19 minutes ago, Happy enough said:

BS. it's 84.6

I think you just made that up 

Just now, lamyai3 said:

I think you just made that up 

ahh. you got me 55555

2 hours ago, Happy enough said:

urgghh. do people actually go down on bar girls!? that's nasty 5555

That's almost similar to kissing the little general on his butt. 

6 minutes ago, jackdd said:

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimates/riskbehaviors.html

Insertive Penile-Vaginal Intercourse 4 in 10000

With how many guys did she have unprotected sex? Statistically probably not even one would have catched HIV from her

Yeah, good for you guys, bravo! 

But what about the girl after you put your seamen in her?

I guess you are that egoistic to run the numbers on your favor but do not give crap about the gal. Just disgusting. 

 

 The super gonorrhea is a God's gift to the low life people...

People are so ignorant still about hiv. Here is a fact. There is now proof that a hiv infrected female taking art provided free by thailand to any hiv infected person and who is undetectable . Cant pass hiv to anyone.

Also after taking art for a few months nearly all are undetectable.

The meds taken by infected persons will eventually kill the disease off.

Thailand is really in the front line on the fight on hiv.

I would rather have hiv than dieabetes,hepatitis c, lupus,ms,or any other auto immune disease.

Its no longer a killer if treated and compared to diabetes its much more controllable .

Get out youre google guys.

3 minutes ago, Hupaponics said:

Yeah, good for you guys, bravo! 

But what about the girl after you put your seamen in her?

I guess you are that egoistic to run the numbers on your favor but do not give crap about the gal. Just disgusting. 

 

 The super gonorrhea is a God's gift to the low life people...

A personal attack on one member and insulting our seamen who risk their lives for us?

19 minutes ago, jackdd said:

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/estimates/riskbehaviors.html

Insertive Penile-Vaginal Intercourse 4 in 10000

With how many guys did she have unprotected sex? Statistically probably not even one would have catched HIV from her

4 in 10,000 who are not taking meds and have a viral load in the millions.

Undetectable is below 40 and most on meds are undetectable.

 

Yeah, good for you guys, bravo! 
But what about the girl after you put your seamen in her?
I guess you are that egoistic to run the numbers on your favor but do not give crap about the gal. Just disgusting. 
 
 The super gonorrhea is a God's gift to the low life people...

You always get these guys on thaivisa who pretend to be whiter than white. Don't pay their wife or girlfriend, never had a massage with extras, no way a gogo. I believe you

25 minutes ago, quadperfect said:

4 in 10,000 who are not taking meds and have a viral load in the millions.

Undetectable is below 40 and most on meds are undetectable.

 

Stats are a bit silly, but we can say it is low risk for heterosexual sex.  The thing with stats is they may be well intentioned but people don't understand the way they work- leading to all sorts of false assumptions, and worse still people embellish figures with their own scenarios.

 

Broad sword stats also don't take in to account the many variables that could be at play.

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by mommysboy

23 minutes ago, quadperfect said:

People are so ignorant still about hiv. Here is a fact. There is now proof that a hiv infrected female taking art provided free by thailand to any hiv infected person and who is undetectable . Cant pass hiv to anyone.

Also after taking art for a few months nearly all are undetectable.

The meds taken by infected persons will eventually kill the disease off.

Thailand is really in the front line on the fight on hiv.

I would rather have hiv than dieabetes,hepatitis c, lupus,ms,or any other auto immune disease.

Its no longer a killer if treated and compared to diabetes its much more controllable .

Get out youre google guys.

there is absolutely no proof right now that the meds will kill the disease off. none. 

 

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by Happy enough

7 minutes ago, quadperfect said:

People are so ignorant still about hiv. Here is a fact. There is now proof that a hiv infrected female taking art provided free by thailand to any hiv infected person and who is undetectable . Cant pass hiv to anyone.

Also after taking art for a few months nearly all are undetectable.

The meds taken by infected persons will eventually kill the disease off.

Thailand is really in the front line on the fight on hiv.

I would rather have hiv than dieabetes,hepatitis c, lupus,ms,or any other auto immune disease.

Its no longer a killer if treated and compared to diabetes its much more controllable .

Get out youre google guys.

Someone in the early stages of infection (first few weeks or months) may well be unaware they're infected at all, and see no reason for even being tested.

 

What is extremely alarming.(and for some reason rarely mentioned in more general risk profiling) is that someone in this initial stage, known as Acute HIV infection has a very high viral load in their body fluids. After a few months, antibodies are produced and the viral load stabilises at a much lower level. Researchers have estimated that the risk of HIV transmission from a single act of unprotected sex is 26 times higher during the first three months after infection than during the years and months that follow. 

The article doesn't mention whether she had sex without condoms.

If with condom, then the men are very (99.99%) likely ok - though some of them may have already been infected prior.

 

I just had an email exchange with a man who says he boom-boomed hundreds of sex-for-hire gals and never used condoms.  He also says he's a doctor and he thinks HIV is a hoax.   I spoke with another guy who swears that condoms don't protect against STD's.  I think both men are full of shit, and are simply against using condoms because of the added pleasure from not using them.  

 

The women who had unprotected sex with those type of men are risking getting STD's from them, plus risking unwanted pregnancies.  The men's unabashed selfishness is creating grave problems.

 

People are a very crafty species, and can justify anything (at least to themselves), if they so choose.  Religionists do it all the time.  A virgin giving birth, for example.

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

The article doesn't mention whether she had sex without condoms.

If with condom, then the men are very (99.99%) likely ok - though some of them may have already been infected prior.

 

I just had an email exchange with a man who says he boom-boomed hundreds of sex-for-hire gals and never used condoms.  He also says he's a doctor and he thinks HIV is a hoax.   I spoke with another guy who swears that condoms don't protect against STD's.  I think both men are full of shit, and are simply against using condoms because of the added pleasure from not using them.  

 

The women who had unprotected sex with those type of men are risking getting STD's from them, plus risking unwanted pregnancies.  The men's unabashed selfishness is creating grave problems.

 

People are a very crafty species, and can justify anything (at least to themselves), if they so choose.  Religionists do it all the time.  A virgin giving birth, for example.

the virgin giving birth is a true story. i read all about it

4 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Someone in the early stages of infection (first few weeks or months) may well be unaware they're infected at all, and see no reason for even being tested.

 

What is extremely alarming.(and for some reason rarely mentioned in more general risk profiling) is that someone in this initial stage, known as Acute HIV infection has a very high viral load in their body fluids. After a few months, antibodies are produced and the viral load stabilises at a much lower level. Researchers have estimated that the risk of HIV transmission from a single act of unprotected sex is 26 times higher during the first three months after infection than during the years and months that follow. 

Yes.  It does need to be pointed out that there are people who can be highly infective.  I hesitate to use the term but I believe they are called 'super spreaders'- honestly

 

Typhoid Mary was one such unfortunate person.

 

If you happen to come across such like, you may be at higher risk.

even then the odds are low to catch HIV from an infected women ..depends on her viral load .i am walking proof as i wasn't infected by an HIV carrier who subsequently died 6 months later

If you're circumcised there is a lower risk, although guys not circumcised say that's not true

47 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

What about those disgusting foreign men who 'force' women into 'protected' sex? Are they any better? I think once you're forcing anyone into any kind of sex you're by default disgusting and some.

 

I once met a 'local' bird who said I didn't need to use a condom because 'she' was clean. I asked her, "but what if I'm not?". I think I blew her mind. She witnessed safe sex 'and' empathy all in one hit. 

An elder farang friend of mine told me that when he was going to houses of ill repute in Thailand in the 70's and 80's (when few Thais knew about HIV, and not all of them knew about STD's) the following happened several times:

My friend would take out a condom and begin to place it on his member.  The girl would say, "what's that?"

He would explain, it was to protect against diseases.

She would say, "Oh, Thai men don't do that, so they must not be diseased.  Only farang men."

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Yes.  It does need to be pointed out that there are people who can be highly infective.  I hesitate to use the term but I believe they are called 'super spreaders'- honestly

Figures quoted about risk of transmission pretty much refer to the second (dormant) phase of HIV, when antibodies have been produced against the virus. This stage of infection can last maybe ten years assuming no treatment.

 

There are two time periods of extremely high viral load in the body - first is the seroconversion phase (for around three months after becoming infected), and then much later, in the terminal stages of the disease. Transmitting the virus during the terminal stages might be considered to be a wilful act, but someone in this phase would likely be sick in other ways anyway. The initial acute phase though constitutes an extremely elevated risk, often due to the person appearing and feeling healthy and completely asymptomatic. 

5 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

If you're circumcised there is a lower risk, although guys not circumcised say that's not true

explain the logic in that then

**it might take a while as there is none

Edited April 4, 20188 yr by Happy enough
**

8 minutes ago, Happy enough said:

explain the logic in that then

**it might take a while as there is none

http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/penile-circumcision-reduce-risk-hiv-infection

 

God man, get educated....

2 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/penile-circumcision-reduce-risk-hiv-infection

 

God man, get educated....

i got to the topping bit and felt a bit sick. i'm educated enough thanks and won't be cutting off my foreskin anytime soon. why screw with evolution eh. have a nice evening

9 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

If you're circumcised there is a lower risk, although guys not circumcised say that's not true

Yes, the risk is reduced around 50-60%. Skin cells beneath the foreskin are much more vulnerable to HIV infection, after getting the cut the skin in this area becomes much thicker and more protective. The uncircumcised who protest this is not true are talking out of their (pink) hats. 

45 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Typhoid Mary was one such unfortunate person.

 

If you happen to come across such like, you may be at higher risk.

And if you see Syphilitic Phyllis coming your way, cross the street pronto... 

36 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

If you're circumcised there is a lower risk, although guys not circumcised say that's not true

Maybe, but cause and effect/ correlation/ association are tricky areas and many a pet theory has come unstuck before now.  At times in the past circumcision was also vaunted as beneficial in preventing cancer in women but it turned out to be a false association.

 

I don't think we can say one way or another imo.

Slighty better.

1 hour ago, quadperfect said:

Cant pass hiv to anyone.

I guess it's airborne than...

46 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Figures quoted about risk of transmission pretty much refer to the second (dormant) phase of HIV, when antibodies have been produced against the virus. This stage of infection can last maybe ten years assuming no treatment.

 

There are two time periods of extremely high viral load in the body - first is the seroconversion phase (for around three months after becoming infected), and then much later, in the terminal stages of the disease. Transmitting the virus during the terminal stages might be considered to be a wilful act, but someone in this phase would likely be sick in other ways anyway. The initial acute phase though constitutes an extremely elevated risk, often due to the person appearing and feeling healthy and completely asymptomatic. 

Isn't it a bit theoretical?  Is there evidence?

 

Sounds plausible though.

1 hour ago, jenny2017 said:

A personal attack on one member and insulting our seamen who risk their lives for us?

One member?

 

"Go fund me member"? 555 Good for you

Cheers

I don't think we can say one way or another imo.

We can, read up on it.

You're not circumcised most likely