Jump to content

Thai HIV patient admits having one-night stands with many men


Recommended Posts

Posted
7 hours ago, KannikaP said:

From where did you glean that load of rubbish?

Cheaper than what pray tell?

 

Cost of circumcision depends what country - in the Philippines it's very often very cheap and othen performed by a local uqualified 'aunty' on the kitchen table. Cost - maybe US$5 or similar.

 

It's big business - Phils men are not cut at birth, but it is done late teens, the aesthetic result is often a mess leaving loose skin. 

Posted

Freddie mercury all over again, had he only used protection this ultra gifted performer would have still been with us giving us more of his fantastic talents and music...

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

No, it's a numb one with a condom on, that's why I take alternative precautions 

Yes. Numb-Nuts indeed in more ways than one.

Guessing you get Percy tested for nasties B4 he goes for each dip.

Not encouraging for the punter cuming in after you, even with their raincoat.🙃🙃

Posted
4 minutes ago, Lucky Bones said:

Yes. Numb-Nuts indeed in more ways than one.

Guessing you get Percy tested for nasties B4 he goes for each dip.

Not encouraging for the punter cuming in after you, even with their raincoat.🙃🙃

I get tested every 4 months, + PrEP + Doxy PEP, you probably don't have sex anymore?

Posted
3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I've been told by a virologist that even if her HIV load was very heavy and you used no protection, as long as you did not engage in anal sex there's a very, very low possibility of transmitting this disease through vaginal or oral sex. 

Vaginal sex with an infected  partner: 1 per 2000 acts.

Anal sex with an infected  partner: 1 per 200 acts.

 

So used PREP as suggested by someone here. I do.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Cost of circumcision depends what country - in the Philippines it's very often very cheap and othen performed by a local uqualified 'aunty' on the kitchen table. Cost - maybe US$5 or similar.

 

It's big business - Phils men are not cut at birth, but it is done late teens, the aesthetic result is often a mess leaving loose skin. 

But does it prevent HIV? NO!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

 

Who has said or implied it does ? NOBODY!

Mr Robert Smith, 12 hours ago. Do you not believe him?

  • Haha 1
Posted
12 hours ago, KannikaP said:

From where did you glean that load of rubbish?

Cheaper than what pray tell?


From memory, the langerhan (spelling) cells in the foreskin take any infection direct to the immune system. Demography where circumcision is widely practised have much lower incidences of HIV in similar scenarios. This has been known for many years, though clearly not widely. I bring it up among peers on occasion and they don’t know what I’m talking about. 

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, daveAustin said:


From memory, the langerhan (spelling) cells in the foreskin take any infection direct to the immune system. Demography where circumcision is widely practised have much lower incidences of HIV in similar scenarios. This has been known for many years, though clearly not widely. I bring it up among peers on occasion and they don’t know what I’m talking about. 

So in the countries where it is commonplace and practiced, which coincidentally many of which prohibit gay men upon fear of a death sentence, HIV has a lower incidence.....?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, daveAustin said:


From memory, the langerhan (spelling) cells in the foreskin take any infection direct to the immune system. Demography where circumcision is widely practised have much lower incidences of HIV in similar scenarios. This has been known for many years, though clearly not widely. I bring it up among peers on occasion and they don’t know what I’m talking about. 

And possibly you don't. Bingle 'Langerhans cells' to find that they exist in all the epidermis, not only knob end.

So if you touch the juicy part of someone with HIV with your finger, is it the same as bareback bonking

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

But, yes, people who knowingly have HIV and engage in unprotected sex should probably be sent down. She is a lowlife. 

As was Mr Bulsara.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Mr Robert Smith, 12 hours ago. Do you not believe him?

 

He did not exactly say that but either way why are you quoting nasty to another member who definitely did not say that ?

 

Posted
7 hours ago, Pique Dard said:

... "every man" ? is she referring to thais or tourists?

sorry! but for you who used the emoticon "confused" ...are you incapable of understanding that a tourist, by definition, is only passing through thailand, and therefore has no chance of hearing this woman's message? do you need more explanations? well, on the contrary, on the other hand, a thai person, because he lives in his country, is more likely to receive the woman's message, hence  my somewhat ironic question " is she referring to thais or tourists?"

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I've been told by a virologist that even if her HIV load was very heavy and you used no protection, as long as you did not engage in anal sex there's a very, very low possibility of transmitting this disease through vaginal or oral sex. 

 

I would not rely on that, I knew two punters who died of AIDS after catching HIV in Pattaya in the 90's

Posted
13 hours ago, gargamon said:

Lucky for the men involved that, since there needs to be a transfer of body fluids from the infected, it is somewhat difficult to catch by the male in a heterosexual situation. 

silly you... one drop of blood is enough to catch it.. That could be in a kiss or a BJ or even in normal sex without a condom. how you can post something so misleading?

The ways HIV can be caught have not changed since HIV was first learned about

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I've been told by a virologist that even if her HIV load was very heavy and you used no protection, as long as you did not engage in anal sex there's a very, very low possibility of transmitting this disease through vaginal or oral sex. 

There is a very low risk. I know, I was living with a woman for several years who the doctor estimated by her low viral load she had been HIV pos for 3-5 years. The doctor said it was a miracle I didn't get it and I said yes but its hard for a man to catch it from a woman right? He said statistically yes...but you only have to catch it once and you got it for life. A roll of the dice. On retrovirals nearly zero chance of contracting it in any way but I have sat in clinics listening to the doctor admonishing one patient after the other for not taking their meds. She knew because their VL had spiked. And I believe once a person is on antivirals  should they go off them the condition can be even worse than if they never started them

  • Like 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Sharp said:

If he's tested undetectable on his viral load due to meds then he won't infect anyone 

Could contain:

But, medication is hampered with excessive alcohol use. Making it useless. 

  • Confused 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, thesetat said:

silly you... one drop of blood is enough to catch it.. That could be in a kiss or a BJ or even in normal sex without a condom. how you can post something so misleading?

The ways HIV can be caught have not changed since HIV was first learned about

Best reply yet, thanks.

  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I've been told by a virologist that even if her HIV load was very heavy and you used no protection, as long as you did not engage in anal sex there's a very, very low possibility of transmitting this disease through vaginal or oral sex. 

What convinced me was a paper I read around 2003 that said that in the heterosexual population with HIV, 89.6% were women. Likely, the 10.4% that were men with HIV were not being honest and had been involved in needle drugs or had taken it up the a$$ and didn't want to admit it.

 

I would also disagree with your anal sex assessment. Even in the gay population in San Francisco, only the catchers would get infected, not the pitchers. So obviously anal sex is okay as long as you're not the receptacle.

 

Lots if similarities between the HIV “common knowledge“ and the weed propaganda. It's reefer madness all over again. 

  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Not true, alcohol does not affect the effectiveness of retroviral meds on HIV patients.

 

Alcohol and HIV | aidsmap

 

 

https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-alcohol

Currently, there are no meaningful interactions between common HIV medications and alcohol. But, there are multiple negative impacts of drinking while taking your HIV treatment. Overall, drinking alcohol can seriously impact how well your HIV medication works.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
13 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

I'd rather masturbate than use a condom. Sex is folly, they've tried to destroy this for the past 50 years.

That sounds great if you trust your partner unconditionally. On the other hand I would never want to in his this guy's shoes:

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, thesetat said:

https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-alcohol

Currently, there are no meaningful interactions between common HIV medications and alcohol. But, there are multiple negative impacts of drinking while taking your HIV treatment. Overall, drinking alcohol can seriously impact how well your HIV medication works.

 

 

Alcohol does not affect the effectiveness of HAART

 

That article goes on to say if you're drunk you may forget to take your HAART, but consuming alcohol will not affect the effectiveness of HAART.

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...