be dangerous to sit smugly and crystalize what we know now as ultimate truth, since science, as formulated by mankind in his ongoing attempts to understand the nature of things, cannot ever be static, and therefore must be evolutionary. Anyway, if you'll let me lean on your bio-science background, I think we have the basis of a fruitful discussion on AIDS, an issue that definitely affects field behavior.

[QUOTE=Crypton]Going back to your earlier post about viruses and bacteria.... whether viruses are in fact living things. [/QUOTE]

That was my post, not Orange Sunshine's.

[QUOTE=Crypton]No, I would not... because those of us who accept scientific method (and in fact practice it - I am a professional biologist) realize that diabetes is not caused by any pathogenic organisms. It is caused by defective cells in pancreas and therefore not contagious. Germ theory does not mean that every disease is caused by a germ.[/QUOTE]

I have heard of a theory which postulates that a virus can "injure" the pancreas leading to the under-productoin of insulin, and, in turn, the development of diabetes. In that situation, a pathogen would indeed cause diabetes.

It should be recognized that a disease or illness condition may have multiple causes and co-factors.

[QUOTE=Crypton]George - from your earlier post, it does not sound like you don't believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. Whether you do or not - ultimately science is a self-correcting process. There is SO MUCH evidence supporting the theory of natural selection; yet millions of people in the US and elsewhere REFUSE to accept it. Similarly, there is SO MUCH scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of destruction of immune cells in humans - yet people REFUSE to accept it. People like this would certainly not refuse specific antibiotics if they were infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Yet, the fact that there is a large prevalence of drug-resistant TB is a CLASSIC case of EVOLUTION. Denying science is just basically stupid. Scientists are not always correct and neither are doctors. But when there is overwhelming evidence supporting a particular theory, continuing to deny it is simply ignorance.[/QUOTE]

During the 90's, I spoke with several different HIV/AIDS researchers about different biological and sociological aspects of the disease. There is [b]NOT[/b] any type of consensus among all researchers. The only thing I am certain of is that [i]no one who is not HIV+ has ever developed AIDS[/i].

Regarding science, my father was a scientist, and I learned and understood enough science in college courses to be thoroughly familiar with the scientific method.

However, as I have seen over the years how science is pursued and applied, I have reservations. Humans make the decisions as to what scientific investigations will be made. Humans make decisions as to how much money will be allocated to different scientific endeavors. Humans interpret scientific results. Humans profit from science. The human factor is FAR from scientific and it taints science.

For example, pharmaceutical companies engage in huge amounts of research into how to treat and cure various diseases. But which ones? The diseases whose treatment will yield the largest profit for that company! How reliable can their results be for third parties who do not share in those profits when the motive for scientific investigation in financial gain?

Another example. What exactly [b]is[/b] [i]natural[/i] selection? Since 10,000 or so years ago (the end of the last ice age), humankind has been domesticating plants and animals. We have altered their genes so that they have characteristics that suit [i]our[/i] needs (not theirs). Some grains crops are so domesticated that they can no longer exist in nature without our actively farming them. What is natural about that selection?

george90,

in your contact with aids researchers, did any of them mention changes in diagnostic guidelines over the years, especially the first 4 or 5 years of the epidemic during the early 80s? i bring this up because within the medical profession, symptom lists for various diseases do undergo periodic revisions (for aids i believe it was expanded). this could potentially affect the determination of who is or is not afflicted with aids.

i think it's rare that a person is nowadays able to practise pure science. as you described, the funding politics and commercial interests all weigh heavily on which research programs get the green light; and i suspect disseminating their findings for peer review, if contrary to the sponsors' agendas, does not often become a top priority.

[QUOTE=George90]The only thing I am certain of is that [i]no one who is not HIV+ has ever developed AIDS[/i].[/QUOTE]

Well... I think thousands of doctors and scientists would disagree with you on that. People who think HIV is not linked to AIDS are a definite minority and do not have any scientific evidence to back them up. There are of course SOME people who even after showing evidence of infection by HIV do not develop full blown AIDS. But that is a very small proportion of people. I am not a medical doctor and I do not work on human diseases; I am sure someone in that field could help you understand the totality of evidence that supports the widely accepted idea that HIV is the cause of AIDS symptoms (resulting from the destruction of immune cells).

[QUOTE=George90]However, as I have seen over the years how science is pursued and applied, I have reservations. Humans make the decisions as to what scientific investigations will be made. Humans make decisions as to how much money will be allocated to different scientific endeavors. Humans interpret scientific results. Humans profit from science. The human factor is FAR from scientific and it taints science.

For example, pharmaceutical companies engage in huge amounts of research into how to treat and cure various diseases. But which ones? The diseases whose treatment will yield the largest profit for that company! How reliable can their results be for third parties who do not share in those profits when the motive for scientific investigation in financial gain?[/QUOTE]

Sure, there is a human element to ANY human endeavor, including science. But that does not mean that ALL science is wrong or otherwise suspect. As I said in my earlier post, for certain conclusions such as natural selection and AIDS, there is SO MUCH evidence that is transcends any human subjectivity. And yes, scientists have been wrong before as I said earlier as well. But, as I also said, science is a self-correcting process. If HIV does not cause AIDS, it would eventually be discovered. But, SO MUCH research has been done on HIV and AIDS, that it is highly unlikely that this conclusion will change. But imagine you are a young scientist. What is the fastest way you can become rich and famous? By debunking a widely accepted idea. If HIV does not cause AIDS and if a young scientist has SCIENTIFIC evidence, he/she would rush it to publication. There is no conspiracy here - any more than there is in hiding the "flaws" in the theory of natural selection.

[QUOTE=George90]Another example. What exactly [b]is[/b] [i]natural[/i] selection? Since 10,000 or so years ago (the end of the last ice age), humankind has been domesticating plants and animals. We have altered their genes so that they have characteristics that suit [i]our[/i] needs (not theirs). Some grains crops are so domesticated that they can no longer exist in nature without our actively farming them. What is natural about that selection?[/QUOTE]

Actually, the example you give is NOT natural selection. It is artificial selection. The principles underlying both are the same (only some, rather than all, individuals in a population reproduce each generation). However, the INTENSITY of selection is quite high in domestication, whereas in natural selection, it is more subtle. Darwin relied heavily on examples of artificial selection to suggest that the same thing could be happening in nature as well.. albeit at a much slower pace. If humans can produce countless breeds of dogs in a few hundred years, what can nature do over hundreds of millions of years? (Here I am assuming you are not a "young Earth creationist).

Ultimately, the talk of HIV not causing AIDS and the theory of natural selection being full of obvious flaws is just talk. There is an underlying current: that there is a vast conspiracy among scientists to "hide" these things. Believe me, scientists are as career oriented as anyone on Wall Street - if I can show that natural selection is flawed, I will do it tomorrow (shit, I might even pull an all nighter). Even more troubling though, there is assumption that thousands of scientists with a cumulative millions of years of training and work are somehow wrong and the preacher is your local church with no training in biology somehow recognizes the flaws that all these scientists cannot. Seriously?

Cheers

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]OK, I think it's safe to assume that you accept there are other disease conditions that are NOT contagious. e.g. atherosclerosis, stroke, asthma, glaucoma, etc. Would you now agree that in each of these conditions, the symptoms are essentially acute/chronic inflammation, hardening or degeneration of the affected tissues?[/QUOTE]

Sure they are. But there are all kinds of chronic diseases - some of which involve pathogenic organisms and some that don't. The broad consensus is that AIDS involves infection of the human immune system with HIV.

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]But now we have electron microscopes and tons of sensitive equipment that can detect all kinds of critters. So if a supposed pathogen (viral or bacterial) cannot be found despite the development of (disease name) symptoms or if the same symptoms arise without the presence of said pathogen, then, by the scientific method, it cannot conclusively be considered a causing agent, yes? I agree it would be inadvisable to deny science. But I also feel it would be dangerous to sit smugly and crystalize what we know now as ultimate truth, since science, as formulated by mankind in his ongoing attempts to understand the nature of things, cannot ever be static, and therefore must be evolutionary. Anyway, if you'll let me lean on your bio-science background, I think we have the basis of a fruitful discussion on AIDS, an issue that definitely affects field behavior.[/QUOTE]

So.. can you cite publications in reputable journals such as Nature, Science, JAMA, NEJM, etc., that conclusively show that no HIV was found in patients with full blown AIDS? I agree science is not perfect and it is not designed to be so. As I said in my post below, it is a self-correcting endeavor. But, I think HIV = AIDS is beyond all of that. There is just too much evidence.

Cheers.

[QUOTE=Crypton]The broad consensus is that AIDS involves infection of the human immune system with HIV.[/QUOTE]Yes, that's the current accepted theory. But for the sake of this discussion, let's try to rely as much as possible on physiological first principles in regards to pathological states and their causes.

So we've come to an agreement that some diseases develop without microbes as etiological factors.

If we take a person suffering from asthma; remove all causes of her affliction; institute lifestyle changes to rebuild her health; and if recovery allows her to frolic in a field of spring flowers without ever again inducing a collapse of her bronchial tubes; then we have an expected end result since germs as causal agents were never a factor in this scenario.

But, if we then use the very same protocols and apply them to a person suffering from the common cold; and this person experiences even faster recovery (as expected for acute illnesses); how do we then justify continued acquiescence to the contagion mindset perpetuated by allopathic medical organizations? And if such recoveries number in the thousands, shouldn't that give us pause to re-examine our current views on health care?

Considering that Western medical science has embraced the vaunted germ theory since the mid-19th century, the fact that this body of knowledge has failed miserably to conquer the common cold after all this time, is downright sobering. With this kind of track record, people are apt to wonder if these experts are on the right track, especially in regards to something more catastrophic like AIDS.[QUOTE=Crypton]So.. can you cite publications in reputable journals such as Nature, Science, JAMA, NEJM, etc., that conclusively show that no HIV was found in patients with full blown AIDS?[/QUOTE]I was going to offer a lame excuse like "my books are in storage" or "I've given my books away" or that "mainstream medical journals would never publish anything contrary to consensus viewpoints" or just admit that I was too lazy to dig up references. But I thought, what the hell, let's google this. Entering the search terms "AIDS without HIV", I came across a bunch of links. Here are just two related items:

[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718610.700-cause-unknown-for-aids-without-hiv-.html[/url]

[url]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1883009[/url]

Encouragingly, some people are no longer swallowing consensus views lock, stock and barrel. That said, I'm actually surprised that the BMJ published something like this back in the 90s.

[QUOTE=Crypton]Well... I think thousands of doctors and scientists would disagree with you on that. People who think HIV is not linked to AIDS are a definite minority and do not have any scientific evidence to back them up.
[/QUOTE]

I think you should re-read my post. Your response to my post implies that you believe it is possible for someone to develop AIDS [i]without[/i] being exposed to HIV.

[QUOTE=Crypton]But imagine you are a young scientist. What is the fastest way you can become rich and famous? By debunking a widely accepted idea. If HIV does not cause AIDS and if a young scientist has SCIENTIFIC evidence, he/she would rush it to publication. There is no conspiracy here - any more than there is in hiding the "flaws" in the theory of natural selection.
[/QUOTE]

Are you familiar with the referee process in the publication of reserch in academic journals? If so, then you know it is [i]humans[/i] who evaluate each article and decide whether is is worty of publication. The human element in that process taints and corrupts it. How? Because that young scientist who is trying to debunk an accepted theory will have his/her article reviewed by the [b]very[/b] scientist whose theory is being debunked!!!! It won't get published!!! In fact, older theories get replaced by new theories usually [i]after[/i] the earlier scientists have retired or passed away. Unless, it is the the original scientist who is sharing in the updated of his/her older theory.

[QUOTE=Crypton] I agree science is not perfect and it is not designed to be so. As I said in my post below, it is a self-correcting endeavor. But, I think HIV = AIDS is beyond all of that. There is just too much evidence.[/QUOTE]

Crypton,

Read your statement! [b]HIV = AIDS[/b]. I disagree with that statement!

What I have problems with is the implied [i]simplicity[/i] of that relationship. If HIV, then AIDS. It is [b]not[/b] that simple.

The evidence strongly supports that notion that HIV is a [i]necessary[/i] but [b]not[/b] [i]sufficient[/i] condition for developing AIDS within a given time frame. I believe that! There are, as yet, unidentified necessary co-factors for developing AIDS, given that one is HIV+.

In addition, you know there are many variations/strains of the basic HIV because it is a "RNA" virus that mutates easily and rapidly. The research developed in one strain is not entirely applicable to another strain. For example, the US research is based on the strain common in North America. Much less research is being done on the strains found in Africa or Asia.

Even the NA strain is mutating so that the research done in the 80's may no longer be relevant to the strain prevalent in 2010.

Science may correct itself, at varying rates, over time. And that means that, at a point in time, not all scientific knowledge is correct and accurate.

[QUOTE=George90]The evidence strongly supports that notion that HIV is a [i]necessary[/i] but [b]not[/b] [i]sufficient[/i] condition for developing AIDS within a given time frame. I believe that! There are, as yet, unidentified necessary co-factors for developing AIDS, given that one is HIV+.[/QUOTE]1) Cases exist in which symptoms developed in the absence of HIV.

2) Cases exist in which symptoms have not developed despite being HIV+.

Combining these two observations, wouldn't it be reasonable to at least consider the possibility that the unknown co-factors alone ARE the causal agents? i.e. HIV!=AIDS.[QUOTE=George90]Science may correct itself, at varying rates, over time. And that means that, at a point in time, not all scientific knowledge is correct and accurate.[/QUOTE]I agree. As you mentioned, science is also heavily influenced by the human factor. To overturn a theory supported by a vast majority of researchers / practitioners means eating a lot of crow. And if the same theory forms the backbone of a profitable industry (pharmaceuticals), then the correction becomes much more difficult IMO.

2008 - Pimps and monks and sex-tourists. What is in common?
---------------------------

1./ *** Birds, dogs and "dog-tors" ***

Birds search and hoard food all day. The bear searches and hoards food all day. People search and hoard food all day. Dog-tors selflessly help people all day. Strange. When do they find the time to search and hoard food? Police selflessly serve the people all day. Strange. When do they find the time to search and hoard food? Ingenious! We have just discovered two species that can live without food, without shelter. Just by "selflessly helping" others. They only give and expect nothing in return. They have no houses, no families, no needs, no digestive systems. Only hearts. This is more amazing than nuclear physics.
------------------

2./ *** Police, Dog-tors and Cocky Cola ***

Despite of the obvious logic against it, why do we still believe that "dog-tors" care for health and police protect public order? Again, why do we associate MIB with computers and McHappy with hamburgers, Cocky Cola with soft drink? Is it because of "advertising"? Endlessly repeating the same messages every day from all media again and again and again, effectively brainwashing everyone who cares to listen.

Clever marketing indeed, free publicity from news-media every single day. Police and dog-tors. Police and dog-tors. What is the news today? We already know: "Police and dog-tors". Same tomorrow too. Same every day. The public are being brainwashed into believeing that dog-tors care for "health" and police protect public order. Every other business pays for publicity. These get it free! Of course, no logic, no evidence for either claim. No more than "McBurger makes you happy"!
-------------------

3./ *** Live from what? ***

Dog-tors are the enemy of good health. Police are the enemy of public order. The above statement is as logical as it gets. They do get paid from disease and from disorder. Never form "health" and "peace". The dog-tor does not actually want to kill you. But if you happen to die as a result of the treatment he couldn't care less. As long as you pay the bills before you die.
---------------

4./ *** Who can count? ***

The author of this posting is confident, that rumours of "disease" strengthen the influence of dog-tors and rumours of "crime" strengthen the position of police. Just as rumours of war empower the Army and weapons production. Of course making "rumours" costs money. But it is just simple business mathematics. I cannot afford a full page advert in the New York Times, saying "Aids is a lie! 9/11 is another lie!"

But there are many who can afford it, saying the opposite: "Aids kills! Terrorists are attacking us!" The $200,000.- you pay for the ad is tax-deductible. The rest are profits, a few million from rockets, another billion from chemicals, etc. Even if you are just a plain electrician, baker or builder and can fill out a balance sheet you will grasp the logic behind it.

----------------

5./ *** Who profits? ***

I thought the first suspect in every murder is the main beneficiary. Out of the 9/11 mayhem for example the NYPD got 20,000 new recruits. Increased powers to the sky too! Who is the beneficiary? Some crazy bearded foreigners? Someone must be really stupid to believe that.
----------------------

6./ *** Did someone say "stupid"? ***

Of course the women are the stupidest class of society. Wonder why they make 80% of doctors clients and 80% of police informers too! They are in fact the most primary target of all advertising. 51% of population, 51% of voters. Combine this with the deprivation of men from sex. They will also do what the women tell them to do. You get control over 99% of the polulation.
----------------------

7./ *** Monks and pimps and sex-tourists ***

As you might have figured by now, sex-tourism is not really about "sex". It is more about freedom and peace. In fact it should be more correctly called "freedom-tourism" or "peace-tourism". Just as monks and pimps, sex-tourists cannot be manipulated by sex. Because we get too much of it. It is pouring out of our ears, we swim in it. Fuck sex, fuck women, fuck propaganda! Give us the facts! Yes, this makes us public enemies. Now you know why.


-----------------
8./ *** A basic answer? ***

The most basic question is in "You". Ask yourself: "Do I lie?" Answer is: Of course I do. "How about others? Do they lie?" Of course they do. "Do they lie less than me?" Very unlikely. So, why do I believe them? Why, why, why???
-----------

9./ *** Blame who? ***

It is useless to blame the President or the Vice-President like Michael Moore does. Or even the Police, or the Doctors. It is "Me" who believes. They cannot mislead me without my cooperation. It is all my fault. Having come this far you have done then first step to freedom. Your next logical one is to become either a monk, a pimp or a sex-tourist. So, you will be free from sex and from manipulation by sex. Today is the great step you must take. Pimp? Monk? Sex-tourist?
--------------------------

10./ *** Different channels ***

It is all about religion. People actually "believe" that there is Aids. They have faith in it, because that's what they are programmed to believe. They do not "know" but believe. Try to convince a Mormon that there is no god. What is your best argument you can tell him? "I heard it on TV that there is no god." What will he say? "We must be watching different channels". Every day you are told that there isn't one. He is told every day that there is one. Who is right? You know who.
-----------

11./ *** Power is truth. Truth is power. ***

The ones with the bigger fist or the bigger gun behind them. They are always right. Because they get their way. So is with Aids. They have the money and they have the guns. Therefore they are right. You cannot argue with a big fist in your face. Or with a big gun against your head. In fact "power is truth". That is the justice of the present system. Aids believers? Let them have their own religion. All they can bring up to support it is that they heard it on TV. Ridiculous really.
-----------------------
12./ Let there be peace. And "peace-tourism".
----------------------
End "Adidas" posting 2008 (Sport or chemicals, it is all just money.)

[size=-2][b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]I would suggest that the author or another Forum Member consider posting a link to this report in the Reports of Distinction thread. Please [url=http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/announcement-reportsofdistinction.php?]Click Here[/url] for more information.[/blue][/size]

[QUOTE=That Asshole]
-----------

11./ *** Power is truth. Truth is power. ***

The ones with the bigger fist or the bigger gun behind them. They are always right. Because they get their way. So is with Aids. They have the money and they have the guns. Therefore they are right. You cannot argue with a big fist in your face. Or with a big gun against your head. In fact "power is truth". That is the justice of the present system. Aids believers? Let them have their own religion. All they can bring up to support it is that they heard it on TV. Ridiculous really.
-----------------------
[/QUOTE]

It just happened for global warming crap too..now the scientist say..the earth will be cooler this year due to la nina effect and since 1998, the temperature of the earth has not increased but remained stable.

Ha..so much for media and the people..everyone believes...everything blindly now a days...you just need AIDS concert or global warming concert to get all worlds attention.

Now they have given 5 years for warming and when you reach 5..they will postpone to 15 to 20..untill all of present humanity dies naturally.

[quote=that asshole]of course the women are the stupidest class of society. wonder why they make 80% of doctors clients and 80% of police informers too! they are in fact the most primary target of all advertising. 51% of population, 51% of voters. combine this with the deprivation of men from sex. they will also do what the women tell them to do. you get control over 99% of the polulation.[/quote]there are a lot of figures thrown around here but more importantly i'm getting the sense that you don't like women. ;)[quote=that asshole]just as monks and pimps, sex-tourists cannot be manipulated by sex. because we get too much of it. it is pouring out of our ears, we swim in it. fuck sex, fuck women, fuck propaganda! give us the facts! yes, this makes us public enemies. now you know why.[/quote]i don't feel it's healthy to repress the sex drive; so although monks may avoid being manipulated by women per se, i can't help but link self-deprivation to one potential pitfall in thailand. e.g. [url=http://www.chiangmainews.com/indepth/details.php?id=744]unreported cases of ****philia[/url]

also, imo not all people are willing to accept facts if that implies they must also accept new responsibilities.[quote=that asshole]it is useless to blame the president or the vice-president like michael moore does. or even the police, or the doctors. it is "me" who believes. they cannot mislead me without my cooperation. it is all my fault.[/quote]to me, this is the key point of this post.[quote=that asshole]it is all about religion. people actually "believe" that there is aids. they have faith in it, because that's what they are programmed to believe. they do not "know" but believe.[/quote]sometimes it's still easier to perpetuate a belief than to re-examine something that isn't working.[quote=that asshole]try to convince a mormon that there is no god. what is your best argument you can tell him? "i heard it on tv that there is no god." what will he say? "we must be watching different channels". every day you are told that there isn't one. he is told every day that there is one. who is right? you know who.[/quote]well, they're both perceived as "right" and the only difference is that one channel may have a broader audience and therefore bigger sponsors. i suppose, then, one could be more "right" than the other (as per your bigger gun model below).[quote=that asshole]the ones with the bigger fist or the bigger gun behind them. they are always right. because they get their way. so is with aids. they have the money and they have the guns. therefore they are right. you cannot argue with a big fist in your face. or with a big gun against your head. in fact "power is truth". that is the justice of the present system.[/quote]yes, the scientific community is far from free of this influence.[quote=that asshole]aids believers? let them have their own religion. all they can bring up to support it is that they heard it on tv. ridiculous really.[/quote]rather harsh but that's the gist of it for some people. critical thinking is subordinated to majority rule.

i'm curious, what made you abandon the germ theory? i'm assuming that like almost everybody, you were raised to believe in contagions. what turned it around for you? was it a gradual process or an epiphany? please pm me if you want to take this privately.

[QUOTE=Born Loser 5]It just happened for global warming crap too..now the scientist say..the earth will be cooler this year due to la nina effect and since 1998, the temperature of the earth has not increased but remained stable.[/QUOTE]

This is far off topic so I will be very brief. A few weeks I ago I was watching the Discovery Channel shows on the history of the earth. The gist of one theory is that the last ice age ended of period of time less that the human life span due to a dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) comet that crashed into the glacier that covered Canada at the time. The dry ice turned into gas and caused a dramatic greenhouse effect.

The show ended with a theory of when the next ice age will come and how. The world's climate is maintained by ocean currents. Cold Arctic water sinks and flows to the equater. Water at the equater is warmed and flows north (the Gulf Stream). At the same time the warm water 'sucks' up cold water to be warmed. The warm Gulf Stream keeps New England and Northern Europe with temperate climates.

But the heat transfer system stops when the salinity of Arctic water drops too low. Arctic water will become less salty when the ice caps melt because ice melts into fresh water. Fresh water is less dense than salt water so the cold fresh water won't sink and flow south. It will just stay in the Arctic. That means the Arctic won't get the warm Gulf Stream water and ice will form again possibly leading to a new ice age or mini ice age.

A US president once joked about wanting to have one-handed economists, but I think we can use one-handed scientists as well. LOL!

Guys, in " general " an infection is the " starting factor " for a desease. Aids might need a HIV infection, but noone said thats the only condition.

Look at H5N1, Birdflue, a real Killer. And it turned out that the former " spanish flue. Which killed millions in a short periode of time. Is a direct linked exemplar to that H5N1 virus which is rapidly mutating towards human organism acceptance.

Conclusion: It might be true that a disease needs in any case a " start up " by a virus infection, but its not prooven that it couldn't show up with out infection. If there is just one case where its truley prooven that AIDS was pos. Tested without HIV infection, than you have the same problem as you have with H5N1, a desease which could be ignited by a virus, which is also so fast mutating than HIV, that this primar condition is not/ or not in general / needed any longer.

Well, I need a drink, deseasefree!

Cheers, C.

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]Also, IMO not all people are willing to accept facts if that implies they must also accept new responsibilities.[/QUOTE]

Pot, meet Kettle.
I think you'll find you two have alot in common.

[QUOTE=Xion149]Pot, meet Kettle.

I think you'll find you two have alot in common.[/QUOTE]Heh, spell it out, man, and please refrain from useless innuendo. It adds nothing to the discussion. If you're able to put together a cogent argument, I'd welcome the opportunity to examine your input. As it stands there's an outstanding query for which you have yet to provide a logical response: If even one person is free from AIDS symptoms despite being tested as HIV+, then wouldn't it be prudent to explore the possibility that the virus is not a causative agent?

While we're at it, if this Roger Cochrane - despite whatever is claimed to be the source of his HIV infection, be it dirty needles in Vietnam or a secret gay lover - recovers under a specific protocol that disregards HIV as THE pathogen, would it be reasonable, again, to expand one's framework regarding the disease process with respect to AIDS?

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]Heh, spell it out, man, and please refrain from useless innuendo.[/QUOTE]

Irony isn't funny if you spell it out, but here goes:
Your senseless denial of basic facts and scientific method appears to be an elaborate flight of fancy- a crude attempt to self-rationalize risky behavior, and to avoid the responsibility of safe sex.
That spelled out clear enough?

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]As it stands there's an outstanding query for which you have yet to provide a logical response: If even one person is free from AIDS symptoms despite being tested as HIV+, then wouldn't it be prudent to explore the possibility that the virus is not a causative agent?[/QUOTE]

I left the query outstanding, because its already been discussed, AD INFINITUM. Once again because you have trouble reading:

AIDS is a collection of symptoms, resulting from a destroyed immune system.
HIV is a disease, that destroys your immune system.

Is HIV the only way to destroy your immune system? Probably not. Yet you seem to think that this mere possibility is evidence enough to discount the millions who DID arrive at this condition from barebacking/needle sharing. That is simply flawed reasoning- you need to study (and practice) using the scientific method.

Not everyone that has HIV will develop AIDS. This has nothing to do with causality- IT IS THE NATURE OF THE ORGANISM ITSELF. The progress which the disease makes against your immune system is VARIABLE and depends on factors PARTICULAR TO THE INDIVIDUAL like your health, diet, lifestyle, genetics, and likely others yet undiscovered.

VARIABLE. Read it one more time. VARIABLE.

[QUOTE=Orange Sunshine]While we're at it, if this Roger Cochrane - despite whatever is claimed to be the source of his HIV infection, be it dirty needles in Vietnam or a secret gay lover - recovers under a specific protocol that disregards HIV as THE pathogen, would it be reasonable, again, to expand one's framework regarding the disease process with respect to AIDS?[/QUOTE]

Again, already been discussed. This is why I didn't bother retyping this crap the first time. It goes without saying that any treatment which boosts the immune system, natural or otherwise, will improve the condition of HIV/AIDS patients and help fight off the disease. Thats the only part of the story I agree with. Trying to use this as a basis for disproving germ theory and then saying "oh yeah by the way, this guy really liked shooting up smack" is really just silly and irresponsible.

The core of my problem with your argument is not that you are trying to debunk some well-established theories about the disease. There's nothing wrong with that. Its the manner in which you go about it. You can't debunk something just by offering up another possibility. Anything is possible. You need to offer evidence that DISPROVES the current theory (you can't) as well as have evidence that supports your claims (you don't). The evidence I've seen is pretty clear. An uncle who got into heroin in the late 80's- is now dead. A friend's father (straight guy, in the Marines, and at peak health) is now dead.

I don't understand why you argue this so passionately. Ultimately, whether HIV causes AIDS is unimportant, because just having plain old HIV is almost equally as deadly. I wonder; if you had a son, or younger brother in his teens and about to become sexually active- would you recommend your viewpoint to him with equal enthusiasm?

Germ-Theory under scrutiny

The text will cover the following:

1.0 Reason for writing
2.0 What is "Germ-Theory?"
3.0 Explanations
--------------------------
3.1 Some historical background
3.2 Tree of science
--------------------------
4.0 Germ Theory
4.1 Why is it popular
4.2 Why does it work?
--------------------------
5.0 A common misconception
--------------------------
6.0 Summary and conclusion
7.0 A Reminder
--------------------------
Epilogue
--------------------------

[u]How to read it?[/u]

Each step takes you one step further to understanding it. I suggest a step-by-step approach. And thinking along. Because you can!

--------------------------

1.0 [u]Why to write?[/u]

Why write? I feel it is most important to answer this first of all. Why would we talk without reason? We would be like women then. So, the only reason I am writing is because it is a interesting activity. We live now in the age of "Savers", who want to save anything and anyone. "Save the whales, save the rainforests, save the children, save the world, save everything." Unclear why, possibly even they don't know the reason. But that's the command they got from TV so that's what they do.

[u]Save or not to save?[/u]

Most definitely I do not want to save you, or anyone, from evil, from aids, from germs or even from doctors. Doctors are just scavengers, preying on the weak, the emotionally unstable, the undecided and uninformed. They are definitely not evil, not any more than lions, vultures, hyenas or maggots are. All these scavengers are a necessity of the world and do a great job in keeping the population of the "unfit" down. Scavengers like these recycle the waste. By waste I mean all the automatons, the programmed robots, the compulsive thoughtless copulators who are just "meat" for the medical predators. "Bodies" should I say, without their own houghts and therefore without "life" anyway.

So, let this be just a simple exercise in putting words in a vaguely meaningful way, simply because it is exciting to do. Especially in contrast of our present "cellfone-age" when words are cheap, plentiful and mostly meaningless.

-----------------------

2.0 [u]What is germ-theory?[/u]

The belief that illness is caused by invading microorganisms from the outside. Various types, but most importantly: bacteria and viruses.

-----------------------

3.0 [u]Historical background[/u]

3.1 [u]Losing the foundation[/u]

Separation of "sciences" is one current phenomenom. Just one century ago all scientists were classified as "natural philosophers", generally having some understanding of the greater World beside their specific fields. Now the trend is "specialization" with the total exclusion of anything except a narrow area of interest. There are "brain specialists, skin specialists, internet specialists, space specialists and every kinds of specialists".

As an actual effect, there is no "overview", no connections among disciplines of science. Numerous theories and speculations just floating in thin air, without a strong foundation from other disciples. Many of these "theories" are simply based on superficial observations, wishful thinking, and the power of commercialism. Also, because of the strong specialization, one so called "expert's" opinion is nearly impossible to challenge, because there is no-one else with that kind of specialized expertize.

-----------------------

3.2 [u]The "Noble Tree of Science"[/u]

[u]First the seed[/u]

Like everything grows from one single seed, so has "science" - (explaining the workings of the World). Knowledge becomes like a tree, with many branches. But they still stay connected and can be traced back right to the one seed. This is the ideal. But is not happening any more. See #2 above.

The original science, foundation of all other so called "sciences" is mathematics. Starting with the counting numbers of 1,2,3 and basic geometry, gradually diversifying into complex calculations. Each mathematical "theorem" is based on something simpler than itself, on something that had been proved totally, absolutely, doubtlessly. There is no such thing as "maybe" in mathemathics. If the truth of one theorem is such absolutely established, another or many more theorems can be built upon it. Ideas without proof are called "conjectures". Any other idea built on these is also necessarily just a "conjecture" itself. While mathematical proofs are absolute, "conjectures" cannot be relied on. No self-respecting mathematician would do so.

[u]Second step[/u]

The next step up tyhe ladder is "physics". It still very often goes hand-in-hand and has strong mathematical foundations. Consider Einstein's famous e=mc2 formula for example. The general theory of relativity is not founded on observations. It is founded on mathemathics and in fact predates observations, predicting them infallibly like a superior future-teller.

[u]The branches[/u]

Third step is "chemistry". Often with valuable scientific foundations but with more speculations above them. (Only mathematical proof is absolute and superior to anything else.)

-----------------------

The higher branch we step, the more the speculations, guesses based purely on limited observation. Therefore probability is lower at every step we take. While perhaps possible, but it would take an enormous amount of work and expense to check every idea of every scientific field right back to the basics of 1x2=2. On top of that, there is practically no-one to do it. Hardly no-body is qualified across sciences to that level of understanding. Few if any chemists, biologists, zoologists are trained to a high enough level in mathematics or physics to recognize if there is collision or incompatibility across fields of science.

-----------------------

[u]Computer analogy[/u]

Consider the levels of computer languages. On the basic level there is "machine-code". Based on that sits DOS, serving Windows OS above it again. And finally all you see is the Application Softwares (such as word processor, games, etc). While it would be possible to do word-processing in "machine-code" but it would be enormously awkward, unproductive. Much easier to do that in MS Word. While all these levels operate together, 99% of people use the final Application Software only, totally unaware what is really going on and how important all levels are.

Understand today's so called "sciences" as this final stage of software. They are trying to write their own little codes and theories but without understanding every level under it, right back to the basics, they will inevitably fall. They cannot be relied upon for reference. The interface is fancy, the application runs in some instances (in others not) but it is full of bugs and mistakes. Surface observation cannot replace sound theory right to the bottom basics. Maybe this is the point of this whole story.

-----------------------

[u]Growing uncertainty[/u]

Next level up chemistry is bio-chemistry, then biology, zoology, antropology, sociology, psychology, medical science and so on and on. All the greater chance for errors, with more speculations, more superficial observations. One of these is "Germ Theory". Observed and proved to a certain level only. Not based on hard and infallible logic (in fact working quite against it).

No-body ever tried to prove germ-theory by logic. It cannot be proven by logic simply because it is illogical and contradicting to more basic scientific principles of physics. Originally I was tempted to elaborate on these. But it would be very easy for any self-made big-ace mathematician come and claim they are wrong. Who would be the judge to decide here? Instead I invite you to do your own research. The more work you put in, the more faults you will find in so called "germ-theory".

-----------------------

[u]Monkeys and germs[/u]

To "Germ-theory is closely related another unproven speculation, Darwin's Evolution of Species. Either you keep both or throw out both because they go hand-in-hand, desperately and unconvincingly trying to support each other in dogma.

-----------------------

4.0 [u]Germ theory[/u]

4.1 [u]Why germ-theory is so popular?[/u]

In fact it is becoming more and more popular in even countries that traditionally discarded it. For example even in conservative Thailand huge "meat-processing-factories" (they call them hospitals) are being built at lightning rate in every city and town. Despite it's obvious contradictions and faults, why is "germ-theory" so enormously commercially succesful?

a. Easy to sell to present day people. They like to blame others for their own misery. Like to think themselves as faultless, blaming everything on the outside "invaders", while they can stay "innocent victims" (of germs, crime, etc). Call the cops, bring the big guns and so on.

b. Offers a "quick cure with no-effort-needed". As opposed to change in whole lifestyle and habits, taking the blame for one's own problems.

c. Political pressure. The alternative to "Evolution/Germ-theory" is too fearsome for many people. They choose "germs" as alternative to religion. (Thereby fooling themselves because "materialism" is a religion too.)

d. Lastly but not least: Because "Evolution/Germ-theory/ hard-core materialism" renders women equal with men. Easy to sell to 51% of citizens (and 80% of shoppers, money spenders) in any country.

-----------------------

4.2 [u]Why does germ-theory work?[/u]

Advocators of germ-theory bring it up above else: "But it works! So it must be right!" Take anti-biotics, anti-virals, etc as most cited example. Claimed to bring the most impressive results. The possible cases are:

a. It kills the bacteria. Relieves the symptoms. They consider this as a cure. Most people if take a rest get better anyway, without antibiotics. Believing in the power of the doctor also helps. It eases the depression that comes with helplessness against disease. But also many people get "worse" from antibiotics. This is not often publicised.

b. It kills viruses. Not possible. Virus is already "dead". What I mean is that no-body has actually seen a virus. They do claim to see things, coincidentally present in the blood of "sick" (sick = mentally compromised state= chaos) people. However they are nothing else but some natural protein-formations that "just happen to be there". Imagining them to be "harmful invaders" can be compared to some people seeing all sorts of monsters when looking at the shape of clouds in the sky. Try it!

Viruses are not red, not green and not evil. They have no color (they die them artificially for fotografing). Also they have no life, therefore do no harm. Cannot. Yes, this includes not just "hiv, aids", but also the so called influenza, anthrax, ebola ++ viruses. Please think logically. These "lifeforms" as they are described, cannot exist, they are irrational ideas.

-----------------------

5.0 [u]A common misconception[/u]

One common misconception by the public is that: "Doctors are intelligent, so they must be right". False! Only "learned" in a very narrow field they are. Very able to memorize and recite. But sadly lacking logic and scientific reasoning in most cases. Most doctors would never have made a good (or even average) mathematician/physicist. That's why they became doctors instead. The same goes for "medical scientists", eg. microbiologists, etc. Their intelligence is probably lower than an average computer programmer. (At least the latter need to use logic and reasoning on an everyday level.)

-----------------------

Doctors only look up a symptom with a matching treatment from the book (or computer-program now). Most are mediocre, a totally imaginationless class of society. However they are a success-story of today's degenerate world for the very reason. "Follow and never question"! And they are best at that. Most likely the "germ-theory" (incl Aids) wasn't even invented by doctors but simply handed down to them as a dogma by the ruling "Political Elite". Doctors the "germ-mongers" (and police the crime-mongers) are very simply: The Grim Dark Soldiers of Chaos.

-----------------------

6.0 [u]Summary/Conclusion:[/u]

1./ Germ-thory does not explain the cause of "disease", very simply because cannot even define (not even trying) the basic terms of :

a. Life
b. Person
c. Suffering (who could?)

-----------------------

2.0 Germ-theory contradicts basic proven physical and mathematical laws. It is illogical, a dogma, a conjecture. Lacking physical and mathematical basis whatsoever. It does not stand before logical scrutiny. A dark by-product of the "materialist religion". It's only merit is that it suits many people psychologically and therefore is extremely easy to sell to the masses. (Very same goes for "Evolution". Sold well.)

-----------------------

7.0 [u]Reminder[/u]

Do not forget: Science has one main purpose. What? Advancing humanity? No! That sounds like a line out of Vladimir Lenin's propaganda book. Science's main purpose is to feed people. Take a look at any human (even yourself in the mirror). What lies in the very center of the body? That is the stomach. That is the center of the world of everyone. Main priority is to make a living from science. Truth always comes second best. To protect the stomach, people will defend their ideas from being discredited. Even if they know they are totally wrong. Remember this before giving too much credit to science. Any science, any scientist.

-----------------------

[u]Epilogue[/u]

Fishmonger standing before his shop, calling out loud: - "Anybody for fish?" Greengrocer in dirty apron does same: - "Anybody for apples?" Doctor in white coat goes: - "Anybody for germs? I cannot stop you being miserable but I let you blame it on someone else!" The cop is not far behind: -" Anybody for crime? I cannot stop you getting robbed but I'll let you blame some other guy and you can fool yourself being the innocent victim."

-----------------------

End big-germy posting 2008

[QUOTE=That Asshole]
[u]Epilogue[/u]

Fishmonger standing before his shop, calling out loud: - "Anybody for fish?" Greengrocer in dirty apron does same: - "Anybody for apples?" Doctor in white coat goes: - "Anybody for germs? I cannot stop you being miserable but I let you blame it on someone else!" The cop is not far behind: -" Anybody for crime? I cannot stop you getting robbed but I'll let you blame some other guy and you can fool yourself being the innocent victim."

-----------------------

End big-germy posting 2008[/QUOTE]

tl;dr
How long did you spend writing that?
Whatever you are smoking, you need to pass that shit.

The Origin of AIDS:[url]http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=123[/url]

RE Posting: Germ Theory examined
-----------------
Due to the nature of this forum, I am unable to edit the posts. Therefore here are corrections of some unfortunate "spelleeng mistaiks":

paragraph #1 "houghts" - should read: "thoughts"
paragraph #4.2 "they die them" - should read: "they dye them"
------------------
Sorry for the mis-spellings. TA

Situation in Moldova : [url]http://www.aids.md/files/library/2005/478/situational-analysis-hiv-rm-2005.pdf[/url]

Balti situation even worse than UKRAINE who has the record in Europe with Russia and Estonia.

Fellas - I became a hobbyist about five years ago. Since that time, I've maintained a safe sex rate of about 71/75 or 95%.

The most recent of my lapses in better judgment came about 6 weeks ago. It happened in Singapore. I was having a lot of beer with co-workers at OT. I had a beautiful girl sitting in my lap during the drinking binge. After the drinking I go back to my hotel with my smoking hot date and of course with the alcohol and her beauty I proceed to have condom-less sex with her. It was quite nice :-)

Of course, when I wake the next morning I'm immediately struck with guilt and panic that I've put myself in jeopardy of contracting hiv. So for the next six weeks I do nothing but obsess on the chances that I have contracted hiv.

I obsess so much that I spend hours reading about transmission statistics and prevalence rates. Mostly what I read puts my mind at ease as the literature that seems to present the facts honestly w/o use of fear mongering says that men generally dont get hiv from women. But I still obsess and feel that I've very possibly contracted hiv.

I finally went for the hiv test 2 days ago and I ask the doc the deal of female to male trans. He says, 'it's very very hard to pass that way - but not impossible'. Hmmm, that's encouraging. Well, of course, the results were negative.

With the info that I've read over the years and with my personal experiences I'm finally turning the corner on the belief that fem to male trans is nearly impossible. There in lies my dillema, if I start to accept this belief I'll invariable start to use condoms less often.

However, during the window period and test time after condom less sex, I always seem to fall back into my old way of thinking that one slip = hiv contraction = early death.

Questions : shouldn't I just get out of the game since it causes me so much emotional toil? Does anyone care to speak openly about their lack of condom use and personal experiences with doing so? Does anyone here really know of any guys like us who have contracted hiv from sex with working girls?

I understand that there are plenty of other diseases that warrant condom use but I'm mainly interested in attitudes on hiv.

Wow..as always good write from thatasshole..

keep writing..seriously you should write a book on your thoughts...its interesting and gives a new perspective.

Hi Guys,

I got a similiar question as Brad Dupree. I did a bit of a party on Sunday and Monday in some FKK clubs in Germany. My sessions included kissings, BBBJ, DATY, and normal covered sex. A few days later, I'm down on my knees sick from a bacterial throat infection. I've been laying in bed now for the last 3 days not being able to swallow, fever, headache etc. What is the chances that I caught this infection from one of the girls, and if I did get it was it from kissing or DATY or BBBJ.

Also, if I have BBBJ, and DATY, am I in the risk zone of catching AIDS? I also wonder, just like BD, if someone knows about people getting infected from working girls. Surely this must happen but nobody talks about it.

Man, are you seriouse?

The risk to catch an infection like Flu etc is obviouse.Getting Syphillys , or Tripper is easy with daty and BBBJ.

But talking about Aids it is a different story, why do you think that african villages are empty? Its because of Aids, an intire generation 25-45 year old persons has been allmost whiped out in several african countries. Only kids and elder ones ,65 years plus are there.

The risk of getting infected with HIV is high having sex with unknown persons, but BBBJ and DATY have " in general " a lower infection risk, but it exists!

And in Germany , health controle is obligated once a week ! SO , I supose you got a flu ! Take a breath and contact the next doctor!

And look the next time if the entrance area of your partner is well cleaned.

Yours , C.

[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-over-report-admits-842478.html?service=Print[/url]

A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts

By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas."

In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides 20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per cent.

Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread."

Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report published this month showed that nearly three million people are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.

Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems.

Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa.

Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said.

"Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not."

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."

But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.

"It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?"

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.

"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.

"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."

The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in sub-Saharan Africa – with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in Swaziland, the worst-affected country – but nowhere else.

"It is the question we are asked most often – why is the situation so bad in sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors – more commercial sex workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population and concurrent sexual partnerships."

"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.

But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.

"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"

[QUOTE=Hole In One]Hi Guys,

I got a similiar question as Brad Dupree. I did a bit of a party on Sunday and Monday in some FKK clubs in Germany. My sessions included kissings, BBBJ, DATY, and normal covered sex. A few days later, I'm down on my knees sick from a bacterial throat infection. I've been laying in bed now for the last 3 days not being able to swallow, fever, headache etc. What is the chances that I caught this infection from one of the girls, and if I did get it was it from kissing or DATY or BBBJ.

Also, if I have BBBJ, and DATY, am I in the risk zone of catching AIDS? I also wonder, just like BD, if someone knows about people getting infected from working girls. Surely this must happen but nobody talks about it.[/QUOTE]You may have caught gonococcal pharyngitis from DATY.You have to get swabs from throat to get culture but the results can delay some days.

Otherwise you may have normal viral pharyngitis,or bacterial from streptococcus or infectious mononucleosis,all of them not related to DATY.

In any case you need to get throat swabs for microscopic examination unless it is proven that it is infectious mononucleosis.

By BBBJ it is unlikely to get infected by AIDS unless you have scratches from teeth.By DATY is more likely to get infected especially if you have herpes simplex on lips or any injury in oropharyngeal cavity which allows entrance to the virus.
It is important to check the status of the pro,if she is a drug addict,her chances to have AIDS are increased,or if she comes from a place where AIDS is endemic.
Some people get infected from working girls.Most commonly working girls spread gonococcus,chlamydia,herpes,warts and other venereal diseases,so it is more likely to get them than AIDS and if she is HIV carrier,she has almost always another STD far more contagious as well like herpes or HPV which can increase enormously the potential of HIV to get transmitted.

More people get infected by working men.

[QUOTE=Brad Dupree]I had a beautiful girl sitting in my lap during the drinking binge. After the drinking I go back to my hotel with my smoking hot date and of course with the alcohol and her beauty I proceed to have condom-less sex with her. It was quite nice :-)

Of course, when I wake the next morning I'm immediately struck with guilt and panic that I've put myself in jeopardy of contracting hiv. So for the next six weeks I do nothing but obsess on the chances that I have contracted hiv.

Questions : shouldn't I just get out of the game since it causes me so much emotional toil?[/QUOTE]

Or you could improve your game. I avoid mixing large amounts of alcohol and women, for instance. And if you are worried after an accident, it is more logical to go for emergency morning-after drugs than obsessing about it.

Worrying is normal. Doing something sensible gives you more options.

Of course, it is easier to give advice when one is not in the situation. But that is maybe when the forum can help too - thinking calmly, you may say the same thing I just have to someone who had posted what you did while emotionally distracted and stressed.

Take care. Enjoy your life - whatever you do! :-)

I've nearly completed reading a great book on HIV and AIDS with international scope. The book, entitled **The Wisdom of *****s: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS** came out about six months ago. It is written by Elizabeth Pisani, a Ph.D. epidemiologist trained in Great Britain. It is written to be accessible by most anyone rather than in the stuffy lexicon of academe. She has extensive experience studying HIV/AIDS in the field in Southeast Asia and Africa. The upshot, hinted at in the title, is that you can learn most about how the disease is transmitted by talking to people in settings where it gets transmitted, i.e., from prostitutes and those who inject drugs. It's very down to earth, and avoids condemning people for their behavior. She explodes numerous myths and takes careful aim at American policy under George Bush that tied HIV/AIDS funding to abstinence only programs and discouraged distribution and active education about condom use. She also sheds skepticism on the recent outpouring of reports about the transporting of sex slaves, arguing that most of the Third World prostitutes she has studied had entered the business willingly because it paid much better than factory work or department store retail sales.

Although Pisani anchors her claims in a mountain of existing research, the book is actually kind of a page-turner because it really tells the nitty gritty of what happens out on the streets of the developing world. I highly recommend it.

[QUOTE=Skip Kost]I've nearly completed reading a great book on HIV and AIDS with international scope. The book, entitled **The Wisdom of *****s: Bureaucrats, Brothels, and the Business of AIDS** came out about six months ago. It is written by Elizabeth Pisani, a Ph.D. epidemiologist trained in Great Britain. [/QUOTE]Hello there brothers,

Yes, there are lots of oponions about everything. However, I would like to point out that what matters is not really what you say but "who" says it. What can a "Elizabeth" say? Well, not much more than "Fuck me guys, do I look good in the mirror?"

Gentlemen, it is long overdue that women get back where they belong. That is: the kitchen, washing room and the brothels. What can a woman teach to a man? Well, pretty much nothing. We would be fools to listen to a fuckhole. Just looking good and actually being good are two very different matters. A woman can only excell in looking good and that's all. We know better. We would be fools to listen. I am sure all men agree on this.

So, how about less woman doctors, teachers and self-made educators but more (cheap) fuckers instead? It's only up to us. Up to us, men.

[QUOTE=That Asshole]I also noticed that the only one alternative title: Duesberg's "Inventing the aids virus" was gone. It might be out on loan. Or it might have been removed for good. It is a pretty clever book. Makes you think twice. Too dangerous for the "aids business".[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.duesberg.com/[/url]

In order to develop a hypothesis that explains AIDS we have considered ten relevant facts that American and European AIDS patients have, and do not have, in common:
[url]http://www.duesberg.com/papers/pddrgenetica.html[/url]
In view of this, we propose that the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and prescriptions of anti-HIV drugs, cause all AIDS diseases in America and Europe. for example, nitrite inhalants cause Kaposi's sarcoma, cocaine causes weight loss, and AZT causes immunodeficiency, lymphoma, muscle atrophy, and dementia.

For the most part you can enjoy yourself and go bareback, the way it is supposed to be. AIDS/HIV exists, but it is a high risk lifestyle virus. All the scare tactics are just measures for organizations to extract money from taxpayers to fund certain unproductive organizations manned by unproductive people. I don't think twice about AIDS, I am a man it is difficult for men to contract HIV, as long as you and your sex partners are not engaging in a high risk lifestyle.

HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%

Considered a 'Severe' Epidemic, Every Mode of Transmission Is Increasing, City Study Finds

Reporter Darryl Fears speaks with D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty about the HIV/AIDS statistics in the 2008 Epidemiology Annual Report scheduled to be released Monday.

By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page A01

At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.

"Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."

"We have every mode of transmission" -- men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use -- "going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them," Hader said.

In addition to the epidemiology report, the city is also releasing a study on heterosexual behavior tomorrow. That report, funded by the CDC, was conducted by the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services.

Among its findings: Almost half of those who had connections to the parts of the city with the highest AIDS prevalence and poverty rates said they had overlapping sexual partners within the past 12 months, three in five said they were aware of their own HIV status, and three in 10 said they had used a condom the last time they had sex.

Together, the reports offer a sobering assessment in a city that for years has stumbled in combating HIV and AIDS and is just beginning to regain its footing. A more accurate accounting of the crisis offers a chance to contain what is largely a preventable disease.

So urgent is the concern that the HIV/AIDS Administration took the relatively rare step of couching the city's infections in a percentage, harkening to 1992, when San Francisco, around the height of its epidemic, announced that 4 percent of its population was HIV positive. But the report also cautions that "we know that the true number of residents currently infected and living with HIV is certainly higher."

The District's report found a 22 percent increase in HIV and AIDS cases from the 12,428 reported at the end of 2006, touching every race and sex across population and neighborhoods, with an epidemic level in all but one of the eight wards. Black men, with an infection rate of nearly 7 percent, carry the weight of the disease, according to the report, which also underscores that the District's HIV and AIDS population is aging. Almost 1 in 10 residents between the ages of 40 and 49 has the virus.

The report notes that "this growing population will have significant implications on the District's health care system" as residents face chronic medical problems associated with aging and fighting a disease that compromises the immune system.

Men having sex with men has remained the disease's leading mode of transmission. Heterosexual transmission and injection drug use closely follow, the report says. Three percent of black women carry the virus, partly a result of the increase in heterosexual transmissions.

"This is very, very depressing news, especially considering HIV's profound impact on minority communities," said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health's program on infectious diseases. "And remember: The city's numbers are just based on people who've gotten tested."

FYI...

[url]http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/india304/aids1.html[/url]

I particularly liked the interactive map "Global Impact of HIV/AIDS" as this gives the number of women (and/or men) in each region living with HIV/AIDS.

Ups, my colleague died 1 year ago because of AIDS. He liked too much OWO with anyone. Since then I never ask for OWO, 69, Not even with classy and clean baby.

Officially, that new study from Africa only shows that with HIV infected males, circumcised males are not less likely to transmit HIV. Officially, that new study does not show that circumcised males are more likely to transmit HIV.

In that new study, with HIV infected males, 12% of the uncircumcised males infected their partner, and 18% of the circumcised males infected their partner. But the researchers said that some of the circumcised males might of had sex before their circumcision totally healed which may explain why they transmitted at a higher rate. Also, the researchers said that the difference between 12% and 18% in that study are statistically insignificant anyways. So officially, that new study only shows that with HIV infected males, circumcised males are not less likely to transmit HIV to their partner. The first site where I read about that new study it did not mention that the results are statistically insignificant. Because of that, in my previous post I said that according to that study circumcised males are 50% more less likely to transmit HIV, but that is techinically incorrect, and I wouldn't have said that if I knew that the results of the study were statistically insignificant.

Countries who deport HIV positive foreigners currently are Brunei, China, Cuba, Iraq, North and South Korea, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand.

There are currently 13 countries that bar people with AIDS totally. These countries are Armenia, Brunei, China, Iraq, Qatar, Korea (South), Libya, Moldova, Oman, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and the USA.

I found it interesting that Thailand deports HIV positive foreigners given the fact that most of them got AIDS by barebacking Thai prostitutes in the first place.

Dear All
Does anyone actually know (personally) of a fellow mongerer that has contacted HIV/AIDS?

Female to Male is very low, and condomless sex with someone positive is a 1 in 2500 (0.04%). Not a statistician, but the more times you do it with someone positive, this number goes up and it's not 'reset' every time you do it? Anyone?

[QUOTE=Rayman]Dear All,

Does anyone actually know (personally) of a fellow mongerer that has contacted HIV/AIDS?[/QUOTE]Not a single response.

I guess you can take that as a 'no'.

[QUOTE=Rayman]Dear All
Does anyone actually know (personally) of a fellow mongerer that has contacted HIV/AIDS?[/QUOTE]
I have known a few people who got AIDS. I can't say how many were mongers or not because people don't usually share that sort of information. In fact, mongers usually keep their activities secret, if that wasn't the case guys would be using their real names on here.

I've had a hooker chase after me in a bar. I blew her off and she got pissed. She started bad mouthing me to the other girls. Less than two years she died from AIDS. I also knew a guy who said he had bad vibes when he was about to bareback the person who infected him. He said that he knew that he shouldn't bareback but he dismissed the alarm bells going off in his head and did it anyway. He cried nonstop for two days when he got confirmation of his positive AIDS test.

[url]http://www.10news.com/news/20796109/detail.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Chocha Monger]I've had a hooker chase after me in a bar. I blew her off and she got pissed. She started bad mouthing me to the other girls. Less than two years she died from AIDS. [/QUOTE]The girls are so transient. How did you know what was going on in her life years after a very brief and impersonal encounter? Sounds kinda sensational.

[QUOTE=Chocha Monger]I've had a hooker chase after me in a bar. I blew her off and she got pissed. She started bad mouthing me to the other girls. Less than two years she died from AIDS. [/QUOTE]The girls are so transient. How did you know what was going on in her life years after a very brief and impersonal encounter? Sounds kinda sensational.

[QUOTE=Brad Dupree]The girls are so transient. How did you know what was going on in her life years after a very brief and impersonal encounter? Sounds kinda sensational.[/QUOTE]
It happened that this one was not transient and was quite famous in the local area. She targeted Americans primarily. When someone goes around trying to make things hard on me for no apparent reason other than my having declined their company, I make it a point to find out who they are. While the encounter was brief and impersonal for me, it wasn't for her. As the saying goes, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. There is nothing sensational about it really. On a typical night in the developing world you can find several HIV positive prostitutes plying their trade in freelance wh*re dens.

scary stuff guys...

[QUOTE=Jon32]Female to Male is very low, and condomless sex with someone positive is a 1 in 2500 (0.04%). Not a statistician, but the more times you do it with someone positive, this number goes up and it's not 'reset' every time you do it? Anyone?[/QUOTE]

I believe that the percent is for each act. There exists no cumulative effect, so to speak. Of course, you could get a hit on the first try. This would not change the statistical probability.

However statistically unlikely it is, even 1 in a billion someone has to be that one. The consequences are so horrific and avoidable to me it's a no brainier.

[QUOTE=Hillysex]However statistically unlikely it is, even 1 in a billion someone has to be that one. The consequences are so horrific and avoidable to me it's a no brainier.[/QUOTE]

Actually if you're worried about billion to one chances I suggest that you wrap yourself up in cotton wool and stay inside for the remainder of your fearful life. Of course there still remains the chance that eg a piece of space junk could fall on your house etc

[QUOTE=Macheath]Actually if you're worried about billion to one chances I suggest that you wrap yourself up in cotton wool and stay inside for the remainder of your fearful life. Of course there still remains the chance that eg a piece of space junk could fall on your house etc[/QUOTE]Space junk!?! crap, do you think my tin foil hat will protect me?

Hey guys, might be a bit off topic, but could really use some advice/opinions on this.

Just wanted the opinion of some of the people on here with regards to Hepatitis. I've been mongering on and off for about a year, nothing extreme at all. I've always used a condom for penetrative vaginal sex and only had BBBJ with 2 girls a few times and gave oral sex to a couple. I got tested for HIV about a year ago (NEGATIVE) and since then I've ony been a couple of times with 2 WG's from Syria.

Now I'll have to take this medical exam for HIV and Hepatitis A, B and C in a few months and I'm a bit worried about the Hepatitis tests because I hear it is easy to get compared to HIV.

My question is, how easy is it to get Hep A/B/C from BBBJ? How about protected condom sex? My last BBBJ was over 1 year ago, and since then I've only had sex with 2 WG's from Syria 2 times each, all encounters with condom.

Do I have anything to worry about with regards to Hep A/B/C? I don't have any symptoms of anything at all and feel fine, am just feeling a bit paranoid.

Any opinions would be welcome, thanks.

Regards,
BR

[QUOTE=Blood Red]Hey guys, might be a bit off topic, but could really use some advice/opinions on this.

Just wanted the opinion of some of the people on here with regards to Hepatitis. I've been mongering on and off for about a year, nothing extreme at all. I've always used a condom for penetrative vaginal sex and only had BBBJ with 2 girls a few times and gave oral sex to a couple. I got tested for HIV about a year ago (NEGATIVE) and since then I've ony been a couple of times with 2 WG's from Syria.

Now I'll have to take this medical exam for HIV and Hepatitis A, B and C in a few months and I'm a bit worried about the Hepatitis tests because I hear it is easy to get compared to HIV.

My question is, how easy is it to get Hep A/B/C from BBBJ? How about protected condom sex? My last BBBJ was over 1 year ago, and since then I've only had sex with 2 WG's from Syria 2 times each, all encounters with condom.

Do I have anything to worry about with regards to Hep A/B/C? I don't have any symptoms of anything at all and feel fine, am just feeling a bit paranoid.

Any opinions would be welcome, thanks.

Regards,
BR[/QUOTE]


Are you married? Ask your doctor. Even if you are married your wife wont find out that you got tested for this.

I dont think you have anything to worry about anyway...

The video tells that HIV does not cause AIDs. That most probable cause are drug use, drugs and AZT(drug to treat HIV)

[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212&hl=en#[/url]

Hi, news from EU committee of 2009, article of The Daily Telegraph.."each 3th of European have NOT IDEA that he is INFECTED by VIRUS HIV already! ". It remind me some pain I have last years.- During the last 2, 5h year's 2 of my colleague's from the office died thanks that shit! You think they were fucking with the cheap staff during their business trips all over Europe, or you think they were not careful enought? Noo, they were very careful as I know. Never any fuck without a protection. If they were meeting some girls, the girls were just "normal and educated girls" from the internet as I know. Yes, some of them were escorts, some of them dancers from night clubs in EU countries, but they did always use a protection, when they were fucking them. I know it from our personal chatting. The only what I know is that they never used the protection for OWO, who could expect that kind of problems later? Now I have a new colleague's and believe that they learn use the protection for OWO when ever they want have a fun. The main problem is that nobody has the complete information, also not a lof of us care very much, right. You think the AIDS is problem of homosexual and "strange people"?

Wake up and open your eyes, be respensible Men!

[quote]The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?[/quote]Simple, Washington DC is full of fucking politicians.

I think some of the stronger comments made can hide what is really been said.

Science is dictated now more than ever by the dollar. Research proposals, publications, and general funding is determined by select groups whose interest it is to support the power of the dollar. This ensures that any theory that is financial popular will be accepted.

It may sound cynical but if a company came up with a theory that a tablet that destroyed HIV or AIDS for $5 a pill could be manufactured if money was made available to further research it would that research actually be promoted. Probably not...or if it did by the time it reached the public it would be a course of pills taken over two years at $200 a pill. There are so many people making big money out of the scare campaign.

Remember the drug companies in the US sued South American companies for producing copies of the drugs used to treat HIV. The South American government was practically giving them away because people could not afford treatment. Shows you who the drug companies really care about...it wasn't people!

There is also he idea that AIDS is deadly because villages in Africa are wiped out. Yet the US has 1.2% of the population with AIDS. Does this not suggest a general health problem in Africa? Most of those who died already had other diseases, poor nutrition etc... Do you really think 98% of people in the US use condoms. Do you think all Africans just go around fucking indiscriminately and westerners are monogamous? It would suggest that general health is far more the issue.

Out of the small percent in the US found HIV positive more than three quarters were drug users or homosexual. So out of the population of 350,000,000 Americans about 63,000 vagina fucking males have AIDS (The stats call them high risk hetrosexuals). 7000 of them are white males. Do we really think this is because of condom use and fidelity??? Doesn't seem that scary to me!

Again this supports the idea of general health being the most important factors. It has also been expressed by many medical professionals that a healthy male has less than 1% chance of getting HIV from vaginal sex for the man. Higher for the woman. Drug users and people in poor health are at a higher risks.

It was not long ago Scientists were saying that tobacco smoking was actually good for you because of the kickbacks they receive. This is surely possible in the HIV and AIDS research with all the money that condom factories, drug companies, and governments are making. Look at who donates money to political parties.

Even if you believe the hype, the actual figures seem to suggest you shouldn't start crying in your beer because a condom broke of you got pissed and had sex without a condom one night.

The idea that the world is scary is great for governments that seek greater control of their people whilst they pursue their own agenda. The US is as guilty of this as Iran. It is up to people to question them more than ever.

I also think "That Asshole" raises some actually very insightful concepts about woman and the role they play or have been used in promoting the world as a scary place, and I support his stand on this though even though he would express himself far stronger than I.

Figures from: [url]http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=Chocha Monger]I found it interesting that Thailand deports HIV positive foreigners given the fact that most of them got AIDS by barebacking Thai prostitutes in the first place.[/QUOTE]It's now possible to ascertain which strain of the virus one is infected with and where the strain comes from. If one is infected say with a Thailand strain, one should be allowed to stay in Thailand, indeed one should be granted a 10-year stay permit right out. Passports should have a special pages indicating HIV strains carried by the passport bearer. Visas could then be granted or refused accordingly.

Hi,

Can I get HIV/AIDS if I get a BJ (without a condom) from an infected girl?

And is it possible that AIDS can also be transmitted through unclean towel and bed sheets?

[QUOTE=Cybertron]Hi,

Can I get HIV/AIDS if I get a BJ (without a condom) from an infected girl?

And is it possible that AIDS can also be transmitted through unclean towel and bed sheets?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely BIG NO, You have to understand that AIDS was created in the laboratory by the elites to control the population, so it effects certain genetic types more than others.

Even if you fuck without condom, chances are very less if your genes comes from island nations who evolved itself without any external help from African continent.

If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.

Its not AIDS that kill people its Ignorance. Do a research on Swine flu and see how the elite plan to depopulate humanity, there is going to be another major pandemic from a cocktail of swine flu virus.

[QUOTE=Born Loser 5]Absolutely BIG NO, You have to understand that AIDS was created in the laboratory by the elites to control the population, so it effects certain genetic types more than others.

Even if you fuck without condom, chances are very less if your genes comes from island nations who evolved itself without any external help from African continent.

If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.

Its not AIDS that kill people its Ignorance. Do a research on Swine flu and see how the elite plan to depopulate humanity, there is going to be another major pandemic from a cocktail of swine flu virus.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the information, but the girls at the MP's wont allow mouth to mouth kissing. They say it could transmit various diseases.

from what i see africa, india, haiti, dominican republic have a high rate of this type of transmission. i have some theories on this. in africa the truck drivers do roadside prostitutes and like a sex called 'dry sex" this is where the woman puts astringents in her vagina to dry it up, it creates more friction hence bleeding or microcuts in the epidermis that allow the virus to enter the bloodstream.
anal sex is another biggie because of friction and acids in the anus that create cuts and the proximity of blood vessels in the anus and lower colon area.

uncircumcised males which is prevalent in african americans, and 3rd. world men, evidently the skin under the foreskin is more delicate possibly.

men with syphilis sores, herpes sores or ulcerations on the penis is a direct entry for the virus which is carried in female mucosa.
long sex sessions where the woman may start to get dry or the penis gets burned or scraped from friction.

i read all the stats about the usa statistics and sometimes i wonder if some of the men that claim to have caught it from a female may be closet homosexuals feeling ashamed enough they have the virus and so they keep the secret that they have had gay sex.
in the late 70s through the early 90s until i heard about magic johnson i believed this to be a gay and iv drug use disease or iv drug users passing it to females.
i personally banged hundreds of street prostitutes and i am certain many were hiv positive if not in actual aids full blown and i am negative is it luck? god? or is the threat slanted a little? i have not personally known a man to have caught aids from a woman from sex, i know some will argue and i will continue using condoms just to be safe but i think that for proper research to be done that the seropositive men must be more forthcoming with the real source of how they were infected.

[QUOTE=Born Loser 5]
If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.
[/QUOTE]
Born Loser,

You mean that there are no Filipinos with AIDS? There have been reports of numerous expats dying from AIDS after fucking Filipina girls raw dog. Are you fucking skinless in the Philippines? :eek:

[QUOTE=Born Loser 5]Absolutely BIG NO, You have to understand that AIDS was created in the laboratory by the elites to control the population, so it effects certain genetic types more than others.

Even if you fuck without condom, chances are very less if your genes comes from island nations who evolved itself without any external help from African continent.

If you are born say in The Philippines, you can sleep easy 'cos folks have natural immunity to AIDS, if you are from Africa your chances of catching AIDS is higher. Yet with BJ with out condom or bed sheets etc you will never get infected anywhere.

Its not AIDS that kill people its Ignorance. Do a research on Swine flu and see how the elite plan to depopulate humanity, there is going to be another major pandemic from a cocktail of swine flu virus.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Chocha Monger]Born Loser,

You mean that there are no Filipinos with AIDS? There have been reports of numerous expats dying from AIDS after fucking Filipina girls raw dog. Are you fucking skinless in the Philippines? :eek:[/QUOTE]

BL Filipinas are notorious for carrying Chlamydia which increases the likelihood of a HIV infection by 5 times. Native Filipinas are very ignorant of STDs and very accommodating to a mate...recipe for disaster. They always say shit like they don't like condoms well I don't like Herpes, HIV or a kid.

Man don't talk this immunity stuff no one is immune to anything that infects the human body. Don't spread misinformation and get some newbie sex monger fucked up.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_the_Philippines[/url]

Prevalence

The Philippines is a low-HIV-prevalence country, with less than 0.1 percent of the adult population estimated to be HIV-positive. Since 1984, when the Philippines’ first case of HIV was reported, approximately one-third of diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases have occurred among returning migrants. However, because HIV testing for these workers is mandatory in most host countries, this number may be disproportionately high. As of September 2008, the Department of Health (DOH) AIDS Registry in the Philippines reported 3,456 people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA)- [url]www.plwha.org[/url] . UNAIDS estimates that 12,000 Filipinos were HIV-positive by the end of 2005.[1]

Up until 2007, heterosexual intercourse accounted for the majority (61 percent) of the Philippines’ reported HIV/AIDS cases, followed in descending order by homosexual and bisexual relations, mother-to-child transmission, contaminated blood and blood products, and injecting drug use, according to UNAIDS, with men comprising 66 percent of reported cases. However in 2007 the proportion was reversed, with homosexual and/or bisexual modes of infection surpassing heterosexual transmission — 56% versus 43%, with the figure rising to 67% for the January to September 2008 period, as against 34%.

[edit] At-risk groups

Most-at-risk groups include men who have sex with men (MSM), with 395 new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections among within this group from January to September 2008 alone, 96% up from 2005’s 210 reported infections. A spokesperson of the National Epidemiology Center (NEC) of the Department of Health says that the sudden and steep increase in the number of new cases within the MSM community, particularly in the last three years (309 cases in 2006, and 342 in 2007), is “tremendously in excess of what (is) usually expected,” allowing classification of the situation as an “epidemic". Of the cumulative total of 1,097 infected MSMs from 1984 to 2008, 49% were reported in the last three years (72% asymptomatic); 108 have died when reported, and slightly more MSMs were reportedly already with AIDS (28%).[2]

Among MSM's, ninety percent of the newly infected are single (up to 35% of past cases reported involved overseas Filipino workers or OFWs and/or their spouse), with the most of the affected people now only 20 to 34 years old (from 45 to 49 years old in the past). The highest number of infections among MSMs is from Metro Manila, though increasing infection rates were also noted in the cities of Angeles, Cebu, and Davao.[2] 1 to 3 percent of MSM's were found to be HIV-positive by sentinel surveillance conducted in Cebu and Quezon cities in 2001.

Another at-risk group are injecting drug users (IDUs), 1 percent of whom were found to be HIV-positive in Cebu City in 2005. A high rate of needle sharing among IDUs in some areas (77 percent in Cebu City) is of concern. Sex workers, because of their infrequent condom use, high rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and other factors, are also considered to be at risk. In 2002, just 6 percent of sex workers interviewed said they used condoms in the last week. As of 2005, however, HIV prevalence among sex workers in Cebu City was relatively low, at 0.2 percent.[1]

[edit] Other risk factors

Several factors put the Philippines in danger of a broader HIV/AIDS epidemic. They include increasing population mobility within and outside of the Philippine islands; a conservative culture, adverse to publicly discussing issues of a sexual nature; rising levels of sex work, causal sex, unsafe sex, and injecting drug use; high STI prevalence and poor health-seeking behaviors among at-risk groups; gender inequality; weak integration of HIV/AIDS responses in local government activities; shortcomings in prevention campaigns; inadequate social and behavioral research and monitoring; and the persistence of stigma and discrimination, which results in the relative invisibility of PLWHA. Lack of knowledge about HIV among the Filipino population is troubling. Approximately two-thirds of young women lack comprehensive knowledge on HIV transmission, and 90 percent of the population of reproductive age believe you can contract HIV by sharing a meal with someone.[1]

The Philippines has high tuberculosis (TB) incidence, with 131 new cases per 100,000 people in 2005, according to the World Health Organization. HIV infects 0.1 percent of adults with TB. Although HIV-TB co-infection is low, the high incidence of TB indicates that co-infections could complicate treatment and care for both diseases in the future.[1]

[edit] National response

Wary of nearby Thailand’s growing epidemic in the late 1980s, the Philippines was quick to recognize its own sociocultural risks and vulnerabilities to HIV/AIDS. Early responses included the 1992 creation of the Philippine National AIDS Council (PNAC), the country’s highest HIV/AIDS policymaking body. Members of the Council represent 17 governmental agencies, including local governments and the two houses of the legislature; seven nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and an association of PLWHA. The passing of the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act in 1998 was also a landmark in the country’s fight against HIV/AIDS. However, the Philippines is faced with the challenge of stimulating government leadership action in a low-HIV-prevalence country to advocate for a stronger and sustainable response to AIDS when faced with other competing priorities. One strategy has been to prevent STIs in general, which are highly prevalent in the country.[1]

The PNAC developed the Philippines’ AIDS Medium Term Plan: 2005–2010 (AMTP IV). The AMTP IV serves as a national road map toward universal access to prevention, treatment, care, and support, outlining country-specific targets, opportunities, and obstacles along the way, as well as culturally appropriate strategies to address them. In 2006, the country established a national monitoring and evaluation system, which was tested in nine sites and is being expanded. Antiretroviral treatment is available free of charge, but only 10 percent of HIV-infected women and men were receiving it as of 2006, according to UNAIDS.[1]

The Government of the Philippines participates in international responses to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Most recently, in January 2007, the Philippines hosted the 12th Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit, which had a special session on HIV/AIDS.[1]

The Philippines is a recipient of three grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (2004 third round, 2006 fifth round, and 2007 sixth round) to scale up the national response to HIV/AIDS through the delivery of services and information to at-risk populations and PLWHA.[1]

Philippines sits on HIV time bomb

Some sources suspect that the Philippine government has concealed the extent of the HIV/AIDS problem.[3]

[edit] References

[url]http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20091210-241194/Rising-HIV-cases-in-RP-alarms-Saudi-embassy[/url]

Rising HIV cases in RP alarms Saudi embassy
By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net

First Posted 13:21:00 12/10/2009

Filed Under: Overseas Employment, Health, Diseases, Middle East Africa - Africa

Global Nation Most Read RSS

Close this MANILA, Philippines—The rising number of HIV and AIDS cases in the country has so worried the Saudi embassy here that it advised medical clinics processing overseas Filipino workers bound for Middle East countries to intensify medical exams and screening for workers to be deployed there, it was learned Thursday.

Departing Saudi Ambassador to the Philippines Muhammad Ameen Wali had called Dr. Rodolfo Punzalan, president and chairman of accredited clinics that screen OFWs leaving for the Gulf countries, to express his concern over the reported upsurge in the cases of human immuno-deficiency virus and acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome in the country.

Punzalan’s 17 Gamca (Gulf Cooperation Council Accedited Medical Center Association) clinics screen OFWs leaving for Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates for infectious diseases.

On December 1, 2009, during the 21st World AIDS Day, the United Nations noted that HIV and AIDS cases in the country have climbed steeply in recent years. More than 9,000 HIV cases have been reported since 1984, with the highest number of monthly cases seen last May 2009.

“The Philippines, with the first AIDS case reported in 1984, remains a low prevalence country, with cases registered at less than 0.1 percent of the total population. However, the recent report of the Philippine HIV and AIDS Registry shows a steep and accelerating number of reported cases in the country,” the UN had said then.

Punzalan stressed that the screening is to prevent the spread of diseases. He said the Gamca referral decking system red-flags an applicant found or suspected with an infectious disease.

The Gamca official said Saudi is very strict with this requirement, performing confirmatory medical exams on all OFWs coming from the Philippines.

He said that in the faxed memo from the Saudi embassy, the latter noted that an increasing number of OFWs have been declared unfit for work by hospitals in Saudi Arabia.

“Now, if we have a lot of repatriations due to infectious diseases, it would affect the hiring of OFWs,” Punzalan warned.

OFWs declared unfit for work by hospitals in Saudi are repatriated at the expense of the employer or the clinic, which is then fined $1,000 for every repatriated OFW.

Punzalan said that among the infectious diseases, HIV/AIDS is the most feared by Middle East employers, followed by pulmonary tuberculosis, venereal diseases, hepatitis, congestive heart, diabetes, and hypertension.

A Wall Street Journal article on AIDS reports that the chance of contracting HIV from random unprotected sex with non-IV drug using heterosexuals is "smaller than the risk of ever being struck by lightening."

Chance your partner was infected, say 10%. Chance you were infected if she has HIV, 1 in 1000 tops (probably closer to 1 in 2000). That makes your odds of having HIV 0.1 x 0. 001 = 0.0001. That's 1 in a 10,000.

About the same odds of bowling a 300 game or winning an academy award.

I'm afraid you are living in some unreal world. Let me tell you, when you tell someone they are HIV+ and or have AIDS, and what the implications are, they don't hold back and give you more details on what risky behavior they had. You never see your medical caregiver? And if you do, I assume that they ask you questions that are pertinent to your sexual practices and health (if they don't they aren't doing their job). Telling someone who is an IV drug abuser is not hard. Cause they just don't quit, and even when they are injecting in the veins between their toes (pretty ingenious huh). You can see the long term results on the veins.

It is not just gay men and IV drug users that get HIV and yes, we all are at risk with bareback sex.

But, the ultimate answer to your question is YES, I do KNOW people that got HIV from heterosexual sex ONLY! In fact, one man recently decided to end his own life he was so racked with guilt about infecting some other women that he was with. I had nothing to do with his care, he was a person living in my community who was a member of a car club that I am in. And don't respond saying "well, that is only ONE person" because sadly, there are millions infected with heterosexual sex.

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was deleted because it appeared to be a completely malicious attempt to expose or threaten to expose the personal identity of another Forum Member.

There's simply no excuse and no justification for posting or threatening to post Personal Identity Information or otherwise threatening or attempting to "out" any Forum Member.

Posting Personal Identity Information in the Forum is strictly prohibited and will result in the perpetrator being permanently banned from the Forum.

[i]Thanks![/i][/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was deleted because it contributed nothing of value and in fact constituted a complete waste of bandwidth.

The purpose of this Forum is to provide for the exchange if information between men on the subject of finding women for sex. Let's stick to the subject.[/blue]

[b][u]EDITOR'S NOTE[/u]:[/b] [blue]This report was deleted because it appeared to be a completely malicious attempt to expose or threaten to expose the personal identity of another Forum Member.

There's simply no excuse and no justification for posting or threatening to post Personal Identity Information or otherwise threatening or attempting to "out" any Forum Member.

Posting Personal Identity Information in the Forum is strictly prohibited and will result in the perpetrator being permanently banned from the Forum.

[i]Thanks![/i][/blue]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/research/29zinc.html?_r=1[/url]

Pretty interesting article here from the other day about someone who was cured with aids from a bone marrow transplant.

What also i find interesting is the guy who donated the marrow was actually "naturally immune" to aids.

I did not know that even existed (natural immunity). Anyone else ever hear about that?

[blue]Greetings Everyone,

I recently cleaned up this thread by deleting a number of off-topic and otherwise pointless posts, as well as a number responses made by other forum members to these deleted posts.

This cleanup process is not perfect, and it's possible that I may have inadvertently deleted a few otherwise legitimate posts. If you find that your own report was also deleted, please don't take it personally.

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]