A quick google search revealed that there are indeed small warnings on lambskin condoms. Latex condoms are still the most effective, according to the FDA.

Perhaps I was a little strong in my condemnation regarding the public health fear tactic surrounding the dangers of contracting HIV, however once you start adding up the now prevalent information regarding the small chance of a penetrating male, who is circumcised and without lesions in the contact area that washes up afterwards and doesn't receive bodily fluids ever contracting HIV in unprotected sex, and add lambskin condom, just reduces the risk even further.

The only truly safe sex is no sex. Latex condom next up the risk chain, then to lambskin condom, then no condom, etc.

Knowledge is power. Being aware of the risks and the degree of risk is what is important, then you make your own decision.

Asking a potential sex partner if they are HIV positive and when they were last tested is just another safety check. Sure they can lie, but most don't and there are laws in many places that make it a crime to knowingly misrepresent you HIV status. So ask or don't ask, seems to me, its a good idea as an additional safeguard in my view.

As one website commented, a true test of safe sex devices is not possible as no one is willing to make human tests on the subject. I couldn't find the protocol of them hanging the lambskins up for 24 hours to obtain the osmotic ooze, but I didn't make it up. My guess is that the time it takes the HIV virus to penetrate a lambskin condom far exceeds the normal length of coitus in most males, especially if they wash up immediately afterward.

just want to clarify .. not candesa ... the name is candida

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candida_(genus)

lambskin condom has been suspect for years. its latex loy percent!

as for the girls/boys how do they deal... they deal by:

not getting tested

not thinking about it

drinking/drugs

knowing they will come back a better person "for helping the family"

thailands hygene (sp) person wise is fairly good. that said i have turned away more than one dirty girl lately and esp in last few yrs. in fact - i turned out a bargirl just the other night. i was tested a few days ago - clean (but hiv wont present for 90days). of course, i ALWAYS wear a condom.

for me - things are so dirty here im honestly done with this scene. its as bad as cambodia, swear.

many of the guys coming to pattaya are also very unclean. they go to cambodia, they screw the sluts on the beach and yes... many still do not wear condoms if they can get away w/ it.

bj sans condom - also courting disaster.

the bars never ever test and the recent english owners of bars gere in pattaya would never do this. english guys have some of the most crazy sexual behaviour - i cant beleive the come from am educated country... screwing blind drunk, ladyboys, anal sex... youd think hiv never happened let alone hep c, genital herpes....

GOOD LUCK DUDE - DONT WORRY. you cant change anything....your fears will mellow but youve learned a good lesson.

plenty of guys not caught the bug and done far worse. in the end it boils down to:

did she even have it

after the condom slipped how long were you in contact

on a lighter note... last year i was pulling out of my favorite floozy and the condom slipped off. she has got lots of guys on a string, i was worried. but no hiv.

To answer the original question posted here, albeit a late answer, Bumrungrad can do a PCR test. I had one 2 weeks after a very risky act (negative, thankfully.) The doctor there explained to me the science of the test and that it is at least 95% accurate. It cost about 3000 baht plus the doctor fees. I had to wait 5 days (not a pleasant wait) for the result as it takes time to process the test and is done at an outside lab (I think.)

Some figures from the net:

From Wikipedia, a man has a 1/2000 chance of contracting HIV during one sexual encounter of vaginal intercourse (without condom) with an HIV+ woman.

For comparison with other STDs, Answers.com gives a much higher 30-50% chance of contracting eg syphilis from an infected person in the early stages of the disease during unprotected sex.

So chance of infection seems low (but nevertheless there).

One thing that worries me about that statistic is how could odds that low produce the apparent epidemic figures of the last 20 years?

Some figures from the net:

From Wikipedia, a man has a 1/2000 chance of contracting HIV during one sexual encounter of vaginal intercourse (without condom) with an HIV+ woman.

For comparison with other STDs, Answers.com gives a much higher 30-50% chance of contracting eg syphilis from an infected person in the early stages of the disease during unprotected sex.

So chance of infection seems low (but nevertheless there).

One thing that worries me about that statistic is how could odds that low produce the apparent epidemic figures of the last 20 years?

For one thing, there is no fixed rate of risk true for everyone. Many factors affect the risk, including:

1 - the viral load of the infected partner

2- whether either partner has any cuts, abrasions, other STD (makes for much easier transmission)

For another, the countries in which there is a high prevalnce of men infected through heterosexual sex are countries where men tend to have contact with prostitutes or have other multiple partners (who in turn themselves have multiple partners) on a very frequent basis.

The risk per contact (which as mentioned may be greater than 1/2000 in some cases) times the number of contacts = the person's risk, do the math and you'll see that a man who, for example, has unprotected sex with a prostitute about once a week for years racks up quite a risk indeed...

Not that any of this should make anyone less concerned about a single exposure. It's like plane crashes. The fact that the odds are against the plane you are on crashing is little comfort if you happen to be on one that does.

1 in a hundred, 1 in a thousand, 1 in ten thousand...there's still no guarantee that unlucky one won't be you.

I believe that once you recognise that AIDS is a myth, you will start to question many of the other scares over the years, like Bird Flu, Ozone Layer, Swine Fever, Global Warming, vaccinations, ADHD, Cholesterol and many more. The reality of how the system works, is that unless people are sufficiently motivated, they have no intention of ingesting the drug companies toxic poisons, like AZT. So, to encourage us and have us clamouring for the treatments (and assure their immense profits), we are, almost literally, being scared to death.

<sarcasm>Yeah, you just can't trust all that science stuff...</sarcasm>

The post Cathyy quotes has been delated as it presented as scientifc proven fact a large number of things which are not facts, to say the least, and the false information so presented could potentially harm people.

For anyone who may have read it before its deletion:

- there is no doubt in the scientific community about the existence of AIDs or its relationship to HIV

- there is no doubt that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact and blood

- it is true that the rapid HIV test can give false positives, bfor which reason positive resultrs are always re-checked using a more expensive and time-consuming but more relaible method. And, anyone who has tested positive should have a viral load done as part of their work up, the viral load is precise.

- the drugs used to supprss HIV do have side effects but none as bad as the effects of untreated HIV. They have saved and are saving millions of lives.

The post Cathyy quotes has been delated as it presented as scientifc proven fact a large number of things which are not facts, to say the least, and the false information so presented could potentially harm people.

For anyone who may have read it before its deletion:

- there is no doubt in the scientific community about the existence of AIDs or its relationship to HIV

- there is no doubt that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact and blood

- it is true that the rapid HIV test can give false positives, bfor which reason positive resultrs are always re-checked using a more expensive and time-consuming but more relaible method. And, anyone who has tested positive should have a viral load done as part of their work up, the viral load is precise.

- the drugs used to supprss HIV do have side effects but none as bad as the effects of untreated HIV. They have saved and are saving millions of lives.

Hello Sheryl

Thank you for your conscientious diligence I certainly have no wish to place anyone at risk and I used to share your views. You may not be aware there is a large body of dissenting opinion that does not reach the mainstream media. As indicated in the web sites I provided.

According to http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/

'a number of highly reputable scientists who all agree that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, including Dr. Peter Duesberg, who was the first scientist to map the genetic structure of retroviruses. He is joined by Nobel Prize winners Dr. Kary Mullis and Dr.Walter Gilbert, along with Dr. David Rasnick, an expert in the field of protease inhibitors.'

It would be a shame if Dr Duesberg's views were able to be published in many medical journals, including the Lancet yet not on thaivisa.com

From http://www.duesberg.com/

On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Another site http://www.helpforhiv.com/ claims that 2300 eminent persons disagree that HIV causes AIDS.

The sites themselves urge readers to 'JUDGE FOR YOURSELF'. That's the whole point. People should be informed of both sides of the issue in order to give their informed consent to possibly lethal treatments.

While I could have added a disclaimer to the effect that no-one should act on my comments without carrying out the research themselves, my intention was to raise awareness. I hope you will agree that this is the action of someone with conscience, since it would be unconscionable to be aware of knowledge that could save lives and not share it. Even though there are those that may passionately disagree. Is this not so? In fact I am sure we are both intending the same thing, just coming at it from a different viewpoint.

My concern is you have posters who come to Thailand who are clearly fearful of catching AIDS and they should be allowed to make informed decisions about whether to accept aggressive drug treatments, such as AZT, whose side effects are severe and often fatal, should they ever test positive.

It is true and you may have observed that I do not agree with the whole paradigm of modern medicine which is symptom and not cure-based and I have a great deal of personal and family experience that drug 'therapy' far from curing is extremely harmful. I have come to believe that prevention and natural methods to support the body's own healing power should be considered for every moden 'incurable' disease. If only as an adjunct to existing therapy. This will clearly place me at odds with conventional orthodoxy and, it seems, with thaivisa.com. I shall endeavour to find a form of words that is acceptable since I would like to contribute.

As to facts, I'm not sure which facts you are questioning. It is a FACT that the pharmaceutical companies were accused of Genocide before the International Criminal Court in the Hague in 2003. The complaint came, not from me but from conventional science-based Doctors.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-fil...e_complaint.pdf

It may not be fact that working girls in Thailand are able to skip the actual tests and only pay for the cheaper certificate from unscrupulous doctors. I was just informed by one that this was the case. Hence it may pay to accompany a lady for a test, should you believe you are at risk.

Respectfully

MrPlum

I am thoroughly aware of Peter Duesberg's work, as are all professionals in the field, and equally aware of the extensive research which has disproven his various claims (ditto).

BTW, his main support base is social conservatives who like the idea that drug use and promiscuity are by themselves the cause of AIDs...fits their idea of divine retribution. Unsound science, tho.

To save time, since I have had to write all this out before, I will now pin a notice on the subject so in future I can just reference it.

Now since you want to know which facts I am questioning, here they are, your statements being highlighted in bold

Doctor Robert Gallo...has since been accused of professional misconduct, his test has been exposed as fraudulent, The “professional misconduct” Gallo was accused of (not in legal proceedings, just verbally) was stealing the credit for the discovery of HIV from Montagnier (see below). His test was not “ëxposed as fraudulent”. This is a distortion; what happened was that a subsequent analysis was done to see if the sample of the virus he discovered might have been swiped from Montagnier’s lab. The validity of the test in terms of accurate isolation of the virus was not in doubt, it was a question of whether or not in achieving this he had piggy-backed onto someone else’s work. As for "two of his laboratory executives have been convicted of criminal offences.” he does not own a laboratory, he works at the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. And – despite arguably bad form in trying to grab all the credit for the HIV discovery – he remains an eminent researcher who has gone on to make many further important discoveries and is very well regarded scientifically. This statement makes it sound like he’s been scientifically discredited. Anything but.

vitamin C is able to reduce the replication of the HIV-Virus by more than 99% and that this fact is well known to the industry.

Absolutely untrue. There have been numerous studies on the effect of Vit C on HIV as well as its interactions with HIV meds. And I wish I had a nickel for every AIDs patient I saw die who took megadoses of vit C to the bitter end (this being back in the 90’s before the triple cocktail was invented...they don’t die like that anymore thanks to it).

Where this myth comes from is that Vit C does inhibit the virus in test tubes. It does not have the same effect in the human body. It is however generally recommended that people with AIDs take it along with other nutritional supplements since it has an overall favorable effect on the immune system. Will not kill off the virus, tho, and is certainly no substitute for ARV.

Luc Montagnier, Gallo's partner in the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, admitted in 1989: "HIV is not capable of causing the destruction of the immune system which is seen in people with AIDS"?

Far from being Gallo’s partner, Dr. Montagnier and Gallo were competitors in research and had a long legal tussle over which one of them first isolated HIV. (Montagnier did, but Gallo -- who was clopse behing him in the race to find the virus and had done a lot of the initial work which paved the way -- tried to take the credit...long story). Dr. Montagnier most definitely has never said or implied that HIV is not the cause of AIDs; in fact to this day he is actively engaged in research to develop a vaccine against HIV. I don’t know the source of the quote you attribute to him but I do know that he has never stated anything if the sort so it is either made up or taken out of context. If you would like to read a full transcript of an interview with him (conducted by one of the “HIV is a conspiracy”groups), see this link http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm

“the major pharmaceutical companies were accused of Genocide at the ICC in the Hague in 2003”

Anyone who wants to can write a complaint and send it to the ICC. That is not the same as being accused by or standing trial in the ICC. A man named Matthias Rath, who believes that vitamins cure all diseases, filed a somewhat incoherent complaint with the ICC containing a mixture of complaints against the “pharmaceutical industry”(in general) for all of the drugs it produces and against the war in Iraq (connection to the pharmaceutical company unclear). He sent this in 2003. The ICC, which gets more than its share of crackpot communications, did not accept the case. The statement is thus incorrect.

OP. In all honesty the risk of a male contracting HIV through one heterosexual single sex act with a person of unknown status is very small, even in Thailand we are talking a lot of 000s in your favour. You shouldn't really be getting het up about it although I realise that this is a subject area full of paranoia. IMHO condom use is mandatory for casual sex though, because of the dangers presented by other nasties.

As other posters have pointed out there is some controversy surrounding the hiv paradigm full stop. Now, there really should not be that is the only mystery, as retro virus are a well researched area. The trouble is one can not speak too much about it as postings may get deleted, which is rather sad really (actually TV is a more tolerant place than most). But the dissenters do include a growing number of credible scientists, doctors and health professionals and the number stands at around 2500 and is ever gowing. Basically the arguments concern an alleged lack of specificity, and quality of evidence, as well as exagerration regarding statistics. Certainly it would appear that the virus has not been isolated in a conventional sense, and a primary critic of PCR detection is none other than the person who invented the machine in the first place. As regards figures, again the vindication has recently come with a massive resizing of the figures, down a staggering 30% by WHO own estimates. If one cares to research the area one is immediately struck by some staggering inconsistencies.

I am thoroughly aware of Peter Duesberg's work, as are all professionals in the field, and equally aware of the extensive research which has disproven his various claims (ditto).

BTW, his main support base is social conservatives who like the idea that drug use and promiscuity are by themselves the cause of AIDs...fits their idea of divine retribution. Unsound science, tho.

To save time, since I have had to write all this out before, I will now pin a notice on the subject so in future I can just reference it.

Now since you want to know which facts I am questioning, here they are, your statements being highlighted in bold

Doctor Robert Gallo...has since been accused of professional misconduct, his test has been exposed as fraudulent, The "professional misconduct" Gallo was accused of (not in legal proceedings, just verbally) was stealing the credit for the discovery of HIV from Montagnier (see below). His test was not "ëxposed as fraudulent". This is a distortion; what happened was that a subsequent analysis was done to see if the sample of the virus he discovered might have been swiped from Montagnier's lab. The validity of the test in terms of accurate isolation of the virus was not in doubt, it was a question of whether or not in achieving this he had piggy-backed onto someone else's work. As for "two of his laboratory executives have been convicted of criminal offences." he does not own a laboratory, he works at the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. And – despite arguably bad form in trying to grab all the credit for the HIV discovery – he remains an eminent researcher who has gone on to make many further important discoveries and is very well regarded scientifically. This statement makes it sound like he's been scientifically discredited. Anything but.

vitamin C is able to reduce the replication of the HIV-Virus by more than 99% and that this fact is well known to the industry.

Absolutely untrue. There have been numerous studies on the effect of Vit C on HIV as well as its interactions with HIV meds. And I wish I had a nickel for every AIDs patient I saw die who took megadoses of vit C to the bitter end (this being back in the 90's before the triple cocktail was invented...they don't die like that anymore thanks to it).

Where this myth comes from is that Vit C does inhibit the virus in test tubes. It does not have the same effect in the human body. It is however generally recommended that people with AIDs take it along with other nutritional supplements since it has an overall favorable effect on the immune system. Will not kill off the virus, tho, and is certainly no substitute for ARV.

Luc Montagnier, Gallo's partner in the HIV-causes-AIDS theory, admitted in 1989: "HIV is not capable of causing the destruction of the immune system which is seen in people with AIDS"?

Far from being Gallo's partner, Dr. Montagnier and Gallo were competitors in research and had a long legal tussle over which one of them first isolated HIV. (Montagnier did, but Gallo -- who was clopse behing him in the race to find the virus and had done a lot of the initial work which paved the way -- tried to take the credit...long story). Dr. Montagnier most definitely has never said or implied that HIV is not the cause of AIDs; in fact to this day he is actively engaged in research to develop a vaccine against HIV. I don't know the source of the quote you attribute to him but I do know that he has never stated anything if the sort so it is either made up or taken out of context. If you would like to read a full transcript of an interview with him (conducted by one of the "HIV is a conspiracy"groups), see this link http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm

"the major pharmaceutical companies were accused of Genocide at the ICC in the Hague in 2003"

Anyone who wants to can write a complaint and send it to the ICC. That is not the same as being accused by or standing trial in the ICC. A man named Matthias Rath, who believes that vitamins cure all diseases, filed a somewhat incoherent complaint with the ICC containing a mixture of complaints against the "pharmaceutical industry"(in general) for all of the drugs it produces and against the war in Iraq (connection to the pharmaceutical company unclear). He sent this in 2003. The ICC, which gets more than its share of crackpot communications, did not accept the case. The statement is thus incorrect.

Regarding Gallo vs Montagnier, I think you are missing the point Sheryl: the contention is that it is not an either/or regarding discovering a virus, so much as a NEITHER. At the very most didn't they just discover the antibodies thought to be associated with the alleged HIV? and then under rather dubious circumstances? None of us really knows, including your good self, but the fact that a number of nobel prize winners and eminent scientists have cried foul must raise eyebrows. Certainly things seem a little unconventional. By all means clear the matter up for us if you are able to. But please be fair in what you do and do not allow to appear on TV.

Regarding Gallo vs Montagnier, I think you are missing the point Sheryl: the contention is that it is not an either/or regarding discovering a virus, so much as a NEITHER. At the very most didn't they just discover the antibodies thought to be associated with the alleged HIV? and then under rather dubious circumstances? None of us really knows, including your good self, but the fact that a number of nobel prize winners and eminent scientists have cried foul must raise eyebrows. Certainly things seem a little unconventional. By all means clear the matter up for us if you are able to. But please be fair in what you do and do not allow to appear on TV.

Actually Moldy they isolated the virus, itself. If you go to the pinned notice on this subject there is a link that will direct you to a detailed interview with Montagnier where he goes into very specific details about the process etc. Also on the pinned notice is referenced one of several scientific articles reviewing the HIV-AIDs connection against Koch's postulates.

But agree that Gallo vs Montagnier is a bit off the point, it was mentioned only as a previous poster had asked which of his statements were untrue and he had made some regarding these individuals.

Free sharing of opinions and first hand experiences, and any sharing of actual facts, are fine . Where I draw the line is when factually incorrect statements are presented as proven fact, especially if the inaccuracy could potentially be harmful to the health and well-being of readers of this forum. And posts which are altogether incoherent will continue to be deleted.

To date the posts in this forum (both this thread and prior similiar ones) questioning either that HIV causes AIDs and/or that HIV is sexually transmitted, have been verbatim cut-and-pastes from websites sponsored by groups who for whatever reason feel an urge to promote that viewpoint. Unfortunately most of these sites do so by posting incorrect and distorted things and often outright fabrications, and not all readers take the time to verify the contents before themselves posting it as proven fact. If someone wants to post that there are groups making such-and-such a claim, that's a fact. If someone wants to say that there are groups making such claims and they personally believe them, again fine, that's opinion. But if someone posts excerpts from these sites verbatim stating them to be true, and they happen not to be, that's another matter. People look to this forum for reliable information and/or first hand experiences or an exchange of opinions. It would be a disservice to TV members and the public at large to allow the posting of factually incorrect statements as "proven fact".

I would urge you to fact check the things you see on those websites, sometimes all it takes is a click on one of their links to find out that they have completely distorted what someone said or a study actually showed.

I am always impressed by Sheryl's patience when items are posted that are just so wrong. I'm not going to rehash what she wrote because she did it so well, but what I will say is that all the people that dispute the link between HIV and the illnesses that it is associated with cannot counter the fact that people infected with HIV suffer impaired immune systems that eventually cease to operate. Sure, they can come up with alternative reasons for the collapse of the immune systems which might hold for some immune related illnesses, but they have failed to refute the association between HIV and immune system failure.

AIDS usually afflicts the age segment of the population which contributes the most to a national economy.There is no benefit to any nation to have HIV loose in the population, so the usual conspiracy theories don't hold.

I don't think it is conspiracy theories; the problem relates to the social gruops generally affected. In Oz the needle exchange progam is considered the catalist of keeping HIV in the IV population down to about 2.5%. The Exchange also gave out free condoms. I can't remeber the cost of keeping a person Who tested positive but was considerable.

In other countries HIV in the IV popuation is in double figures. I have always thouhgt it is best to descibe in money terms as this is the way most people seem to understand.

I just see it more related to fear and ignorance which is still alive and well today. Yes, it is still on the loose in some countries. The fact I see for this is the need to continue with education and the development of specific programs for different areas.

Sorry to get off the topic a little.

Both Chris Lawrence and geriatrickid. It's the statistics that get me more than anything. Like most people I suspect the science is wrong but obviously can't prove that. But when I look at the context of HIV in my life I have to cry foul and can state with personal experience that I think something in the theory is very wrong. I unwittingly had sex for a long time with an HIV pos girlfriend, met others in the same boat, and then loe and behold found stories abundant with the similar scenario. Some years later I read a famous paper (Padian et al) where not a single male sero converts during the active part of the study. I come to Thailand and find people up to all sorts and years on ( a decade ) perfectly healthy. I talk to nurses who red facedly and coyly admit that it's 'very difficult to get'. Then I finally get to here of someone who is HIV and in the next sentence am told that he takes drugs and has a gloriously camp lifestyle. So what exactly am I to think ? How many have a similar story to tell?

Please don't get me wrong incidentally I support all people with this wretched disease regardless.

Moldy. I met a guy HIV+ who fathered two children; wife and childern were not HIV+; et al womans weekly oz about 1992/93? No but seriously I did met him and talked to him about this. What came out of it was that when the virus is new in the body the viral load will be higher and gradually tapers down for a period of time. He spent 6mths in goal, didn't share needles or have sex in goal. He was unable to say the source of infection.

I do know of people that have had the disease transmitted by sexual contact (Hetro), blood transfusion, gay sex and IV use.

I think you are a very fortunate man, but I would not advocate reckless abandon. You just don't know. You might have an infection in your bladder pass blood, the partner may be still spotting, sounds like a loaded gun. I think the message is better to be cautious than to take risks that may be moderate to high.

My only point was that the main groups were risk is higher do not get the treatment they need because of stigma associated with the lifestyle. My parents gardner was in a car accident that saw child die and wife serious condition. She had a blood transfusion and returned HIV+. Without the blood transfusion she would have more than likly died. Every year she made beautiful christmas cakes. My parents would not eat so I got them. A very incridable cake indeed. When I spoke with this woman she had a very enthusiatic tone to her voice, never met her but always had a good conversation. She died quite a few years ago. Its sad but people would say how unlucky she was and deserved good treatment, but wouldn't eat the cake. I just thought what a lovely person.

Its like that cospiracy theroy posted as a topic. It just lessens the message. These types of things do need to have stats to show evidence. Your anacdotal experience has some credit but would need to be backed up with more stats. Anyone can publish an article and now the net is global, yes u can say what ever u want. But it won't be creditable until you have the stats

Anyway off topic again, but it was nice to remeber someone.

Moldy. I met a guy HIV+ who fathered two children; wife and childern were not HIV+; et al womans weekly oz about 1992/93? No but seriously I did met him and talked to him about this. What came out of it was that when the virus is new in the body the viral load will be higher and gradually tapers down for a period of time. He spent 6mths in goal, didn't share needles or have sex in goal. He was unable to say the source of infection.

I do know of people that have had the disease transmitted by sexual contact (Hetro), blood transfusion, gay sex and IV use.

I think you are a very fortunate man, but I would not advocate reckless abandon. You just don't know. You might have an infection in your bladder pass blood, the partner may be still spotting, sounds like a loaded gun. I think the message is better to be cautious than to take risks that may be moderate to high.

My only point was that the main groups were risk is higher do not get the treatment they need because of stigma associated with the lifestyle. My parents gardner was in a car accident that saw child die and wife serious condition. She had a blood transfusion and returned HIV+. Without the blood transfusion she would have more than likly died. Every year she made beautiful christmas cakes. My parents would not eat so I got them. A very incridable cake indeed. When I spoke with this woman she had a very enthusiatic tone to her voice, never met her but always had a good conversation. She died quite a few years ago. Its sad but people would say how unlucky she was and deserved good treatment, but wouldn't eat the cake. I just thought what a lovely person.

Its like that cospiracy theroy posted as a topic. It just lessens the message. These types of things do need to have stats to show evidence. Your anacdotal experience has some credit but would need to be backed up with more stats. Anyone can publish an article and now the net is global, yes u can say what ever u want. But it won't be creditable until you have the stats

Anyway off topic again, but it was nice to remeber someone.

No it's not off topic it's an interesting posting from real life.

The stats are there in the studies, one of which I mentioned. I don't like to leave links.

Regarding the guy with kids, my conclusion would be that he does not have HIV at all, or that to some extent we all have HIV, just like Tommy Morrison the boxer. You see another frequent criticism is the test is non specific. The dissident logic is that it is an antibody test for a virus that has never been isolated, it's also not a pure test far from it. So at some level we would all be positive. The mainstream argument is that the test is 99.9 pos, and a pos test hits you like a truck. There is a general agreement that the antibody test is a general predictor of future health problems no mistaking, but that does not necessarily mean HIV is the cause. The HIV in this instance then might just be a marker (rather like a smoker has yellow fingers).

My feeling is that there must be some contagious/infectious element but that the primary thing here is the breakdown of the immune system by a coalition of factors, toxins and other illnesses and virus' for instance. Since when has a syndrome ever had a single cause anyway ?

Yes, taking risks is a no, no for me now and condoms are freely available anyway. I would urge everyone to take care after all there are all sorts of other diseases and conditions.

Regarding the guy with kids, my conclusion would be that he does not have HIV at all

Your conclusion would be wrong....

Whilst I am not the person refered to by Chris Lawrence, I also have a wife, 2 children all of whom are hiv-, I on the other hand was diagnosed with full blown AIDS, meaning I had virtually no immune system left (CD4 count of 8), a viral load of 85,000 plus pcp pneumonia. Now, nearly 5 years later my Viral load is undetectable, thanks to ARV medication, additionally my CD4 count is hovering around the 250 level (Normal level should be 1000 - 1500), but is still slowly increasing.

Thankfully, my wife and family have been brilliant, giving 100% support and encouragement, which was definately needed for the first few months, which can only be described as hel_l.

There are quite a few people on Thai Visa, who are either hiv+ themselves or are giving complete support to loved ones who are hiv+, and to those who stood by their loved ones, you have my complete and total admiration.

Moldy, I invite you to volunteer at one of the local hospices for those afflicted or at an outreach clinic. At the very least it will change your views forever. It is very easy to discuss these ideas from the safety of our laptops, but it's quite another to hear the stories of those that have contracted the virus. It is even more heartbreaking to sit with HIV+ adolescents and listen to them. Once I thought I knew it all. I had aced my coursework, winged the seminars and figured only druggies or perverts contracted HIV. 30 minutes of sitting next to the nurse practioner as she took case histories impressed upon me how little I knew and that there were people presenting that could have been me or my friends. I also came to understand why health care providers have to put up an emotional wall. If you don't. the stories and circumstances eat your heart out.

Consider that you dodged a bullet with your lifestyle experience. You can play russian roulette and live to tell about it. There are people out there that despite months of copulating don't get pregnant and then there are those that are hit the jackpot after a quick tryst. That's part of nature.

Moldy, I invite you to volunteer at one of the local hospices for those afflicted or at an outreach clinic. At the very least it will change your views forever. It is very easy to discuss these ideas from the safety of our laptops, but it's quite another to hear the stories of those that have contracted the virus. It is even more heartbreaking to sit with HIV+ adolescents and listen to them. Once I thought I knew it all. I had aced my coursework, winged the seminars and figured only druggies or perverts contracted HIV. 30 minutes of sitting next to the nurse practioner as she took case histories impressed upon me how little I knew and that there were people presenting that could have been me or my friends. I also came to understand why health care providers have to put up an emotional wall. If you don't. the stories and circumstances eat your heart out.

Consider that you dodged a bullet with your lifestyle experience. You can play russian roulette and live to tell about it. There are people out there that despite months of copulating don't get pregnant and then there are those that are hit the jackpot after a quick tryst. That's part of nature.

yes thank you geriatrickid. I do see that you and many others have altogether better credentials and experience.

Well I shall certainly digest all this, and will completely review my understanding I promise, but I feel my own point needs to be taken on board for the good of all: namely that the evidence is thin as pointed out by a growing number of respectable scientists and health professionals. I am not for one moment saying there is not a dreadful syndrome, merely commenting that in my view it is overstated and possibly multi factoral. The role of toxins has been too easily overlooked in my view.

Needless to say, I have the fullest sympathy for those effected, support the idea of a national health service, and have no truck with those who seek to minoritise others by way of the illness they may contract. I think that's something the good people of these boards all agree on.

Be more careful next time, in the mean time get the test asap and hope for the best results.

The slipped condom / split condom can be a nightmare situation, some of the 'fun' girls may have a grudge and may try and take the 'armour' off deliberatly without you knowing!

Another problem is that Thai condoms are of poor quality compared to British ones, Thai ones are more likely to slip.

This aside its 3 months for waiting out any possible HIV virus. Although I have heard of this '1 week after' test from bumungrad.

Some say 6 months to wait but this was before improved testing came along.

For future reference if you get 'exposured' through unprotected sex...

Clean your 'gonk' thoroughly in the shower as soon as your finished with your girl.

If you are uncircumcised you can 'cheat' circumcision by exposing your foreskin and putting up with a few days discomfort. This will make infection and absorbtion less likely.

Take some antibiotics (doxycyclin) for a few days, walk tall, stand proud and wait out the 3 month storm.

If its any consolation I had my 'armour' slip back in January and have just had the 'All Clear' having waited 4 months (to test for the pox as well). During this time I asked about all the stuff I'd need to know if I tested (God forbid) HIV +.

If the sum of all fears actually is that you have 'the virus' then see it as something that your body needs to fight not as a foregone conclusion! So take your medicine! Its two tablets a day for the rest of your days. In your country of origin this medicine is normally free.

In LOS I think its 1000 baht+ a month?

A buddy of mine was sleeping with his gf of six months, had loads of sex etc. Only to discover that she had HIV+. He went for the test... all clear, waited 3 months... all clear. He told me this and I wouldn't believe him at first. But he explained that if it was made common knowledge how tricky it can be to catch HIV+ from women via sex then it could cause a rise in promiscious behaviour.

Whether he's right or not I don't know but stay safe out there!

LOL. Welcome to the Land of the Enlightened. As you now know it's not that easy to get- Google Padian et al or see my pinned ref. What you've discovered might just be the tip of the iceberg although I can not tell for sure- who really can?

I agree- stay safe until the all clear siren goes, and even then plenty of other nasties around.

Both Chris Lawrence and geriatrickid. It's the statistics that get me more than anything. Like most people I suspect the science is wrong but obviously can't prove that. But when I look at the context of HIV in my life I have to cry foul and can state with personal experience that I think something in the theory is very wrong. I unwittingly had sex for a long time with an HIV pos girlfriend, met others in the same boat, and then loe and behold found stories abundant with the similar scenario. Some years later I read a famous paper (Padian et al) where not a single male sero converts during the active part of the study. I come to Thailand and find people up to all sorts and years on ( a decade ) perfectly healthy. I talk to nurses who red facedly and coyly admit that it's 'very difficult to get'. Then I finally get to here of someone who is HIV and in the next sentence am told that he takes drugs and has a gloriously camp lifestyle. So what exactly am I to think ? How many have a similar story to tell?

Please don't get me wrong incidentally I support all people with this wretched disease regardless.

I've met those ppl and heard the stories too. The figures from Who and others are suspect, this is logical as it's all related to funding. One poster said that the viral load is high after initial infection and then drops, I thought it was the opposite? I knew someone who's partner had full blown aids. It was only when she got TB (and a few other things) that the found out she was HIV+. He was tested and was positive also, he'd been with the girl less than 12 months. I always figured he'd contracted it as his partner's viral load was high.

IMO you have a better risk of contracting herpes. As I mentioned on another thread, one of the best sellers in our pharmacies is acyclovir.

Wrap that rascal and keep your wits about you.

Both Chris Lawrence and geriatrickid. It's the statistics that get me more than anything. Like most people I suspect the science is wrong but obviously can't prove that. But when I look at the context of HIV in my life I have to cry foul and can state with personal experience that I think something in the theory is very wrong. I unwittingly had sex for a long time with an HIV pos girlfriend, met others in the same boat, and then loe and behold found stories abundant with the similar scenario. Some years later I read a famous paper (Padian et al) where not a single male sero converts during the active part of the study. I come to Thailand and find people up to all sorts and years on ( a decade ) perfectly healthy. I talk to nurses who red facedly and coyly admit that it's 'very difficult to get'. Then I finally get to here of someone who is HIV and in the next sentence am told that he takes drugs and has a gloriously camp lifestyle. So what exactly am I to think ? How many have a similar story to tell?

Please don't get me wrong incidentally I support all people with this wretched disease regardless.

I've met those ppl and heard the stories too. The figures from Who and others are suspect, this is logical as it's all related to funding. One poster said that the viral load is high after initial infection and then drops, I thought it was the opposite? I knew someone who's partner had full blown aids. It was only when she got TB (and a few other things) that the found out she was HIV+. He was tested and was positive also, he'd been with the girl less than 12 months. I always figured he'd contracted it as his partner's viral load was high.

But who knows what their lifestyle (is) was? Mind you the important thing is the AIDS, if one has it I suppose it matters not a jot whether it's viral, or what the causative factors are.. Thank God for the drugs, they are undoubtedly saving lives and I understand there is now a new generation coming along that are thought to be less toxic. I'm not sure that the drugs are anything more than a mild form of chemotherapy.

But certainly, wrap up, until the truth of transmission is known.

Maybe my question is a little bit off-topic, but is it possible to contract HIV if you receive oral sex without a condom?

With intercourse I ALLWAYS use a condom, but not always with oral sex, because as far as I know it is impossible or nearly impossible to contract HIV this way.

But who knows what their lifestyle (is) was? Mind you the important thing is the AIDS, if one has it I suppose it matters not a jot whether it's viral, or what the causative factors are.. Thank God for the drugs, they are undoubtedly saving lives and I understand there is now a new generation coming along that are thought to be less toxic. I'm not sure that the drugs are anything more than a mild form of chemotherapy.

But certainly, wrap up, until the truth of transmission is known.

I know the ppl well, while I can't say whether they indulged in any 'exotic' practices, I'm sure there was no drug use.

Someone posted that a person was HIV+, but had no idea where it had come from. He'd been in jail, but claimed never to have exchanged needles or had anal sex. In such a case you'd have to consider the possibility he was fibbing. Same goes for some of those claiming heterosexual transmission. Some maybe closet gay or using needles and not telling anybody.

Another poster mentioned an Irish woman who was jailed for deliberately infecting (or trying to infect?) men. It would be interesting to know the details of the case. Were any men infected? If so how many?

Maybe my question is a little bit off-topic, but is it possible to contract HIV if you receive oral sex without a condom?

With intercourse I ALLWAYS use a condom, but not always with oral sex, because as far as I know it is impossible or nearly impossible to contract HIV this way.

Nothing is impossible. They used to think that it was impossible to transmit HIV by sharing food. Just google "HIV baby food."

Your odds are of course good for NOT contracting HIV, so the studies say, but how many studies include folks who get a BBBJ from a Thai prostitute/bargirl 2-3 times a week, year in year out? These are typically gals with poor dental hygiene... which can mean sores and bleeding gums, etc., ...oh, not to mention the 10-90+ sexual partners per month thing.

Maybe my question is a little bit off-topic, but is it possible to contract HIV if you receive oral sex without a condom?

With intercourse I ALLWAYS use a condom, but not always with oral sex, because as far as I know it is impossible or nearly impossible to contract HIV this way.

Nothing is impossible. They used to think that it was impossible to transmit HIV by sharing food. Just google "HIV baby food."

Your odds are of course good for NOT contracting HIV, so the studies say, but how many studies include folks who get a BBBJ from a Thai prostitute/bargirl 2-3 times a week, year in year out? These are typically gals with poor dental hygiene... which can mean sores and bleeding gums, etc., ...oh, not to mention the 10-90+ sexual partners per month thing.

Yes it's a different game with the bar girls, you don't know what they've been up to and as you mentioned dental hygiene is a factor here, but in all honesty the risk is thought to be zero or near to zero. It is possible to contract clap or similar though, so I can't see how they can be so sure about HIV, maybe saliva kills it off, I don't know. As people will know, I'm a little sceptical about the existence of the virus in the human body full stop, let alone in water secretions.

Yes it's a different game with the bar girls, you don't know what they've been up to and as you mentioned dental hygiene is a factor here, but in all honesty the risk is thought to be zero or near to zero. It is possible to contract clap or similar though, so I can't see how they can be so sure about HIV, maybe saliva kills it off, I don't know. As people will know, I'm a little sceptical about the existence of the virus in the human body full stop, let alone in water secretions. Just my educated thoughts though.

The risk per contact (which as mentioned may be greater than 1/2000 in some cases) times the number of contacts = the person's risk, do the math and you'll see that a man who, for example, has unprotected sex with a prostitute about once a week for years racks up quite a risk indeed...

Surely the maths states that if the probability of contracting HIV is 1/2000 per encounter with an HIV+ partner, then, on a level playing field, each time you have unprotected intercourse, it is still 1/2000 probability: i.e. having unprotected sex 2000 times does not mean that you will definitely contract HIV? The probability of rolling a six with one die is 1/6. That does not mean that if you roll it six times, you will certainly throw a six - you might throw six sixes or none at all.

The odds on winning the UK lottery are something like 14,000,000 to 1, yet I'll wager that most of those who find the probability of female to male HIV infection a risk worth taking, also buy lottery tickets. Well, it is all a matter of luck, I suppose - on both counts.

I don't buy in to the arguments of those who rely upon quackery and contorted science to deny that HIV either exists or is the threat it is. The empirical evidence is just too great.