Hiv Screen

[tcris52]

I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this, but I can't find anything by search.

I'm willing to use the usual protection early in a relationship. However, should it develop into a serious and "monogamous" relationship, I'd like to have both of us screened for HIV for each other's peace of mind. The women I'm interested in are seemingly not the bar girl type, but one never knows. Even so, they are widows or divorcees and who knows where their former husbands have been.

Is there a graceful (and reliable) way to ask and accomplish this?

Thanks to all who answer.

[joskydive]

Should the situation get to the level where you are ready to get that serious you should know the girl well enough by then to say that you genuinely want to take care of her long term and to prove this you are prepared to take a medical test so that she is sure you would not give her any infections by your close association.

Ask her to go with you so you can do the test together so you both can feel secure and relaxed.

[moldy]

I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this, but I can't find anything by search.

I'm willing to use the usual protection early in a relationship. However, should it develop into a serious and "monogamous" relationship, I'd like to have both of us screened for HIV for each other's peace of mind. The women I'm interested in are seemingly not the bar girl type, but one never knows. Even so, they are widows or divorcees and who knows where their former husbands have been.

Is there a graceful (and reliable) way to ask and accomplish this?

Thanks to all who answer.

This is a very tricky one. It's quite stressful just taking the test. I agree with your tactics in part but love is supposed to be about sickness and health, and the suspicion is really notional, ie, she probaly isn't infected.

I have distinctly different views regarding the nature of HIV and also recommend you to do research on the subject area as a whole.

I think you need to ask yourself a couple of soul searchers in your own time.

[tcris52]

I'm sure I'm not the first to ask this, but I can't find anything by search.

I'm willing to use the usual protection early in a relationship. However, should it develop into a serious and "monogamous" relationship, I'd like to have both of us screened for HIV for each other's peace of mind. The women I'm interested in are seemingly not the bar girl type, but one never knows. Even so, they are widows or divorcees and who knows where their former husbands have been.

Is there a graceful (and reliable) way to ask and accomplish this?

Thanks to all who answer.

This is a very tricky one. It's quite stressful just taking the test. I agree with your tactics in part but love is supposed to be about sickness and health, and the suspicion is really notional, ie, she probaly isn't infected.

I have distinctly different views regarding the nature of HIV and also recommend you to do research on the subject area as a whole.

I think you need to ask yourself a couple of soul searchers in your own time.

Moldy,

Those are very good points. At my age (60), whatever I might get is probably not going to get me before a lot of other stuff does. You're right about the odds of the average lady having anything.

Your point of what love should be is well taken. Also attributable to my age is the fact that I've lost a lot of my naiveté along the way. I think I can see through BS better than I used to and have the ability to find my way to a meaningful relationship where those factors about what love really is rise to the top.

Thanks, Moldy, for the thought-provoking post.

(Sorry, everybody, for getting onto that philosophical track!)

Tony

[Sheryl]

Tony,

The idea that concern that someone might have acquired HIV somehow implies a lack of "trust" causes quite a lot of otherwise preventable infections.

Furthermore, unless the woman has represented herself to be a virgin, in what way does it imply lack of trust in her? Lack of trust in the man or men she has been with before maybe, but not of her.

One last caution. Remember that it takes 3-6 months for an HIV test to be positive, i.e. a person may test negative in the early months of infection. I mention this because another TV member got HIV after ceasing to use protection because the woman tested negative. Whether she was infec ted just before they got together or whether despite his trust to the contrary, she cheated on him, who knows. Needless to say, he's gone through hel_l because of that choice and I wouldn't wish it on you. So be very careful.

One other point - speaking as a woman -- it just may be that she has the same concern about you but can't bring herself to say it for fear of offending you. So suggesting you both you and be tested might actually be a relief to her.

[OxfordWill]

Tell her you want to provide her with health insurance, very good insurance, from your home country. Tell her part of the requirement is a blood test, and would she like to do it at the same time as you?

This is Thailand and the truth is not held up on a pedestal as much as in the West. I wouldn't risk the possibility that this would offend her, she might just not understand where you are coming from and take it personally.

edit: I would recommend actually providing her with insurance as part of this.

Edited May 22, 2008 by OxfordWill

[moldy]

Tony,

The idea that concern that someone might have acquired HIV somehow implies a lack of "trust" causes quite a lot of otherwise preventable infections.

Furthermore, unless the woman has represented herself to be a virgin, in what way does it imply lack of trust in her? Lack of trust in the man or men she has been with before maybe, but not of her.

One last caution. Remember that it takes 3-6 months for an HIV test to be positive, i.e. a person may test negative in the early months of infection. I mention this because another TV member got HIV after ceasing to use protection because the woman tested negative. Whether she was infec ted just before they got together or whether despite his trust to the contrary, she cheated on him, who knows. Needless to say, he's gone through hel_l because of that choice and I wouldn't wish it on you. So be very careful.

One other point - speaking as a woman -- it just may be that she has the same concern about you but can't bring herself to say it for fear of offending you. So suggesting you both you and be tested might actually be a relief to her.

Who said anything about lack of trust, I was just on about love, in sickness and in health, although I agree these things should not be taken lightly, one also has to stare at the possibility and make a decision. Although OP 60 or not you never want this sort of syndrome so I also understand why others urge a test I guess.

Part of that decision must also be the odds against a guy getting HIV from an otherwise clean, healthy woman in a wholesome relationship. Probably thousands to one (and as I've stated IMHO none at all). As a health professional Sheryl you will no doubt be aware that in the biggest study of it's kind not one guy sero converted during the active part of the study (Padian et al.) It's there as a fact unchallengable but I wouldn't be surprised if the posting gets pulled regardless.

It is a truly terrifying test too.

Maybe some things are just best left alone.

[Dakhar]

That is one of the dumbests posts I have read.

For the conspiracy theorists..... spends some time on some "aids/Hiv" forums, see how those folks are fairing.

Regarding a grey truth, "I want to buy you some health insurance...." Sounds like a good idea to me.

[balo]

My advice is to be careful, use protection for 3-5 months, after that you both have the HIV-test.

She will understand , its up to you!

[Galong]

Tell her you want to provide her with health insurance, very good insurance, from your home country. Tell her part of the requirement is a blood test, and would she like to do it at the same time as you?

edit: I would recommend actually providing her with insurance as part of this.

Health insurance companies don't cover HIV. The major ones certainly don't.

[Sojourner]

Hiv tests come in two flavors now. Anti-gen and Anti-hiv. The Anti-gen will pick up the infection after 2 to 3 weeks from date of infection while the Anti-hiv 3-6 months. I have never had a problem asking a new partner to take the test. We have always gone together and they go willingly. Thais seem to run their lives on luck and blind faith and this seems to be the case with STD's. There are a lot of sexually active Thai girls around who aren't making a living at it. Get the tests and don't make a big deal about it.

[moldy]

Hiv tests come in two flavors now. Anti-gen and Anti-hiv. The Anti-gen will pick up the infection after 2 to 3 weeks from date of infection while the Anti-hiv 3-6 months. I have never had a problem asking a new partner to take the test. We have always gone together and they go willingly. Thais seem to run their lives on luck and blind faith and this seems to be the case with STD's. There are a lot of sexually active Thai girls around who aren't making a living at it. Get the tests and don't make a big deal about it.

There's a lot of good strategies here, this being the best and I agree that Thais seem to regard themselves as lucky and wouldn't duck the test.

However, none have elaborated on the emotional consequences of a positive result.

There are those that maintain that a pos. result alone can play a kind of voodoo curse on the unfortunate pos. tester. It's not so far fetched. 10 years ago I was convinced I would test pos. after being in a rather unwise relationship, mynhealth suffered dramatically and I lost 10 percent or sao bodyweight. You guessed it neg. happily.

I don't like the way that we all assume the science behind AIDS is cut and dried fact. Far from it IMHO.

[Chris Lawrence]

Just ask them and say what your fears are. Get honest on how you feel for them. Explain yourself

[OxfordWill]

Tell her you want to provide her with health insurance, very good insurance, from your home country. Tell her part of the requirement is a blood test, and would she like to do it at the same time as you?

edit: I would recommend actually providing her with insurance as part of this.

Health insurance companies don't cover HIV. The major ones certainly don't.

True but they may well screen for it before giving you insurance. I dont know, and similarly I guess most Thai people wouldnt know.

[awakened]

I'm willing to use the usual protection early in a relationship. However, should it develop into a serious and "monogamous" relationship, I'd like to have both of us screened for HIV for each other's peace of mind.

Is there a graceful (and reliable) way to ask and accomplish this?

Thanks to all who answer.

I was quite open about testing with my g/f and we both went twice. I just presented it as 'Darling, I am going for my HIV test, shall we go together?' If she was fazed, she didn't let on.

The test was cheap and the results returned overnight if you wanted (death via email?) . In accordance with guidelines, we didn't have unprotected sex until after the second test was positive. The process was quick and painless and it was reassuring to see 'NEGATIVE' on the certificate.

I would have second thoughts about having a test today. Why? I suppose I was complacent. I had not considered what a bombshell a positive test would be.

It's a shame that the sexual act which should be loving, spiritual and obviously deeply intimate has been turned into 'do I have the plague or not?' and now dependent on some outside authorities 'testing', rather than a free, natural choice, for it to go ahead. It was the same with herpes when they announced this 'incurable' disease.

Having an interest in hidden agendas, I wouldn't put it past the religious right in America, spewing their 'fornication is a sin' doctrine, to be behind some of this fearmongering. You don't get elected in America unless you kowtow to the powerful lobbies and they would love to be influencing policy on this sacred act.

If the media were more balanced and told us the true odds of contracting and developing full blown AIDS, instead of saturating us with horror upon horror, people might be less fearful of testing. It is this constant fear-mongering by the media that makes me the most suspicious. Corporations usually have an agenda and using fear to 'drive the herd' is a standard tactic. There is a difference between public education and public manipulation. The degree of hysteria involved usually flags which one it is.

Any research will bring you into dissenting views about AIDS. It's a no-win scenario since it always falls back on 'my science is right and your science is wrong'.

I am still in the dark about a few points. Why, when antibodies are supposed to signify protection, with HIV, they signify disease? Why are people waiting 10 years or more for any symptoms? My cold virus pounces on me within a few days. Is it true that Africans no longer even have to have a test to be HIV positive? Just one or two symptoms? Why is that?

Why do they call it an AIDS test when it doesn't test for AIDS, doesn't test for HIV, only tests for anti-bodies to HIV? Why is there apparently a plague of sexually-transmitted AIDS in Africa yet transmission rates have barely altered in the U.S. and not stepped outside the original at-risk groups?

Is it true that the actual risk of contracting HIV sexually is thousands to one? What % of people who test positive go on to contract full blown AIDS?

And why are the treatments so toxic? What mad scientist came up with the idea that you further burden an already weakened body with toxic poisons, to achieve health? How many people have been cured after so many billions of dollars have been spent? AFAIK None. Not one.

Why isn't there an anti-malaria drive, which kills far more people, to save lives? Why isn't the money being spent on sanitation, clean water, parasitic diseases, environmental cleanups, hygiene education, lifting these countries out of poverty? How many millions of children would live instead of die?

Might I suggest, in answer to 'dakhar', without wishing to cause offence, that those who are on AIDS forums are going to believe they have 'AIDS' if they have been told they have it. Just as they would if they were told they had Bird Flu, CJD, ADHD or 'Global Warming Syndrome'. We believe the 'science'.

To the OP. Although I'm curious as to why a foreskin can protect against HIV and not other viruses, you may want to consider chopping off the end of your member... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051285

[Prakanong]

Should the situation get to the level where you are ready to get that serious you should know the girl well enough by then to say that you genuinely want to take care of her long term and to prove this you are prepared to take a medical test so that she is sure you would not give her any infections by your close association.

Ask her to go with you so you can do the test together so you both can feel secure and relaxed.

About the best answer possible given the circumstances.

The ex and myself got tested at Bumrungrad - I needed to (in the end I did not but was told I needed it) for my Singapore EP so we used that opportunity.

With the Hep A and B I think it was about 2000THB all in back in 2006 - yes the wait is a little stressful and even worse when the nurse hands the results to the Thai with you in the waiting area -

[Sheryl]

I am still in the dark about a few points. Why, when antibodies are supposed to signify protection, with HIV, they signify disease?

Antibodies signify that your body has encountered the antigen and launched an antibibody response. This does NOT necessarily mean that the antibody response was sufficient to eradicate the disease. In the case of HIV, the antubody response is usually able to hold things in check for many years but eventually loses the battle. Most tests for disease exposure are based on the presence of antibodies and all it means is that your body has encountered the bug and tgried to fight it.

Why are people waiting 10 years or more for any symptoms? My cold virus pounces on me within a few days.

The length of time it takes for expsoure to an infectious agent to cause clinical disease varies very widely. The common cold has an unusually short one. HIV has a longer one. Still other diseases have longer interbvals than HIV does. There is no universal interval applicable to all diseases.

Is it true that Africans no longer even have to have a test to be HIV positive? Just one or two symptoms? Why is that? Nobody has to have a test to be positive. They have to have a test to find out if they are positive during the interval in which they have no symptoms. Just as true for Africans as anyone else. What you may have heard is that in parts of Africa where very high proportions of the population are HIV infected (and in some countries it is as much as 25-50% of adults), people with obvious symptoms of full-blown AIDs are not always tested since the chance that they don't have HIV is infintesimally small. In countries where HIV is not that prevalent, even people who clinically seem to have AIDs should be tested because there are other possible casues of immune system supression.

Why do they call it an AIDS test when it doesn't test for AIDS, doesn't test for HIV, only tests for anti-bodies to HIV?

If by "they" you mean medical professionals, they don't call it an AIDs test. They call it an HIV test. Lay people may sometiems call it an AIDs test but that is not the correct term. And there are several types of HIV tests, some test for the presence of antibodies and some test for the actual virus. The second type is very expensive and time-consuming so only done if there is a likelihood that the person was infected so recently that antibodies may have not yet formed.

Why is there apparently a plague of sexually-transmitted AIDS in Africa yet transmission rates have barely altered in the U.S. and not stepped outside the original at-risk groups? It has to do with pattrerns of sexual behavior and failure to adopt safe sex practices...a problem that has been greatly exacerbated by the policies of some African governments who refuse to accept that sex can transmit the virus and have blocked efforts to promote condom use.

Is it true that the actual risk of contracting HIV sexually is thousands to one? No, it is true that the risk of contracting HIV from one single sexual encounter is small (exactly how small varies according to many, many factors, but yes, on average it is in the realm of 1 in a thousand . Obviously the more unsafe sexual encounters one has the greater the odds of getting it.

What % of people who test positive go on to contract full blown AIDS? Well over 99%. Only a handful of persons have been identified to carry the virus and not get AIDs even after the passage of many decades. They are of course of tremendous interest to AIDs researchers since if the secret to their ability to contain the virus can be unlocked it may hold the key to a vaccine or other preventive treatment.

And why are the treatments so toxic? Because to date the only treatments that anyone has been able to develop have toxic side effects. These treatments are not chosen because of their toxicity, they are chosen because they work and so far there are no less toxic ones that do. I think you may underestimate the difficulty in developing effective treatments.

What mad scientist came up with the idea that you further burden an already weakened body with toxic poisons, to achieve health? Nobody. Unfortunately, viruses live inside the body cells, so things that kill them will also kill cells.

How many people have been cured after so many billions of dollars have been spent? AFAIK None. Not one. If by cured you mean able to stop treatment and the virus will never return, indeed, none. However if cure is defined as preventing or reversing the onset of AIDs and reducing the virus to low or even undetectabkle levels in the blood, the answer is most.

Why isn't there an anti-malaria drive, which kills far more people, to save lives? There is. A huge one.

Why isn't the money being spent on sanitation, clean water, parasitic diseases, environmental cleanups, hygiene education, lifting these countries out of poverty? How many millions of children would live instead of die?

A great deal of money is indeed being spent on exactly these things. That doesn't precluse the need to also spend money to contain the AIDs epidemic. It is not an either or situation. Both need to be doen and are being done. And both have shown enormous progress. Not 100% success, but huge progress. You may underestimate how easily and quickly such goals can be eachieved.

[Prakanong]

Great reply Sheryl - I wish I had your patience!

I heard this lady speak last week on Radio 4's "Start the Week" and saw the book in Singapore - a Reuters reporter turned epidemiologist who worked in the "AIDS Industry" - I will buy it after my MBA exams are over in July

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertai...ani-823322.html

"Here she usefully punctures a few myths. For example, an increase in pre-marital sex does not necessarily increase the risk of Aids – contrary to the conviction of the American right – and may actually reduce it. This is what happened in Thailand, when young men who had been accustomed to visit prostitutes (high risk) found increasingly liberal attitudes among young Thai women to sex meant their advances were more often successful (low risk) so they no longer needed to visit prostitutes."

As for Malaria there is indeed lots of work going on and with the help of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to name but one a vaccine should be available by 2011 - we have 7 major vaccines coming out in the next few years.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Prakanong

[Prakanong]

"To the OP. Although I'm curious as to why a foreskin can protect against HIV and not other viruses, you may want to consider chopping off the end of your member... ohmy.gif http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051285"

I thought people without foreskin were less likely to catch it - I had it all explained to me by my Singapore drinking buddy who is a Neuro-Radiologist

[awakened]

Sheryl

MANY thanks! Nice to have someone take the time to respond as you have.

Prakanong

'I thought people without foreskin were less likely to catch it - I had it all explained to me by my Singapore drinking buddy who is a Neuro-Radiologist'

Well spotted. I meant to say without.

[Prakanong]

Sheryl

MANY thanks! Nice to have someone take the time to respond as you have.

Prakanong

'I thought people without foreskin were less likely to catch it - I had it all explained to me by my Singapore drinking buddy who is a Neuro-Radiologist'

Well spotted. I meant to say without.

Its something to do with the type of cells found on the inside of the foreskin.

My pal was telling me something about the latest imaging equipement they have - supposedely they can see the actual virus in the brain its that good. Its all a bit technical for me on a Sunday afternoon in Muddy Murphy's though - I work in clinical R&D but am IT not a clinician

[thejudge]

I'm willing to use the usual protection early in a relationship. However, should it develop into a serious and "monogamous" relationship, I'd like to have both of us screened for HIV for each other's peace of mind.

Is there a graceful (and reliable) way to ask and accomplish this?

Thanks to all who answer.

I was quite open about testing with my g/f and we both went twice. I just presented it as 'Darling, I am going for my HIV test, shall we go together?' If she was fazed, she didn't let on.

The test was cheap and the results returned overnight if you wanted (death via email?) . In accordance with guidelines, we didn't have unprotected sex until after the second test was positive. The process was quick and painless and it was reassuring to see 'NEGATIVE' on the certificate.

I would have second thoughts about having a test today. Why? I suppose I was complacent. I had not considered what a bombshell a positive test would be.

It's a shame that the sexual act which should be loving, spiritual and obviously deeply intimate has been turned into 'do I have the plague or not?' and now dependent on some outside authorities 'testing', rather than a free, natural choice, for it to go ahead. It was the same with herpes when they announced this 'incurable' disease.

Having an interest in hidden agendas, I wouldn't put it past the religious right in America, spewing their 'fornication is a sin' doctrine, to be behind some of this fearmongering. You don't get elected in America unless you kowtow to the powerful lobbies and they would love to be influencing policy on this sacred act.

If the media were more balanced and told us the true odds of contracting and developing full blown AIDS, instead of saturating us with horror upon horror, people might be less fearful of testing. It is this constant fear-mongering by the media that makes me the most suspicious. Corporations usually have an agenda and using fear to 'drive the herd' is a standard tactic. There is a difference between public education and public manipulation. The degree of hysteria involved usually flags which one it is.

Any research will bring you into dissenting views about AIDS. It's a no-win scenario since it always falls back on 'my science is right and your science is wrong'.

I am still in the dark about a few points. Why, when antibodies are supposed to signify protection, with HIV, they signify disease? Why are people waiting 10 years or more for any symptoms? My cold virus pounces on me within a few days. Is it true that Africans no longer even have to have a test to be HIV positive? Just one or two symptoms? Why is that?

Why do they call it an AIDS test when it doesn't test for AIDS, doesn't test for HIV, only tests for anti-bodies to HIV? Why is there apparently a plague of sexually-transmitted AIDS in Africa yet transmission rates have barely altered in the U.S. and not stepped outside the original at-risk groups?

Is it true that the actual risk of contracting HIV sexually is thousands to one? What % of people who test positive go on to contract full blown AIDS?

And why are the treatments so toxic? What mad scientist came up with the idea that you further burden an already weakened body with toxic poisons, to achieve health? How many people have been cured after so many billions of dollars have been spent? AFAIK None. Not one.

Why isn't there an anti-malaria drive, which kills far more people, to save lives? Why isn't the money being spent on sanitation, clean water, parasitic diseases, environmental cleanups, hygiene education, lifting these countries out of poverty? How many millions of children would live instead of die?

Might I suggest, in answer to 'dakhar', without wishing to cause offence, that those who are on AIDS forums are going to believe they have 'AIDS' if they have been told they have it. Just as they would if they were told they had Bird Flu, CJD, ADHD or 'Global Warming Syndrome'. We believe the 'science'.

To the OP. Although I'm curious as to why a foreskin can protect against HIV and not other viruses, you may want to consider chopping off the end of your member... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051285

Regarding hidden agendas, it's a matter of opinion: certainly the issue provides an abundance of fear, guilt and shame, all most useful to those in power with an agenda. In the west, it would appear that the AIDS epidemic never happened, and because of safe sex practices?, I doubt that. Personally, it just seems like they got the extent of the problem wrong and are doing their level best not to admit it. There's a lot of financial interest in AIDS, from charities through to drug companies. It's often the case that whenever money arrives, truth goes out of the window. However, a conspiracy?..........

Sure, it's a shame that the sexual act is so compromised- we all have to live in fear of doing what comes naturally, but that's life ! and is not the basis for denial.

I agree the media is not balanced. Neville Hodginkson, a well respected UK journalist might also agree. He got blackballed effectively when he tried to address the many rather glaring discrepencies surrounding AIDS !!!! Were discussion more open, it might dissipate the conspiracist viewpoint, but I'm sure a few eyebrows would be raised too.

It is true antibodies normally confer immunity or at least signify that the body has driven the attacker away from a particular area of the body, but that does not mean the invader has been banished and on this matter I agree with the moderator, however her response appears inaccurate in places, specifically:

HIV infection categorically does not guarantee future progression to AIDS although there is a strong likelihood. Firstly, the disease has not been around long enough to make this statement. Then, there appears to be a group of long term non-progessors. Whether this accounts for 1% or 20% I can't currently be sure, but the moderator's statement is inaccurate and dangerously so, as this can initiate a self fulfilling prophecy.

The true odds of contracting HIV from hetrosexual sex appear to be in the multiple thousands rather than 1000-1 depending on gender and type of activity, but risk is risk, random is random, indeed one can argue the science interminably and it depends what point you are trying to prove. The very fact that this can happen tends to point to the weakness of the general theory, ie, nobody disputes facts surrounding a range of other viral conditions includin hep b. It may be the odds are greater in other countries, factors such as immune suppression from malnutrition, and the presence of existing conditions, eg, chancroids, may explain the mystery as to why HIV appears to be exponentially more infectious in Africa than it does in Germany say- maybe it just likes the sun Certainly, figures have recently been revised down a few billion or so; more than a tad wrong wouldn't you say? And this is because indeed tests were indeed not done. Presumably, whatever sample was used got tested eventually and were found to be negative, who knows!

Perhaps you shouldn't capitulate in your argument so quickly; the fact that you made some rather basic errors might not undermine your argument- for sure a growing number of scientists and academics agree with you, there are concerns regarding techniques used to isolate the HIV virus, the credibility of evidence which appears jaw droppingly thin, the specivity of the test, and indeed the toxicity of the drugs, and lastly the taboo that surrounds open discussion regarding this topic.

The judge records an open verdict. For the plaintiff the court orders mandatory condom use HOWEVER should extra marital relations be encountered.

[Sheryl]

Regarding hidden agendas, it's a matter of opinion: certainly the issue provides an abundance of fear, guilt and shame, all most useful to those in power with an agenda. In the west, it would appear that the AIDS epidemic never happened, and because of safe sex practices?, I doubt that. Personally, it just seems like they got the extent of the problem wrong and are doing their level best not to admit it.

What on earth are you talking about? The epidemic most definitely happened and claimed a tragic number of young lives. Your remark is insensitive to say the least to the memory of the hundreds of thousands of people who died (over half a million in the US alone).

HIV infection categorically does not guarantee future progression to AIDS although there is a strong likelihood. Firstly, the disease has not been around long enough to make this statement. Then, there appears to be a group of long term non-progessors. Whether this accounts for 1% or 20% I can't currently be sure, but the moderator's statement is inaccurate and dangerously so, as this can initiate a self fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe you can't be sure, but the scientists who have done studies on cohorts of people with HIV+ over periods of 10 - 25 years can. The percent who are non-progressors is less than one percent.. How much less varies with the definition used, as some people consider anyone who is able to maintain an adequate CD4 count in the absence of anti-retroviral drugs to qualify while others use a more stringent definition that also requires that elvels of the virus in the blood be maintained below a certain level. Also, some people define it in terms of 10 years, some 15, some 20. But none of those definitions gets you a non-progressor rate above 1%.

My statement -- made as a poster, not a moderator BTW -- was not inaccurate. As for "initating a self-fuilfilling propehcy" are you saying that people can get AIDs merely by believeing that they will? If so, that is complete and utter nonsense. No amopunt of fear or woryy in and of itself can cause AIDs.

The true odds of contracting HIV from hetrosexual sex appear to be in the multiple thousands rather than 1000-1 depending on gender and type of activity

You're right about the variability but wrong on the odds. The range is 1 or 2 per thousand average, i.e. .1 to .2%. (For female to male). Certainly not multiple thousands. Of course, these are avaregaes and the variation is very, very wide depending ion a host of factors many of which the man has no way of assessing (e.g. the woman's viral load, whether sghe has any cervical lesions etc).

,The very fact that this can happen tends to point to the weakness of the general theory, ie, nobody disputes facts surrounding a range of other viral conditions includin hep b.

It is not a matter of dispute, and the odds of sexually contracting Hep B are just as variable as those of contacting HIV and fopr the exact same reasons. There are known factors and sexual practices that carry higher risks than does sex in the absence of those factors, for rerasons that are well understood. True for HIV, true for Hep B.

It may be the odds are greater in other countries, factors such as immune suppression from malnutrition, and the presence of existing conditions, eg, chancroids, may explain the mystery as to why HIV appears to be exponentially more infectious in Africa than it does in Germany say- maybe it just likes the sun

There isn't any indication that HIV as a virus is in any more infectious in Africa than in Germany. The same high risk behavior and facotrs in either place carries the same risk. Some of the factors that add to risk, like being uncircumcised and having any sort of genitsl lesion, amay be more common in Africa. Nonetheless,HIV rates have declined in African countries that have been successful in changing sexual behavior. They have remained sky high in countries that haven't. Many of these last are places where the government has actively blocked efforts to eduicate people about condoms use etc, and also blocked the introduction of anti-retroviral drugs (which also help reduce spread by reducing the viral load and hence the infectivity of persons with the virus..which is not to say that they shouldn't still use condoms). In such countries where governments take the "HIV doesn't cause AIDs/it's all a hoax etc etc" position and set their public health policies accordingly, the infection rates (and death rates) are staggering.

Certainly, figures have recently been revised down a few billion or so; more than a tad wrong wouldn't you say? And this is because indeed tests were indeed not done. Presumably, whatever sample was used got tested eventually and were found to be negative, who knows!

Any professional active in the field knows and it has nothing to do with samples. Prior estimates of the number of infected people were just that -- estimates -- based on documented prevalance in specific high risk groups, and then modelling was done to project from that population-based estimates. To do that, one has to make assumptions and any of these assumptions can be wrong in either direction. It is only quite recently that any large scale surveys of HIV prevalence in the general population have been done, it's an expensive and difficult undertaking. As an example, the first survey of HIV prevalence in Cambodia, done in 2005, found a lower prevalence than expected. After detailed examination it appears this was because HIV rate are higher in pregnant women who receive ante-natal care than those who do not, and the population estimates were derived from testing of pregnant women in ante-natal clinics. There was no way of knowing this in advance. The lower rate may also reflcet a more rapid progression to disease and death than had been assumed since that is one of the assumptions that have to be put into a model.

[geriatrickid]

The issue of testing and population extrapolations is difficult in most countries. The only way to get a really accurate estimate is to go out and test as many people as possible. In Thailand this is achieved by way of the military. All new recruits are tested, including officer candidates drawn from the "elite" segment of society. Because the recruits provide a good cross section of (male) Thailand, a reliable indication of prevalence within the general (male) population can be determined. Reliability is further bolstered by the availability of anonymous testing and targeted testing of high risk groups. As well, all pregnant women are supposed to be tested.

Note that HIV infection in Thailand is believed to be a predominately heterosexual condition. (Depending upon sources,75% of cases. 80% if you take USAIDS program numbers). The current male to female sex ratio of HIV+ cases is 3:1. Approx. 40-50% of injecting drug users in Thailand are HIV+. That's a catastophic number.

The current concern is that the HIV prevention programs fell by the wayside a couple years ago. The impact is that we now have a large population of 20-30 year olds oblivious as to the risk of HIV. The first HIV prevention campaign targeted at the MSM (gay) segment only occurred in 2006. The 100% condom program is shredded. The net result, a jump in the number of STIs. Based upon past experience, we know that when STIs increase, Mr. HIV is along for the ride and we can expect the number of sero positive patients to increase as well. HIV+ incidence was 2.35% in 1995 and fell to 1.45% in 2006. I expect the rate will be 1.6% or greater this year and anticipate we will be at the 2% level by 2010 unless drastic intervention takes place. When you take out the non sex participating parts of the demographic, (pre teens, the elderly, those that don't act outside of marriage/partnership), the % is much higher.

The conclusion: Testing is justified and a part of responsible sexual behaviour.

[thejudge]

In response mainly to Sheryl:

Therein is the rub. I find your stance as incredulous as you find mine. I really don't understand why you think there is an epidemic in the west. Aids thankfully clearly did not trouble most of the population. The proof of the pudding!!!

I'm not sure why you should consider my beliefs insensitive to those poor people who came down with this dreadful ailment. Of course it's awful, but should that stop us investigating a matter that clearly needs clarification ?. Come on don't hind behind emotional blackmail, I'm not a bad guy.

As an earlier poster said, the problem is one can play my science is better than your science, but isn't this the mysterious thing, we're talking about a retrovirus here that should have been nailed by now. There really shouldn't be scope for dissent.

[geriatrickid]

Judge you state that you "really don't understand why you (Sheryl) think there is an epidemic in the west." Think? It's an accepted fact by every public and governmental health agency. You are stating your opinion, which is unfounded. Nor is your opinion substantiated by current medical science. I do not know where you received your public health training but there is one uncontested fact that all member nations of the WHO accept: HIV is pandemic. The current accepted usage of the term pandemic is to refer to a widespread epidemic that involves a whole region, continent or the world. More specifically (WHO usage) "A global disease outbreak. A pandemic occurs when a new virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity and for which there is no vaccine. The disease spreads easily person-to-person, causes serious illness, and can sweep across the country and around the world in very short time." What part of the definition do you not understand?

On what basis can you state that Aids thankfully clearly did not trouble most of the population. The proof of the pudding!!!"? Your pudding is half baked.

Did not trouble the population? Where have you been for the last decade? HIV has been a significant disruptive force upon health delivery systems and economies worldwide, including the west. You bet everyday people have been troubled whether or not they know it. Do you have any idea what happens when you remove the most productive part of a demographic? The typical AIDs patient was between the ages of 20 and 44. This is the demographic that drives economies. It's the workforce, the tax generators, and the consumers of goods and services. Have you any idea of what it costs to treat an HIV+ patient to ensure that patient does not develop Aids? Why don't you look up the costs before you say no one was "troubled". In the USA there are approximately 1,000,000 people living with HIV. The emotional costs and disruption to normal economic function has an impact. Throw in the lifetime cost per patient (expected to reach $200,000 per patient per lifetime by 2010) and you have a major financial distraction. This is money that is not being spent on long term investments. Factor in the costs of caring for orphans, disrupted families and ensuring safe environments and the cost to society grows even more.

The impact is even greater in western europe where the majority of HIV+ patients are heterosexual, a quarter of which are female. When you rip out a chunk of fecundity from an already aged population, you have the recipe for economic hardship.

What are you talking about when you toss up a retrovirus? Have you even cracked open an introductory level text book on genetics, pathology, or immunology? If you had read a text and understood the contents, you would not have written the nonsensical statement "we're talking about a retrovirus here that should have been nailed by now." The Retroviridae are a complex and confusing form of virus. They were discovered in 1908 and the genome is only being understood now. Considering the link between these beasties and various cancers, if researchers could have figured out a way to unravel the mystery by now, they would have. There's a big incentive to come up with a cure or vaccination against the diseases linked to these beasties.

You can have your opinion. However, it's just that. Everything Sheryl wrote was accurate and reflective of demonstrated facts. Her approach was one of common sense caution. Common sense while affordable seems to be in short supply at times.

[thejudge]

Judge you state that you "really don't understand why you (Sheryl) think there is an epidemic in the west." Think? It's an accepted fact by every public and governmental health agency. You are stating your opinion, which is unfounded. Nor is your opinion substantiated by current medical science. I do not know where you received your public health training but there is one uncontested fact that all member nations of the WHO accept: HIV is pandemic. The current accepted usage of the term pandemic is to refer to a widespread epidemic that involves a whole region, continent or the world. More specifically (WHO usage) "A global disease outbreak. A pandemic occurs when a new virus emerges for which people have little or no immunity and for which there is no vaccine. The disease spreads easily person-to-person, causes serious illness, and can sweep across the country and around the world in very short time." What part of the definition do you not understand?

On what basis can you state that Aids thankfully clearly did not trouble most of the population. The proof of the pudding!!!"? Your pudding is half baked.

Did not trouble the population? Where have you been for the last decade? HIV has been a significant disruptive force upon health delivery systems and economies worldwide, including the west. You bet everyday people have been troubled whether or not they know it. Do you have any idea what happens when you remove the most productive part of a demographic? The typical AIDs patient was between the ages of 20 and 44. This is the demographic that drives economies. It's the workforce, the tax generators, and the consumers of goods and services. Have you any idea of what it costs to treat an HIV+ patient to ensure that patient does not develop Aids? Why don't you look up the costs before you say no one was "troubled". In the USA there are approximately 1,000,000 people living with HIV. The emotional costs and disruption to normal economic function has an impact. Throw in the lifetime cost per patient (expected to reach $200,000 per patient per lifetime by 2010) and you have a major financial distraction. This is money that is not being spent on long term investments. Factor in the costs of caring for orphans, disrupted families and ensuring safe environments and the cost to society grows even more.

The impact is even greater in western europe where the majority of HIV+ patients are heterosexual, a quarter of which are female. When you rip out a chunk of fecundity from an already aged population, you have the recipe for economic hardship.

What are you talking about when you toss up a retrovirus? Have you even cracked open an introductory level text book on genetics, pathology, or immunology? If you had read a text and understood the contents, you would not have written the nonsensical statement "we're talking about a retrovirus here that should have been nailed by now." The Retroviridae are a complex and confusing form of virus. They were discovered in 1908 and the genome is only being understood now. Considering the link between these beasties and various cancers, if researchers could have figured out a way to unravel the mystery by now, they would have. There's a big incentive to come up with a cure or vaccination against the diseases linked to these beasties.

You can have your opinion. However, it's just that. Everything Sheryl wrote was accurate and reflective of demonstrated facts. Her approach was one of common sense caution. Common sense while affordable seems to be in short supply at times.

Yes it is my opinion- phrases such as "I really don't think" are called discussion openers, obviously perfectly acceptable in the context of a discussion forum. One needs to have reference to the schemata. Quite honestly, I found your comment rather needless and quite pedantic.

Let me check this if I may. You are maintaining that in western countries, eg, UK, and Australia, AIDS has spread to the general community in such a way that it may be judged to be an epidemic. Perhaps it's confusion about the definition of an epidemic, but as a layman I rather considered an epidemic to be something that cut a swathe through the community as a whole. Has that really happened in a western country? Come on now, be honest there is no epidemic in the ordinary sense of the word, although I may have to conceed that perhaps there is in theoretical terms. Yes, common sense should prevail.

"Demonstrative facts'- on the one hand you acknowledge the complexity surrounding this retrovirus, but on the other seem to claim certainty of knowledge- you can't have it both ways surely? Wouldn't it be best to acknowledge that science really doesn't know as many suggest, and hence isn't it a little absurd that minute calculations about transmission for instance are taken as the truth.

And fact !, sad to say, but I have to ask whose fact and is it correct? A little delving reveals the fragility of the AIDS paradigm, and an uncomfortable relationship between, truth, geo - politics and money. One is bound to question old boy.

[Sheryl]

Epidemic simply means that the incidence of a disease is at above expected levels, i.e. an outbreak. it has nothing at all to do with which segments of the population are affected. It is perfectly possible for an epidemic to be limited to specific sub-sections of a population.

The OP has no formal public health or medical training and has already been banned (under a previous avatar) for repeated postings of this nature and various other violations of forum policy.

This thread is now closed. A set of Health forum rules which address related issues will be forthcoming in a week or so after I have had time to draft them and submit them for review by the other Moderatros and Admin.