Hiv Carriers Working In The Food Industry.

[robwill22]

A Thai friend of mine was recently found to be HIV positive during a non related hospital visit at Chula. He's worried he could lose his job at a restaurant in Bangkok.

Does anybody know what the policy is regarding infected workers in the food industry?

[Lilawadee]

Well, it'd be sound advice not to go tell people about any hiv status.

Sometimes for NEW job applicants, a health certificate is needed. Most of the time that's the standard job where the doctor gives you one after a 2 minute interview asking if you feel alright. In some cases though a specific hiv test is required; presumably they wouldn't hire a person living with hiv.

I think it's unlikely for any company to require periodical hiv tests. (Well, perhaps some exceptions, but I wouldn't worry about it.).

[lazeeboy]

im sure if you tell them they will get rid of you ,theres probably 1000s of hiv people working in the food industy that have kept there secret to themselves.

[robwill22]

The problem is that since he was tested at Chula using his real name(instead of anonymously at the Red Cross) he was told the hospital would have to notify the government and put him on some kind of a list.

[londonthai]

there is no danger to anybody, even if your friend works on the production line touching food - usually it's done in the latex gloves, anyway. Virus is transmited sexually or by freshly contaminated needle.

however it's difficult to predict menagement reaction to the news.

maybe the best if you friend walks to the red cross and gets some hard proof backup, for example from the medical publication - he can fight back in courts if sucked from work

[donna]

i have been told that the labor department requires all food handlers (all kitchen staff and restaurant staff) to undergo tests for hepatitis and HIV prior to employment. this is, mind you, in a fairdinkum business and not a mickey mouse place. the hotel i was working for in phuket was doing this for all F&B staff.

the tests were being done, but just what would be done if anyone was found to be positive, im not too sure.

[Scott]

I know of several people who are HIV positive and work in food services. They have never had to take a test and they quite frequently change jobs.

[onnut]

One of my staff was infected with HIV, I think along time before he worked for me. our company took good care of him. sadly he died last year.

I do not think I have anymore staff with HIV but you never can tell, in the early stages anyway. but if we did we would also take care of them.

the guy had worked for us for a number of years also which helped him.

I am not saying all hotels would do this though.

but if he is a good member of staff I think he would be looked after.

is he on Medication now?

[londonthai]

is he on Medication now?

looks like HIV+ but no AIDS - might take many years to develop into full illness

[bendix]

Twenty years on, and still so much ill-informed hysteria. . .. how sad is that?

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

[kat]

This is easily overcome by requiring food services to wear gloves. It also helps reduce the possibility of other infections that are a much bigger risk to food handling than HIV.

*added: in terms of your friend, they can do pretty much do whatever they want. A few years back, there was quite a ruckus when the international AIDS conference found out that the Bangkok hotel kitchen staff was preparing two dining areas, one for people with HIV, and one for those without .... for the international AIDS conference .... in a big hotel just a few years ago ...

Edited January 17, 2008 by kat

[jbowman1993]

Twenty years on, and still so much ill-informed hysteria. . .. how sad is that?

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

Really? Oh crap, I sat on one just the other day! At a friends house!!!! I better go scrub my bum...

[sgunn65]

Gloves make no difference. It is 99.9% impossible to transmit the HIV virus through handling food. In fact its actually a very difficult virus to transmit full stop. Apart from unprotected sex and sharing injecting equipment.

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

So relax get out there and eat .

On the subject of gloves isn't it ironic that you go to a sandwich shop, they make your sandwich whilst wearing hygenic gloves then take your money in the same gloves and hand you back the change. And they do not change the gloves for the next client!

[Chris Lawrence]

Good reply sgunn65.

Really, I am more worried about catching a cold in a situation like this! Other than that I just keep wearing the condom when I go to eat in the resturant. This should still give me protection? Just as silly.

[mrbojangles]

Twenty years on, and still so much ill-informed hysteria. . .. how sad is that?

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

So bearing in mind sgunn65 3 points (or QQR) how could it be caught by sitting on a toilet seat? It could be fresh if you sit on a toilet seat within thirty minutes but what about the other two criteria?

However, if you where joking Bendix. For the benefit of non native english speakers and those that don't get the joke, i suggest you put a smilie on next time. Otherwise this is exactly how ill informed rumours and such spread (no pun intended)

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

Edited January 18, 2008 by mrbojangles

[shochu]

Many countries have an automatic deportation order for non-nationals who are found to be HIV positive. Perhaps someone knows how this relates to LOS.

And I agree - it is very hard to get unless you are sharing some fluids (I believe it is not just blood) and those on the receiving end are much more at risk - women, gays. The anal area is very sensitive whereas the vaginal area is much more tough and thus less prone to tearing. The reason men can get it is because the pressure of sex is enough to drive the fluids into the male urinary tract. Wear a condom and you should be safe.

Having said that, the mouth and stomach (as mentioned by sgunn65) are pretty tough and can withstand a lot. There are many BJ places in Tokyo where the girls will swallow and I have never heard this to be a problem for the girls except for perhaps herpes. I doubt this would continue if it were a problem. So kissing is fine as long as there is no open wounds. The whole thing again with the open wounds is the pressure that gets created in the physical act of frenching can push fluids into the wound but again the conditions need to be right for infection.

[kat]

Gloves make no difference. It is 99.9% impossible to transmit the HIV virus through handling food. In fact its actually a very difficult virus to transmit full stop. Apart from unprotected sex and sharing injecting equipment.

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

So relax get out there and eat .

On the subject of gloves isn't it ironic that you go to a sandwich shop, they make your sandwich whilst wearing hygenic gloves then take your money in the same gloves and hand you back the change. And they do not change the gloves for the next client!

You're absolutely right, but I mentioned gloves as something to impose on everyone, if it is going to make the public feel better, justifiably or not. I think that is funny about the sandwich shops, but most I have seen have different people at the cash register.

[londonthai]

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

However, if you where joking Bendix. For the benefit of non native english speakers and those that don't get the joke, i suggest you put a smilie on next time. )

if somebody says 'true' and swear to god - is joking.

no need for smily

[Mossfinn]

Twenty years on, and still so much ill-informed hysteria. . .. how sad is that?

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

Dripping with Irony Bx, just dripping.

Gloves make no difference. It is 99.9% impossible to transmit the HIV virus through handling food. In fact its actually a very difficult virus to transmit full stop. Apart from unprotected sex and sharing injecting equipment.

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

So relax get out there and eat .

Good post Sgunn.

Moss

[bkkrox]

Gloves make no difference. It is 99.9% impossible to transmit the HIV virus through handling food. In fact its actually a very difficult virus to transmit full stop. Apart from unprotected sex and sharing injecting equipment.

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

So relax get out there and eat .

On the subject of gloves isn't it ironic that you go to a sandwich shop, they make your sandwich whilst wearing hygenic gloves then take your money in the same gloves and hand you back the change. And they do not change the gloves for the next client!

Hi sgunn65...just a few questiond regarding your post.

Quality: At the beginning of the AIDS crisis it was reported that many haemophiliacs worldwide were infectied with HIV by Factor

8 which is,as I am sure you know,freeze dried before being turned into liquid form again when its ready to be transfused. This procedure,disregarding the freeze drying etc,is likely to take longer than 30mins. So what was it causing them to screen HIV+?

Quantity: There have been a number of healthcare professionals claiming to have been infected through needlejabs as well as a few dental patients through being treated by an HIV+ dentist....do you think these cases satisfied the Quantity rule? Would seem the amount of blood involved would be minimal,particularly from the dentist.

Route: This one suggests that the sexual encounter must meet certain criteria in order to seroconvert,ie that you be the receptive patner and that you have an abrasion suffcient enough to allow passage of HIV infected material to pass into your body. The percentage of insertive partners with an abrasion significant enough to satisfy the Quantity rule aswell must be tiny. That being said it must be very difficult for a heterosexual male to catch HIV. But in Africa the disease is equally prevalent between the sexes...whos infecting all the women?

Dont get me wrong,I am highly scepticle of the HIV/AIDS business ,you only need to do a little research to see just how questionable the science on this is. Just wondering how "the trade" answers the questions that its science raises.Cheers

[Briggsy]

I think it's unlikely for any company to require periodical hiv tests. (Well, perhaps some exceptions, but I wouldn't worry about it.).

Not true. Many large companies particularly in many sectors routinely blood test their staff for drug use and HIV. It is euphemistically dressed up as "the annual health check". Just because it doesn't/couldn't happen in the west doesn't mean it doesn't happen here. 'Cos it does.

[taxexile]

as well as a few dental patients through being treated by an HIV+ dentist....do you think these cases satisfied the Quantity rule? Would seem the amount of blood involved would be minimal,particularly from the dentist.

Little risk from HIV at the dentists

25 February 1995

From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

Stephanie Pain

Tools DENTISTS and their patients are equally afraid that they might contract HIV from each other. But their fears are out of all proportion to the real risks from dental treatment, the AAAS heard last week. The case of the Florida dentist, David Acer, who transmitted HIV to six patients - four of whom have since died - remains the only known incident of its kind, said Donald Marianos, director of the division of oral health at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. The Acer case probably did more to put people off going to the dentist than anything else.

When researchers at the CDC examined DNA sequences from the HIV harboured by Acer's infected patients, they found that all six carried the same strain of the virus as the dentist. They also concluded that this strain was different enough from other strains found locally to rule out another source of infection. But no one can explain how the virus passed from dentist to patient. "It's unlikely that we'll ever know how," says Marianos.

An investigation into another HIV-positive dentist is more encouraging. The dentist, from the poor Liberty City area of Miami, carried out many extractions, an often bloody procedure that is more likely than other treatments to result in the exchange of body fluids between dentist and patient. His practice was also less strict than Acer's about sterilising instruments, which might be expected to increase the risk to patients. Of 1300 patients on the dentist's books who were tested for HIV, 28 were positive, the largest number found so far in any practice. But analysis of viral DNA from these patients showed that none had contracted HIV from the dentist or from each other. "They got their infection from their high-risk behaviour, not from their dentist," said Gerald Schochetman of the CDC.

Investigators have three main theories about how Acer infected his patients. He could have done it deliberately, he may have contaminated his instruments when he was treated in his own surgery, or the virus may have been passed in some other accidental way. There is no good evidence to support any one of these contentions, said Marianos. "When you don't know exactly how something occurred, you can't say how it didn't occur," he said. Nevertheless, Marianos is optimistic that the Acer case was unique.

The risks of infection for dentists are far greater than for patients, yet the figures show that people who work in medicine, nursing or dentistry do not have a higher rate of infection than people in other jobs. "So it doesn't look like there is a big risk of occupational exposure," he said. Of 42 documented cases of occupational exposure - from needlestick injuries, for example - none worked in a dental surgery. And of 88 possible cases of occupational exposure, only seven worked in dentistry. These numbers are "very low", said Marianos.

Alexia Antczac-Bouckoms of Tufts University in Boston, has tried to put a number on the real risk that a dentist faces. Infected patients rarely have any trace of virus in their mouths. A survey of more than 300 HIV-positive drug users found that less than 1 per cent had HIV in their saliva.

Saliva is also known to contain a protein that inhibits transmission of HIV through this route. "There are no documented cases of salivary transmission of HIV," said Philip Fox of the National Institute of Dental Research, who recently discovered the inhibitory protein in saliva (Science, New Scientist, 11 February).

Even after a needlestick injury, the risk of infection is extremely low, said Antczac-Bouckoms. A recent paper in The New England Journal of Medicine (16 February, p 444) puts the risk of transmission from patient to healthcare worker after an accidental needle jab at between 0.2 and 0.5 per cent. The risk of contracting hepatitis B through this route could be as high as 40 per cent. "We need to keep the risks in perspective," said Antczac-Bouckoms. Dentists are at even less risk than doctors and nurses.

She calculates that if a dentist has one patient with HIV, the annual risk of transmission to the dentist is around 0.0006 per cent which is "extremely low", said Antczac-Bouckoms. The corresponding risk for hepatitis B is 0.34 per cent. And the risk of dying from hepatitis B is 1.7 times higher than the risk of acquiring HIV she said. "For dentists, the risk of transmission is vanishingly small if they use good infection control procedures."

While all this suggests that dentists can safely treat HIV-positive people, dentists themselves have still to be convinced. Many who are quite willing to treat people with hepatitis B remain reluctant to treat a patient with HIV, says Antczac-Bouckoms. In a recent survey, 30 per cent of dentists still thought it was unsafe to treat a patient with HIV.

But attitudes are changing: 70 per cent of the dentists surveyed said they were still "very worried or somewhat worried" by the idea of treating a patient with HIV. "This is a big improvement over surveys carried out five years ago," said Antczac-Bouckoms. The fear that if you treated a patient with HIV your other clients would leave the practice is also beginning to fade. "There is less stigma attached to having HIV patients at a practice," says Antczac-Bouckoms.

The introduction of strict infection control precautions in the US in 1986 has been highly effective, yet a third of dentists think these measures - wearing gloves and autoclaving instruments - are not enough to protect against HIV.

"There is no such thing as risk-free dentistry," said John Molinari of the University of Detroit Mercy Hospital School of Dentistry. But, he said, most dentists are worrying about the wrong thing. "The risks of hepatitis B are much worse than HIV," he said. "If you take precautions to prevent transmission of hepatitis B, then HIV is taken care of too."

From issue 1966 of New Scientist magazine, 25 February 1995, page 11

[moldy]

Twenty years on, and still so much ill-informed hysteria. . .. how sad is that?

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

Really? Oh crap, I sat on one just the other day! At a friends house!!!! I better go scrub my bum...

I think the poster is being ironic. HIV is not easy to get to say the least and a growing number question the validity of the hypothesis to various degrees. Certainly in the west it never has developed in to an epidemic, and there is now considerable doubt on figures in Africa and Thailand, etc as evidenced by a swingeing drop in WHO estimated figures.

None of this means that condoms should not still be considered mandatory until the truth comes out, though not when serving up a plate of rice.

[moldy]

Gloves make no difference. It is 99.9% impossible to transmit the HIV virus through handling food. In fact its actually a very difficult virus to transmit full stop. Apart from unprotected sex and sharing injecting equipment.

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

So relax get out there and eat .

Good posting. And in my view it should be added that the sex transmission is not that clear cut either. Usually there has to be a hel_l of a lot of the virus knocking around, perhaps through trauma injury, significant local infection, or a very infected person, even assuming the virus is transmittable this way (which in my view is likely but never proven)

As for food handling, no way, even if the virus did get in to the food, it would be utterly destroyed in the stomach.

On the subject of gloves isn't it ironic that you go to a sandwich shop, they make your sandwich whilst wearing hygenic gloves then take your money in the same gloves and hand you back the change. And they do not change the gloves for the next client!

Good posting. And in my view it should be added that the sex transmission via heterosexual sex is not that clear cut either. Usually there has to be a hel_l of a lot of the virus knocking around, perhaps through trauma injury, significant local infection, or a very high viral load, even assuming the virus is transmittable this way (which in my view is likely but never proven).

As for food handling, no way, even if the virus did get in to the food, it would be utterly destroyed in the stomach.

[moldy]

Many countries have an automatic deportation order for non-nationals who are found to be HIV positive. Perhaps someone knows how this relates to LOS.

And I agree - it is very hard to get unless you are sharing some fluids (I believe it is not just blood) and those on the receiving end are much more at risk - women, gays. The anal area is very sensitive whereas the vaginal area is much more tough and thus less prone to tearing. The reason men can get it is because the pressure of sex is enough to drive the fluids into the male urinary tract. Wear a condom and you should be safe.

Having said that, the mouth and stomach (as mentioned by sgunn65) are pretty tough and can withstand a lot. There are many BJ places in Tokyo where the girls will swallow and I have never heard this to be a problem for the girls except for perhaps herpes. I doubt this would continue if it were a problem. So kissing is fine as long as there is no open wounds. The whole thing again with the open wounds is the pressure that gets created in the physical act of frenching can push fluids into the wound but again the conditions need to be right for infection.

French kissing is not regarded as a risk factor in HIV transmission.

[geriatrickid]

Hepatitis is of greater concern than HIV in the food industry. Never heard of a case where someone was infected due to food handling. Gloves are now recognized as an agent of food borne illness infection. Sure,they are benefit if the worker has wounds or sores, but otherwise they can be dangerous.

Went into Subway in BKK last month. Guy wearing gloves made me a great sandwich. He then went to the cash wearing gloves and rang up the sale and took my money. Needed a tray so he got one from a table and wiped it off using the usual wet rag. Once he was done with me, he went back to making sandwiches. He was wearing his plastic gloves the whole time. What was the risk reduction in that procedure? None. Like your mom's used to say, best thing is the washing of hands. Plastic gloves in the food industry are there to reassure clients. No use if they aren't changed between wiping tables or handling raw mateials and then cooked foods. Take a look next time you visit a fast food joint.

[moldy]

Gloves make no difference. It is 99.9% impossible to transmit the HIV virus through handling food. In fact its actually a very difficult virus to transmit full stop. Apart from unprotected sex and sharing injecting equipment.

The HIV virus is fragile. It needs 3 things to be passed on. In the trade its called QQR. That is:

Quality: The virus needs to be fresh. It will not live outside the body for more than 30 minutes.

Quantity: There needs to be enough of it. So a tiny bit of contaminated blood will not do.

Route: It needs to get into the bloodstream. If ingested it will die before making it to the bloodstream and even if by some unlucky fluke a bleeding HIV+ sufferer were to bleed on you whilst you are cut it is still highly unlikely as you bleed out not in. So the body will not take in anyone elses blood except for injecting or sex.

So relax get out there and eat .

On the subject of gloves isn't it ironic that you go to a sandwich shop, they make your sandwich whilst wearing hygenic gloves then take your money in the same gloves and hand you back the change. And they do not change the gloves for the next client!

Hi sgunn65...just a few questiond regarding your post.

Quality: At the beginning of the AIDS crisis it was reported that many haemophiliacs worldwide were infectied with HIV by Factor

8 which is,as I am sure you know,freeze dried before being turned into liquid form again when its ready to be transfused. This procedure,disregarding the freeze drying etc,is likely to take longer than 30mins. So what was it causing them to screen HIV+?

Quantity: There have been a number of healthcare professionals claiming to have been infected through needlejabs as well as a few dental patients through being treated by an HIV+ dentist....do you think these cases satisfied the Quantity rule? Would seem the amount of blood involved would be minimal,particularly from the dentist.

Route: This one suggests that the sexual encounter must meet certain criteria in order to seroconvert,ie that you be the receptive patner and that you have an abrasion suffcient enough to allow passage of HIV infected material to pass into your body. The percentage of insertive partners with an abrasion significant enough to satisfy the Quantity rule aswell must be tiny. That being said it must be very difficult for a heterosexual male to catch HIV. But in Africa the disease is equally prevalent between the sexes...whos infecting all the women?

Dont get me wrong,I am highly scepticle of the HIV/AIDS business ,you only need to do a little research to see just how questionable the science on this is. Just wondering how "the trade" answers the questions that its science raises.Cheers

Those poor people could not have got HIV from factor 8 which is a dry thin flaky powder. According to mainstream science the alleged virus is not transmissable under other such conditions. So how they got infected (if they did) is anybody's guess as any other satisfactory scenario is not possible. But I suppose the following should be considered but not by any means regurgitated as nasty rumours:

1. HIV is considerably more hardy than previously thought.

2. They died of a syndrome similar but brought on by a another process.

3. AIDS is a cofactoral syndrome, possibly dependent on HIV but not exclusively so. A toxic explanation has been muted but was dismissed by mainstream science.

On quantity, it does indeed appear that significant bodily fluids are involved or a very high concentration is needed, or perhaps that transmission is a cumulative process. The fact is this makes accidental transmission extremely unlikely. A dentist is highly unlikely to pass the alleged virus on to say the least.

On Africa. The figures for heterosexual transmission, particularly regarding female to male transmission differ significantly from the west. In the light of no scientific explanation, the suggestion is that the estimates have been widely exaggerated. Certainly the WHO saw fit to reduce it's figures in excess of 30% recently, and as we know things major adjustments have a habit of being bit by bit write downs.

You write 'just wondering how the trade answers the questions' - there is collective laryngitis, in that everyone seems to have lost their voice.

Personally I feel quite at liberty to express my severe and sincere reservations about the AIDS hypothesis not the least because the virus appears to be very camera shy, and I have had considerable exposure to the risks - I unwittingly had a relationship with an HIV positive partner for a considerable length of time.

It must be understood though that until facts become definitively known, condom use must be taken as mandatory to preclude any notional chance of acquiring a terrible syndrome that can be ruinous to health. Rather a shame that we have to resort to this but that's the way it is for the time being.

[shochu]

I agree kissing is not a viable method of passing it on. I guess i did not elaborate enough with the BJ example. When people have sex, quite often there is a lot of exchange of fluids from foreplay and it is quite common to get some vaginal fluids and semen on your hands and in your mouth and my example of frenching was to illustrate that the pressure from it could quite possibly promote HIV transfer, were one to have a wound supsectible to infection.

Considering this whole HIV/AIDS debate is not fully conclusive - I think being a little on the safer side is wise. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to do some serious frenching if they had a sore/cut in their mouth - considering we are talking about sex on a THAI forum and many participants here are entertaining pro's.

[moldy]

I agree kissing is not a viable method of passing it on. I guess i did not elaborate enough with the BJ example. When people have sex, quite often there is a lot of exchange of fluids from foreplay and it is quite common to get some vaginal fluids and semen on your hands and in your mouth and my example of frenching was to illustrate that the pressure from it could quite possibly promote HIV transfer, were one to have a wound supsectible to infection.

Considering this whole HIV/AIDS debate is not fully conclusive - I think being a little on the safer side is wise. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to do some serious frenching if they had a sore/cut in their mouth - considering we are talking about sex on a THAI forum and many participants here are entertaining pro's.

Yes that point about caution needs to be reiterated. And anyway there are a whole load of other nasties to be caught. Most are treatable but why go there, as in between there is quite a bit of pain and emotional trauma.

[Chris Lawrence]

Twenty years on, and still so much ill-informed hysteria. . .. how sad is that?

Did you know you can catch it by sitting on someone's toilet seat? True. I swear to god . .

Really? Oh crap, I sat on one just the other day! At a friends house!!!! I better go scrub my bum...

I think the poster is being ironic. HIV is not easy to get to say the least and a growing number question the validity of the hypothesis to various degrees. Certainly in the west it never has developed in to an epidemic, and there is now considerable doubt on figures in Africa and Thailand, etc as evidenced by a swingeing drop in WHO estimated figures.

None of this means that condoms should not still be considered mandatory until the truth comes out, though not when serving up a plate of rice.

Moldy, most of the people have died in Thailand because they could not access the medication needed to sustain their lives; this is more than likely the reason for the drop in estimates?

What it comes back to is the adoption of universal health precautions either in the health field or the food industry. That is that everyone performs at the same level of precaution when dealing with the general public. Hence no discrimination.

As said there are a number of disease's that can be contracted if people are not carefull. I remeber in the early 90's talking to a 60+ alcoholic. He had just come from a hospital where a patient next to him had a bed who was HIV+. I asked him would he take up the bed of that fellow if he had to. His answer was no as he thought this was a huge risk. The point is that some people can never be convinced as to risk factors(I did not do this to torment the gentleman but used in talking about his alcohol risk factors).

Some things never change, but it is good to hear this type of talk every now and then. It can still educate your peers.