HIV in the news

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
That's a very interesting tidbit of information. What it is saying is that, though this particular chemical that is meant to kill germs and HIV, and does so very effectively, when used in an orifice promotes the transmission of HIV because it damages the tissue. In other words, as effective as the chemical is, if you have damaged tissue you are still more likely to get transmission.

There was some talk about saliva being able to kill the HIV virus, and that is why it is safe to get semen into the mouth. If Nonoxynol-9, which was made to kill it, can't do so, why would saliva be any better? When Nonoxynol-9 is applied, it probably is applied liberally and with far more quantity than a person could generate saliva with their mouths. Yet Nonoxynol-9 in quantity can't seem to kill the virus if there is an open sore, so why should saliva with less quantity? Every time I read some SP or guy posting that oral sex is safe against the transfer of HIV because saliva kills the germs, they never specify details about it, like quantity of saliva, length of contact and submersion levels, etc. In fact, it always reads like wishful thinking. Why would anyone want to prefer their imagination over their lives?
I guess the problem with open sores is that when the HIV virus is 'running around' in there with Nono-9 like two girls in mud wrestling,
the virus might win the race to the opening before the virus-icide murders it.

If both individuals were soreless, not allergic to the Naughty-9, and it doesn't cause sores on them, then why wouldn't the microbicide
be effective in doing its jobs (destroy HIV & sperm, etc)?

"Because nonoxynol-9 kills HIV in the test tube, it was considered as a way to prevent HIV infection during sex.
Unfortunately, many people are allergic to it. Their sex organs (penis, vagina, and rectum) can get irritated and develop
small sores that actually make it easier for HIV infection to spread. Nonoxynol-9 should not be used as a way to prevent
HIV infection."
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
A vaginal gel that sharply reduces a woman’s risk of infection with the AIDS virus is even more effective against genital herpes, a much more common risk for young American women, a new study has found.

In an unexpected bonus, the researchers also noted that it reduced herpes by 51 percent. In the trial, the gel was used within a few hours before and after sex. Another trial now going on is testing whether using it daily is more effective.
https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?77199-Gel-Cuts-Women’s-Risk-of-Herpes-Study-Finds


The study, by researchers from the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences Inc. and universities in Belgium and Italy, suggests that the microbicide gel, which was originally developed to fight AIDS in Africa, could lower the incidence of herpes in many women.

“This could be incredibly helpful,” said Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, a herpes expert from the University of Washington’s medical school. “Protection that a woman can control is the holy grail in this field. It’s hard for me to believe that something that protects against both H.I.V. and herpes wouldn’t be appealing to a lot of young American women.”

An executive at Gilead, the company that makes tenofovir, the anti-AIDS drug that is the gel’s active ingredient, said the company was debating whether to spend the millions of dollars needed to get the gel approved for the American market. Even if the company pressed ahead immediately, “it would be three to four years before we were ready to submit data” to the Food and Drug Administration, Norbert W. Bischofberger, Gilead’s chief scientific officer, said.

Genital herpes is far more common than AIDS. The World Health Organization estimates that 20 percent of all sexually active adults have it. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 21 percent of sexually active women have it, including 16 percent of all white women and 48 percent of all black women.

While not fatal, the infection can be very painful, ruining sexual pleasure. The blisters it causes, which resemble the cold sores caused on the lips by a related virus, can also be an entryway for more dangerous pathogens, including H.I.V. and syphilis.

It can be transmitted when neither partner has sores, and even using a condom is effective in preventing infection only half the time, said Dr. Anna Wald, a herpes specialist at the University of Washington’s school of public health, because — unlike AIDS — it can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact, not just in semen or vaginal fluid.

And although it can often be controlled with another drug, acyclovir, herpes is not curable.

The new study, published online by Cell Host and Microbes this week, explains the surprise result of a much-heralded 2010 clinical trial done in South Africa.

That trial, run by Caprisa, an AIDS research center in Durban, showed for the first time that tenofovir gel protected women against H.I.V. It also showed that the roughly 450 women in the survey who did not have herpes were even better protected against it than they were against the AIDS virus.

Over all, the gel reduced H.I.V. infections by 39 percent. That announcement was greeted with a standing ovation by scientists at the international AIDS Conference in Vienna last year because it was the first weapon that women at risk of AIDS could use without a man’s knowledge.

In an unexpected bonus, the researchers also noted that it reduced herpes by 51 percent.

The new study, involving lab experiments, was done to explain why the trial worked, said Dr. Salim Abdool Karim, a professor of epidemiology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa and Columbia University and one of the Caprisa trial leaders.

“We were very pleasantly surprised to see such a potent effect,” he said. “However, until now, we had only a hypothesis for the mechanism of action — no clear-cut data.”

The new study showed that when tenofovir enters human tissue it is converted into a form that disrupts an enzyme that herpes needs to make copies of itself.

In laboratory cultures of tonsil and cervical tissue, it lowered herpes viral levels by as much as 99 percent. It also prolonged the lives of mice that were given massive skin infections of herpes.

Taken as a pill, tenofovir inhibits H.I.V. but not herpes. Getting it into the vaginal wall is apparently crucial to its success.

Tissue concentrations of the drug are up to 100 times higher with a gel than with a pill, said Leonid Margolis, chief of intercellular interactions at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and an author of the study.

While the final gel trial was done in South Africa because AIDS rates there are so high, earlier safety and acceptability tests were done in several countries, including the United States. American heterosexual couples did not find the gel unpleasant; nor did South African couples, Dr. Karim said. (Gay men having anal sex have complained that it was too watery, so new formulations are in the works.)

“I’m confident American women would accept it,” Dr. Wald said.

In the Caprisa trial, the gel was used within a few hours before and after sex. Another trial now going on is testing whether using it daily is more effective.

The gel may be even more effective against herpes than the 51 percent figure reached in the Caprisa study. Among the subset of women who said they used it consistently and who gave back enough empty gel applicator tubes to confirm they were telling the truth, the protection rate against H.I.V. was 54 percent and the protection rate against herpes was 62 percent, Dr. Karim said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/health/research/21herpes.html?_r=3
 

jesuschrist

New member
Aug 26, 2007
1,036
1
0
I think anyone can google HIV and AIDS and find a multitude of wikipedia definitions.

I mean realistically, and within reasonable doubt, the whole HIV/AIDS theory is still just a hypothesis. One has to be aware of the fact all these drug companies get grants and are funded to the nines for most of their research, and also own patents on every step of the design. The Eliza and the old Western-Blot tests are patented - somebody is making a fortune here to test people for a virus that isn't really fully understood. You people better believe this is an industry within an industry. The doctors in South Africa benefiting off the misery of others while they drive around in Bently's and Rolls.

So I decree yet again - since HIV was "discovered" (and to the admission of the doctors that discovered it that it was impossible for HIV to cause AIDS) less than 100 perfectly normal, healthy adults, without taking ANY drugs that supposedly slow down or delay the onset of AIDS, have died. So are you still absolutely convinced it's the HIV killling them? Or perhaps just the odds of life in general.

And for what it's worth - approx 30,000 Americans die each year from the common flu virus. Each year.

I'm just not buying it. Condoms may be great for other things like chlamydia or ghonno, etc. but for saving people from HIV? Hardly.
You have an interesting point of view, and I am sure you believe in it wholeheartedly and you aren't playing devil's advocate. I think you should prove it to all us non-believers and go on a bbfs sex binge on East Hastings and report back to us in a few months!

Hey and just to really prove your point, take some of that "so-called" HIV infected blood or semen, and just inject it into your veins! You will be a hero because you will have dispelled a terrible lie and all those horrible doctors who benefit from the misery of others will be shamed, lose their jobs, and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law! You'll single handedly destroy those companies that profit from making Eliza tests and all those stupid drugs that are killing people!!!!
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
You have an interesting point of view, and I am sure you believe in it wholeheartedly and you aren't playing devil's advocate. I think you should prove it to all us non-believers and go on a bbfs sex binge on East Hastings and report back to us in a few months!

Hey and just to really prove your point, take some of that "so-called" HIV infected blood or semen, and just inject it into your veins! You will be a hero because you will have dispelled a terrible lie and all those horrible doctors who benefit from the misery of others will be shamed, lose their jobs, and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law! You'll single handedly destroy those companies that profit from making Eliza tests and all those stupid drugs that are killing people!!!!
It would be nice to "prove" it one way or the other, though i'm not sure if BBFS with DTES IDU crackheads would convince the naysayers.
If in the end they did not get the test results they desired, it could be chalked up to those "unhealthy" low track SW's. Even if a healthy
HIV infected individual were found and his blood injected into SB, if he soon began to die of AIDS in the absence of taking HIV meds, the
conspiracy theorists could chalk it up to "just the odds of life in general" or 'some other disease in the test subject or in the blood of the
donor we are not aware of'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
Also, I find it oh so fascinating there is this correlation with DTES sex workers and HIV, as if they're the only ones offering BBFS. I'm not going to debate semantics because it's probably true it is offered there more often than not, but to think naively they are the only sex workers who "do that" is insane. Do you believe girls charging $300/hr don't do it either? I just don't understand why when the acromym bbfs is uttered the next thoughts are east hastings crack whore.
I think it's quite certain that DTES SWs are having BB sex with customers far more often than your average Canadian SP and have a much higher rate of being HIV positive. Also I think i've read that amongst such low track sex workers IDU have a significantly higher rate of HIV infections. Why? Sharing needles for injecting heroin and/or crack leads to the sharing of HIV infected blood.

On the general subject of HIV leading to AIDS, what do you make of this story:

http://www.aidstruth.org/sites/aidstruth.org/files/documents/The-Consequences-of-HIV-Denialism.pdf
 

jesuschrist

New member
Aug 26, 2007
1,036
1
0
I think it's quite certain that DTES SWs are having BB sex with customers far more often than your average Canadian SP and have a much higher rate of being HIV positive. Also I think i've read that amongst such low track sex workers IDU have a significantly higher rate of HIV infections. Why? Sharing needles for injecting heroin and/or crack leads to the sharing of HIV infected blood.

On the general subject of HIV leading to AIDS, what do you make of this story:

http://www.aidstruth.org/sites/aidstruth.org/files/documents/The-Consequences-of-HIV-Denialism.pdf
A profound story, I hope Stuffed Banana decides to read it carefully. Still, he could do what I say and prove to the world that what he says is true and that they are liars.

What is amazing is that though the two men (who were both healthy) had the exact same strain of the virus, one died in 10 months and the other has lived for years and continues to live. I guess you can never know what your immune system is really like when something enters your blood stream.
 

myselftheother

rubatugtug
Dec 2, 2004
1,275
14
38
vancouver
Guys, I am simply saying condoms are used more importantly to prevent pregnancy first and foremost.
I am trying to research as much info as I can on both sides of the equation. The problem I have with statistics, for either side, is they are all biased. Condom companies have a bias to show how many lives they claim to save. Good luck in Africa with all the catholic missionaries on a mission to tell people contraceptives are a "sin". Then on the other side we have the AIDS denialists who paint a picture HIV is simply a carrier virus with no harm whatsoever.
I'm not meaning disrespect to anybody with complications of the virus, but on the other hand it's easy enough to point out given all the precice parameters I have set forth, that it is entirely possible for my hypothesis to carry some weight.

The problem is you never hear about the normal people dieing. We typically only hear about person A or B suffering, and yes, taking medications that I believe do more harm than any good. There are cases of two seropositive parents giving birth to seronegative offspring. There are cases two seropositive parents to give birth to seropositive children only for the children to become seronegative 6-8mos after birth.

I think it's all a ploy for drug companies to cash in. Remember the ads on TV, "not all bugs need drugs".

Also, I find it oh so fascinating there is this correlation with DTES sex workers and HIV, as if they're the only ones offering BBFS. I'm not going to debate semantics because it's probably true it is offered there more often than not, but to think naively they are the only sex workers who "do that" is insane. Do you believe girls charging $300/hr don't do it either? I just don't understand why when the acromym bbfs is uttered the next thoughts are east hastings crack whore.

jesuschrist - I'd like for you to read up on a drug called AZT. It isn't used in North America thank fucking god, but it is being used in suburban Africa and this omnipotent chemotherapy is killing people in the boat loads. To think this shit was legally administered to patients in the 80's and 90's disturbs me. The amount of people who have died as a direct result of this toxic shit will never be known. But I can rest assure you it's number is exponentially higher than those not taking any medications at all.

DTES SW's are also sharing needles with other addicts, and not only HIV but also Hep 'C', syphillis, and other blood borne diseases are introduced while injecting drugs. Just with that, if you're of the mind that it's just a conspiracy...I don't know. Guys who think that it's not going to happen to them....or it's just fear mongering.....sure. Good luck with that.

They probably are not the only sex workers who engage in bbfs, but they are the riskiest to have it with. HIV isn't survivable...there is no cure. It leads to AIDS without medial help, depending on your biology etc on how long...more when than if...you will die with that virus. Again...there is no cure. Not for a long time yet. So if you wanna keep your bannana unwrapped....good luck. More of a reason for me to use them, with pooners out there being irresponsible like that. Not worth the risk, no matter what you say.
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
jesuschrist - I'd like for you to read up on a drug called AZT. It isn't used in North America thank fucking god, but it is being used in suburban Africa and this omnipotent chemotherapy is killing people in the boat loads. To think this shit was legally administered to patients in the 80's and 90's disturbs me. The amount of people who have died as a direct result of this toxic shit will never be known. But I can rest assure you it's number is exponentially higher than those not taking any medications at all.
What do you make of this response to Duesberg (a leading AIDS denialist) re AZT and other HIV related topics:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/deusberg_strikes_a_blow_for_hi.php

But even so he misrepresents the literature, including this paper to suggest that AZT is ineffective...

This is a misrepresentation of the findings. The study was not between treated and untreated groups. Subjects were divided between treatment before and after onset of AIDS. All subjects received AZT when they became ill. This study did not suggest patients should not receive AZT with onset of AIDS, only that there was no benefit to treatment with a single drug before onset of symptoms. This is still an issue of some contention, especially with issues of patient compliance, whether there is benefit to long term treatment with anti-retrovirals before onset of any AIDS defining illness. Here is what was said by Aboulker and Swart:

...AZT did not worsen outcomes, but as a monotherapy it did not help prevent progression to AIDS or death. For the life of me I can't figure out how he got AZT increased death rates by 25%.

But all of this is besides the point. HIV monotherapy is not even standard of care for these reasons. We know HIV rapidly becomes resistant to a single therapy, hence the need for combination therapy. You need proof combination therapy prevents progression of disease and death? JAMA on protease inhibitors, or how highly-active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) decreases mortality to a third of that on a single drug? Or how AIDS mortality decreased with introduction of HAART? Or how when people are non-compliant with the medication they are much more likely to progress to AIDS and die.

If you look at the effect of inferior therapy on HIV/AIDS survival, yes, the results aren't great, but Duesberg is ignoring reams of data and current standard of care with HAART therapy. As for HAART therapy he castigates it for the side effects of the drugs, not for efficacy in preventing mortality. The drugs have known long-term toxicities, but this is besides the point. If the drugs extend your life beyond what you would have had without it, and you eventually die of a toxicity years later, they have still served their purpose and extended life. No one is saying these drugs are perfect. They are hard to take, they cause gastrointestinal upset, they can cause mitochondrial injury with long term use, injury to other organ systems with prolonged therapy. This is true, but that's an argument for continued research and refinement of these drugs to ideally find a less-toxic next generation anti-retroviral, not an argument against their use.

Finally, he suggests the harm from HAART to unborn children or the use of single-dose AZT to prevent transmission during pregnancy may have untoward side-effects on the growth and development of exposed children. A valid point. But given the choice between life + side effects of drug, versus possible transmission of HIV to children there is no choice. Only for a denialist who doesn't believe HIV is the causitive agent of AIDS (ignoring all the basic science demonstrating the molecular mechanisms of HIV destruction of t-cells) is there any question that you should take the small risk of a drug side-effect over the dramatically shortened life span of a child with HIV.

I can't help being personally offended by this drivel. I'm in Baltimore, with a population known to be living with HIV of 2.5%. Although the actual prevalence of HIV in the city is much higher as there are thousands living with HIV but without the diagnosis. I treat patients with HIV all the time, and operate on them, and have personally seen what happens when HAART is started on patients with AIDS-defining diseases, and how hopeless it is when non-compliance has sabotaged a potentially life-saving therapy (the virus can become resistant to any drug and this is increased with non-compliance). These cranks don't treat these patients, they ignore the data that would help these patients and undermine public health. The publication of this denialist trope is a tragedy.


"Several scientists have been associated with AIDS denialism, although they have not themselves studied AIDS or HIV.[9] One of the most famous and influential is Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, who since 1987 has disputed that the scientific evidence shows that HIV causes AIDS.[21]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#The_AIDS_denialist_community
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
A profound story, I hope Stuffed Banana decides to read it carefully. Still, he could do what I say and prove to the world that what he says is true and that they are liars.
It is alleged leading AIDS denialist Deusberg was going to "prove to the world" his theory:

"When is Prof. Duesberg going to take an injection of HIV positive blood which he promised to do to demonstrate his view that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. AFAIK, all we have heard from him is excuses."

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/01/deusberg_strikes_a_blow_for_hi.php


What is amazing is that though the two men (who were both healthy) had the exact same strain of the virus, one died in 10 months and the other has lived for years and continues to live. I guess you can never know what your immune system is really like when something enters your blood stream.
Apparently some people (around 1% of Northern European origin, if i recall) are immune to HIV. Other people, who are weakened due to health issues
and/or old age, etc, can even die of something as tame as a cold.
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
The problem is you never hear about the normal people dieing.
How do you define "normal"? We all die & are dying, since none of us are immortal, except the fantasy vampires & such from fictions.
Perhaps the closest to that in regards to HIV are the small percentage of folks considered to be immune to the disease.

People like Magic Johnson live for decades after becoming HIV positive. Why? Naturally healthier humans with stronger immune systems
have a better chance of living longer, with or without HIV, than others and should normally (apart from traffic fatalities, & other
causes of death and serious injuries, etc) be able to do so.


We typically only hear about person A or B suffering, and yes, taking medications that I believe do more harm than any good. There are cases of two seropositive parents giving birth to seronegative offspring. There are cases two seropositive parents to give birth to seropositive children only for the children to become seronegative 6-8mos after birth.
I'm not sure what your point is. How do the cases mentioned help support your views or those of AIDS denialists?
The first cases do not seem to be unusual, but rather something that is highly probable:

"Today, in the HAART (Highly active antiretroviral treatment) era, HIV positive people are living longer, healthier lives and the risk of a child contracting HIV has been reduced to below 1%, leading many to consider having children."

http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/42794.html

http://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/faqs/HIV-positive-parents-having-HIV-negative-child.asp

http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101122053827AATILVT

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071009113422AAsoMa0

With the alleged second cases, which i have never heard of, what are your sources?
 

bcneil

I am from BC
Aug 24, 2007
2,095
0
36
I don't know what side of the fence you're on there lenny. You're pro-bbfs and anti-condoms, but believe wholeheartedly in the HIV "hypothesis". Earlier you're discussing your 1/46000 chance of contracting the virus from a Thai hooker as if it's nothing to worry about, and here you're saying how dangerous it is? Which is it?
Lenny plays both sides of the fence.

A few weeks back a similar thread about condom usage was here.
An Sp told a story of how an SP friend of hers in England contracted HIV from a client.
This client apparently came over for weeks, never wanted full service, some weeks later he did have fs with her.

However he was evil and had HIV, he brought his own condoms which he tampered with, by punching a hole in the tip with a pin.

He was apparently able to infect at least 3 woman with HIV, using this tactic. In a very short period of time.

Lenny thought this to be reasonable.
 
Last edited:

jesuschrist

New member
Aug 26, 2007
1,036
1
0
Well I'm pro BBFS anti HIV. I'm also socially liberal fiscally conservative.

But hey, aren't we all.
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
Lenny plays both sides of the fence.

A few weeks back a similar thread about condom usage was here.
An Sp told a story of how an SP friend of hers in England contracted HIV from a client.
This client apparently came over for weeks, never wanted full service, some weeks later he did have fs with her.

However he was evil and had HIV, he brought his own condoms which he tampered with, by punching a hole in the tip with a pin.

He was apparently able to infect at least 3 woman with HIV, using this tactic. In a very short period of time.

Lenny thought this to be reasonable.

To avoid any misunderstanding of what you are implying above, my view is that the guy was clearly not being reasonable
but evil and should be punished to the full extent of the law.

As for the possibility of such a person to infect 3 women, i don`t see anywhere where i said it was "reasonable" he could
accomplish this in "a very short period of time". What i did say, from post 23 in the thread, is the following:


"The guy in the OP`s story had AIDS, so maybe had been infected for decades? Over that time period i could see the possibility for infecting 3 people by the method he used, though i won`t guess at a probablity or percentage, and of course it would depend also on things like how active he was in sex encounters, in terms of the number of hookups, lengths of intercourse, viral load, etc

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...ondoms&p=1226439&highlight=condom#post1226439


See also posts 1, 6, 9, 15, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, & 33.
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
I don`t know what side of the fence you`re on there lenny. You`re pro-bbfs and anti-condoms, but believe wholeheartedly in the HIV "hypothesis".
I`m on the side of education, knowledge, truth seeking, open discussion and civil debate.

I`m for BBFS for myself when i consider it an acceptable risk. I`m pro condom & against BBFS for myself when i consider it too great of a risk, such as with SWs in the DTES.

Earlier you`re discussing your 1/46000 chance of contracting the virus from a Thai hooker as if it`s nothing to worry about, and here you`re saying how dangerous it is? Which is it?
Where did i say "here...how dangerous it is"? As for the 1/46,000, where did i speak of it "as if it`s nothing to worry about"?
Which is it, you ask? I`d say that depends & the phrases are too simplistic for an either or answer. Neither was it stated
that 1/46,000 is what i consider my personal assessment of my own risk there. Ref post 45 @

https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?146701-Bareback-no-condom**-sex-article

Nowhere have I once stated I`m pro-bareback, but I am not living in denial that it happens amongst many people here in front of our very eyes and not just "east hastings crackwhores". I resent the fact I am being labeled as such, as if I have any desire to fuck a street girl bare. Those "east hastings crackwhores" have a whole world of problems, HIV not being the most threatening. A life-long of substance abuse will cause a person`s immune system to fail at some point, with or without a virus.
I haven`t noticed anyone here saying you are "pro-bareback". I`d agree BBFS certainly happens with other SP`s besides SWs in Canada.
As for the rest of your claims here, i don`t have any comment or opinion.
 

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
Lenny - if it`s 1/46000 in Thailand, what would you say it is in Vancouver? 1 in a million maybe?
I don`t know about Vancouver, but based on bcneil`s stats the odds are far better with a random Canadian woman than a Thai SP.
Though a random Thai SP is much more likely to be available for BB sex & doable without being heavily intoxicated.



If you look at Canadian health stats approx 65000 Canadians are living with hiv. Gay/bisexual men make up a large chunk of this. Over 40% of new hiv cases over the last decade are gay/bisexual men. Leaving roughly 1 in 750 women having hiv.

So again with basic stats. Having bbfs with some random Canadian woman.......3,000,000-1 chance of getting hiv.
Then we get posters saying things like.......Sps are probably safer than random women.....cause they get tested more often, and other reasons.

So safer than 3mil to 1........yet deadly.?


https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?146701-Bareback-no-condom**-sex-article/page4

post # 57
 
Last edited:

lenny

girls just wanna have fu
May 20, 2004
4,101
76
48
your GF's panties
Here is an example of sex workers who are very low risk re HIV:

"Scientists at the University of Manitoba have identified more than 15 proteins found to be "differently expressed" in female Kenyan sex workers who are immune to HIV. The researchers, with colleagues at the National Microbiology Laboratory and the University of Nairobi, are focusing on those proteins that have anti-viral properties and are more abundant among the sex workers. "We think that if you can trigger 'good immune responses' (with one or more proteins), that might be what is protecting these women," co-author Dr. Blake Ball told the Winnipeg Free Press. The study results were published in the Journal of Proteome Research."

http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41048.html
 

jesuschrist

New member
Aug 26, 2007
1,036
1
0
1/3,000,000 - be that as it may, I'd like to know where people get the notion of "risky" from numbers like that. Again, I'm not condoning bareback, I'm just saying those odds are well pretty much negligible.
Those are calculated and aggregated odds probably based on all kinds of scenarios of penetrative sex and multiple variables at play (ie: length of penetration, force, amount of infected fluid, length of exposure outside the cavity, contact of infected fluid with neutralizing agents, contagiousness, etc) that may not result in breaking of tissue or absorption through the mucous membrane. The mechanics of transmission, however, are a known certainty. When cases are presented where there is a high likelihood of infected semen entering the blood system, like the case of the gay man earlier who had penetrative anal sex for the first time, he was infected immediately. There are also other cases of infected blood being introduced intraveneously, and the transmission was almost 100%.

So I would look at those odds realistically, and not as a recipe for all bbfs activity.
 

bcneil

I am from BC
Aug 24, 2007
2,095
0
36

bcneil

I am from BC
Aug 24, 2007
2,095
0
36
Those are calculated and aggregated odds probably based on all kinds of scenarios of penetrative sex and multiple variables at play (ie: length of penetration, force, amount of infected fluid, length of exposure outside the cavity, contact of infected fluid with neutralizing agents, contagiousness, etc) that may not result in breaking of tissue or absorption through the mucous membrane. The mechanics of transmission, however, are a known certainty. When cases are presented where there is a high likelihood of infected semen entering the blood system, like the case of the gay man earlier who had penetrative anal sex for the first time, he was infected immediately. There are also other cases of infected blood being introduced intraveneously, and the transmission was almost 100%.

So I would look at those odds realistically, and not as a recipe for all bbfs activity.
One thing for sure that we cant account for is how the numbers I have used in my calculations came from.

When there is a new case of HIV and they investigate how the person got it....how do they do it?
Do they say, "Sir, have you shared needles, let another man do you? Cheat on your wife with a prostitute?"

What if he did all 3? Do they chalk him up to drug use, which would be the most likely cause.......or maybe chalk it up to him being bisexual.

What if its some 20 year old son of evangelicals in a red state. Is he going to admit he is gay, or just say he banged some chick at the bar.
He certainly won't want his doctor or parents to know it was cause he tried heroin while he was at college.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts