| |
afm171
|
Well, someone gave me shit, so i have to add this clarification...
I have not changed my views on the HIV theory, my 'surrender' was offered only to appease those who enjoy arguing for arguings sake. I don't for one minute think that i can change everyones mind to my way of thinking, i don't intend to. My intention was to raise awareness of the potential liabilities of the popular perception -- my mission has been accomplished.
I hope that no one gets the idea that i am promoting irresponsible behaviour, quite the opposite is the case. Exposure to STDs and repeated treatment with antibiotics will eventually have harmful effects on a persons immune system. Asian strains of gonnorhea have already become resistant to treatment by quinolones. Use a condom...
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:43 pm on Jan. 10, 2003
|
|
Chompoo
|
AZT
There is no doubt that AZT is a dangerous poison. It certainly can kill if improperly used or even occasionally when properly used. It also is not a miracle treatment, i.e. when properly used it will not always produce the desired results. Still, there are no studies that show that AZT when properly used is significantly more likely to lead to death in an HIV+ patient than when AZT is not used. These days the drug cocktails are far more effective and less dangerous, so the disparity between what Duesberg claims (i.e. the drugs cause death, not HIV) is even greater. Citing studies made in 1990 is hardly compelling evidence today considering how much research has been done on HIV in the last decade.
Compare this to chemotherapy. Your "reverse challenge" is comparable to saying "I'll give my self cancer, if you take chemotherapy drugs for the rest of your life." Only a fool would take someone up on this offer and it certainly does not mean that chemotherapy is worse than the cancer it is used to treat.
Duesberg
You're right, at this point the publicity and fanfare around Duesberg (and other virus myth proponents) has faded. This is because their ideas have little or no merit as people have sobered up to the idea that HIV is not harmless (well, I'm sure natural selection has also played a part as many Duesberg followers have died from AIDS in the meantime). If there were any merit the idea would be even more popular today than it was ten years ago. Duesberg has nothing left, but to cling to this idea.
Studies
It would be trivial to put Duesberg's theories to the test or even use detailed current data to prove or disprove his hypothesis. Take for example, infants who are HIV+ (usually from their mothers, but sometimes blood mishaps). How would Duesberg explain the higher mortality rate for these kids vs. a reasonable control group?
Use all the sarcasm you want, but I'm sorry, Duesberg is a crackpot and you have been duped.
Other refs:
http://www.aids.org/immunet/atn.nsf/page/a-277-07
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 2:45 pm on Jan. 10, 2003
|
|
Chompoo
|
I have not changed my views on the HIV theory, my 'surrender' was offered only to appease those who enjoy arguing for arguings sake. ÝI don't for one minute think that i can change everyones mind to my way of thinking, i don't intend to. ÝMy intention was to raise awareness of the potential liabilities of the popular perception -- my mission has been accomplished.
I hope that no one gets the idea that i am promoting irresponsible behaviour, quite the opposite is the case. ÝExposure to STDs and repeated treatment with antibiotics will eventually have harmful effects on a persons immune system. ÝAsian strains of gonnorhea have already become resistant to treatment by quinolones. Use a condom...
I seriously hope you have not changed anyone's mind. If anyone is in the least bit convinced by this theory, please step forward. This is too important a topic to dismiss lightly.
The caveat that condoms should still be worn is empty and dangerous. We all make choices based on the real or perceived risks we are taking. There are certainly people who judge the risk of HIV in a particular sitiuation to not be so great. If anyone on this forum, because of what you have posted, now thinks that the risk is even less (i.e. that even if I do get HIV it is harmless), then they will use condoms less often and there will be more deaths from AIDS. And afm, you will be partly responsible.
Please, please, please, don't give this theory any credence at all. Even if the bargirl is really hot and you used your last condom the night before.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:52 pm on Jan. 10, 2003
|
|
Kaymanx
|
I must say this is an amazing discussion going on here. But I am still scared despite all the counter arguments gainsaying Ýthe HIV risk. Assuming that drug abuse, malnutrition, etc, are as equally contributing factors as the HIV virus in bringing on the AIDS disease, my scare is this : I may not suffer from malnutrition, I do not take drugs, nor do I have any of the other identified risk conditions listed by Dr Rapoport, but can I say I am really risk-free if I have had contact with a possibly infected partner ? The danger here is that I began Ýto immediately downplay my risk exposure after reading Dr. Rapoport's arguments. And then it took some time to realise that my risk exposure had hardly reduced. I do not know whether the BG I have taken is infected.
My own experience on my recent trip has filled me with much concern which is why I hunted down this thread: In a bar I got very passionate with a BG and she got highly passionate too becaue she had become quite drunk. Before I realised it she had gone down on me, and I was 2 seconds too late to prevent her unprotected licking. Then we went to a corner and indulged in some rubbing. Again, it took me a second or two to realise that she had pulled down her panty and was actually trying to squeeze me in, before I pulled away hastily.
I am filled with a sense of alarm. Could anything have been transmitted in those couple of seconds ? Ý
This is the kind of advice that I think IMHO members want from threads like these.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 11:11 pm on Jan. 24, 2003
|
|
afm171
|
Kaymanx
Take a deep breath and relax, even IF the HIV particle is responsible for causing illness in any way, your risk is low. It is very difficult to transmit the HIV particle. According to an "official government endorsed, drug company approved, non-dissident website - aidscentral.com" it is virtually non-existant...
Here is their response to someone with a similar question:
"Hi, my question is about a encounter I had about 9 months ago. I met a woman over the internet. She was a escort. I didn't know it at the time. I never had vaginal sex with her. She performed oral sex on me for about 20 seconds. And I kissed her twice for about 2 seconds. I put on a condom to have sex with her but I could not maintain an erection. I never was inside of her. Just rubbed the outside vaginal lips with the condom. Could there be any HIV outside her vagina? What was my risk if she was HIV positive? I am going crazy thinking she could have HIV. I have no symptoms or anything. But I can't get it out of my head no matter how hard I try. I also had a HIV test 3 months after this and it was negative. But then I see things about 6 months and I start to worry all over again. Please help. Do you think I need counseling?
We are really not in a position to determine whether you need counseling or not. However, one of the most important things we do here at AIDScentral is help people learn to assess and recognize any risk they may have for HIV. Your asking these questions indicates that you are actively assessing your risk. You used a condom when you knew you were going to have vaginal sex and that indicates that you are aware of HIV risks and know how to reduce them. You deserve to pat yourself on the back and not worry yourself unnecessarily.
Condoms are 98% effective when used properly. When you use a condom, whether you actually have vaginal sex or just attempt to, your risk for HIV is virtually non-existent.Ý If she performed oral sex on you and had no cuts, bleeding, gum disease or recent dental work in her mouth, your risk for contracting HIV is virtually non-existent in that instance as well. Even if she was HIV positive, there needs to be a means for blood, semen or vaginal fluids to come from her body, and an open site for blood, semen, or vaginal fluids to enter your body.Ý
http://aidscentral.com/Forum.htm
peace...
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 10:36 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
|
|
BoomARang
|
Exactly how HIV, which supposedly has come under control in a given body due to the evidence of antibodies, turns around and kills people, I do not know but from impirical information, the fact that "it" does somehow kill, I have no doubt.
About 15 years ago a man by the Name of Dr. Abe in Japan was charged with the responisbility of verifying the saftey of blood products brought into Japan. It was around that time that testing for the HIV anitibody in blood products became the "norm". However, Dr. Abe decided that wasn't necessary and so the blood products were distributed to Hemopheliacs without testing.
About 3 years after that some of the products in a particular batch were subsequently tested and found to contain HIV antibodies. At that time there was no reliable method to test for the actual virus as there is now.
Within 7 years, all those who received products from the contaminated batches were dead. If memory serves me correctly, that was about 3,000 people.
A few years ago he was tried in court for a number of offences, some dealing with collusion with the suppliers and some dealing with incompetency and criminal negligence.
He was cleared of the incompetency and criminal negligence because it couldn't be shown that enough was known at that time to make the testing for HIV mandatory.
Cool! A simple test that could have been run, or maybe it was run but not reported, and 3,000 people die. 
Something IS killing people. I don't care if they do not have all the answers yet, which they obviously know they don't because of all the research that is still going on, but I do care that they know more now than they did before and that using the possibly spotty knowledge they have now, people who have contracted the virus are living longer than before.
If one wants to wait until all the answers are known, Dozo Bozo, but for me, I'll take what they've got when they've got it. That's another part of Science, go with what you have until something better comes along.
Ichi
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 11:43 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
|
|
Kaymanx
|
Thanks afm for your attempt to reassure me -- but I am not reassured. The fact is I went without a condom because I did NOT intend to have sex. What happened was on the spur of the moment at a place where I did NOT expect to encounter such an experience. And when it actually happened -- although it lasted barely a few seconds -- I did not realise what was happening. It was only out of prudence that I pulled away, only to be surprised to note how far she had gone without my realising it. This is the problem. And that is why I think everyone would be well advised to wear a condom as part of their regular dress -- just like you wear underpants -- if you intend even just going to a bar or to any place of sexual entertainment.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:00 am on Jan. 27, 2003
|
|
afm171
|
Kman, Sorry you are not reassured. I do not envy the mental "state of alarm" that you descibe yourself as being in.
If it makes you feel better to walk around with a condom on, go for it. If you are really serious about it, you should note that you are much more likely to have open cuts on your hands, so if you want to be really safe, you should wear latex gloves at all times too.
I hope you are not one of these "nut-shavers", because then you are going to need a special scrotum condom as well.
Of course you might get an abrasion on your arm or leg, and a BG might rub up against you - so really a rubber body suit would take care of the whole problem, as long as you wear a dental dam too.
Nah, forget about the dental dam, people might think you are paranoid... 
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 2:10 pm on Jan. 27, 2003
|
|
Chompoo
|
afm is right here, up to a point.
Kman, you know and we know that what you did was stupid and yet almost every single one of us has done a similar thing in the past (i.e. stretched the limits of our risk taking a little farther than we wanted to).
The odds of you getting HIV from that one encounter is small. From the BJ it's not even worth considering (if you're in decent health). For the second of unprotected intercourse you should worry, but only enough so that you don't do it again. The chance of the girl being HIV+ is small, but considering how easy she was (and how much she likes drinking) her chances are a bit higher than you should be comfortable with. Let's say it's even 1 in 10. Now even if she was HIV+ the odds of you getting it (again if you're in good health) are very small; say 1 in 300 (off the top of my head estimate) from what you did. So your combined odds are only 1 in 3000 (these are just wild estimates, mind you).
You should tailor your actions to your surroundings and keep your defences up in dangerous situations.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 4:57 pm on Jan. 27, 2003
|
|
Hum
|
If you are worried get an aids test. You will know for sure and have a huge weight lifted off your shoulders.
Cheers
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 5:43 pm on Jan. 27, 2003
|
|
| |
|
