Immunity To Stds?

[Svenn]

OP and others, I am profoundly curious as to HOW you are able to have unprotected sex on a routine basis like that- I'm not judging you or anything, I just really want to know why 1. you're not scared for yourself 2. or concerned for the woman???

On topic, there's a good chance OP that the diseases are just dormant- and you can still transmit them. for example, my gf gave me molluscum contagisum (like adult chicken pox, not serious, lasts a few months) ...but she never had them. Doc said it was dormant in her and she gave it to me. I am particular vulnerable to illness so I get sick easy, and I think that translates into STDs too- a thick skinned fellow like yourself could give weaker people all sorts of illnesses.

[Tolley]

The OP is a real superstar no doubt about it.

THere is more than a bit of brag in the OPs post and it is very distasteful I might add.

Unfortunately there are many guys around like the OP and a lot of them have helped spread the STDs around to all they sleep with.

[mommysboy]

The OP is a real superstar no doubt about it.

THere is more than a bit of brag in the OPs post and it is very distasteful I might add.

Unfortunately there are many guys around like the OP and a lot of them have helped spread the STDs around to all they sleep with.

Can you explain this Tolley ?. OP's posting suggests that he's had just 2 infections that he then sought treatment for. To my mind you can't spread what you haven't got, and if you seek medical treatment for some medical problem that you have surely that's acting responsibly, isn't it?.

[geriatrickid]

I am disappointed that we are even having this discussion or that Sheryl's position is questioned. It is a fact that some people can be asymptomatic. One can go on and on with citations and a literature review, but it gets down to the truism that not knowing is not the same as not having. Ever hear of Typhoid Mary?

I promise you, you have HPV at the least that much is for sure.

Thank you for pointing this out. Many males do not even know they manifest the infection since the lesions/growths can be very small or in difficult to see places. The assumption that because nothing has been found yet, doesn't mean that one is all clear. You have to look for the beasties and most physicians when asked to test for an STI will only do the basic tests. The quick urine tests aren't perfect either. Reminders are now sent to physicians to check for syphilis because no one thinks about it, and yet there are parts of the EU and Asia where it's prevalent. Bet people didn't know that a couple years ago, the UK was one of the leading hot spots for syphilis. No one was on the look out until there were a few thousand reported cases. (The health authorities moved fast and brought down the new infection rates in less than 2 years.) However, Germany still reports something like 3000+ cases per annum. Syphilis? In this day and age? Some people didn't realize they were infected because the only manifestation for some patients in stage I is a the small sore that goes away on its own after awhile. Chlamydia is called the "silent" disease because there are no symptoms. I think the estimate is that 75% of infected women and 50% of infected men have no symptoms.

OP, if you want to believe you have immunity, and that helps you to avoid worrying, then so be it. However, you owe it to the rest of society to be more responsible and not be Mr. Vector. Along with rights to do as we want, also come responsibilities to behave in a manner that minimizes harm to others.

Anyway, the good part about this thread is that thankfully there are alot of people out there that do have consideration for others.

Edited May 10, 2009 by geriatrickid

[mommysboy]

OP and others, I am profoundly curious as to HOW you are able to have unprotected sex on a routine basis like that- I'm not judging you or anything, I just really want to know why 1. you're not scared for yourself 2. or concerned for the woman???

On topic, there's a good chance OP that the diseases are just dormant- and you can still transmit them. for example, my gf gave me molluscum contagisum (like adult chicken pox, not serious, lasts a few months) ...but she never had them. Doc said it was dormant in her and she gave it to me. I am particular vulnerable to illness so I get sick easy, and I think that translates into STDs too- a thick skinned fellow like yourself could give weaker people all sorts of illnesses.

As sensible as your point is there's a flaw: you place responsibility on OP's shoulders for ensuring he doesn't pass on an affliction he isn't even aware of but seemingly accept that your GF could do little to prevent passing chicken pox on to you, and also now you are a carrier of course, so will you be taking any special steps to prevent infecting someone else ?; of course not it goes beyond all reasonableness to expect you to.

I rather think this confusion is because we all seem to regard std's differently, and yet in many respects clap could easily just be called 'strep willy', and most std's are either self limiting or curable.

You say you are more vulnerable to illness, is this really true Svenn? I think you can only really say this if you have some specific systemic weakness, otherwise why? It may be you just need to adjust psychologically to the fact that for most of us a degree of illness is quite normal, or that you need to look at lifestyle issues, eg, smoking, dietary factors and stress.

[Svenn]

As sensible as your point is there's a flaw: you place responsibility on OP's shoulders for ensuring he doesn't pass on an affliction he isn't even aware of but seemingly accept that your GF could do little to prevent passing chicken pox on to you, and also now you are a carrier of course, so will you be taking any special steps to prevent infecting someone else ?; of course not it goes beyond all reasonableness to expect you to.

What the heck?! of course I place responsibility on the OP AND myself to WEAR A CONDOM! where the heck do you get this idea that it's unreasonable to expect me to prevent infecting someone else? Your first sentence is the most asinine I've ever seen on TV- essentially you're saying he shouldn't be responsible for preventing infections 'he isn't aware of'- as if awareness of a disease, one of the most ephemeral and inperceivable properties of an organism, is the prerequisite for doing something about preventing it.

I rather think this confusion is because we all seem to regard std's differently, and yet in many respects clap could easily just be called 'strep willy', and most std's are either self limiting or curable.

You say you are more vulnerable to illness, is this really true Svenn? I think you can only really say this if you have some specific systemic weakness, otherwise why? It may be you just need to adjust psychologically to the fact that for most of us a degree of illness is quite normal, or that you need to look at lifestyle issues, eg, smoking, dietary factors and stress.

I have sensitive skin and brittle bones- indeed not a true medical predisposition to illness, but an undeniable fact. I agree that most STDs are over-villified, especially something like the molluscum I had, which was really more similar to an athlete's foot that happened to be on my croch instead of my foot, and didn't really deserve to be categorized, especially since it was painless and harmless, with crazy stuff like AIDs or herpes.

I 'sort of' see where the OP is coming from since apparently the women were open to mutually taking the risk with him. My hunch is that the OP and others are as brain-dead as the women they sleep with or similarly in some sort of desperate psychological condition that has led them to a complete disregard of the future... which is really what's going on here. I have been in situations like that, where I was so depressed I really didn't care how dangerous something was... but never on a habitual basis for extended periods of time. I am truly baffled by you guys.

[duchovny]

the women were open to mutually taking the risk with him.

Exactly.

I never forced or tricked any of them to go bareback. Most of them didn't seem interested whether I had a condom or not.

But it's funny how no-one mentions their role in this 50-50 crime.

As usual, let's gang up on the white guy, he can't cry sexist or racist.

[OriginalPoster]

...

Edited May 11, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[mommysboy]

As sensible as your point is there's a flaw: you place responsibility on OP's shoulders for ensuring he doesn't pass on an affliction he isn't even aware of but seemingly accept that your GF could do little to prevent passing chicken pox on to you, and also now you are a carrier of course, so will you be taking any special steps to prevent infecting someone else ?; of course not it goes beyond all reasonableness to expect you to.

What the heck?! of course I place responsibility on the OP AND myself to WEAR A CONDOM! where the heck do you get this idea that it's unreasonable to expect me to prevent infecting someone else? Your first sentence is the most asinine I've ever seen on TV- essentially you're saying he shouldn't be responsible for preventing infections 'he isn't aware of'- as if awareness of a disease, one of the most ephemeral and inperceivable properties of an organism, is the prerequisite for doing something about preventing it.

I rather think this confusion is because we all seem to regard std's differently, and yet in many respects clap could easily just be called 'strep willy', and most std's are either self limiting or curable.

You say you are more vulnerable to illness, is this really true Svenn? I think you can only really say this if you have some specific systemic weakness, otherwise why? It may be you just need to adjust psychologically to the fact that for most of us a degree of illness is quite normal, or that you need to look at lifestyle issues, eg, smoking, dietary factors and stress.

I have sensitive skin and brittle bones- indeed not a true medical predisposition to illness, but an undeniable fact. I agree that most STDs are over-villified, especially something like the molluscum I had, which was really more similar to an athlete's foot that happened to be on my croch instead of my foot, and didn't really deserve to be categorized, especially since it was painless and harmless, with crazy stuff like AIDs or herpes.

I 'sort of' see where the OP is coming from since apparently the women were open to mutually taking the risk with him. My hunch is that the OP and others are as brain-dead as the women they sleep with or similarly in some sort of desperate psychological condition that has led them to a complete disregard of the future... which is really what's going on here. I have been in situations like that, where I was so depressed I really didn't care how dangerous something was... but never on a habitual basis for extended periods of time. I am truly baffled by you guys.

That's a bit much!!! You've inferred way too much in my opinion I just laid out a simple statement of logic and in essence acknowledged the rightness of your statement and one problem with it (which I also pointed out was a general problem with all of us). Like I said this subject area really seems to be emotive, would we be have this argument over flu, which is surely a much more serious and real issue?.

Svenn surely you can see the similarities in the situation, I'm not blaming at all or attacking you, and if fact just emphasising that we need to be reasonable when placing responsibilities on each other's shoulders. I am indeed saying we can't expect you to be responsible for being a carrier, or indeed your girlfriend from infecting you with chicken pox.

Sorry to hear about the medical conditions, and again my interest here was purely because I tend to think of myself as being prone to get illness; I too tend to suffer from over sensitive skin and mucosal linings.

[mommysboy]

...

Silence is golden !

[OriginalPoster]

Svenn surely you can see the similarities in the situation, I'm not blaming at all or attacking you, and if fact just emphasising that we need to be reasonable when placing responsibilities on each other's shoulders. I am indeed saying we can't expect you to be responsible for being a carrier, or indeed your girlfriend from infecting you with chicken pox.

In Svenn's case I'm not so sure that it's true though. While apparently his doctor told him that his gf was an asymptotic carrier of molluscum and that's how he caught it, from what I've read that sounds like it would be an unusual case. I wonder if the doctor somehow tested her and determined that she was infected or if he was speculating that she was the source (or if she was infected, how it could be known that she infected him instead of he infecting her). Molluscum is highly contagious when lesions are present but according to the CDC's FAQ on the disease it says that once the lesions are treated and eliminated that you can no longer infect anyone and that it will not reoccur in you unless you are reinfected by another person or by an object that has been in recent contact with the virus. The disease is in fact so contagous when lesions are present that it is known to spread through swimming pools and objects that have come in contact with the infection (it's not always an STD, in fact children often contract the disease and the molluscum lesions are often in places other than the genitals). The CDC's site specifically says the virus that causes molluscum is not like the one that causes HPV and herpes, that it doesn't stay in your body forever. Elsewhere I've read that asymptotic carriers "probably" exist but that it is not proven. It sounds to me as if if it's true that he caught it from his gf and that it's accurate that she had no symptoms at the time, that she probably had been infected fairly recently before she infected him, probably an amount of time earlier that is less than the incubation time for symptoms to develop. I'm not a doctor though, just going on what I've read.

Edited May 11, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[Livinginexile]

A health professional once told me:

Assuming the female is HIV+, it is very hard for a male to contract HIV from her through straight heterosexual sex. The odds go way up for the male with anal sex with the same woman.

In other words, the risk of contracting HIV goes up 90% for the male if they practice heterosexual anal sex (again assuming the female is HIV+).

I think health professionals like Sheryl don't like to make any distinctions between gay and heterosexual sex as it tends to label HIV as a gay disease so they keep the "stats" for both persuasions as close as possible.

The fact of the matter is weather passive or active; you have a LOT greater chance of contracting this disease through anal sex than through straight heterosexual sex.

Now I could be wrong here, this is what a health professional working with HIV in Sydney told me. If I am wrong, please tell me.

Let me be clear...I IN NO WAY CONDONE UNPROTECTED CASUAL SEX.

[geriatrickid]

the women were open to mutually taking the risk with him.

Exactly.

I never forced or tricked any of them to go bareback. Most of them didn't seem interested whether I had a condom or not.But it's funny how no-one mentions their role in this 50-50 crime.

As usual, let's gang up on the white guy, he can't cry sexist or racist.

Your logic is faulty. In most societies there is an understanding that one does not take advantage of those that do not understand right from wrong or that are incapable of making an informed decision. For example, I don't think you would have sexual intercourse with a beautiful 35 year old woman that had the intellectual capacity of a 5 year old. An extreme example? Not really, if one takes into consideration that desperate people will often undertake stupid acts. A woman that has to support a family and no other means of supporting herself except selling her body, will hope for the best if it means having something to eat and caring for people that would otherwise go hungry, without shelter or medicine. It doesn't help matters either when that woman has never been informed and made to understand the dangers of unprotected sexual activities with multiple partners. I think you can appreciate the concept of "doing the right thing". Choosing to do the "right thing" requires one to be able to think of others besides one's own needs and desires. Very few people choose the career of sex worker because it was a career they aspired to have or wanted. They are there because they are desperate. Anyone that has taken the time to talk to the boy or girl working the bar knows that.

A health professional once told me:

Assuming the female is HIV+, it is very hard for a male to contract HIV from her through straight heterosexual sex. .

I think health professionals like Sheryl don't like to make any distinctions between gay and heterosexual sex as it tends to label HIV as a gay disease so they keep the "stats" for both persuasions as close as possible.

Are you able to determine if a woman is shedding virus from her genital tract? I can't. There is no visual, or smell or taste test. Multiple studies have demonstrated that women are indeed capable of passing on HIV via genital tract shedding of the virus even when there is no detectable viral load in the blood. That is an uncontested fact.

I don't know where you get your HIV demographic data, but HIV is more prevalent in heterosexuals in many regions, such as Africa and Asia. As this is Thailand, I direct your attention to 20 years of data collected courtesy of the Thai military conscripts that are tested as part of their induction physical. Russia's HIV epidemic is fueled by IV drug use. IV drug users in Russia are more likely than not to be heterosexual.

There are many heterosexual acts that are far more dangerous than homosexual acts. As such, labeling the dangerous act homo or hetero serves no purpose since it is the physical act that can introduce the infection.

[mommysboy]

the women were open to mutually taking the risk with him.

Exactly.

I never forced or tricked any of them to go bareback. Most of them didn't seem interested whether I had a condom or not.But it's funny how no-one mentions their role in this 50-50 crime.

As usual, let's gang up on the white guy, he can't cry sexist or racist.

Your logic is faulty in part. In most societies there is an understanding that one does not take advantage of those that do not understand right from wrong or that are incapable of making an informed decision. For example, I don't think you would have sexual intercourse with a beautiful 35 year old woman that had the intellectual capacity of a 5 year old. An extreme example? yes Not really, if one takes into consideration that desperate people will often undertake stupid acts. A woman that has to support a family and no other means of supporting herself except selling her body, will hope for the best if it means having something to eat and caring for people that would otherwise go hungry, without shelter or medicine, surely dramatic.It doesn't help matters either when that woman has never been informed and made to understand the dangers of unprotected sexual activities with multiple partners. I think you can appreciate the concept of "doing the right thing". Choosing to do the "right thing" requires one to be able to think of others besides one's own needs and desires. Very few people choose the career of sex worker because it was a career they aspired to have or wanted. They are there because they are desperate. Anyone that has taken the time to talk to the boy or girl working the bar knows that. I might add that some women do know the dangers and know they are already HIV+ so think it doesn't matter, also rather sadly, others go bareback in order to increase the man's satisfaction and hence get more money.

A health professional once told me:

Assuming the female is HIV+, it is very hard for a male to contract HIV from her through straight heterosexual sex. .

I think health professionals like Sheryl don't like to make any distinctions between gay and heterosexual sex as it tends to label HIV as a gay disease so they keep the "stats" for both persuasions as close as possible.

Are you able to determine if a woman is shedding virus from her genital tract? I can't. I'm not sure a scientist can either GK, are you getting confused with supposed antiBodies (which occur in saliva too).There is no visual, or smell or taste test. Multiple studies have demonstrated that women are indeed capable of passing on HIV via genital tract shedding of the virus even when there is no detectable viral load in the blood. That is an uncontested fact??.

I don't know where you get your HIV demographic data Oz i think, but HIV is more prevalent in heterosexuals in many regions, such as Africa and Asia. As this is Thailand, I direct your attention to 20 years of data collected courtesy of the Thai military conscripts that are tested as part of their induction physical. Russia's HIV epidemic is fueled by IV drug use. IV drug users in Russia are more likely than not to be heterosexual.

There are many heterosexual acts ? you've contradicted yourself here but I think I know where you are coming from, eg, blood letting I suppose. that are far more dangerous than homosexual acts. As such, labeling the dangerous act homo or hetero serves no purpose since it is the physical act that can introduce the infection.

It is indeed more about the sexual act, and who is the receiving partner, according to mainstream science In western studies, transmissibility appears to be very low from infected female to non infected male, at least under safe conditions, but it is thought that risk increases when either party has an std, or blood contact becomes relevant. But it's not a hetero issue per se, in fact if you were looking for one particular group or label you would have to say the poor/poverty, but it's not that simple either.

The mystery then is why the figures in Africa and Asia are so different, and no one has come up with a reasonable scientific explanation as far as I'm aware, whether it be in trying to prove that different sub types act are more virulent, or genetic disposition or circumsicion, or whatever, however they have all showed that if you are determined to prove a point you think is right a study can be engineered to do just that.

In short I think no one knows the scientific answer as to such a gross divergence, but it is a fact that worldwide HIV estimates are being revised downwards, by a staggering amount in some cases, eg, India, one wonders about Thailand which appears out of step.

Condoms a must!

[loong]

One theory about the spread of HIV in Africa

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle4345263.ece

[Sheryl]

I think health professionals like Sheryl don't like to make any distinctions between gay and heterosexual sex as it tends to label HIV as a gay disease so they keep the "stats" for both persuasions as close as possible.

:D

Sorry I had to pick myself off the floor first. I'm sure you do not realize this but scientific data is sacred in public health. To accuse a public health professional of in any way distorting or slanting data is akin to accusing a doctor of intentional malpractice. It is absolutely unthinkable and neither I nor anyone else in the field are doing any such thing.

We do, however, often find it very hard to explain statistics to generalists, and the general public often misunderstand data. This is true even on completely neutral topics; all the more so on topics that are emotionally charged.

The virus makes no distinction between hetero and homosexual sex. It can be spread by intercourse of any type. However, it is more efficiently transmitted by anal than by vaginal intercourse because the mucous membrane lining of the former is more delicate and more easily torn, allowing the virus a point of entry into the blood stream. Whether the anal sex is between 2 men or a man and a woman, no difference.

The risk is much higher for the receptive partner than the active partner because it is the receptive partner who will sustain these tiny tears. The skin of the penis is much tougher. (Although microscopic tears/scartches can occur without your knowing it).

In vaginal intercourse, the risk is greater for the receptive partner (the woman) for the same reason; although not as fragile as the rectum, the vaginal mucosa and cervix are still more prone to sustaining small breaks which facilitate the entry of the virus than is the penis.

However these differences are only relative. Active male partners can become infected and millions have. That the numbers of men who contacted HIV from heterosexual sex is so large despite female to male transmission being less effective is because of the sheer numbers of men engaging in high risk activities and the frequency with which many of them do so.

In the West, HIV first entered in the gay community, probably through happenstance. It also happened to do so at a particular time and in locations where highly promiscous behavior was in vogue. HIV has remained primarily a problem of gays and IV drug users in the west, although behavioral changes have greatly reduced the rate of transmission among gays.

In Africa, where the disease first began, and in Asia where it arrived much later, the disease is found in both heterosexual and homosexual circles, but due to a far greater number of heterosexuals in the population and a high prevalence of risky practices among them, the majority of people with HIV are heterosexual. A much more widespread custom of men patronizing prostitutes than is seen in the west has facilitated spread in the heterosexual population. In Africa a high prevalence of untreated/undertreated other STDs has also been a factor.

It is thought that the HIV epidemic in SE Asia may have commenced with infection of male prostitutes by western tourists. In Asia (and Africa) it is not uncommon for young boys/men to enter the sex trade out of poverty without necessarily themselves being gay; such people would then infect their own female partners, resulting in cross-over into heterosexual circles which we did not see much of in the west. Once in the heterosexual population , spread was comparatively rapid due to the widely entrenched custom of men, married and otherwise, frequenting prostitutes. They were do so in sufficient numbers and with sufficient frequency to offset the comparatively low rate of female to male transmission.

In addition, it must be understood that there are a number of factors which can make female to male transmission more efficient. (more efficient: it is always possible). Presence of another STD in either partner is one of them, so are cervical abrasions in the woman (an occupational hazard of prostitution) and a high viral load is another. Sex workers are liable not only to contact HIV but to have multiple exposures which can lead the viral load to increase faster and higher than would be the case in an infected woman who was not "ïn the business". The relative risk of female to male transmission derived from studies of monogamous couples can therefore not be assumed to be the same for the female to male transmission in the context of commercial sex. The latter will be higher, in some cases by a small margin, in others by quite a bit, depending on the VL, presence of cervical abrasions, other STDs etc etc.

Public health professionals do very much dislike quoting data on odds of transmission because the general public has great difficulty understanding them e.g. that an overall average risk is only an average and that actual risk in any given situation can be very very different. (In a room with 5 pygmies who are only 3 feet tall and 5 giants who are 9 feet tall, the average height is 6 feet. But tell someone that the average hieight of these people is 6 feet and they will envision something very different from what is the case, even if you stress that 6 feet is only the average.) The other concern is that people will misuse information to rationalize high risk behavior.

I must say that what I have seen on this thread so far tends to validate these concerns.

On the issue of a man not using condoms when he doesn't have signs of an STD: with STDs as with colds and other infectious diseases, there is an interval between infection and symptoms, and you can be infectious during that period. In fact that is how most male to female or male to male STD transmission occurs: as any man who has had an STD knows, you aren't much inclined towards having sex during the symptomatic phase.

[mommysboy]

Sheryl, he was only saying. I don't see the need for such a reply. It is a fact that in the west the disease has stayed mainly confined to gays and drug users - you can't argue with that.

Here's a study that is pivotal in explaining AIDS policy in Thailand. Given my stance on HIV transmission I am suspicious of this study and at first glance it does seem to concentrate on 2 high risk groups and then apply to the general pop. as a whole, but I don't have the time to look more deeply at the present, but here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

Would be interested in an unbiased reading for the layman.

[maccaroni man]

After many years of travelling and living in SE Asia, I've had the pleasure of the company of several hundred girls, maybe a thousand, most of them of questionable morals.

I wear protection less than 5% of the time.

Yet, only twice in 2 decades have I had an STD, which was cured with a needle in the ass and some antibiotics. Nor have I caught HIV.

These odds are somewhat contradictory to what we are made to believe should happen.

Is it possible, if you have a healthy immune system, to not have as much of a chance to catch these diseases?

I seem to be living proof.

I promise you, you have HPV at the least that much is for sure.

hpv often results in warts and it is true that some people have an immune system that is strong enough to not be effected by particular viral infections.

[bonobo]

I am disappointed that we are even having this discussion or that Sheryl's position is questioned. It is a fact that some people can be asymptomatic. One can go on and on with citations and a literature review, but it gets down to the truism that not knowing is not the same as not having. Ever hear of Typhoid Mary?

Actually, I am quite glad we are having this discussion.  It is obvious to me that the OP wonders if he is somehow immune to STDs.  If he really reads posts here and takes them to heart, he should realize that he has either just been lucky or that he may be asymptomatic and have one or more STDs.

I do agree with you, though, on wondering how anyone can question Sheryl's posts here.

[FBN]

Sheryl, he was only saying. I don't see the need for such a reply. It is a fact that in the west the disease has stayed mainly confined to gays and drug users - you can't argue with that.

Here's a study that is pivotal in explaining AIDS policy in Thailand. Given my stance on HIV transmission I am suspicious of this study and at first glance it does seem to concentrate on 2 high risk groups and then apply to the general pop. as a whole, but I don't have the time to look more deeply at the present, but here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

Would be interested in an unbiased reading for the layman.

Sheryl,

Your posts are wasted... Pearls, I say....

He that never changes his opinion, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow that he is today. - Tyron Edwards

Perhaps back to the original post:

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

[rixalex]

Sheryl,

Your posts are wasted... Pearls, I say....

Well not entirely. Most of us are hugely grateful for her input and comments. She's a gem with many pearls!

[mommysboy]

Sheryl, he was only saying. I don't see the need for such a reply. It is a fact that in the west the disease has stayed mainly confined to gays and drug users - you can't argue with that.

Here's a study that is pivotal in explaining AIDS policy in Thailand. Given my stance on HIV transmission I am suspicious of this study and at first glance it does seem to concentrate on 2 high risk groups and then apply to the general pop. as a whole, but I don't have the time to look more deeply at the present, but here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

Would be interested in an unbiased reading for the layman.

Sheryl,

Your posts are wasted... Pearls, I say....

He that never changes his opinion, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow that he is today. - Tyron Edwards

Perhaps back to the original post:

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

Strong objection . Flame - reference swine. Complaint forthcoming.

[mommysboy]

Not sure who (I think Kissinger) and a paraphrase: It's difficult to teach people to understand, when their livlihood depends on them not understanding: Not nice but better than comparing people with pigs/swine.

Well thanks to FBN, for that informed posting regarding Thai female to male transmission rates in Thailand. I was hoping for a little better .

Still you know what they say!!!

[geriatrickid]

Not sure who (I think Kissinger) and a paraphrase: It's difficult to teach people to understand, when their livlihood depends on them not understanding: Not nice but better than comparing people with pigs/swine.

Well thanks to FBN, for that informed posting regarding Thai female to male transmission rates in Thailand. I was hoping for a little better .

Still you know what they say!!!

One infers from the first statement that the people engaged in the research of infectious diseases and those that undertake the treatment of the afflicted are in it for the money. You are wrong. My classmates that went into HIV and cancer research make far less than if they were engaged in other more lucrative studies such as baldness treatments. Many people working in cancer research picked the field because they lost a close family member and it has become a personal crusade. You think the people that drop into Ebola outbreak zones do so for the money? Why don't you do it then and bring along your theories and see how long you last before you bleed to death. Do you know the tough working conditions that health workers face when they get plopped out in the middle of Africa or India? They aren't paid enough, period. Get real, ok. No health care provider wants to see people sick and dying. It's abnormal. They have families and friends that contract these illnesses too.

If you want to understand the mechanism of RNA shedding, then go take a few courses in cell biology. Learn the fundamentals of microbiology and biochemistry. Then maybe you will comprehend the medical journal articles you read. I count my blessings that people like you do not set health policy, otherwise we'd be having people eat beet root and garlic as an HIV treatment.

Edited May 14, 2009 by geriatrickid

[FBN]

Sheryl, he was only saying. I don't see the need for such a reply. It is a fact that in the west the disease has stayed mainly confined to gays and drug users - you can't argue with that.

Here's a study that is pivotal in explaining AIDS policy in Thailand. Given my stance on HIV transmission I am suspicious of this study and at first glance it does seem to concentrate on 2 high risk groups and then apply to the general pop. as a whole, but I don't have the time to look more deeply at the present, but here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

Would be interested in an unbiased reading for the layman.

Sheryl,

Your posts are wasted... Pearls, I say....

He that never changes his opinion, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow that he is today. - Tyron Edwards

Perhaps back to the original post:

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

Strong objection . Flame - reference swine. Complaint forthcoming.

Objection noted; inference as interpreted not intended; merely referred to the quality of Sheryl's posts

Sincerest apologies if offended..

[duchovny]

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

If you go back and read my OP, I never stated that i was immune, but said

"not have as much of a chance to catch these diseases?"

In other words, I don't seem to be getting STD's as much as we would be led to believe.

I'm not immune, but only catching something twice after sleeping with 1000 questionable girls is not as much as we are told I should have. From what we are taught/read about I should have had every nasty at least a few times each and be HIV+. But that's not the case. Why? Some people say "lucky", but I say there's not as much danger out there as we are told there is.

[OriginalPoster]

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

If you go back and read my OP, I never stated that i was immune, but said

"not have as much of a chance to catch these diseases?"

In other words, I don't seem to be getting STD's as much as we would be led to believe.

I'm not immune, but only catching something twice after sleeping with 1000 questionable girls is not as much as we are told I should have. From what we are taught/read about I should have had every nasty at least a few times each and be HIV+. But that's not the case. Why? Some people say "lucky", but I say there's not as much danger out there as we are told there is.

What I'd worry about as much as STD's is that after barebacking it with so many girls that I'd have at least a few kids living in poverty somewhere who I knew nothing about.

[OriginalPoster]

Sheryl, he was only saying. I don't see the need for such a reply. It is a fact that in the west the disease has stayed mainly confined to gays and drug users - you can't argue with that.

Here's a study that is pivotal in explaining AIDS policy in Thailand. Given my stance on HIV transmission I am suspicious of this study and at first glance it does seem to concentrate on 2 high risk groups and then apply to the general pop. as a whole, but I don't have the time to look more deeply at the present, but here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

Would be interested in an unbiased reading for the layman.

Sheryl,

Your posts are wasted... Pearls, I say....

He that never changes his opinion, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow that he is today. - Tyron Edwards

Perhaps back to the original post:

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

Strong objection . Flame - reference swine. Complaint forthcoming.

You're too educated if you took offense at that. I had to google "Pearls Swine" before I knew what you were talking about. I have to say that I like it:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet."

Matthew 7:6

That's scripture that I'm sure that I'll quote in the future.

Edited May 14, 2009 by OriginalPoster

[mommysboy]

Sheryl, he was only saying. I don't see the need for such a reply. It is a fact that in the west the disease has stayed mainly confined to gays and drug users - you can't argue with that.

Here's a study that is pivotal in explaining AIDS policy in Thailand. Given my stance on HIV transmission I am suspicious of this study and at first glance it does seem to concentrate on 2 high risk groups and then apply to the general pop. as a whole, but I don't have the time to look more deeply at the present, but here's the link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7904668

Would be interested in an unbiased reading for the layman.

Sheryl,

Your posts are wasted... Pearls, I say....

He that never changes his opinion, never corrects his mistakes, will never be wiser on the morrow that he is today. - Tyron Edwards

Perhaps back to the original post:

The OP admits he has already had 2 STDs he was aware of. The operative phrase.

You don't really need a genius to interpret the implication of this?

No, it appears that you are NOT immune...

Fair enough?

Strong objection . Flame - reference swine. Complaint forthcoming.

Objection noted; inference as interpreted not intended; merely referred to the quality of Sheryl's posts

Sincerest apologies if offended..

Apologies, I guess you were just saying 'don't bother'.

I am only questioning AIDS science, the stats, and the whole ball game that goes with it, and even then am not so certain. It's more a case of exaggeration and in a way I'm stretching a point to prove a point. I perceive myself to have been a victim of the hype, it had a significant emotional impact.

This is not an attack on Sheryl. I have received very valuable advice from the mods on this board, on a variety of topics including acne, neck pain, blood pressure, and sinusitis.

I do think it's pretty low of a number of posters to use this line of defence that to argue is to attack Sheryl.

[fishhooks]

Are Pap Smears becoming more common in Thailand?

It seems in the rest of the developed world this test is being encouraged.

A Thai Doctor well versed in English, recently told me with the Pap Smears he has experience with, that a very high percentage are coming back noting an HPV indication, many CIN2 which is reasonably serious needing further follow-up and treatment to lessen the chance of Cervical Cancer later on.

Maybe with the emphasis in Thailand about HIV over recent years, HPV is still a bit of a "sleeper"