Guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Not surprisingly, your response was to stoop to characterizing my question as ridiculous and dismiss my honest inquiry with a "I know more than you dumbshit" type of attitude. IMHO your historically ridiculing remarks suggest an ego that is really quite fragile. Sorry if it got bruised. (In retrospect, "not", given your propensity to degrade others.) First, it is most noble of you to allow HT to decide if he desires to use a condom or not. But I would think that his frankness regarding his health history, etc., etc. would lead most people to believe that he is most-likely absent of the HIV. (Don't take this to say that I "buy-in" to his reason for not calling a "time out" and "suiting up".) As to bothering to educate myself regarding the ever-changing, controversial, and contradictory facets of HIV/AIDS research, it is much more expedient to ask an expert such as yourself and save myself the time should I have a question about *anything*. Of course, I will expose myself to your ridicule which may cause me many sleepness nights. Finally, if you consider my postings "unworthy" of your highnesses attention, please feel free to disregard them and resist the urge to reply. I will take no offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Hi, Guys, knock it off. Oh, and JJSushi knock of the degrading comments. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Hi JJ, First of all, not using a condom was not my brightest moment in life. I use them religiously. But, I am not stupid concerning viruses. Both my father, and step-father, are virologists who have worked at CDC, one heading the tropical communicable disease center there, at one time. What lead me to my decision was based on what I know. Not fool-proof, but rooted in some good knowledge. You say that I had test 1 day after having sex. Read my post more carefully, and you will see that your statement is far from factual. I got tested after my last return, after waiting for 3 months, on purpose. And not having sex in the interim. This is from the CDC website, as of today: >>>>>The tests commonly used to detect HIV infection actually look for antibodies produced by your body to fight HIV. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 3 months after infection, the average being 25 days. In rare cases, it can take up to 6 months.<<<< As also stated, I've never had a condom break, and ALWAYS use them. This fact, coupled with me waiting 3 months to get tested, would place an incredibly high probability, that I am, in fact, not infected with HIV. 100%? No. But very little reason to believe that I might be. Damn near zero. As in 99.9% Your statement about the disease having the ability to remain dormant for long periods of time, illudes me. You get infected, and your body will produce antibodies to eradicate the invasion. HIV has not yet found a way to mutate,in a way, to make the human body to think a good thing has entered it. Thus, your body WILL produce an attack, represented clearly by an antibody test. The CDC says, in rare cases, this can take up to 6 months for this to become evident. But in most cases, will be detectable within 25 days (less than 1 month). I am curious as to where you get your belief that this virus can remain dormant, and undetectable, for long periods of time. Testing for HIV is quite reliable, given the fact you wait long enough before testing, in order to have antibodies present. Like the other poster, I am wondering why do you have other idea's about this? I mean, millions have died from this already, giving researchers around the world, a pretty good take on infection rate probabilities, and the time-frame for introduction of human antibodies, to become present, and thus detectable. Do you know something the CDC, and other HIV researchers around the world, do not? If so, you might want to give them a call. They might be interested in your 'dormancy' theory'. HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongatu Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Imo, based on doing a lot of reading on the subject, the CDC info you quoted represents the best current thinking on this subject. If you test neg. for the antibodies after 3 months of no sex, you are 99.999% in the clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJsushi Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Says Chongnoi: Not surprisingly, your response was to stoop to characterizing my question as ridiculous and dismiss my honest inquiry with a "I know more than you dumbshit" type of attitude. IMHO your historically ridiculing remarks suggest an ego that is really quite fragile. Sorry if it got bruised. (In retrospect, "not", given your propensity to degrade others.) First, it is most noble of you to allow HT to decide if he desires to use a condom or not. But I would think that his frankness regarding his health history, etc., etc. would lead most people to believe that he is most-likely absent of the HIV. (Don't take this to say that I "buy-in" to his reason for not calling a "time out" and "suiting up".) As to bothering to educate myself regarding the ever-changing, controversial, and contradictory facets of HIV/AIDS research, it is much more expedient to ask an expert such as yourself and save myself the time should I have a question about *anything*. Of course, I will expose myself to your ridicule which may cause me many sleepness nights. Finally, if you consider my postings "unworthy" of your highnesses attention, please feel free to disregard them and resist the urge to reply. I will take no offense. Dude, spare me the indignation. Your original post was a thinly veiled attempt to support the argument of going bareback given what you believe is a not credible information concerning HIV infection. You could have given 2 squats about learning more about it's latency period. Keep in mind my true criticsm against HT was his mis-informed understanding of the infection. I know what your intention was so save all of the flowery your insulted speech as I don't have the patience or politeness to deal with naysayers such as yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJsushi Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Says khunsanuk: Hi, Guys, knock it off. Oh, and JJSushi knock of the degrading comments. Sanuk! My apologies but the guy didn't have a credible argument. I don't like pretense and criticism disguised as information gathering or maybe in his case sarcasm. I would have preferred outright criticism from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Hi Mongatu, Yes....my point exactly. My actions were not irresponsible, concerning the transmition of disease, in the least. Can't get much cleaner than being tested after 3 months, and then having sex for the first time, since. My only concern was not the .009 % chance I had something communicable, but the much larger concern, of her getting pregnant. I was very aware that the morning-after pill is available in LOS, without a prescription. She did, in fact, start her period 2 days ago. Nothing is full-proof. I understand this. But given the situation, I do not feel bad about what occured. It was an unusual situation. Unlike any other I've had in LOS. The first, and probably the last time, the convergence of events could lead me to not have many concerns. I'm scared shitless of HIV when I am there, and treat all, as though they have. I've been a very careful guy, with this, from the very beginning. I had been tested clean, and she was a virgin. You can't put HIV much further out of the equation, than that. I will also say, that if I had the slightest indication that she had sex before, I would have had a condom under the pillow, within easy reach, and used. But her being a virgin, was 100% appearent, for reasons I won't go into here, but undeniable. HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJsushi Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Says HIGH THAIED: But, I am not stupid concerning viruses. Both my father, and step-father, are virologists who have worked at CDC, one heading the tropical communicable disease center there, at one time. What lead me to my decision was based on what I know. Not fool-proof, but rooted in some good knowledge. You say that I had test 1 day after having sex. Read my post more carefully, and you will see that your statement is far from factual. I got tested after my last return, after waiting for 3 months, on purpose. And not having sex in the interim. This is from the CDC website, as of today: >>>>>The tests commonly used to detect HIV infection actually look for antibodies produced by your body to fight HIV. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 3 months after infection, the average being 25 days. In rare cases, it can take up to 6 months.<<<< Your relatives may be virologists but you are not, so there is no credibility factor for you there. What the CDC site may not have told you or you may have overlooked is that after 3 weeks the virus can completely "dissapear" from the body and escape detection from the immune system. That information is not even reliable because there is not true biological latency period for the virus. The damn think can hide in chromosones and lymph nodes for 3-12 years showing no symptoms of infection. To explain this to you we would have to talk about the RNA structure of the virus, which is not my area of expertise. Basically dude what you think you know means nothing. What you may also not know is that the virus mutates rapidly and there are quite a few strains of it,that can fool your immune system quite easily. That is what makes this virus so deadly -the ability to rapidly mutate.The cirus does not act like a true virus which makes it difficult to even design a vaccine for it. You do realize that scientists are still searching for the magicalperson that has completely recovered from an HIV infection. thus far the specimen does not exist. The CDC as far as I know is not the leading authority or research center on HIV/AIDS. Actually the CDC mostly provides information on the predominant strain that has infected North Americans. I would not take their word for gospel. I would advise you to educate yourself more because it is quite obvious that you don't know much about it. Don't feel bad about it though because most researchers don't either. Dude, if you want to go bareback that is your choice and nothing wrong with that, yet to use the rationale that you think you are HIV free because you took a test is complete nonsense. What I find baffling is the attitude of those such as you who are armed with certain facts and truly believe that they have this HIV thing figured out. "I wear a condom , I 'll take a test in 3-6months and I'm okay!". Amazing attitude given that leading researchers are so friggin baffled by this virus that they can't even figure out what triggers HIV into full blown AIDS. BTW- I have/had friends who thought the same way you do. They are either dead or sucking on HIV cocktails right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Hi JJ, >>>>I would advise you to educate yourself more because it is quite obvious that you don't know much about it.<<<< :: Why don't we take this to "health". >>>>Your relatives may be virologists but you are not, so there is no credibility factor for you there.<<<< My 'credibility factor' is right on, because this is where my information originates. These are people who have worked/studied this virus, day in, and day out, for many years, from the begining. They write scientific papers on their work/subject/findings. You can only tell me what you read from some un-informed journalist, in your local newspaper. The virus docks on cells, entering nucleus through T-cell receptors. Virus can mutate, but to a somewhat limited degree. Animal/human strains are not compatable. At this point, monkey strain is not adaptable to human strain. Ever read "THE HOT ZONE", by Robert Preston? My father is a central character, in this real-life drama. In real life. By the way. There are people, in Africa, who have lived through the disease. Blood samples re-anylized from the 50's, have shown the presence of HIV antibodies, yet they still live today. A family friend spent one whole year, outside a cave in Kinshasa, because that was the only common denominator between 2 victims. Trying to find the 'host', he trapped every bird, insect, bat, etc., in the area. The host of the virus is still unknown. He gave up. JJ....You make many good posts here. Much of them insightful, and informed. But do not tell me I need to get better informed about HIV credibility factor. I have better knowledge, and access to it, than you will ever have. HT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Hi, "Why don't we take this to "health". " My thoughts exactly. And I think a bit of calming down would not hurt either. I will delete any further discussion on this in this thread. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.