The Hiv Scam

[Sheryl]

Pretty sure discussing prostitutes in this context does not violate the spirit of such a rule, even though it may violate the letter. That type of a rule is most likely meant to prevent discussing where to go to find them, the quality, being ripped off by them etc.

That is correct.

[Jingthing]

Scapegoating HIV. I guess we could scapegoat intravenous drug users as a high risk group for HIV transmission. Anyone have any problems with that?

Also I guess we could scapegoat people who receive anal sex as the risk as I understand it is 10 times greater.

I also think we could give a pass to people who have only oral sex as the risk is quite low but of course not zero.

The highest risk as far as I know is 1. Shared needles.

2. Shared blood as in blood sports or just blood around during sex.

3. The catcher in anal sex. 4. Vaginal sex.

I guess we could get into a thing about who has the most anal sex but I hardly think that productive as all those things are on a sliding price scale.

Huh? What are you on about? Scapegoating? WHY?

The only real social criminals in this human tragedy are people who know they are infected and deliberately spread it to others either intentionally or by taking no precautions. Of course the number of such antisocial people pales in comparison to people who don't know they are infected and not taking precautions.

IV drug users -- they need clean needles, they are drug addicts who need medical help.

Anal sex? -- this occurs with homosexuals and heterosexuals. No doubt it is more common with homosexuals, fewer options. It is true the passive partner has the higher risk, but tops also face risk. Contrary to popular belief, not all homosexual sex is anal, but it is popular. There is no doubt that abstinence with any kind of sex, oral, anal, vaginal is the safest way to go, but most adults don't want to be abstinent. So the alternative is USING CONDOMS. You are seriously suggesting scapegoating people who are expressing their sexuality and trying to protect themselves and their partners the best they can? OK, up to you.

How about unprotected anal sex? I wish people wouldn't do that personally but adults have a free choice. I also wish people outside monogamous relationships wouldn't have unprotected vaginal sex, but they also have the free choice.

Vaginal sex -- in Thailand, that is the overwhelmingly most common way to pass the HIV virus. So you want to scapegoat heterosexuals having vaginal sex the MOST based on your absurd scapegoating needs.

It still amazes me that people want to be this way in this modern day about a VIRUS.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

My implication was that the Christian Missionaries were exaggerating or misinterpreting data - but used their bloated number anyway.

My other implication is that there are very, very few men who obtained HIV from unprotected vaginal sex with a woman. Those men that did were simply extremely unlucky and I would be a lot of money that most of them were very well endowed and thus draw blood when having sex more often than men with smaller penis' - thus the reason more African American heterosexual men have AIDS than white or Asian hetoerosexual men.

The vast majority of people infected with Aids are gay men, women, Aids babies, IV drug users and those who got it from a blood transfusion. The least likely group to get it - and the smallest proportion of those with it - are heterosexual males, particularly white and Asian heterosexual males.

Actually, the most recent data on any species that relates to cock size (so to speak) is on ducks (of all things), and it points to higher risk factors for STD transmission among animals with SMALLER penises (for reasons so far not fully understood).

Members who find whistling in the dark reassuring should avoid reading about the heterosexual explosion of HIV in southern Africa, for instance (where the average age is certainly not 538 years anymore by any stretch of the imagination).

[Jingthing]

I have never seen a scientific study saying big ones increase HIV risk. I think that all came from DF's vivid imagination.

[zzdocxx]

Outstanding..... Did u eat a lot of paint chips as a kid?

[Sheryl]

.... A large number of independent studies should give us a range of values for the transmission probability....

I maintain the medical community has done a disservice to the global population by not trying to make these numbers and studies more accessible, if they were done at all. After 30+ years there should be thousands of such studies done globally, and everyone should know these values without having to question them on internet forums.

There should have been/should be studies that involve knowingly exposing people to unprotected sex with an HIV infected person?

No reasearcher would do that; it is unethical. And -- a few of the posters on this forum evidentally notwithstanding -- it would be virtually impossible to find recruits for such a study.

The whole "1/2,000" or 1 in whatever discussion stems back to a very small number of studies done in the West of mongamous couples in which one partner was known to be HIV positive, one was negative, and of their own accord they chose not to use condoms or used them inconsistently. The HIV infected female partners in these cases were all ubnder medical care and thus had lower viral loads and much fewer untreated genital lesions etc than would be true among HIV infeceted women as a whole and most cretainly than would be true among HIV infected sex workers in SE Asia. To apply the findings of those few studies (sample size of which was very small) to anything other than the population that they studied -- transmission between spouses in the West when the HIV infected partner was under medical care -- is invalid.

What we know about transmission risks comes from epidemiological data (who in a population gets the disease and what factors/exposures they have in common). This clearly shows that:

- male to female transmission is more effective than female to male but the latter does occur

- female to male transmission occurs more readily if the man is uncircumcized but is possible even if he is

- presence of other STDS or vaginal/cervical abrasions increases the risk of transmission. Obviously, women with a large number of sexual partners are more likely to have these than women without. Abrasions etc are virtually an occupational hazard of sex work. And a sex worker who does not consistently use condoms is far more likely to have both HIV and other STDs than one who does. The very fact of a woman agreeing to have unprotected sex with a comemrcial or casual partner in itself establishes that she is an unusually high risk partner.

- female to male transmission occurs more readily in Africa and Asia than it does in the West. It is not known how much this is due to characteristics of the specific strains of the virus found in these places, how much to behavioral factors, how much to other risk factors (circumcision etc), but all of these probably play a role.

And most importantly, we know what needs to be done to reduce transmission. And that is consistent condom use, full stop. Countries which have carried out successful campaigns to promote condom use have reduced HIV transmission considerably; countries that have not -- including a few whose governments took a position similiar to that advocated by some psoters in this thread, i.e. ignoring scientific evidence abotu heterosexual transmission -- have seen exponential explosions in prevalence to the point that as much as 15-20% of the general adult population is infected.

No amount of factual evidence is going to change the opinion of the conspiracy theorists nor those who simply do not want to believe that something they want to do carries with it a risk of HIV infection (and Hepatitis B/C infection, and gonorrhea/syphilis/chlamydia/herpes etc etc..)

Unofrtunately the behavior of such people does not place only themselves at risk.

[Tolley]

This is a general question but does having a strong immune system and being robust protect you in anyway if you come in contact with the HIV virus?

Or alternatively if you are run down are you more likely to contract the virus?

Or doesn't it matter at all if you come in contact with the virus you will inevitably get it?

[Jingthing]

Good question, Tolley.

Hopefully our expert Sheryl can answer.

Speaking of which, aren't we all lucky to have a rational scientifically minded professional here on this forum?

Expanding a little on what Sheryl said about Thai prostitutes having compromised their bodies with abrasions and other STDs due to their profession, can't the same thing be said about their male customers, especially the ones who refuse to use protection? Its a two way street. Literally.

[DegenFarang]

My implication was that the Christian Missionaries were exaggerating or misinterpreting data - but used their bloated number anyway.

My other implication is that there are very, very few men who obtained HIV from unprotected vaginal sex with a woman. Those men that did were simply extremely unlucky and I would be a lot of money that most of them were very well endowed and thus draw blood when having sex more often than men with smaller penis' - thus the reason more African American heterosexual men have AIDS than white or Asian hetoerosexual men.

The vast majority of people infected with Aids are gay men, women, Aids babies, IV drug users and those who got it from a blood transfusion. The least likely group to get it - and the smallest proportion of those with it - are heterosexual males, particularly white and Asian heterosexual males.

Actually, the most recent data on any species that relates to cock size (so to speak) is on ducks (of all things), and it points to higher risk factors for STD transmission among animals with SMALLER penises (for reasons so far not fully understood).

Members who find whistling in the dark reassuring should avoid reading about the heterosexual explosion of HIV in southern Africa, for instance (where the average age is certainly not 538 years anymore by any stretch of the imagination).

I did not know that animals could get STD's. Well, that isn't true I guess as I've read about the origins of HIV possibly being in monkeys, but still funny to think of a Duck with herpes

[DegenFarang]

I have never seen a scientific study saying big ones increase HIV risk. I think that all came from DF's vivid imagination.

I concur.

That however does not make the hypothesis any less valid.

[Jingthing]

I have never seen a scientific study saying big ones increase HIV risk. I think that all came from DF's vivid imagination.

I concur.

That however does not make the hypothesis any less valid.

A study would be interesting.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[chiangmaikelly]

Scapegoating. I was trying to point out the futility of scapegoating because there is so much crossover in sexuality and sexual habits in Thailand.

Anal sex and condom use is simply a matter of price to working men and women.

If you don't believe me it is easy to find out. But I don't think appropriate in this forum.

You are never going to control needles and drug use as long as it is illegal. So you can forget about that one.

You are also never going to control transmission among prostitutes as long as that is illegal so you can write off that idea too.

Besides the main risk is not prostitution anyway it is regular people. Education is of course the answer and this discussion is part of that education.

I don't think it was common knowledge that bar girls went out with Thai guys after a night with Farang. I don't think it was common knowledge that 99% of bar girls had Thai husbands or boyfriends.

I don't think it was common knowledge that you are exposed to a blood risk every time you go with a bar girl.

I can't educate hundreds of thousands of Thais. But this forum can educate a few Farang.

I have friends who will not use a condom. I have heard the negotiations. I can't tell them I think they are idiots even though that is my opinion. I can tell them via this forum that Lek who they had oral sex with was having her period and they didn't know it.

I can't tell the homophobe in person that he is sleeping with all the old guys in boys town because he might shoot me. But I can tell him via this forum that that little stunner he was flaunting last week at Excite has a boyfriend that runs an add on a notorious old guy gay forum. So only one step removed, that homophobe has boomed all the geriatric queens that he loves to hate. And that guy who loves to brag about the low transmission rate of heterosexual sex is actually exposing himself daily to all the dangers of homosexual sex by his lovely lady.

[Jingthing]

Scapegoating. I was trying to point out the futility of scapegoating because there is so much crossover in sexuality and sexual habits in Thailand.

Anal sex and condom use is simply a matter of price to working men and women.

If you don't believe me it is easy to find out. But I don't think appropriate in this forum.

You are never going to control needles and drug use as long as it is illegal. So you can forget about that one.

You are also never going to control transmission among prostitutes as long as that is illegal so you can write off that idea too.

Besides the main risk is not prostitution anyway it is regular people. Education is of course the answer and this discussion is part of that education.

I don't think it was common knowledge that bar girls went out with Thai guys after a night with Farang. I don't think it was common knowledge that 99% of bar girls had Thai husbands or boyfriends.

I don't think it was common knowledge that you are exposed to a blood risk every time you go with a bar girl.

I can't educate hundreds of thousands of Thais. But this forum can educate a few Farang.

I have friends who will not use a condom. I have heard the negotiations. I can't tell them I think they are idiots even though that is my opinion. I can tell them via this forum that Lek who they had oral sex with was having her period and they didn't know it.

I can't tell the homophobe in person that he is sleeping with all the old guys in boys town because he might shoot me. But I can tell him via this forum that that little stunner he was flaunting last week at Excite has a boyfriend that runs an add on a notorious old guy gay forum. So only one step removed, that homophobe has boomed all the geriatric queens that he loves to hate. And that guy who loves to brag about the low transmission rate of heterosexual sex is actually exposing himself daily to all the dangers of homosexual sex by his lovely lady.

That was truly warped as the majority of HIV transmission in Thailand is from hetero sex. You say you are not into scapegoating, but I am sorry, your post read like a rant against homosexual sex. It was also absurdly illogical. If a go go boy gets infected, how do you know he didn't first get it from a lady? Another point which I can't prove, the male sex workers are most probably much more likely to be infected than western gay customers. Western gay customers are more likely to get tested and religiously use condoms for sex. Also you just focused on the straight customers risk. The gay customers also have a risk. This isn't about the class of sexuality you are, this isn't even really about promiscuity except in the sense even safe people sometimes experience condom breakage, etc. Its about risky sex acts with people who are potentially infected (in other word, most adults). We are ALL human beings in this together. Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Sheryl]

Maybe I am missing something but it didn't read homophobic to me, Jing.

[chiangmaikelly]

The amount of foreign gay sex customers in Thailand is miniscule in comparison to straight customers. They are simply not part of the problem.

The amount of foreign gay men living in Thailand is miniscule in comparison to straight men. The foreign gay guys are not part of the problem.

Taking the US as an example the HIV epidemic started in the gay bathhouses in San Francisco and then spread to the rest of the population. I would assume it was the same in Thailand with the Chiang Mai drug users thrown in.

HIV in Thailand is a Thai problem. The only thing I can see as a use for this forum is to save a few dopes that have unprotected sex with many partners. Most of those dopes are heterosexual.

Although the two guys that I know that died were homosexual. And you probably know about the Farang bareback clubs that exist in Thailand. Statistically however they are insignificant.

The Soweto study published in 2009 I think said the gay rate was 34% and the straight rate was 10% . The study was published by the University of California, San Francisco but maybe that is only Africa.

I think gay guys have anal sex more than straight guys so they are at a higher risk. That's just common sense.

However it makes very little difference. Both Gay and Straight people can get AIDS.

I also find it hard to believe many foreign gay guys pay sex in Thailand. My experience is that it is free. So gay guys are even less part of the P4P equation.

I am certainly not trying to fix blame to any group. Who cares it is a universal problem and we are all at risk.

[Jingthing]

I am not going to review this again if you didn't get my point (and I did not use the word homophobic). I think it was clear and I will let it stand. In any case, in case there is any doubt, I do think it is obvious that unprotected anal sex (gay or straight) with strangers is more risky than unprotected heterosexual vaginal sex. However, given the small number of gays vs. straights and the fact that the Thai strain HIV is rather easily passed heterosexually, there are of course many more heterosexual infections happening in Thailand. If a Thai male who is sexually active bisexually gets or transmits to virus to a female, it was a heterosexual act that spread the virus. As far as the exact etiology of how the particular strain of Thai HIV began in Thailand, I don't have a clue. If someone has some actual science that it started in with gays in Thailand, let us know. Otherwise, why promote unfounded unsourced guesses, based on what exactly? The strain here is different than is prevalent in the west so obviously this is a complex question. I think it is a bit rude to infer "it must have been the gays" without any evidence of that. If you have the evidence, I apologize for questioning it. It is of interest academically, I suppose, but for average people, yes ... CONDOMS.

Who cares it is a universal problem and we are all at risk.

Yes. Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

Very well said, Sheryl. BTW, people should get the Hep A and Hep B vaccine. There is none for Hep C.

unfortunately, the vaccines do not work for everyone. It is important that antibodies be tested for subsequent to vaccination. Please do not assume that the vaccines will work because for approx. 10% of the pop. the Hep B vaccine doesn't work. (yea, I know literature says only about 5%, but there is new follow up studies in the works that shows the number is higher. That being said, protecting 9 out of 10 is sure of a heck better than 0.) Thanks Jingles for making this good point. I won't ask if you took a baht bus to get the vaccine....... ooops.

[DegenFarang]

fwiw it is also very hard to get HIV via unprotected anal sex, either as pitcher or catcher, with an HIV infected partner - however it's easier than unprotected vaginal sex, by a fairly wide margin. sorta like comparing how long it would take to travel by helicopter to mars versus saturn.

Edited January 11, 2010 by DegenFarang

[Jingthing]

fwiw it is also very hard to get HIV via unprotected anal sex, either as pitcher or catcher, with an HIV infected partner - however it's easier than unprotected vaginal sex, by a fairly wide margin. sorta like comparing how long it would take to travel by helicopter to mars versus saturn.

Anal sex is more risky, lets agree to that. You have an agenda and we all know what it is, don't worry be happy. The rational response is, no worries, use CONDOMS!

BTW, do people here remember Trink? This guy sounds like Trink. He used to be an incorrigible Aids denier.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[fullwhenempty]

This guy sounds like Trink. He used to be an incorrigible Aids denier.

I'm not trying to start an argument but use of the word 'denier' whether associated with the Holocaust, global warming skepticism, or this topic, is a pity. There's enough support for your view without needing the smear. I see a disagreement about the actual risk rather than a denial that AIDS exists. At least, so far.

I don't think dissenting views about HIV/AIDS are only on 'conspiracy theory' sites either. That's another easy smear. Just mention 'conspiracy theory' and people's eyes glaze over. On a number of issues, though, such as Israeli war crimes in Gaza, banker bandits, the non-existent Iraq WMDs, global warming, the capture of western governments by Zionism, these so-called 'theories' are more credible than the official version of events. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there had been some medical racketeering within the AIDS industry. It's an obvious target. If scientists can be forced to toe the party line with Global Warming the same can be true of any sector.

I've never met anyone who has tested positive for HIV. At least no-one that would admit it. Nor has it ever come up in conversation amongst friends that a.n.other has tested positive. If it is as prevalent as we are being told, I'd expect to hear more. Yet I've heard of several incidents of road traffic accidents where riders or passengers haven't worn helmets.

A poll amongst TV members asking do you know anyone who has tested positive for HIV? and/or anyone who has died from AIDS-related illness? would be interesting. I'd have more trust in the results than official pronouncements. With the 'peer-review' Global Warming process looking like it's corrupt, what value can you place on science and their findings?

[Jingthing]

This guy sounds like Trink. He used to be an incorrigible Aids denier.

I'm not trying to start an argument but use of the word 'denier' whether associated with the Holocaust, global warming skepticism, or this topic, is a pity.

Yes you are trying to start an argument. I should have said HIV risk denier and there is little doubt that is exactly what DF is. He seems to be doing cartwheels to promote the idea that it isn't necessary to wear condoms while sleeping around with Thai prostitutes, what would you call that in a person who does not WANT to be infected? The word denier is a perfectly legitimate English word. Period.

As far as people who think there is no connection between HIV and Aids, its a waste of time to argue with people with such irrational, anti-scientific beliefs.

You never met anyone who got Aids? Aren't you the lucky one. I wish I could say that.

Your who do you know with Aids poll is also silly. There are fairly decent statistics you can easily find showing the history of Aids in Thailand, how many have died, current numbers with HIV, etc. Maybe you are talking about tourists and expats only. I feel most tourists and expats who get HIV here or develop it from a long ago exposure, GO HOME. Of course with tourists the typical pattern would be they catch something (HIV and other STDs) on holiday and the statistics never get entered into the Thai system because of course they go home.

However, I always like a topical poll so if you think it is such a great idea, why not start this one yourself?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[DegenFarang]

meh, it probably isn't the brightest idea not to use condoms when having sex with prostitutes - I always feel a little stupid when I do it - but not using them with party girls and other such easy Thai women is not an issue. And I don't worry for one second about not using them with any woman I take home from a bar or club in Europe or America.

[Jingthing]

meh, it probably isn't the brightest idea not to use condoms when having sex with prostitutes - I always feel a little stupid when I do it - but not using them with party girls and other such easy Thai women is not an issue. And I don't worry for one second about not using them with any woman I take home from a bar or club in Europe or America.

Hmmm. Maybe I am mistaken but that sounds like you are backing down somewhat from a previously stronger anti-condom message. If so, that's some progress, good for you.

Before this is the message I was getting from you (liberally paraphrased) -- me and my mates sleep around all the time with female Thai prostitutes WITHOUT condoms and we are not worried because the risk is so low even if they are infected (and hardly any are infected) that it will take thousands of years for any of us to catch HIV, or something like that. People who try to tell us we need to wear condoms are party poopers and liars and wildly exaggerating the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[DegenFarang]

meh, it probably isn't the brightest idea not to use condoms when having sex with prostitutes - I always feel a little stupid when I do it - but not using them with party girls and other such easy Thai women is not an issue. And I don't worry for one second about not using them with any woman I take home from a bar or club in Europe or America.

Hmmm. Maybe I am mistaken but that sounds like you are backing down somewhat from a previously stronger anti-condom message. If so, that's some progress, good for you.

Before this is the message I was getting from you (liberally paraphrased) -- me and my mates sleep around all the time with female Thai prostitutes WITHOUT condoms and we are not worried because the risk is so low even if they are infected (and hardly any are infected) that it will take thousands of years for any of us to catch HIV, or something like that. People who try to tell us we need to wear condoms are party poopers and liars and wildly exaggerating the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission.

me and my mates sleep around all the time with female Thai prostitutes WITHOUT condoms and we are not worried because the risk is so low even if they are infected (and hardly any are infected)

If you remove 'Thai prostitutes' from this sentence and replace it with 'Thai's' you would be correct. Thai's=prostitutes and non-prostitutes. Obviously the odds are higher with the prostitutes - but still very low when compared to what most people believe are the real chances of becoming infected. The majority of my sexual partners are not prostitutes - if they were, I would probably use a condom more often.

I never said thousands of years I said hundreds of years.

I do not think anybody who disagrees with me is lying or wildly exaggerating, I know that they believe what they are saying. There isn't a vast conspiracy to make people scared of unprotected sex - well, there may be, but most of the people who perpetuate the fear are not aware of it and are doing so because they honestly believe there is real danger involved. They are simply misinformed and not aware of the math.

[Jingthing]

OK. I think it is you who is misinformed and your perception of the risk of unprotected casual sex (paid or not, gay or straight) in Thailand is much greater than your perception. Also, you seem not to care about OTHER STDs as if HIV is the only STD that can ruin your health.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[DegenFarang]

I may be. I had never even heard the term Viral Load before the thread - I'm going to do some research on that topic.

I suspect the reality is probably somewhere between my view and the view of the average health practitioner, who thinks you should wear a full body condom any time you get within twelve feet of a member of the opposite sex, then bathe in bleach within twelve seconds of taking the condom off.

[richm7]

Facts. Oh, where would we be without them? And statistics, which I like to call interpretable facts; i.e. they can be your fact, or my fact, or Fred's fact, depends how we choose to interpret them.

What I see here is a load of boll*cks on both sides. "Facts" quoted left right and center, stats interpreted to suit whichever argument is being thrust upon us and, sadly, as usual, nothing interesting or informative. Seems to me there are those who always buckle up and never have an accident, those who never buckle up and never have an accident, those who believe merely going out will result in an accident and those who believe they can go out without a belt and fly down the wrong side of the road at 100mph and still not have an accident. And, by jove, they've all got facts and statistics to prove it!

Look guys, if you are going to quote "facts" or "statistics" to make your point, at least remember:

1. Get a reliable, verifiable source and quote it. The "Sun" does not qualify. Applies both to facts and stats.

2. Interpretation of stats is notoriously difficult, because most of the time you have no idea of sample size or demographics or indeed whether it was conducted by a pimply faced yoof on Sukhumvit approaching pot bellied blokes in string vests, baggy shorts and dress socks with sandals enquiring as to whether they have the clap and would they be interested in a free breakfast to talk about time-share.

These petty back and forth arguments are bleedin' boring. Jeez you can't even agree om what you actually said, or meant to say, or understood you meant to say. My <deleted>' head is spinning.

One piece of advice. There's never a slip with a jubilee clip (hose clamp to the yanks).

Lighten up.

[deejah]

Very well said, Sheryl. BTW, people should get the Hep A and Hep B vaccine. There is none for Hep C.

unfortunately, the vaccines do not work for everyone. It is important that antibodies be tested for subsequent to vaccination. Please do not assume that the vaccines will work because for approx. 10% of the pop. the Hep B vaccine doesn't work. (yea, I know literature says only about 5%, but there is new follow up studies in the works that shows the number is higher. That being said, protecting 9 out of 10 is sure of a heck better than 0.) Thanks Jingles for making this good point. I won't ask if you took a baht bus to get the vaccine....... ooops.

i went for a hep b shot years ago in the states

when i came back for the second vaccine shot a week or so later the dr told me i didnt need it

i already had the antibodies for hep b

does this sound correct?

full/empty, richm (and others)

thank you for your latest thoughtful and intelligent posts

anyone who blindly accepts statistics or the mainstream media fodder scares me

there are multiple hidden agendas

unfortunately i dont believe they are to honestly inform, educate, empower, inspire, uplift, or call for justice and righteous change to the viewing/listening/reading masses

and i am still asking myself what is the agenda of alternative news/press/websites besides to attempt to expose the possible and very plausible lies, misinformation and half truths?

and i also do believe in being careful in the bedroom (or kitchen or bathroom if thats your thing ) verses being (very) sorry later

Edited January 12, 2010 by deejah

[Sheryl]

i went for a hep b shot years ago in the states

when i came back for the second vaccine shot a week or so later the dr told me i didnt need it

i already had the antibodies for hep b

does this sound correct?

Yes. It is not uncommon for people to have had Hep B without knowing it and thus already have antibodies, in which case vaccination unnecesary.

Not sure tho why they gave the first immunization, more usual to check blood for antibodies and antigen first.

You need to be sure that you are only Hep B antibody positive and not antigen positive as some people develop a chronic form which puts them at risk of subsequent liver cancer.

And if you have not, should get an HIV test. Because route of transmission is the same people with Hep B have a greater than average risk of having contacted HIV (and of getting it in the future if the behavioral factors remain unchanged).

[Jingthing]

If you are Hep B antigen positive, why is that useful to know exactly? Is there anything people can do to prevent getting liver cancer if they are Hep B antigen positive?