The Hiv Scam

[Sheryl]

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?

Yes. There are antiviral drugs that can be used to try to suppress replication of the virus and thus reduce the risk of progression to cirrhosis or development of liver cancer.

In addition, regular screening (blood tests + ultrasounds/scans of the liver) can detect onset of either of these problems long before sysmptoms set in thus much improving odds of survival.

And, knowing one has chronic hepatitis, there are life style changes and other precaustions that can protect you and others e.g.

• no alcohol
  
• limit medication use to the minimum absolutely necessary (including avoiding OTC drugs like paracetemol) and only as advised by a doctor aware of your Hep B status
  
• ensure that any regular sexual partners are aware of the risk & immunized, use condoms faithfully with all others. People with chronic Hep B (or C), even though asymptonmatic may transmit the virus to others, especially to sexual partners.
  

ASs with HIV risk of transmission decreases if virus levels are effectively suppressed with antiviral therapy.

[Meg_2003]

To those who believe that Bar girls do not pay Bar boys, Just have a walk down Soi Chaiyapoon after 10pm and open your eyes. You'll notice many, many Male Karaoke bars. That is the main place for the bar girls to go after the bars close to go and pay a Thai guy. Those particular places get very busy after 2-3am when the girly bars close, full of bar girls off'ing thai guys. If you don't believe it, Go and see it for yourself. You'll be surprised.

[Jingthing]

To those who believe that Bar girls do not pay Bar boys, Just have a walk down Soi Chaiyapoon after 10pm and open your eyes. You'll notice many, many Male Karaoke bars. That is the main place for the bar girls to go after the bars close to go and pay a Thai guy. Those particular places get very busy after 2-3am when the girly bars close, full of bar girls off'ing thai guys. If you don't believe it, Go and see it for yourself. You'll be surprised.

Yeah I know those bars. I wonder if Thai lady librarian types go there as well!

[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?

Yes.

Thanks. Excellent info. For those who have had Hep B and recovered and show tests with antibodies but no chronic antigens, is there any reason to continue to get tested in case the antigens show up later?

[Sheryl]

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?

Yes.

Thanks. Excellent info. For those who have had Hep B and recovered and show tests with antibodies but no chronic antigens, is there any reason to continue to get tested in case the antigens show up later?

No. They are home free with regards to Hep B -- not carriers and now immune.

Still at full risk of Hep C, HIV etc though so should be screened for these and take appropriate precautions (condoms)

Also still at risk of Hep A if not immunized, but everyone should get the Hep A vaccine unless they have already got acquitred immunity. Unlike Hep B/C, A is transmitted through food and water.

[Latindancer]

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?

Acute hepatitis B infection does not usually require treatment because most adults clear the infection spontaneously. Early antiviral treatment may only be required in fewer than 1% of patients, whose infection takes a very aggressive course (fulminant hepatitis) or who are immunocompromised. On the other hand, treatment of chronic infection may be necessary to reduce the risk of cirrhosis and liver cancer.

Many people have misconceptions about hepatitis B. More than 95% of people who become infected as adults or older children will stage a full recovery and develop protective immunity to the virus. However, this drops to 30% for younger children, and only 5% of newborns that acquire the infection from their mother at birth will clear the infection. This population has a 40% lifetime risk of death from cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. Of those infected between the age of one to six, 70% will clear the infection. In moderate prevalence areas, which include Eastern Europe Russia, and Japan, where 2–7% of the population is chronically infected, the disease is predominantly spread among children. In high prevalence areas such as China and South East Asia, transmission during childbirth is most common, although in other areas of high endemicity such as Africa, transmission during childhood is a significant factor. The prevalence of chronic HBV infection in areas of high endemicity is at least 8%.

About 95% of adults get over it, and many do not even realize they had it.....it is often like a mild dose of the flu. Of the remaining 5%, half are carriers, and the other half, although they have resolved it, will eventually die of liver failure because it did such serious damage to their liver. As do the carriers.

My doctor said (after I tested positive for the antibodies) that it is 20 times as infectious as AIDS, and even a tiny graze is enough to transmit it.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Latindancer

[OriginalPoster]

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?

It is too general and inherently disingenuous to ask people to side with either the the spin masters (the mainstream media) or the truth tellers (the alternative media). You're going to need to specify which people and sources in the "mainstream" media, and which presumably more reliable people and sources in the "alternative" media, you are referring to. You also need to tell us which specific "mainstream" media claims you are taking issue with. Otherwise all that you are doing is blustering and carrying on.

Edited January 12, 2010 by OriginalPoster

[ZenHillbillyPoet22]

I'm a hypochondriac and I always assume the worst, but at my last regularly scheduled check-up while having full blood work done, the doctor told me that in fact the transmission rate from an infected female to a male during unprotected vaginal intercourse is pretty low, .1% or something like that. He also mentioned that they've even done studies with couples where only the female is infected and are TRYING to get the male infected, and after a year only about 50% of the couples successfully transmitted the disease. I can't quote the source of the study and this may have been the doctor just trying to assuage my apprehension but fact of the matter is that HIV is not a very strong virus (i.e. can't live outside of the host very long). Still, better safe than sorry, and no matter the odds as previous posters have mentioned even 1 in 2000 odds doesn't mean you'll be number 2000 especially since the probabilities are really cumulative.

[ZenHillbillyPoet22]

[Jingthing]

I'm a hypochondriac and I always assume the worst, but at my last regularly scheduled check-up while having full blood work done, the doctor told me that in fact the transmission rate from an infected female to a male during unprotected vaginal intercourse is pretty low, .1% or something like that. He also mentioned that they've even done studies with couples where only the female is infected and are TRYING to get the male infected, and after a year only about 50% of the couples successfully transmitted the disease. I can't quote the source of the study and this may have been the doctor just trying to assuage my apprehension but fact of the matter is that HIV is not a very strong virus (i.e. can't live outside of the host very long). Still, better safe than sorry, and no matter the odds as previous posters have mentioned even 1 in 2000 odds doesn't mean you'll be number 2000 especially since the probabilities are really cumulative.

Monogamous couples would be MUCH LESS likely to have aggravating factors going on like other STDs and abrasions from industrial sex. As noted above, the Thai and African strain HIV is more likely to pass heterosexually than the western strain HIV, and being circumcised is a good thing.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[ZenHillbillyPoet22]

Monogamous couples would be MUCH LESS likely to have aggravating factors going on like other STDs and abrasions from industrial sex. As noted above, the Thai and African strain HIV is more likely to pass heterosexually than the western strain HIV.

I don't doubt that, obviously open wounds would increase the likelihood of transmission, in addition to the numerous studies that show that having other STDs increase risk. My point is that it's not as easy as merely having unprotected sex with some one that is infected to yourself become infected. My other point is that it's not particularly bright to stare down the barrel of a gun even if you don't THINK it's loaded.

[Jingthing]

Monogamous couples would be MUCH LESS likely to have aggravating factors going on like other STDs and abrasions from industrial sex. As noted above, the Thai and African strain HIV is more likely to pass heterosexually than the western strain HIV.

I don't doubt that, obviously open wounds would increase the likelihood of transmission, in addition to the numerous studies that show that having other STDs increase risk. My point is that it's not as easy as merely having unprotected sex with some one that is infected to yourself become infected. My other point is that it's not particularly bright to stare down the barrel of a gun even if you don't THINK it's loaded.

Oh, I agree. Exposure doesn't mean automatic infection. There is always a chance, that's all. Very true.

BTW, sores and small skin openings are not always visible, of course.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[richm7]

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?

Yes.

Thanks. Excellent info. For those who have had Hep B and recovered and show tests with antibodies but no chronic antigens, is there any reason to continue to get tested in case the antigens show up later?

No. They are home free with regards to Hep B -- not carriers and now immune.

Still at full risk of Hep C, HIV etc though so should be screened for these and take appropriate precautions (condoms)

Also still at risk of Hep A if not immunized, but everyone should get the Hep A vaccine unless they have already got acquitred immunity. Unlike Hep B/C, A is transmitted through food and water.

Sheryl I apologize in advance if this information is available somewhere on the forum. I did a quick search but could not find it. It appears from your posts that you are a member of the medical profession. Can you confirm that is the case? This goes to my earlier comments regarding factual statements and confirming their validity. Understand I have no issue with the comments you make, which seem eminently sensible, but best to understand the basis.

[DegenFarang]

To those who believe that Bar girls do not pay Bar boys, Just have a walk down Soi Chaiyapoon after 10pm and open your eyes. You'll notice many, many Male Karaoke bars. That is the main place for the bar girls to go after the bars close to go and pay a Thai guy. Those particular places get very busy after 2-3am when the girly bars close, full of bar girls off'ing thai guys. If you don't believe it, Go and see it for yourself. You'll be surprised.

I always thought they were for gay guys. Wonder if they would hire a strapping young Farang who refused to do the hump with men or ugly women.

Upon some reflection I don't see why the fact that the women go there and pay for sex changes the AIDS landscape much. Since they are paying it stands to reason the guy is going to do anything the girl says - including wearing a condom. The majority of bar girls ask me to put a condom on, even if they can be talked out of it with little effort. Maybe a woman can weigh in here on whether sex is significantly more pleasurable without a condom vs with. If the difference in negligible I would imagine most of the BG's are making those guys wear condoms, especially knowing the type of work they do and the increased risk of HIV transmission via the anal sex they partake in with male customers.

Edited January 12, 2010 by DegenFarang

[Jingthing]

Lets not turn this into a Pattaya male flesh bar guide. It doesn't really matter whether promiscuous people pay, are paid, or its all non-commercial. What matters are the risks they take with sex dates and also within relationships. The money is a prop in the context of this discussion.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

The psychology of conspiracy theories deserve a thread of their own. I am weary of those that deny the results of peer reviewed studies that have been repeated to the point that the results are not open to doubts. Perhaps this is because my work deals with the aftermath of events where things go wrong. Human error, production error, I've seen enough of it to understand that weird and odd manifestations and events often have simple causes despite some people's need to come up with a complex explanation.

One of the methods of HIV transmission is through sexual contact. The use of a condom reduces the likelihood of transmission. That is a fact and cannot be contested. To argue otherwise, is futile. If someone wishes to fornicate sans condom outside of a monogamous relationship, so be it. However, it is an irresponsible, selfish and risky act. That is the reality. if someone wishes to deny that reality, there is nothing anyone can do except to avoid such people and to practice social avoidance techniques.

[DegenFarang]

Lets not turn this into a Pattaya male flesh bar guide. It doesn't really matter whether promiscuous people pay, are paid, or its all non-commercial. What matters are the risks they take with sex dates and also within relationships. The money is a prop in the context of this discussion.

The money does matter. Whether they use condoms or not means everything about how risky the behavior is and thus how risky it is for foreigners who later pay the girls for sex to sleep with them unprotected. If the women are paying the men I think it is going to be a lot more likely that they will make those men wear condoms than if it were normal consensual unpaid sex, in which the males' desires will usually trump those of the females'.

[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.

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?

Ok. Let's not call it an argument but a debate. The word 'denier' may be legitimate but you know very well is an emotive word, which is why you used it. Glad to see you have modified your statement. Pity you are still wrong since he is not denying there is any risk only the degree of risk.

What would I call him? I'd call him free to do what he wishes and I accept his right to do so. AIDS was supposed to kill us all. It hasn't. Right or wrong, attitudes like his develop because 'scientists' and 'experts' keep crying wolf. At some point people are bound to say 'bugger off' with the endless fearmongering and tune it out. How many have died from the latest phoney global 'pandemic'?

Is he more of a risk to society than criminal governments that, on the one hand, pretend to care about the right to life of the unborn child, while on the other, don't bat an eye at millions of brown babies dying of starvation or being blown to pieces by hi-tech weaponry in the name of 'defence'? As long as our leaders are corrupt and immoral how can you expect others to be moral? When the only moral force in society, religion, has been destroyed by atheistic forces, who is setting your moral compass? The media? McDonalds?

When you start attacking or locking up those who refuse to wear condoms, refuse to wear seat belts, refuse to have their children vaccinated, refuse to allow carbon cops in the house to check the toaster is carbon neutral, refuse to believe Obama isn't the new Messiah, you are no longer free but slaves. Being a 'useless idiot' for venal global corporations or corrupt leaders isn't something to be proud of and I think those who are too wedded to the prevailing orthodoxy need to start asking whether those who dissent are as 'wicked' or 'wacky' as they are portrayed?

It's not luck that I haven't met anyone with AIDS, there simply aren't sufficient numbers of us going down with it to make it likely that I will. If you are unlucky enough to have met someone, so what? Are AIDS victims more deserving of our attention than cancer sufferers? Heart disease patients? This condition has been hyped to the max and billions spent on it while malaria still wipes out millions in the third world. Poverty and debt slavery are more pressing issues IMO. Until such time as the powers that be make an effort to give us nutritious food and not the garbage that passes for food, then I won't believe a dam_n word they say on any other matter, especially health where State and government budgets are dependent on war and pestilence. If you want to drink the Scientific 'Kool-aid', when there is more than enough evidence to show that studies are rigged and scientists bought, then more fool you. Perhaps it is YOU that is in denial.

I'm not suggesting DF is this particular type but we live in a world where ignorance is taught in schools and positively embraced by the media. To complain that it's manifesting in society is unrealistic. Thailand attracts a certain type of individual who frankly doesn't give a toss and is mighty proud of it.

It doesn't matter if some peer review studies are above board. Too many aren't and the reputation of 'science' is going down the toilet. People will understandably rely on their own experience and no longer on what they are being told.

I hope you manage to persuade those who are prepared to listen to consider the consequences of their actions. But those who are the real problem aren't wasting time on this forum. They are shooting up or going bareback and don't know you exist.

Like it or not.

[Jingthing]

Like it or not.

Short version -- me no likey ...

Thanks for sharing and I am sure you sincerely meant every word of it. However, sorry, I read that as a massively strange, out of tune, over the top, rant, so I will just let it stand as a testimony to your unique thought processes. I guess you could say when I got to the part about accusing people of wanting to LOCK UP people who don't wear condoms that you really lost it (and lost me). If others find it worthy of a response, good on them (I don't really mean that but it doesn't cost anything to be polite). I already post more than enough as it is, so no need to get engaged in this kind of unnecessarily emotionally loaded merry go round.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Lets not turn this into a Pattaya male flesh bar guide. It doesn't really matter whether promiscuous people pay, are paid, or its all non-commercial. What matters are the risks they take with sex dates and also within relationships. The money is a prop in the context of this discussion.

The money does matter. Whether they use condoms or not means everything about how risky the behavior is and thus how risky it is for foreigners who later pay the girls for sex to sleep with them unprotected. If the women are paying the men I think it is going to be a lot more likely that they will make those men wear condoms than if it were normal consensual unpaid sex, in which the males' desires will usually trump those of the females'.

I think you are being silly. Money doesn't spread the virus. Alcohol doesn't spread the virus. They grease the wheels, sure, but bottom line, the people doing risky acts spreads the virus. You are absurdly focused on these bar ladies paying men. You don't REALLY know their condom usage there, you just think you do. You don't know how many other people they have had sex with without protection, clients, husbands, boyfriends, etc. Also, you seem fixated on your idea that the main way a bar lady would get HIV is having sex with a man who sleeps with men. YOU ARE WRONG. That is one way, among others. BTW, I almost regret to give you this comfort but I am pretty sure many of those guys who work the lady pays bars do NOT sleep with men (and many of those that do are likely "real man" tops who always wear condoms with men anyway). Basically, you are making assumptions about ladies HIV status based on NOTHING, wild presumptions and guesses in the dark.

Please don't get me wrong here. I am not saying you can't make some rough judgments about people based on some things. For example, if you meet an active Thai bar worker you can safely assume his/her HIV infection risk is going to be greater than an elderly lady. As Sheryl noted above if you find a bar worker consents to unprotected sex, that indicates an even much higher probability of them getting infected or being infected already. But these snap judgments only go so far and are far from fool proof. There are many more "stealth" prostitutes operating casually than there are overt sex workers. Anyone who is sleeping around unprotected, money or not, is of course taking some real risks.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[fullwhenempty]

Thanks for sharing and I am sure you sincerely meant every word of it. However, sorry, I read that at as a massively strange, out of tune, over the top, rant, so I will just let it stand as a testimony to your unique thought processes. I guess you could say when I got to the part about accusing people of wanting to LOCK UP people who don't wear condoms that your really lost it (and lost me). If others find it worthy of a response, good on them. I already post enough as it is so no need to get engaged in this kind of unnecessarily emotionally loaded, schizoid merry go round.

Of course you no likey. I'd expect no less based on your prolific posting.

Had you been open to debate you might have focussed on the valid points that were being made rather than your not so subtle questioning of my 'unique' thought processes. Why didn't you just say 'wacky'?

I do agree that using emotionally loaded language like 'denier' is unnecessary.

[Jingthing]

I have a lot of experience with these things. I am sure any further communication between us on this topic would not have been worthwhile (except as a kind of verbal train wreck for readers), and would have ended badly. Lets say I try to be my own mod. Nothing personal.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[b19bry]

Thanks for sharing and I am sure you sincerely meant every word of it. However, sorry, I read that at as a massively strange, out of tune, over the top, rant, so I will just let it stand as a testimony to your unique thought processes. I guess you could say when I got to the part about accusing people of wanting to LOCK UP people who don't wear condoms that your really lost it (and lost me). If others find it worthy of a response, good on them. I already post enough as it is so no need to get engaged in this kind of unnecessarily emotionally loaded, schizoid merry go round.

Of course you no likey. I'd expect no less based on your prolific posting.

Had you been open to debate you might have focussed on the valid points that were being made rather than your not so subtle questioning of my 'unique' thought processes. Why didn't you just say 'wacky'?

I do agree that using emotionally loaded language like 'denier' is unnecessary.

Full/empty you're observations are astute and far from wacky, along with richm a welcome contrast to some of the repetitively emotional/boring/self gratifying posts on this thread.

[Jingthing]

I suppose you are right. Facts are boring. Repetitive facts are even more boring.

For examples of some repetitive boring facts about HIV in Thailand--

-- Using condoms reduces HIV transmission risk

-- Being circumcised reduces HIV transmission risk for the man

-- Unprotected anal sex is more risky than unprotected vaginal sex with is more risky than unprotected oral sex

-- It is very unlikely but still possible to get HIV from oral sex

-- Having other STDs increases the risk of HIV infection

-- Using condoms for oral sex is unpleasant but smart, as doing so prevents other STDs

-- The HIV virus is not passed by touching money

-- The HIV virus can be spread from a woman to a man even if the woman has never slept with a man who sleeps with men

-- Sex workers are more likely to be HIV positive than non-sex workers

-- In Thailand, specific homosexuals being a small group which does favor anal sex are more likely to be HIV positive than specific heterosexuals; HOWEVER, the vast majority of HIV transmission in Thailand occurs during heterosexual sex acts.

-- The Thai strain of HIV is more easily passed heterosexually than the Western strain of the HIV virus. The patterns of spreading the virus here in Thailand are more similar to Africa than the west.

If I got any of these facts wrong, hopefully our resident medical pro Sheryl will correct them.

Time to go to sleep now?

Edited January 12, 2010 by Jingthing

[b19bry]

Time to go to sleep now?

The eye's glazed over about 130 posts ago

[DegenFarang]

Lets not turn this into a Pattaya male flesh bar guide. It doesn't really matter whether promiscuous people pay, are paid, or its all non-commercial. What matters are the risks they take with sex dates and also within relationships. The money is a prop in the context of this discussion.

The money does matter. Whether they use condoms or not means everything about how risky the behavior is and thus how risky it is for foreigners who later pay the girls for sex to sleep with them unprotected. If the women are paying the men I think it is going to be a lot more likely that they will make those men wear condoms than if it were normal consensual unpaid sex, in which the males' desires will usually trump those of the females'.

I think you are being silly. Money doesn't spread the virus. Alcohol doesn't spread the virus. They grease the wheels, sure, but bottom line, the people doing risky acts spreads the virus. You are absurdly focused on these bar ladies paying men. You don't REALLY know their condom usage there, you just think you do. You don't know how many other people they have had sex with without protection, clients, husbands, boyfriends, etc. Also, you seem fixated on your idea that the main way a bar lady would get HIV is having sex with a man who sleeps with men. YOU ARE WRONG. That is one way, among others. BTW, I almost regret to give you this comfort but I am pretty sure many of those guys who work the lady pays bars do NOT sleep with men (and many of those that do are likely "real man" tops who always wear condoms with men anyway). Basically, you are making assumptions about ladies HIV status based on NOTHING, wild presumptions and guesses in the dark.

Please don't get me wrong here. I am not saying you can't make some rough judgments about people based on some things. For example, if you meet an active Thai bar worker you can safely assume his/her HIV infection risk is going to be greater than an elderly lady. As Sheryl noted above if you find a bar worker consents to unprotected sex, that indicates an even much higher probability of them getting infected or being infected already. But these snap judgments only go so far and are far from fool proof. There are many more "stealth" prostitutes operating casually than there are overt sex workers. Anyone who is sleeping around unprotected, money or not, is of course taking some real risks.

You made about 84 false assumptions here, so many that I actually stopped reading your post about 3/4 way through.

I was merely pointing out the fact that if they use condoms with the barboys that would make the fact that they have sex with the barboys pretty much irrelevant in terms of how risky they are. Other posters (possibly you) have cited in this thread the fact that they have sex with barboys as one of the reasons why having sex with them (BG's) is particularly risky. A four year old could tell you there are other reasons they are risky, however I wasn't addressing those.

[mommysboy]

Not withstanding the fact that there most definitely is a very nasty immune deficiency syndrome in which a virus may or may not be the prime mover (I think not), I long since realised that we are dealing with something rather rare and mostly confined to 'risque' multiple risk activity . It does also seem an incredible coincidence that drugs and homosexual sex seem so incredibly involved at least in the west anyway- I mean come on!!!

And what of Thailand? why such a deviation in figures? I've been in Thailand long enough to understand that one.

But whilst I agree with those that downplay the threat of HIV, not one of us really knows, and If I were promiscuous still, I'd not even consider sex without a condom, particularly when aphrodisiacs are so readily available.

There are a few scientifically proven nasties around too, such as Hep B, Syph, Herpes, and the list goes on. With women, you can't really know their internal health on a chance encounter, so best to wrap up IMHO.

I unwittingly had sex with an HIV+ women on numerous occasions, and used to bareback quite often. I have also known many guys over 2 decades, who could best be described as sex maniacs, perhaps in excess of 1000 whores, all over Asia, in places I would never dream of going, and circumstances that would make you think they were certain candidates.

They all told me about NSUs, chlamyidia, the clap, eye infections, throat infections, and liver infections, and rarely warts, but I've never heard of HIV infection. Why is that?

It's all anecdotal granted, but something rather odd going on here. I just don't buy in to the whole theory.

[Jingthing]

They all told me about NSUs, chlamyidia, the clap, eye infections, throat infections, and liver infections, and rarely warts, but I've never heard of HIV infection. Why is that?

Who knows. Each person's sexual history is different. Many people hide it. Many people don't know they are positive. It can take ten years before you show symptoms.

[Jingthing]

Time to go to sleep now?

The eye's glazed over about 130 posts ago

Happy to have helped with your insomnia.

[Jingthing]

You made about 84 false assumptions here, so many that I actually stopped reading your post about 3/4 way through.

OK, then. Never mind.