How to wipe out aids.
Don Saklad
Get tested for
STDs HepB
HIV TB
and get vaccinated together for hepatitis.
Collaborative WebLog
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
::ALIUS::
Very ideal if your a Baptist, and you both abide by the same rules.
Did you know that you cannot vaccinate for Hep c?
Don Saklad
get vaccinated for hepatitis B and get vaccinated for hepatitis A.
hepatitis b immunization
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22hepatitis+b%22
hepatitis a immunization
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22hepatitis+a%22
::ALIUS::
months at best. So, my point again being is...if you can wait 12
months, and trust your partner this much, we wouldnt need the
vaccination in the first place. There is no shot for HepC which is the
worst of them all.
Anonymous Jack
How does getting tested for Hepatitis wipe out AIDS?
The best way to wipe out AIDS is for everyone in the world to refrain
from any exchange of bodily fluids for the next 20 years. Count me
out, because I _Like_ to exchange bodily fluids.
rg
"Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf889346.03101...@posting.google.com...
Or we could all just join "True Love Waits" or "Promise Keepers" and pledge
off sex for a couple of generations.
rg
Don Saklad
puts the person at greater risk for HIV infection.
Get tested together with your potential sex partner
before having sex for STDs, HIV, TB, hepatitis B,
hepatitis A and get vaccinated for HepB and HepA
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com
Don Saklad
sex. If the test results detect an infection, that's useful information.
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com
Before getting vaccinated, testing is used to detect previous exposure
for hepatitis B and for hepatitis A.
Kinetic models of antibody decay indicate that the duration of protection is
likely to be at least 20 years, and possibly lifelong
http://www.who.int/vaccines/en/hepatitisa.shtml#hepa
http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hep_b/vaccine.html
Anonymous Jack
> Having any sexually transmitted infection puts the person at greater risk for > HIV infection.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but they're so cute...
So, you're saying that if I have syphilis and decide to spend the rest
of my life as a celibate monk in Tibet, I'm at a greater risk of
contracting HIV infection than if I have no STD but become a total
slut?
I think most people pretty much know how HIV is transmitted and the
risky behaviors that can increase the risks. Whether an individual
gets tested for STDs or not before having sex with a new partner does
not change the risk of infection.
If you get tested for STDs and have sex with an infected person, you
may contract HIV.
If you don't get tested for STDs and have sex with an infected person,
you may contract HIV.
If you don't get tested for STDs and have sex with a person who is not
infected with HIV, you will not get HIV from that person.
If you are a total 'ho and sleep with a lot of people, chances are
increased that you will have had sex with an infected person,
regardless of who gets tested for what.
Replacing dogma with logic and common sense will do the world wonders.
rg
Which all boils down to one thing.
If you are going to have sex with someone, do you want to know if they have
anything contagious and vice versa.
rg
Anonymous Jack
> Or we could all just join "True Love Waits" or "Promise Keepers" and pledge
> off sex for a couple of generations.
Er - OK, I'm going to have sex as much as possible during this
generation, but I swear I will refrain for the next couple of
generations after that :-)
BTW, I have nothing against both partners getting tested before sex -
I'm all for that - but to claim that as a panacea against HIV
infection is a bit much.
If it would stop AIDS, I suspect every person who could, would get
tested. Then we could go back to Free Love, '60s style - but with
better personal hygiene. Woo Hooo!
Don Saklad
> gets tested for STDs or not before having sex with a new partner does
> not change the risk of infection.
Sure it does, because if for one thing the parter knows your
status they might change their mind about doing something
with you. There's no assurance they won't but that's one of
the obvious reponses.
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com
Don Saklad
> anything contagious and vice versa.
Yup, before having sex knowing whether getting tested
together detected anything lays to rest a good deal of
ambiguity.
Don Saklad
> > risk for HIV infection.
Gasp! I am astounded. I thought people NEVER had
more than one STD at a time. Is that legal?
> I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but they're so cute...
Funny, but that's exactly how trolls view non-trolls.
> So, you're saying that if I have syphilis and decide to spend the rest
> of my life as a celibate monk in Tibet, I'm at a greater risk of
> contracting HIV infection than if I have no STD but become a total
> slut?
Could you point out where I made a reference to Tibet, or
any of your other statements/questions?
But since you might be confused, let me say it again:
If you don't have sex with anyone you won't become infected.
If you don't have sex with infected people you LIKELY
won't become infected.
Get tested with your potential partner to determine if
either of you is HIV positive--or have some other STD.
If one person is infected, then if the uninfected person
doesn't have sex with the first person, then there will
likely not be two infected people somewhere down the road.
If you are not infected, and your potential partner is,
then you can, of course, decide to have sex with the
infected person and increase your risk of becoming
infected.
> I think most people pretty much know how HIV is transmitted
Yes. And they ignroe that information. This is why there
continue to be so many new infections.
and the risky behaviors that can increase the risks.
And they continue to take those risks.
Whether an individual gets tested for STDs or not before having sex with a new
partner does not change the risk of infection.
You are smarter than I first thought. That's exactly right.
NOT having sex with that infected person reduces your risk
of becoming infected. But you are, of course, free to
completely ignore that information, have sex with the
infected person, and, possibly, eventually, becoming infected
yourself.
It's nice to have choices in life.
> If you get tested for STDs and have sex with an infected person, you
> may contract HIV.
By golly, I'm going to have to say that you are, INDEED,
a smart person.
Now if the uninfected person decides NOT to have sex with
the infected person they may not contract HIV.
> If you don't get tested for STDs and have sex with an infected person,
> you may contract HIV.
GOSH DANG! No doubt about it. You are smart!
And if you walk across the street with your eyes closed
you may get run over.
If you open your eyes about your, and your potential partner's
HIV status, you can lower your risk of contracting HIV if you
don't have sex with them.
> If you don't get tested for STDs and have sex with a person who is not
> infected with HIV, you will not get HIV from that person.
Tell me, though, EXACTLY how it is that you will know that
person is not infected with HIV? Is there perhaps a mumbo-jumbo
chant that causes a + or - to appear over their head? Or is
there something, other than an HIV test, that answers the
question about their status?
> If you are a total 'ho and sleep with a lot of people, chances are
> increased that you will have had sex with an infected person,
> regardless of who gets tested for what.
In all my slipperiness I am unable to escape the iron-clad
irrefutable logic of your brand new steel trap mind--on the
other hand, a brand new steel trap has likely never been
opened.
> Replacing dogma with logic and common sense will do the world wonders.
All is forgiven--you are now back to making sense, and I
find myself agreeing with you completely.
Furthermore, I could not possibly fail to disagree with
you less for the foreseeable future unless time is up.
suzee
> > I think most people pretty much know how HIV is transmitted
>
> Yes. And they ignroe that information. This is why there
> continue to be so many new infections.
And according to the CDC's figures, those new infections still remain
the highest in those groups who've been high rish from the very
beginning... IV drug addicts and homosexuals. The rate of infection
among strictly heterosexuals is still very low. And of course, a higher
number of partners a person's had, the risk increases.
sue
Determinator
Don Saklad
[ http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com ]
Here's the thread
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22how+to+wipe+out+aids%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en ]
> Ya know Don, testing is not the only relevant thing when it comes to
> fighting disease. Immune system state is also dependent upon many
> other factors. Good nutrition, proper supplementation, strong family
> ties, manageable stress levels, good psychic health and many other
> factors go into it. That one test is not the be-all-end-all of being
> well.
I want to apologize for making such a simple minded statement,
for coming to such a ridiculous conclusion that there was only
one way to solve this problem, only one component of staying
healthy.
By the way, I seem to have misplaced the email where I made
that remark. Could you forward me a copy?
> I know it may sound touchy feely but I also think having sex only when
> you are in love is as good as all the testing in the world.
I know--there is ample evidence that being in love makes an
HIV+ person turn negative. It was stupid of me not to
mention that.
> No, I'm not telling anyone not to get tested...
Thank god for that--otherwise people might accuse you of
being some sort of fanatic.
> people should test their brains out.
Its probably not necessary to do that. Lust usually makes
a person's brain evaporate.
> I am saying, for me, testing is not the lynchpin that it is for you.
One day I hope to be able to tell if a person is HIV+, or has
another STD just by looking at and talking to them.
Wish me luck!
Collaborative blog
[ http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com ]
Here's the thread
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22how+to+wipe+out+aids%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en ]
suzee
> I want to apologize for making such a simple minded statement,
> for coming to such a ridiculous conclusion that there was only
> one way to solve this problem, only one component of staying
> healthy.
>
> By the way, I seem to have misplaced the email where I made
> that remark. Could you forward me a copy?
line...
sue
Don Saklad
> >
> > continue to be so many new infections.
>
> And according to the CDC's figures, those new infections still remain
> the highest in those groups who've been high rish
Its not a good idea to engage in a conversation like this
when you've been drinking--it puts you at risk.
> from the very beginning... IV drug addicts and homosexuals.
Silly me, I've been under the impression we've been
discussing people who are contemplating a new sexual
relationship where they have no idea of the other
person's STD status.
But, hey, that's just me--and what do I know?
> The rate of infection among strictly heterosexuals is still very low. And of
> course, a higher number of partners a person's had, the risk increases.
Which would make getting tested with each of those potential
partners a very good idea. After all, you wouldn't want to
get HIV from someone, pass it on to a partner and then have
them die, now would you?
Oh, I'm sorry--that's EXACTLY what is happening now. I
just forgot that.
> sue
So sue me...
Laurie S.
<dsa...@nestle.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>> > > I think most people pretty much know how HIV is transmitted
>> >
>> > Yes. And they ignore that information. This is why there
>> > continue to be so many new infections.
>>
>> And according to the CDC's figures, those new infections still remain
>> the highest in those groups who've been high rish
>
> Its not a good idea to engage in a conversation like this
> when you've been drinking--it puts you at risk.
>
>
>> from the very beginning... IV drug addicts and homosexuals.
>
> Silly me, I've been under the impression we've been
> discussing people who are contemplating a new sexual
> relationship where they have no idea of the other
> person's STD status.
>
> But, hey, that's just me--and what do I know?
Your subject line was "how to wipe out aids." Getting tested will
reduce *individuals'* chances of contracting AIDS. It's unrealistic to
think that such advice will wipe out AIDS, though; that would be
dependent on everyone following the advice, which isn't going to
happen.
laurie
K
>
Well I'm all for getting rid of aids and not using condoms, but how would
you get tested on a one-night stand?
Don Saklad
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22how+to+wipe+out+aids%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en ]
Collaborative blog
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
>> Silly me, I've been under the impression we've been
>> discussing people who are contemplating a new sexual
>> relationship where they have no idea of the other
>> person's STD status.
>>
>> But, hey, that's just me--and what do I know?
>
> Your subject line was "how to wipe out aids." Getting tested will
> reduce *individuals'* chances of contracting AIDS.
If an individuals chances are reduced, won't that reduce
the overall likelihood of anybody getting AIDS via other
means?
For example, almost no new Hemophiliac cases of AIDS
come from the blood supply today.
> It's unrealistic to think that such advice will wipe out AIDS,
You are likely right about that.
> though; that would be dependent on everyone following the advice,
> which isn't going to happen.
You are right about that--unless the death rate from AIDS
rises above a certain point or number of deaths.
If 400,000 people were dying from AIDS each year you could
bet your bibby that a lot more pre-sex testing would be
going down, so to speak!
Here's the thread
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22how+to+wipe+out+aids%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en ]
Collaborative blog
http://NotB4WeKnow.blog-city.com
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
Don Saklad
>>
>
> Well I'm all for getting rid of aids and not using condoms, but how would
> you get tested on a one-night stand?
...[ a deleted reply ]...
Here you have in this group somebody asking about a one night stand which is
of course the situation in which the disease is passed on, and irony or
satire fails apparently.
The people are so controlled by their irrationality that satire fails.
Perhaps they're concerned that people on the list would take that advice
seriously when a person can say what about a one night stand and how does
your strategy apply to that?...
Here's the original reply
[ http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com/discuss/msgReader$36?mode=day ]
K
> Perhaps they're concerned that people on the list would take that advice
> seriously when a person can say what about a one night stand and how does
> your strategy apply to that?...
>
>
There was not any satire, it's a genuine point, your idea is OK but it can't
cover one night stands, so I can follow your advice.
Don Saklad
The strategy is get tested together before you have sex.
Elisobella
> > Get tested together before you have sex.
> >
>
> Well I'm all for getting rid of aids and not using condoms, but how would
> you get tested on a one-night stand?
The same way you get tested for sex you have every day of the year:
swab, blood and urine samples taken by medical personnel.
Don Saklad
Get tested together before you have sex
________________________________________________________________________
> > > I can see it now: you are in the WTC on September 11, a
> > > plane is headed right for your office... and you divert
> > > them with a sarcastic remark!
> >
> > What a freak.
>
> And the irony is that it is Saklad who diverts serious discussion with
> sarcastic remarks, rhetorical questions, and other empty gabbling.
So, now that you are ready to get back to non-sarcastic remarks,
non-rhetorical questions (is that possible), and non-empty
gabbling...
Consider this New York Times story about Semmelweis:
[ See the link and picture at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/health/07HAND.html?ex=1066968000&en=c90ba740283211de&ei=5070 ]
The whole story is that he discovererd doctors going from autopsies
in the morgue to the delivery room was not a good idea. He tried
to get doctors to wash their hands. They thought he was crazy to
suggest they were killing their patients.
The current situation seems similar to me. Passing on AIDS is in
many cases a death sentence, and only a radical change in how
people approach this problem seems likely to work.
Consider the possibility of your doctor going from the morgue
to an operating room where you will soon be under the knife.
Surely you'd want to know if he was carrying a fatal organism
that might be transferred to you.
Doctors can either decontaminate themselves between operations
or get tested to see if they are infected. Obviously, in this
case decontamination if probably simpler and quicker and more
effective overall.
Unfortunately, its not possible to "decontaminate" from HIV.
Which leaves testing and other more failure prone means.
Like with testing blood, individuals testing should reduce the
number of new infections as rapidly as new hemophiliac infected
cases were reduced once the test became available.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/health/07HAND.html?ex=1066968000&en=c90ba740283211de&ei=5070 ]
HEALTH & FITNESS | October 7, 2003, Tuesday
The Doctor Who Made His Students Wash Up
By HOWARD MARKEL (NYT) 1272 words
Late Edition - Final , Section F , Page 6 , Column 3
DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 1272 WORDS - We all expect our doctors to wash their
hands before examining us, let alone before performing an operation, to prevent
the spread of infection. But surprisingly, the lifesaving power of this simple
act was not discovered by physicians until ... Dr. Sherwin B. Nuland, a surgeon
and a winner of...
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/health/07HAND.html?ex=1066968000&en=c90ba740283211de&ei=5070 ]
By HOWARD MARKEL
The New York Times The New York Times Health
NYTimes.com > Health
At Vienna General Hospital, Dr. Ignac Semmelweis watched childbed
fever kill a third of his patients.
Email This Article
Printer Friendly Format
Most E-mailed Articles
Medicine and Health
Surgery and Surgeons
History
The Doctor Who Made His Students Wash Up
By HOWARD MARKEL
Published: October 7, 2003
We all expect our doctors to wash their hands before examining us,
let alone before performing an operation, to prevent the spread of
infection. But surprisingly, the lifesaving power of this simple
act was not discovered by physicians until 1847.
Dr. Sherwin B. Nuland, a surgeon and a winner of the National Book
Award, brings this discovery to life in his new book, "The Doctors'
Plague: Germs, Childbed Fever and the Strange Story of Ignac
Semmelweis" (Norton/Atlas Books).
Dr. Nuland tells a medical detective story about the ambitious yet
troubled physician who figured out how to prevent a deadly
infection spread by doctors to childbearing women. It is known as
childbed or puerperal (from the Latin words for child and parent)
fever.
Dr. Nuland's book, a result of years of study on this topic, is
certain to stir up a storm in the normally staid world of medical
historians.
Ignac Semmelweis, a Hungarian obstetrician at the famed Vienna
General Hospital, is best recalled for exhorting his fellow
physicians to wash their hands before examining women about to
deliver babies. Unfortunately, few listened.
In the 19th century, roughly 5 women in 1,000 died in deliveries
performed by midwives or at home. Alarmingly, when the delivery was
performed by doctors in the best maternity hospitals in Europe and
America, the death rate for women was often 10 to 20 times as
great.
The cause was invariably childbed fever. And a miserable death it
was: raging fevers, putrid pus emanating from the birth canal,
painful abscesses in the abdomen and chest, and an irreversible
descent into an absolute hell of sepsis and death all within 24
hours of delivering a baby.
Medical students and their professors at the elite teaching
hospitals of Semmelweis's era typically began their day performing
autopsies on the women who had died the day before of childbed
fever. They then proceeded to the wards to examine the women who
were in labor or about to start it.
Soon after being appointed to run the first division of the
obstetrics service at the Vienna General Hospital in 1846,
Semmelweis became obsessed by the childbed fever epidemics that
were killing nearly a third of his patients. He described to
another colleague the "heart-rending scenes" of women assigned to
his ward begging to be discharged because "they believed that the
doctor's interference was always the precursor of death."
He was wise enough to listen to his patients.
The obstetrician made the brilliant observation that puerperal
fever was caused by the transfer of some type of "morbid poison"
from the dissected corpses in the autopsy room to the women in
labor.
Semmelweis was not the first to make the connection. Both Alexander
Gordon of Edinburgh and Oliver Wendell Holmes of Boston suggested
this mode of transmission in 1795 and 1843, respectively.
The morbid poison is now known as the bacteria called Group A
hemolytic streptococcus.
But it was Semmelweis, in 1847, who ordered his medical students to
wash their hands in a chlorine antiseptic solution until the smell
of the putrid bodies was no longer present.
Soon after, the mortality rates dropped considerably.
Unfortunately, Semmelweis's ideas were not accepted by all of his
colleagues. Indeed, many were outraged at the suggestion that they
were the cause of their patients' miserable deaths, and Semmelweis
met up with enormous resistance and criticism. A remarkably
difficult man, he refused to publish his "self-evident" findings
until 13 years after making them.
Dr. Irvine Loudon, an associate at the Wellcome Unit for the
History of Medicine at the University of Oxford and the author of
"The Tragedy of Childbed Fever" (Oxford, 2000), observed that
Semmelweis "had a temper like a rattlesnake and was outrageously
rude to anyone who questioned his ideas."
Becoming more shrill and angry at each detractor's critique,
Semmelweis abruptly left Vienna in 1849 for his native Budapest
without even telling those who supported him.
To make matters worse, it was clear by the 1860's that Semmelweis
was insane, and he was committed to an asylum where he died in
1865.
One aspect of Dr. Nuland's account certain to make waves is his
diagnosis of the exact cause of Semmelweis's death.
Find more results for Medicine and Health and Surgery and Surgeons
TOP HEALTH ARTICLES
. Experts Urge Tightening of Safeguards in SARS Labs
. Study Finds Hundreds of Thousands of Inmates Mentally Ill
. Governor of Florida Orders Woman Fed in Right-to-Die Case
. Mammogram Reading in U.S. Is Found to Trail That in Britain
Go to Health
NYTimes.com > Health
At Vienna General Hospital, Dr. Ignac Semmelweis watched childbed
fever kill a third of his patients.
Email This Article
Printer Friendly Format
Most E-mailed Articles
Medicine and Health
Surgery and Surgeons
History
The Doctor Who Made His Students Wash Up
Published: October 7, 2003
(Page 2 of 2)
Many historians have pointed to an operation that Semmelweis
performed as an assistant, infecting himself and dying of blood
poisoning. Others have insisted that the doctor died of syphilis,
which may explain his insanity.
After reviewing both the autopsy report and findings made when
Semmelweis's body was exhumed, X-rayed and examined in 1963, Dr.
Nuland makes a compelling case that the obstetrician had
Alzheimer's disease and was beaten to death in the asylum by his
keepers.
Dr. K. Codell Carter, a professor of philosophy at Brigham Young
University and the author of a Semmelweis biography, is less
confident of this conclusion.
"Most of the people I've talked to think that the descriptions of
Semmelweis's erratic behavior were reported too long after the fact
to be reliable," Dr. Carter said. "I think that there isn't too
much to go on except the autopsy report, and that really isn't
conclusive."
Dr. Loudon, reflecting on Semmelweis's mental health, added: "It
might have been manic-depressive psychosis (my favorite) or it
could have been syphilis (an occupational disease of ungloved
obstetricians). But soon after he was admitted to a lunatic asylum,
where he was forcibly restrained, he clearly had septicemia."
Dr. Loudon suggested that the infection originated from a sore on
Semmelweis's hand. "He was maltreated, yes, but he died of sepsis,"
Dr. Loudon added.
Sadly, Semmelweis's timing was awful. Only two years after his
death, Louis Pasteur first published his work on the role of
bacteria in spoiling wine and gave rise to the era of the germ
theory of disease.
A few years later, the Scottish surgeon Joseph Lister, who had
never heard of Semmelweis, elaborated the theory and practice of
antiseptic surgery, which includes washing the hands with carbolic
acid to prevent infection.
In 1876, the German physician Robert Koch successfully linked a
germ, Bacillus anthracis, to a specific infectious disease,
anthrax.
Asked what fascinated him most about Semmelweis's career, Dr.
Nuland said: "I am obsessed by historical figures who have
self-destructed. But I can also identify with the clinical crises
he faced, his thinking process and the enormous amount of
frustration of not having the answer as to why his patients were
dying. Whatever we say about him, he was the classical example of
the ideal physician who felt a great obligation to help people who
were suffering."
Since the early 1900's, many medical historians have had high
praise for Semmelweis and his work, detailing his struggles, his
early death at 47, and the great public debt to him. Yet Dr. Nuland
convincingly argues that Semmelweis often harmed himself, insisting
that Sophocles would have written it "with a Greek chorus of dying
mothers a great hero, a great truth, a great mission, and finally a
mad flight of passionate arrogance resulting in destruction."
"The gods who were the professors of obstetrics did not bring it
about," Dr. Nuland said. "The hero brought it on himself."
RELATED ARTICLES
. Two Boys, Joined Skulls, One Goal: Two Lives (September 30,
2003)
. Paying Heed to Problems of the Heart (September 30, 2003)
. Hope Rises for Patient Cooling Therapy (August 6, 2003) $
. Yips, the Curse of Golfers, Are Put to the Test (July 23, 2003)
Find more results for Medicine and Health and Surgery and Surgeons
TOP HEALTH ARTICLES
. Experts Urge Tightening of Safeguards in SARS Labs
. Study Finds Hundreds of Thousands of Inmates Mentally Ill
. Governor of Florida Orders Woman Fed in Right-to-Die Case
. Mammogram Reading in U.S. Is Found to Trail That in Britain
Go to Health
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/health/07HAND.html?ex=1066968000&en=c90ba740283211de&ei=5070 ]
Don Saklad
Get tested together before you have sex
> >>>A virus isn't just a virus; it is a conscious assembly of
> >>>cooperative intents. A virus finds willing conscious hosts for
> >>>infection not by invading the host but by simply joining in
> >>>their method of existing.
YOu make it sound as though its a mystical force.
> >>But you can live the lifestyle to the fullest, and, absent
> >>exposure to the virus, never contract HIV.
By chance you could end up having sex every day of
your life and not encounter a person with an infection.
There's probably only a small chance of that, however.
> >Where the heck do "new" viruses come from anyway? . . .
>
> I don't understand the question.
Do they get invented by old viruses and dropped into a
post office box somewhere, or cooked up in one of
Martha Stewart's kitchens?
> > . . . Absent exposure
> >to a whole extrodinarily wide range of things there really is no
> >life at all. Living a life of avoiding is not at all interesting
> >to me.
I've never been dead yet, so you will have to wait for
my report on living in that condition.
> If you're having wild unprotected sex with an uninfected man, you
> aren't going to get HIV. Unless, of course, he contracts the virus
> from someone else.
Help me out here would you... Someone is having sex with an
uninfected man and is not going to get HIV from that man...
but how do you know he is uninfected?
> That doesn't sound like avoiding anything at all.
I'm going to avoid saying anything about the sentence above
because its meaning is avoiding me.
> >>Therefore, the lifestyle is not what is essential about the
> >>infection, it's the exposure to the virus.
Ok, it seems you are saying that it doesn't matter what
you are doing, but rather the virus being in the mix. No
virus, no infection. Got it.
> >Got yerself an chicken and egg problem there David.
My solution would be to have chicken salad for lunch
and an omelet for breakfast. But that's just me.
> No, you have a problem with the definition of the word "lifestyle."
Doesn't everybody have one of those--except the dead, maybe?
> >>And, of course, the word "lifestyle" is a very problematic word
> >>given that it's the favorite of the fundies in their campaign to
> >>cast homosexuality as a choice, rather than something that's
> >>hardwired. I don't think anyone with any common sense would ever
> >>use it in a discussion of HIV.
Well, as we've seen, some of those "fundies" have a "funky",
"fun", "funtastic" lifestyle.
> >Oh, sorry i have not let them co-opt the word. Also, in the
> >context I am speaking about, lifestyle has little if anything to
> >do with sexual orientation.
Especially since everyone has one.
> That doesn't really matter, since lifestyle is not relevant -- the
> HIV status of the partners is what's relevant.
Right on, bro!
You can be as wild
> and unsafe as you can imagine and if your partners aren't infected
> themselves, you won't catch it.
Right again.
> You can talk about probabilities, of course, but the difference is
> not the lifestyle -- it's the probability of *infection* of the
> partners, i.e., presence of HIV.
And the best way to determine that is with a test. Why
don't the two of you go on down to the clinic right now
and get yourselves tested.
> Lots of people who have never had group sex or anonymous sex and
> only have sex with their longterm lover have contracted HIV.
And if you don't want to end up in that situation then getting
the two of you tested is one way of reducing that risk. ONE
WAY--and not the only way to reduce risk.
Collaborative WebLog
Get tested together before you have sex
Jon Young
You could eliminate Aids immediately if they some gov't or
organization offered a 1 billion dollar reward for a cure. None of the
money could be used for research. Only as payment for a result.Aids
would be history by next year.
suzee
I dunno... The aids research is a multi-billion dollar industry
employing many many people. Somehow, I think there's more money in
`research' than coming up with a cure.
sue
Sagittaria
> And the best way to determine that is with a test. Why
> don't the two of you go on down to the clinic right now
> and get yourselves tested.
Isn't there still a several week lag time between infection and
positive test results? Therefore even with a negative test result I
would insist on condom use- therefore the test won't make any
difference.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
"I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who
do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put
down...' -- Bob Newhart"
Don Saklad
> > > for coming to such a ridiculous conclusion that there was only
> > > one way to solve this problem, only one component of staying
> > > healthy.
> > >
> > > By the way, I seem to have misplaced the email where I made
> > > that remark. Could you forward me a copy?
> >
> > Go to groups.google.com and search; ssg for the group, and this subject
> > line...
I can't seem to find it. Could you do the google thing
and send me a copy?
> > sue
>
> You could eliminate Aids immediately if they some gov't or
> organization offered a 1 billion dollar reward for a cure. None of the
> money could be used for research. Only as payment for a result.Aids
> would be history by next year.
I'm going to offer a 1 trillion dollar reward for a device
that will allow me to time travel. Deliver the device to
my place in one year.
Or could the problem be too difficult to solve regardless of
how much time and money is thrown at it?
suzee
> > > > By the way, I seem to have misplaced the email where I made
> > > > that remark. Could you forward me a copy?
> > >
> > > Go to groups.google.com and search; ssg for the group, and this subject
> > > line...
>
> I can't seem to find it. Could you do the google thing
> and send me a copy?
Sure, Don....
Then click on View Thread and you've got the entire lot of posts.
sue
Don Saklad
Pardon my continuing inability, but I am still not capable
enough of finding that exact quote, so could you use your
superior skills and extract the exact remark you refer to
in a previous email.
suzee
No Don, you wrote it, you oughta be able to find it.
sue
Sagittaria
>> Ya know Don, testing is not the only relevant thing when it comes
>> to fighting disease. [snip]
>
> I want to apologize for making such a simple minded
> statement, for coming to such a ridiculous conclusion that
> there was only one way to solve this problem [snip]
>
> By the way, I seem to have misplaced the email where I made
> that remark. Could you forward me a copy?
Banging my head against the wall. I don't know why I'm even jumping
in at this point except I'm tired of the sniping.
First of all Don, it was not an email. If you don't know the
difference between public usenet posts and emails, may I suggest you
visit http://www.faqs.org and do some extensive reading before
posting further.
I'm not suzee, but I imagine she was thinking of your very first post
in this thread, which you can view at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=y44wub83wb9.fsf%
40nestle.ai.mit.edu.
Subject: How to wipe out aids.
"Get tested together before you have sex."
That is the only recommendation in your post. Sure sounds like you
are saying that getting tested is "how to wipe out aids." If you
don't believe that is the only way to solve the problem, then why
didn't you mention the others in your post? Or why not title it "One
way to wipe out aids"?
You made the post - don't get mad at others when they quote you on
it.
suzee
Thanks Saggie. After I posted that I give up trying to hold his hand and
find it for him, it ocurred to me that he was being snitty because he
wanted to claim he never posted it. But you have neatly pointed out the
logical conclusion of his words.
sue
Don Saklad
> > that remark. Could you forward me a copy?
>
> Banging my head against the wall. I don't know why I'm even jumping
> in at this point except I'm tired of the sniping.
That has got to hurt! May I suggest some professional
help for that condition?
> First of all Don, it was not an email. If you don't know the
> difference between public usenet posts and emails, may I suggest you
> visit http://www.faqs.org and do some extensive reading before
> posting further.
Thank you for catching me on that. Of course it was actually
based on my real ignorance--as opposed to what might be called
a slip of the phrase. You are good--and know how to strike
with a hot poker at the nub of the matter.
> I'm not suzee, but I imagine she was thinking of your very first post
> in this thread,
Yeah, she might have been thinking of that. But how can we
say anything definitive about that particular post when you
can't say definitively if that's the actual one she was
thinking of? Is it too much to ask that you be a bit more
concrete than "thinking of"?
> which you can view at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=y44wub83wb9.fsf%40nestle.ai.mit.edu.
>
> Subject: How to wipe out aids.
> "Get tested together before you have sex."
>
> That is the only recommendation in your post. Sure sounds like
"sound like"--yet more concrete? I also understand that the
Loon "sounds crazy".
> you
> are saying that getting tested is "how to wipe out aids." If you
> don't believe that is the only way to solve the problem,
It is meant to be true in the sense that testing the
blood supply has essentially ended HIV infection for those
getting transfusions and hemophiliacs.
> then why
> didn't you mention the others in your post? Or why not title it "One
> way to wipe out aids"?
Well, that would have been inconsistent with the strident
and absolutist believers in "safe sex". But sure, why not
say its one way to reduce AIDS to a nearly inconsequential
level--as has been done with the blood supply and AIDS in
hemophiliacs.
> You made the post - don't get mad at others when they quote you on
> it.
It would be a mistake on your part to assume that anyone
on this side of the words got mad.
And just what was someone trying to say by making
an indirect reference to a quote and failing to demonstrate
some point? How about the exact quote, followed by a
series of logical arguments that might demonstrate a
point about the quote, even its incorrectness?
Now is that too much to ask?
This side of the words is still waiting...