GTG #II (part 3)

[Guest]

hi JJ,

 

Just another comment. The greatest fear is that the HIV virus can mutate to become, aerosolized. Meaning, it can be spread like the common Flu. Transmittable, through a cough. Like a commom cold. Now that.... is truly terrifying. It happened before, with the black plague. Scary shit!

 

HT

[lembeh]

 

Sorry, but you are *both* talking about stuff you do not understand.

 

>you may have overlooked is that after 3 weeks the virus can completely "dissapear

 

uhm, sort of, yes

 

>body and escape detection from the immune system

 

and no.

 

While the *virus* may dissapear, the antigentic response *to* the virus will not.

 

Most of the screening test *do not* detect the virus, they detect the produced antibody response *to* that virus. Not the same at all.

 

It is true that the "second stage" tests do detect the virus (or constituents there of) i.e. western blots, PCR etc, but they are pretty much only ever used in response to a positive first (antibody response) test.

 

However, all this being said, there is still a whole load of ifs, ands and buts. There are many documented cases of people having multiple "negative" tests (by antibody), but, indeed being positive by other tests (such as PCR). These are usually only detected when a person is showing multiple signs of HIV/AIDS but is persistently negative by the antibody tests.

 

>To explain this to you we would have to talk about the RNA structure of the virus, which is not my area of expertise

 

Hmm. OK. Ill bite. What exactly would we have to talk about? The fact that HIV is a retrovirus and integrates into the genome or something more? But of course we all know that its a DNA copy of the virus that integrates, NOT the RNA molecule...or that there are LOTS of different RNA viruses, some which integrate, some which don't...some which are negative strand polarity, some which are positive strand polarity...or something more???

 

However, be that as it may, I *do* agree with you that the original poster behaved in a very shabby way. I particularly disliked the bit that said (paraphrasing) : I had a condom under the pillow, and if I though she had had sex before would hae used it.

 

Well whoopee for you mate. So *you* deserve protection, but she does not. Besides the obvious risk of pregnancy (OH, of course she started her period - although you *do* know that some women have a show of blood even though they are pregnant don't you?) we all focus so much on HIV/AIDS that we tend to forget there are a MYRIAD (that means a shit load) of other things out there which are often asymptomatic in males - lets see, herpes, papillomavirus, numerous bacterial STD etc any or all of which could lead to reduced fertility, sterility or cancer.

 

As I recall the original poster is significantly older, as such the responsibility for her welfare was HIS concern. All in all, not nice.

-j-

[JJsushi]

Thanks for the levity Josh

 

I don't claim to be a scientist and researcher of AIDS. Most of what I learned came from a chick I dated a while ago that is a faculty member at the UCLA AIDS Institute. I also learned alot reading journals and talking to doctors and my friends(who are HIV positive).

 

I do know enough about the virus to understand that scientists don't know alot about it and any guy who thinks that taking a test 3 months after unprotected/protected sex means he is clean is sadly mistaken.

 

Unfortunately, some people want to play statistics and believe some info lifted from the CDC website when the only thing that is certain is that if you get full blown AIDS the results are fatal.

 

The only problem I have with HT's situation is the rationale about not being infected because he took a test, allowing him to go bareback nonsense. With all of his "credible" knowledge, he seemed to not understand or care about the risk he was putting himself and the girl in. Even though he claims he is "terrified" of HIV he apparently is not terrified enough.

 

I am done with this topic.