Over 1 Million Thais Are Infected With Hiv/Aids

[gogobar8]

Let's hope your wife's friends aren't in Thailand then.

RIH

[Jingthing]

Drive defensively. F-word defensively or don't play at all. That's all you can do. We're adults. Protecting your arse is YOUR responsibility.

What if you have sex with someone who keeps that from you and your condom breaks? What if some drunk driver is in your lane heading directly at you as you crest a hill, you have no time to react and it kills your wife. Is this your wife's fault because she got into your car or your fault because you did not drive defensively?

Don't get carried away. If the condom breaks, the condom breaks. It would have broken if you had known the wearer was positive or not. You want 100 percent safety? Give up sex.

You said drive defensively. I expect other person to be truthful.

I asked my current wife lots of questions before having sex with her and I would not have if I was not comfy with her responses even though she is 15 years younger and Russian hottie. Before your mind jumps to mail order she was already living in Florida and in Vegas, has an MBA in economics and was a top European model. Trust me, I wanted it bad as she is one of the baddest chicks I have ever seen. Nonetheless, I have managed to never have any STD and I am 45 years old. There is always another hottie down the street and many clean nice girls out there.

I just won't jump on anything that moves and can easily walk away if I don't trust the situation. If someone lied to me and gave me even herpes, there would be hell to pay. I would also not put someone else I at risk if I had herpes or HIV.

If someone gave me or my kids HIV and I found out they knew they had it, they won't be worried about AZT anymore.

You are coming across as a violent person.

I would expect honesty in a loving relationship. But sadly, often that kind of trust can be deadly. I wouldn't expect it at all in casual sexual encounters.

Also, there are different issues here with different levels of ethical concerns.

Such as a person who is infected who is trying to infect people. Obviously, that is monstrous.

An infected person who knows it, doesn't reveal, but is careful.

An infected person who doesn't know it and can't deal with getting tested. This probably is MOST infected people.

Etc., etc.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

Let's hope your wife's friends aren't in Thailand then.

RIH

Haha, nope. Mostly Vegas and Miami. Although the worst one is in Italy. Her and her husband spent a week with us and I was ready to kill her by day 3 or 4. Her poor husband. Control freak had him by the balls.

[ttelise]

You are coming across as a violent person.

I would expect honesty in a loving relationship. But sadly, often that kind of trust can be deadly. I wouldn't expect it at all in casual sexual encounters.

Also, there are different issues here with different levels of ethical concerns.

Such as a person who is infected who is trying to infect people. Obviously, that is monstrous.

An infected person who knows it, doesn't reveal, but is careful.

An infected person who doesn't know it and can't deal with getting tested. This probably is MOST infected people.

Etc., etc.

Never found it necessary to be in a fight since maybe 4th grade. Nevertheless, if someone intentionally placed me or my children at risk of contracting a deadly incurable disease, I think I would find it necessary to make sure they are unlikely to ruin someone else's life.

What if someone tried to assault you or your children with a deadly weapon? What if they inflicted injuries that maimed or caused death? Would you not react or would you say, "no worries, my fault for being down town at midnight or leaving my front door unlocked."? Same difference, except giving someone HIV just kills them slower with more suffering.

We are deviating from the salient issue. You say it is the victims fault for catching HIV from someone. I say that one should inquire about such matters before having sex with someone and that if one knows or should know they have HIV and they intentionally put others at risk, they are culpable for aggravated assault or attempted manslaughter and should be dealt with as such.

[Jingthing]

My impression stands. I think the only behavior that should be criminal is intentionally infecting people. Sleeping with people who don't disclose (or don't have a clue because they don't get tested) is a risk you take if you're a player.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

Also, there are different issues here with different levels of ethical concerns.

Such as a person who is infected who is trying to infect people. Obviously, that is monstrous.

An infected person who knows it, doesn't reveal, but is careful.

An infected person who doesn't know it and can't deal with getting tested. This probably is MOST infected people.

Etc., etc.

All three examples you provide are are at the same level of culpability. I would expect someone to tell me if they know and not just be careful. That way I can make an informed decision as to whether place myself at risk.

Those afraid to get tested should be more afraid to have casual unprotected sexual encounters so they show a complete indifference and lack of morals. Knowing your at risk, not testing and continuing to potentially expose others under the guise one didn't know is just as bad as one that knows.

[smedly]

Jingthing.........you are 100% correct as I keep syaing on this thread, the greatest danger to everyone are those a-holes that put it around like headless chickens refuse to wear protection refuse to get tested and think they have some almighty shield............THESE ARE THE THE PEOPLE that are spreading HIV and all manner of other shit..............the good thing is they will die a very sudden death and not have time to wonder what happened

[smedly]

Also, there are different issues here with different levels of ethical concerns.

Such as a person who is infected who is trying to infect people. Obviously, that is monstrous.

An infected person who knows it, doesn't reveal, but is careful.

An infected person who doesn't know it and can't deal with getting tested. This probably is MOST infected people.

Etc., etc.

All three examples you provide are are at the same level of culpability. I would expect someone to tell me if they know and not just be careful. That way I can make an informed decision as to whether place myself at risk.

Those afraid to get tested should be more afraid to have casual unprotected sexual encounters so they show a complete indifference and lack of morals. Knowing your at risk, not testing and continuing to potentially expose others under the guise one didn't know is just as bad as one that knows.

actually you are are wrong......someone infected and on treatment cannot pass it on - someone untested playing the field with multiple partners and no protection is your very worst enemy - do you think either will actually tell you ?

ultimately you need to protect yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but I get your point

Edited March 25, 2012 by smedly

[smedly]

I must say that this thread has been a very educational experience - some stuff I thought I knew and was maybe a bit skewed and still am to a certain extent but none the less it is an interesting subject...........one thing I would say is that google is not your friend regarding HIV.there's a whole pile of bull out there there that needs to be ignored

be safe peeps ....wear a Helmet

[Jingthing]

Also, there are different issues here with different levels of ethical concerns.

Such as a person who is infected who is trying to infect people. Obviously, that is monstrous.

An infected person who knows it, doesn't reveal, but is careful.

An infected person who doesn't know it and can't deal with getting tested. This probably is MOST infected people.

Etc., etc.

All three examples you provide are are at the same level of culpability. I would expect someone to tell me if they know and not just be careful. That way I can make an informed decision as to whether place myself at risk.

Those afraid to get tested should be more afraid to have casual unprotected sexual encounters so they show a complete indifference and lack of morals. Knowing your at risk, not testing and continuing to potentially expose others under the guise one didn't know is just as bad as one that knows.

actually you are are wrong......someone infected and on treatment cannot pass it on - someone untested playing the field with multiple partners and no protection is your very worst enemy - do you think either will actually tell you ?

ultimately you need to protect yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but I get your point

People being treated with meds CAN still infect you. If the viral load is very low, they are indeed much LESS infectious but viral load varies a lot during the course of treatment.

[smedly]

Also, there are different issues here with different levels of ethical concerns.

Such as a person who is infected who is trying to infect people. Obviously, that is monstrous.

An infected person who knows it, doesn't reveal, but is careful.

An infected person who doesn't know it and can't deal with getting tested. This probably is MOST infected people.

Etc., etc.

All three examples you provide are are at the same level of culpability. I would expect someone to tell me if they know and not just be careful. That way I can make an informed decision as to whether place myself at risk.

Those afraid to get tested should be more afraid to have casual unprotected sexual encounters so they show a complete indifference and lack of morals. Knowing your at risk, not testing and continuing to potentially expose others under the guise one didn't know is just as bad as one that knows.

actually you are are wrong......someone infected and on treatment cannot pass it on - someone untested playing the field with multiple partners and no protection is your very worst enemy - do you think either will actually tell you ?

ultimately you need to protect yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but I get your point

People being treated with meds CAN still infect you. If the viral load is very low, they are indeed much LESS infectious but viral load varies a lot during the course of treatment.

just going by what I've read, people on effective treatment do not infect others, there may be exceptions but generally this accepted now by the WHO and most experts

[Jingthing]

Please. If you were sleeping with an positive person on treatment, you think you should skip the condoms?

[smedly]

you need to read my previous posts on this thread, always use a condom unless you and your partner have been tested - in saying that it would appear that there is more risk with someone that hasn't been tested and continues to ignore protection, they are the people who are spreading HIV

[Ijustwannateach]

Everyone is ultimately responsible for his own protection. It doesn't matter what the other person does or does not know about his status, or what in fact that status is or is not; the only person who can protect you is YOU. The only way to get some- not 100%- protection if you choose to have sex is to have SAFER sex- condoms, risk awareness, the whole shebang. Anything else is just irresponsibility. No one can force you to have unsafe sex (unless they are behaving in a way that would make them open to criminal charges anyway).

[gogobar8]

Everyone is ultimately responsible for his own protection. It doesn't matter what the other person does or does not know about his status, or what in fact that status is or is not; the only person who can protect you is YOU. The only way to get some- not 100%- protection if you choose to have sex is to have SAFER sex- condoms, risk awareness, the whole shebang. Anything else is just irresponsibility. No one can force you to have unsafe sex (unless they are behaving in a way that would make them open to criminal charges anyway).

Correct. Jingthing is right too. I work for a pharmaceutical company that makes treatments for HIV. Have done for 10 years.

Try and avoid judgemental stuff and play safe is what I would recommend.

[oldthaihand99]

actually you are are wrong......someone infected and on treatment cannot pass it on - someone untested playing the field with multiple partners and no protection is your very worst enemy - do you think either will actually tell you ?

ultimately you need to protect yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but I get your point

People being treated with meds CAN still infect you. If the viral load is very low, they are indeed much LESS infectious but viral load varies a lot during the course of treatment.

I haven't been able to find much info or opinions on this subject, though i did happen upon this:

"He stressed the importance of a recent trial, which found that if a person living with HIV adhered to an effective antiretroviral regimen, the risk of transmitting the virus to their uninfected sexual partner could be reduced by 96%.

" "Access to treatment will transform the Aids response in the next decade. We must invest in accelerating access and finding new treatment options.

" "Antiretroviral therapy is a bigger game-changer than ever before - it not only stops people from dying, but also prevents transmission of HIV to women, men and children," he added.

"Mr Sidibe said the challenge was to expand access to drugs, and deal with social factors that in some countries continue to stigmatise the disease and make women particularly vulnerable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../world-13652702

Similarly HIV positive couples are able to have children who, it is claimed, with proper care have less than a 1% chance of getting HIV:

http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/42794.html

It has been alleged that "up to 75% of newborn babies also possess natural immunity (for reasons still not known) when exposed to HIV-positive blood"

http://ezinearticles...tims&id=3871400

[azt]

After the discovery of HIV, The Thai government took a cross section of medical records from Thai nationals that had died of opportunistic infection or diseases that could be related to Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Now that's a very broad spectrum of illnesses, which could be easily misinterpreted. These findings were then factored into national statistics at the time, to provide an calculation flow on HIV prevelance in the Kingdom.

Is the Thai Government now saying that after a figure reported (by them) to W.H.O of 600,000 in 2009, has nearly doubled in the past 3 years! I find this very difficult to believe, especially when they reported on 10,000 people would be infected this year, as in last year, and the year before that. So 630,000 tops

The bottom line here is that either we have a virus resurgence of biblical proportions, or seroconversion is now taking 3 years, or have they just got it all wrong (which wouldn't be the first time)..lol.

People on here keep saying about the hidden untested people. If you disect your figures from a cross section, like the Thais have done. the outcome will all be the same factor % wise ie in this article 1 to 60, 10 to 600, 100 to 6000....1000000 to 6000000 etc. To come up with a figure of 1,000,000, clearly 60,000,000 haven't been tested, but clearly a factor of 60 resides somewhere.

My point is: how the hell has a factor of 1 in 100 become, 1 in 60 in three years. Things just can change that much in such a short space of time, and if its 1 in 30, three years down the track, then somethings clearly fcuked up.

And if seroconversion has adapted from a 3-6 month hibernation window to 3 years, then clearly the virus is mutating in a good way. A bit like how scientists think Bubonic Plague was eventually wiped through our adaptive immune system. Some scientists also believe that Europeans whose descendants were affected by the Black Death and survived, are far more resiliant to most retroviruses inc HIV. Which they also feel answers the lack of HIV domination, in some previously European plague effected areas.

None of this info has been cut or pasted, all figures are rounded up, and its just my interpretation on this article. All my statements can be backed up by some due dilligance on google.

[ttelise]

After the discovery of HIV, The Thai government took a cross section of medical records from Thai nationals that had died of opportunistic infection or diseases that could be related to Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Now that's a very broad spectrum of illnesses, which could be easily misinterpreted. These findings were then factored into national statistics at the time, to provide an calculation flow on HIV prevelance in the Kingdom.

Is the Thai Government now saying that after a figure reported (by them) to W.H.O of 600,000 in 2009, has nearly doubled in the past 3 years! I find this very difficult to believe, especially when they reported on 10,000 people would be infected this year, as in last year, and the year before that. So 630,000 tops

The bottom line here is that either we have a virus resurgence of biblical proportions, or seroconversion is now taking 3 years, or have they just got it all wrong (which wouldn't be the first time)..lol.

People on here keep saying about the hidden untested people. If you disect your figures from a cross section, like the Thais have done. the outcome will all be the same factor % wise ie in this article 1 to 60, 10 to 600, 100 to 6000....1000000 to 6000000 etc. To come up with a figure of 1,000,000, clearly 60,000,000 haven't been tested, but clearly a factor of 60 resides somewhere.

My point is: how the hell has a factor of 1 in 100 become, 1 in 60 in three years. Things just can change that much in such a short space of time, and if its 1 in 30, three years down the track, then somethings clearly fcuked up.

And if seroconversion has adapted from a 3-6 month hibernation window to 3 years, then clearly the virus is mutating in a good way. A bit like how scientists think Bubonic Plague was eventually wiped through our adaptive immune system. Some scientists also believe that Europeans whose descendants were affected by the Black Death and survived, are far more resiliant to most retroviruses inc HIV. Which they also feel answers the lack of HIV domination, in some previously European plague effected areas.

None of this info has been cut or pasted, all figures are rounded up, and its just my interpretation on this article. All my statements can be backed up by some due dilligance on google.

I hear you. You make good points. Again though, Who, UNAIDs and etc. all indicate that Thailand was underreporting to these agencies and that obtaining information from certain communities in Thailand was an impossible proposition. Perhaps Thailand has actual figures and data not previously reported to UNAIDs and other agencies.

[gogobar8]

Modern HIV treatments are very effective. Life expectancy for HIV + people who take them every day is close to normal.

Keeping your viral load down reduces risk of transmission (but does not eliminate it) to your neg partner.

Emergence of HIV mutants that are resistant to the current treatments is rare and not a major concern for the future.

Thai government statistics are a side issue.

[smedly]

Google is your friend

extract from an article

sex workers were 14 times more likely to be infected with the virus as compared with the general female population in those countries. 31% of female sex workers in 26 countries categorized as medium or high background HIV prevalence tested positive to the virus, with the risk for infection in these female sex workers being 12 times higher compared with women from the general population.

The worst region in terms of infection risk for female sex workers was Asia, with an increased risk of 29 times, whilst the risk in Africa and Latin America was 12-fold as compared to the general female population.

[kerryk]

Google is your friend

extract from an article

sex workers were 14 times more likely to be infected with the virus as compared with the general female population in those countries. 31% of female sex workers in 26 countries categorized as medium or high background HIV prevalence tested positive to the virus, with the risk for infection in these female sex workers being 12 times higher compared with women from the general population.

The worst region in terms of infection risk for female sex workers was Asia, with an increased risk of 29 times, whilst the risk in Africa and Latin America was 12-fold as compared to the general female population.

What article?

[cup-O-coffee]

The "Peltdown Man" theory was protected for 50 years by all leading scientists until one scientist drilled a hole in the skull and found it to be a fake.

The theory of "Shifting Continents" was dismissed as a myth, and the scientist laughed out of his profession for 50 years until it was proven that the continents do indeed shift.

If you have tuberculosis and the HIV gene, you are diagnosed with AIDS. If you have tuberculosis and do not have the HIV virus, you are diagnosed with tuberculosis. ALL drugs (such as AZT) that are prescribed to so-called AIDS diagnosed patients all have one thing in common; liver failure is the common side effect of all AIDS drugs.

Never in the history of man have we humans become so gullible and accepting on what governments, doctors, pharmaceutical companies and scientists say. We hang on their every word and it will be our undoing. Even Bill Gates is goose-stepping to the tune that vaccines will "help" reduce the world's population. But one needs to do the math that one needs a reason to administer these "killer" vaccines before one will willfully (even pleadingly) beg for the vaccine.

There are only several subjects that cannot be discussed openly in today's world, and they are locked subjects. They are taboo to discuss the possibility that they are not true. This subject is one of them.

Maybe in time people will look back and see how stupid they had been and those who dared to speak out, whose lives were destroyed by "experts", will be redeemed.

If you want to decrease a population that in a few years will not be able to sustain itself, then you must create an enemy that transcends all religious and political barriers and unites man to one purpose, whether for the betterment or doom of a large percentage of mankind. In this case it is the latter.

Believe what you wish, and you are welcome to that, but allow me my inference that the inconsistencies rate this as factually unreliable and

. It angers me how such inconsistencies can be used to lead thinking astray and those who question that inconsistent propaganda are censured.

Please, no abusive ad hominem or ad hominem circumstantial! That would serve to further confirm my inferences about this.

[Jingthing]

cup-o-coffee:

amusing rant but could you please more precisely spell out what you actually believe? I think your post was a grand dancing around what you really think, but you never DID say what you actually believe. That seemed intentional.

BTW, if what you were meaning to say the HIV virus does not cause disease, you had better NOT say that because that's not allowable here. But if it was something more rational, I'd like to see it spelled out.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[smedly]

Oh yeh and the twin Towrs of 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government as population control also - ahem

I am not a skeptic I do have some thoughts on Drug companies and their lack of interest in helping find a cure for certain diseases that they are are making boat loads of money from HIV being one of them

As for the extract from an artical I posted above, take this line - sex workers were 14 times more likely to be infected with the virus - paste it into google and search and you will find many links to that article

[cup-O-coffee]

cup-o-coffee:

amusing rant but could you please more precisely spell out what you actually believe? I think your post was a grand dancing around what you really think, but you never DID say what you actually believe. That seemed intentional.

BTW, if what you were meaning to say the HIV virus does not cause disease, you had better NOT say that because that's not allowable here. But if it was something more rational, I'd like to see it spelled out.

Next...

[Jingthing]

cup-o-coffee:

amusing rant but could you please more precisely spell out what you actually believe? I think your post was a grand dancing around what you really think, but you never DID say what you actually believe. That seemed intentional.

BTW, if what you were meaning to say the HIV virus does not cause disease, you had better NOT say that because that's not allowable here. But if it was something more rational, I'd like to see it spelled out.

Next...

Cryptic.

[cup-O-coffee]

cup-o-coffee:

amusing rant but could you please more precisely spell out what you actually believe? I think your post was a grand dancing around what you really think, but you never DID say what you actually believe. That seemed intentional.

BTW, if what you were meaning to say the HIV virus does not cause disease, you had better NOT say that because that's not allowable here. But if it was something more rational, I'd like to see it spelled out.

Next...

Cryptic.

Indeed!

Next...

[Jingthing]

Maybe someone else can translate the original c-o-c diatribe? If not, that's OK too!

Edited March 30, 2012 by Jingthing

[pointoffew]

I was at a similar (or the same?) orphanage in Khon Kaen, run by Assies.

Seeing the innocent, infected and mostly sick kids made me feel miserable, which I think is normal and al-right.

Unfortunately, in order to be admitted, the kids HAD TO convert to Christianity, and for every single drink, snack and meal they had to pray to and thank Jesus Christ. That brainwashing, extortion of the soul and mind of helpless toddlers and kids, made me puke. Some call it conditional love. I call it abuse.

[smedly]

I was at a similar (or the same?) orphanage in Khon Kaen, run by Assies.

Seeing the innocent, infected and mostly sick kids made me feel miserable, which I think is normal and al-right.

Unfortunately, in order to be admitted, the kids HAD TO convert to Christianity, and for every single drink, snack and meal they had to pray to and thank Jesus Christ. That brainwashing, extortion of the soul and mind of helpless toddlers and kids, made me puke. Some call it conditional love. I call it abuse.

I have to agree with you, it is discusting to think that kids have to pretend to believe in something just to have food and a bed to sleep in, I wonder if contributions to this organisation would continue if it was known what they are up too.....disgrace