Quote: (09-26-2018 12:54 PM)spydersuit Wrote:
Renotime- there is a difference how things play out in the real world versus the clinical trail world. Even a very low .0000001 probability means some poor asshole per million high risk sex contacts (number of high risk HiV drug bangs, not number of people) beats the odds and contracts the disease. All it takes is 1 fuck up from the person taking their meds to increase the chances. Medication compliance is awful. In fact, medication compliance for pets is better than people (jordan peterson talks about this in his book for example). Medication compliance rates are typically higher in clinical trials for a variety of reasons. I am a big advocate of the drugs and people taking them if they need them, to protect themselves, and others. Why trust anyone that has already demonstrated poor judgmebnt by contracting the HiV in the first place? Roosh vers need to decide what their own level of risk tolerance is I guess.
I'm not arguing the morality of it.
I'm merely stating that if one is virally suppressed their chance of transmission are essentially zero.
Am I wrong?
On a somewhat related note here's a list of countries with the highest HIV numbers. The top 16 countries are in Africa. Jeez.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...lence_rate
You want to know the only thing you can assume about a broken down old man? It's that he's a survivor.