[spydersuit]

(09-23-2018 05:35 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

(09-23-2018 05:26 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The OP registered a month and a half ago and all 49 of his posts are only in this thread. Is that not a bit odd? Why would your first, and only, posts be about this subject? Is there nothing else on the entire forum that interests you?

On top of that the repeated posts about how hes willing to have one night stands with women without telling them he has AIDs, and even date them "for more than few months" before telling them, are extremely morally (and in some jurisdictions legally) questionable. Thats really, really scummy behaviour - and doesn't reflect well on the forum at all. Its exactly that sort of stuff that the tabloid journalists feed off of when trying to present red pill guys as monsters.

I could be proven wrong when 'wrapyojunk' becomes a valuable poster across many topics over the next few years here. But as things are I would worry he, or they, very much has an agenda.

There is no such thing as 0 transmission risk if you are HIV positive and you are fucking another person.

Also, there are also different strains of HIV. You can have multiple strains of HIV at the same time. So don't start banging other HIV positive people unless you guys have the same strain. You are starting to sound like a threat to public health. If you gave this disease to my daughter, without telling her, I would kill you.

[spydersuit]

(09-23-2018 05:35 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

(09-23-2018 05:26 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The OP registered a month and a half ago and all 49 of his posts are only in this thread. Is that not a bit odd? Why would your first, and only, posts be about this subject? Is there nothing else on the entire forum that interests you?

On top of that the repeated posts about how hes willing to have one night stands with women without telling them he has AIDs, and even date them "for more than few months" before telling them, are extremely morally (and in some jurisdictions legally) questionable. Thats really, really scummy behaviour - and doesn't reflect well on the forum at all. Its exactly that sort of stuff that the tabloid journalists feed off of when trying to present red pill guys as monsters.

I could be proven wrong when 'wrapyojunk' becomes a valuable poster across many topics over the next few years here. But as things are I would worry he, or they, very much has an agenda.

There is no such thing as 0 transmission risk if you are HIV positive and you are fucking another person.

Also, there are also different strains of HIV. You can have multiple strains of HIV at the same time. So don't start banging other HIV positive people unless you guys have the same strain. You are starting to sound like a threat to public health. If you gave this disease to my daughter, without telling her, I would kill you.

[spydersuit]

(09-23-2018 06:13 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:02 AM)zatara Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:35 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

I have extremely high doubts about there being "zero transmission risk" when you have sex with women. There is also a world of difference between informing sexual partners about you having a life changing, sexually transmitted disease and posting on an internet forum - thats a ridiculous comparison.

I know if a HIV positive woman pulled that line with me I would be very, very angry - as I think most people would be. And I know if a HIV positive man had sex with my sister without forewarning her I would be collecting a group of friends to go beat him. I would hope the vast majority of posters here would have a similar moral compass, as its a pretty basic concept to at least warn other human beings of any potential dangers you're deliberately putting them in.

But, even aside from the highly questionable morality, 45 states in the US have laws against HIV-positive persons not disclosing their status during sex. As do many countries. So you are literally admitting to, and advocating, illegal behaviour. Potential headlines of "RooshV forum encourages HIV Positive men not to tell their sexual partners their status" really aren't a good thing.

It's not my opinion that there is zero transmission risk it is the consensus amongst the medical community.

Forgive me for not taking into account your bropinion.

I have never set foot in the US...

That is not the consensus of the medical community.

I am starting to think you are an idiot and you are attempting to justify your fucked up behavior.

[spydersuit]

(09-23-2018 11:06 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

4 rep points so far for being extremely reckless towards his fellow human beings, contracting a virus that permanently alters your life and if you don't have health insurance or money like the OP does, could kill you, and then possibly spreading that virus to others while he was ignorant he had it (supposedly), and now refusing to disclose to potential future sex partners that he has it.

I'm not understanding the praise here. Imagine if you were one of the 150 girls, some of which probably have HIV now, in a third world country, with no resources, your body's falling apart, your parents and siblings get to watch you die early, slowly, in a horrible way, on top of the myriad struggles they've already gone through.

All because OP wanted to get his rocks off and put more notches on his belt.

If someone wants to increase their notch count astronomically, I get it, some of that stuff comes because you're really handsome/successful and have access to that, along with no self restraint at that point in your life. At some point, the guys that have this ability due to a combo of success/looks usually calm down or take necessary precautions before it becomes a problem. On the other hand, for some guys this behavior comes from a deep insecurity. In that scenario, to make up for perceived inadequateness in that area of life in the past, guys go crazy in that area and consequences be damned.

I want to say this.

Think about how valuable slim, pretty American women are. They can have almost any guy they want, they could have a line of 100 guys at their door every day, ready to service their needs if they wanted that. Any dating app or Craigslist back in the day would let a slim, pretty American girl accomplish that. Even an unattractive American girl could easily rack up a notch count over 100 by 19 or so if she wanted to.

Here's the thing though. If something is that easy to accomplish, it's not an accomplishment at all. The accomplishment is having the self-restraint to not engage in that behavior, when you easily could.

So now some of us go abroad, where prostitution is legal and we have the resources to pay, or where the demand for a tall, good looking guy with resources is so high that we can basically bed as many women a day as we're able to get an erection for. Three or more a day even, consistently, in the case of those of us in really good sexual health.

But here's the thing.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Think about how much a lot of the guys on this forum rail on the misbehavior of American women because of those women having the power to behave in that way due to the demand for them being so high. This thread, and others like it, show that men can behave just as poorly when given the power to do so.

Don't be that guy. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Look, nobody's going to hold it against you for being a virgin until 22 or whatnot due to, in your own mind, being too short, too socially awkward, too shy, whatever. You're not any less of a man. We all develop socially/sexually at different times. Move on from whatever hangups you have, live in the present, and let those hangups go before they consume you and the people around you.

Thank you! Well said Sir.

[spydersuit]

(09-23-2018 01:02 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

If I understand correctly, the transmission rate is effectively 0% when viral load is under control through drugs, which means that OP CANNOT transmit HIV to any of his sex partners. PERIOD. And further, it seems that this statistic has been substantiated through a large amount of sample data.

Under those conditions, having sex with somebody if you are HIV positive would not put them in any danger whatsoever of getting HIV.

OP - are there any rare circumstances which would temporarily make the possibility non-zero? Say, coinfection with something that facilitates HIV transmission, a cut, anal, etc.? Or does it essentially hinge on the viral load (or lack thereof)?

In short, if you have a deadly disease but there's absolutely NO possibility of you transmitting it, then you're not putting anybody at risk and your decision to disclose that status becomes an issue of your personal choice. Disclosure only becomes a moral and legal issue if you have a non-zero chance of negatively affecting somebody's life through your actions without their voluntary agreement.

@OP, assuming my understanding is correct, I think that probably no amount of explaining the logic and figures and impossibility of contracting it from you will dispel the negative, knee-jerk connotations of the word HIV.

That is bullshit. I am a doctor in this field. There is no such thing as 0 HIV transmission risk. Maybe "low" risk, maybe.

[Repo]

(09-23-2018 03:01 PM)spydersuit Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:35 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

(09-23-2018 05:26 AM)zatara Wrote:  

The OP registered a month and a half ago and all 49 of his posts are only in this thread. Is that not a bit odd? Why would your first, and only, posts be about this subject? Is there nothing else on the entire forum that interests you?

On top of that the repeated posts about how hes willing to have one night stands with women without telling them he has AIDs, and even date them "for more than few months" before telling them, are extremely morally (and in some jurisdictions legally) questionable. Thats really, really scummy behaviour - and doesn't reflect well on the forum at all. Its exactly that sort of stuff that the tabloid journalists feed off of when trying to present red pill guys as monsters.

I could be proven wrong when 'wrapyojunk' becomes a valuable poster across many topics over the next few years here. But as things are I would worry he, or they, very much has an agenda.

There is no such thing as 0 transmission risk if you are HIV positive and you are fucking another person.

Also, there are also different strains of HIV. You can have multiple strains of HIV at the same time. So don't start banging other HIV positive people unless you guys have the same strain. You are starting to sound like a threat to public health. If you gave this disease to my daughter, without telling her, I would kill you.

I've heard this too, that getting more than one type of strain can increase the deadliness of the disease while making it harder to treat. . .

[Dulceácido]

(09-23-2018 11:06 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  

4 rep points so far for being extremely reckless towards his fellow human beings, contracting a virus that permanently alters your life and if you don't have health insurance or money like the OP does, could kill you, and then possibly spreading that virus to others while he was ignorant he had it (supposedly), and now refusing to disclose to potential future sex partners that he has it.

I'm not understanding the praise here. Imagine if you were one of the 150 girls, some of which probably have HIV now, in a third world country, with no resources, your body's falling apart, your parents and siblings get to watch you die early, slowly, in a horrible way, on top of the myriad struggles they've already gone through.

All because OP wanted to get his rocks off and put more notches on his belt.

If someone wants to increase their notch count astronomically, I get it, some of that stuff comes because you're really handsome/successful and have access to that, along with no self restraint at that point in your life. At some point, the guys that have this ability due to a combo of success/looks usually calm down or take necessary precautions before it becomes a problem. On the other hand, for some guys this behavior comes from a deep insecurity. In that scenario, to make up for perceived inadequateness in that area of life in the past, guys go crazy in that area and consequences be damned.

I want to say this.

Think about how valuable slim, pretty American women are. They can have almost any guy they want, they could have a line of 100 guys at their door every day, ready to service their needs if they wanted that. Any dating app or Craigslist back in the day would let a slim, pretty American girl accomplish that. Even an unattractive American girl could easily rack up a notch count over 100 by 19 or so if she wanted to.

Here's the thing though. If something is that easy to accomplish, it's not an accomplishment at all. The accomplishment is having the self-restraint to not engage in that behavior, when you easily could.

So now some of us go abroad, where prostitution is legal and we have the resources to pay, or where the demand for a tall, good looking guy with resources is so high that we can basically bed as many women a day as we're able to get an erection for. Three or more a day even, consistently, in the case of those of us in really good sexual health.

But here's the thing.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Think about how much a lot of the guys on this forum rail on the misbehavior of American women because of those women having the power to behave in that way due to the demand for them being so high. This thread, and others like it, show that men can behave just as poorly when given the power to do so.

Don't be that guy. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Look, nobody's going to hold it against you for being a virgin until 22 or whatnot due to, in your own mind, being too short, too socially awkward, too shy, whatever. You're not any less of a man. We all develop socially/sexually at different times. Move on from whatever hangups you have, live in the present, and let those hangups go before they consume you and the people around you.

That needed to be pointed out so badly...

There's something inherently wrong about repping a guy "for being honest" when he was still banging chicks, knowing he had HIV, and not telling them.
Yeah... Way to be open and honest... What if he did that to your sister? You'd probably want to wrap a tire iron around his head.

[MongolianAbroad]

(09-23-2018 03:11 PM)spydersuit Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:02 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

If I understand correctly, the transmission rate is effectively 0% when viral load is under control through drugs, which means that OP CANNOT transmit HIV to any of his sex partners. PERIOD. And further, it seems that this statistic has been substantiated through a large amount of sample data.

Under those conditions, having sex with somebody if you are HIV positive would not put them in any danger whatsoever of getting HIV.

OP - are there any rare circumstances which would temporarily make the possibility non-zero? Say, coinfection with something that facilitates HIV transmission, a cut, anal, etc.? Or does it essentially hinge on the viral load (or lack thereof)?

In short, if you have a deadly disease but there's absolutely NO possibility of you transmitting it, then you're not putting anybody at risk and your decision to disclose that status becomes an issue of your personal choice. Disclosure only becomes a moral and legal issue if you have a non-zero chance of negatively affecting somebody's life through your actions without their voluntary agreement.

@OP, assuming my understanding is correct, I think that probably no amount of explaining the logic and figures and impossibility of contracting it from you will dispel the negative, knee-jerk connotations of the word HIV.

That is bullshit. I am a doctor in this field. There is no such thing as 0 HIV transmission risk. Maybe "low" risk, maybe.

^^ This should be pinned to the top of the thread, in bold.

[wrapyojunk]

So you are telling me there is a transmission risk if the viral load is medically suppressed and a condom is used?

Should I tell the several HIV specialist doctors I have met with they are wrong?

Should I disregard the studies that have shown that after 100,000+ sex acts (without condoms) there has been zero recorded transmissions?

Ill promise to wear a condom when I fuck your daughter.

(09-23-2018 03:11 PM)spydersuit Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 01:02 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

If I understand correctly, the transmission rate is effectively 0% when viral load is under control through drugs, which means that OP CANNOT transmit HIV to any of his sex partners. PERIOD. And further, it seems that this statistic has been substantiated through a large amount of sample data.

Under those conditions, having sex with somebody if you are HIV positive would not put them in any danger whatsoever of getting HIV.

OP - are there any rare circumstances which would temporarily make the possibility non-zero? Say, coinfection with something that facilitates HIV transmission, a cut, anal, etc.? Or does it essentially hinge on the viral load (or lack thereof)?

In short, if you have a deadly disease but there's absolutely NO possibility of you transmitting it, then you're not putting anybody at risk and your decision to disclose that status becomes an issue of your personal choice. Disclosure only becomes a moral and legal issue if you have a non-zero chance of negatively affecting somebody's life through your actions without their voluntary agreement.

@OP, assuming my understanding is correct, I think that probably no amount of explaining the logic and figures and impossibility of contracting it from you will dispel the negative, knee-jerk connotations of the word HIV.

That is bullshit. I am a doctor in this field. There is no such thing as 0 HIV transmission risk. Maybe "low" risk, maybe.

[Brodiaga]

(09-23-2018 07:09 PM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

So you are telling me there is a transmission risk if the viral load is medically suppressed and a condom is used?

Should I tell the several HIV specialist doctors I have met with they are wrong?

Should I disregard the studies that have shown that after 100,000+ sex acts (without condoms) there has been zero recorded transmissions?

Ill promise to wear a condom when I fuck your daughter.

You see, guys, this is an example as to why I've been reluctant to meet new guys from RVF in person while traveling or otherwise. Too many weirdos out there. Many old timers here are cool though.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

I am still not buying this bullshit.

Dr. Duisburg is still doing talks.

There is still no outbreak.
The population of Africa has increased from 400 mio. to 1.2 bio. while AIDS is supposedly afflicting 20% of many of those countries - AIDS babies born should be dead quickly.
The supposed risk-groups are all still homosexuals with recreational and aphrodisiac drug use (over 50%), intravenous drug users (another 30%) and then homosexual drug users (Charlie Sheen and co), then there is a tiny group of hemophiliacs and other chronically ill.

After 30 years they have the same fucking number of AIDS patients in the US:

As others noted - the retro-virus dubbed HIV (one of hundreds or thousands out there) does not cause any immune deficiency. Mostly certain drug use causes immune deficiency diseases. There are far more out there in the world now caused by pesticides and various pollutants, but no one is testing any "viral-load" on them.

There are to this day no infections of any doctors of nurses - I have heard that nurses told me that known AIDS patients sometimes threw blood at them to infect them. That happens to many of them - of course they were drug users.

If it were a real uncurable Syphilis epidemy, then it would not affect 0,01% of the population, but 30% of the US population by now. Sure - you can be a Charlie Sheen, down a bottle of vodka for breakfast, take a cocktail of various drugs for lunch and end the day with far more drugs, then after 20 years of this your body reacts to the PCR-debris-whatever-catching tests because your immune system is a bit compromised - duh. And as dr. Koehnlein said - certain patients profit form the AIDS drugs, because they simply kill whatever viruses and bacteria have been afflicting them. After a time however everything that may have bugged you is eliminated and then the AIDS drug is starting to kill you.

Whatever - do your own research - the elite is lying to you on all kinds of issues.

Mind I remind you that current scientists are saying this:

Gender is a spectrum now.

There are dangerous diseases out there - most you will get with a severely compromised immune system. Then there are some that you will get almost no matter how strong you are - I consider Syphilis or mites some of the most pesky ones. But all of those are not really dangerous nowadays - you just treat it soon enough.

HIV/AIDS, Hep C is bullshit. For example - Hep A & B is being spread to thousands of doctors, but HIV to no doctors and nurses despite many drug-users.

Here a longer talk of Dr. Koehnlein again.

[wrapyojunk]

He threatened to kill me. I can't respond?

Im gonna stop posting in this thread. Everything that needs to be said has been said.

(09-23-2018 07:20 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 07:09 PM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

So you are telling me there is a transmission risk if the viral load is medically suppressed and a condom is used?

Should I tell the several HIV specialist doctors I have met with they are wrong?

Should I disregard the studies that have shown that after 100,000+ sex acts (without condoms) there has been zero recorded transmissions?

Ill promise to wear a condom when I fuck your daughter.

You see, guys, this is an example as to why I've been reluctant to meet new guys from RVF in person while traveling or otherwise. Too many weirdos out there. Many old timers here are cool though.

[Repo]

Delete

[asdfk]

The fights here are completely unnecessary.

[VincentVinturi]

I have to say this is a fascinating topic.

I did a bit more research and I found 2 things:

1. "Based on the findings of three separate high-quality studies, the CDC now reports that the risk of HIV transmission from someone who is on “durable” antiretroviral therapy (ART) with viral suppression is 0 percent. The studies used to make this conclusion noted that transmission events, when they occurred, were due to acquisition of new infection from a separate, non-suppressed partner. Because of this, there is virtually no chance of transmitting HIV with an undetectable viral load. Undetectable was defined differently in the three studies, but all were < 200 copies of virus per milliliter blood."

Daniel Murrell, MD (from Healthline)

2. There's a situation that can occur with HIV positive persons called 'blips' where viral load temporarily spikes, and often asymptomatically.

I think these blips change the moral implications a bit because it means that even if your effective transmission rate is zero because you're on the suppressive therapy, you can still have random increases in viral load of which you're not aware.

[Sidney Crosby]

So OP blabbers on about how it's impossible to get HIV...... but he has it.

[wrapyojunk]

How stupid can you be?

Obviously the person I got it from either just caught it or had it for a long time and was not on medication.

Since I am taking drugs to suppress the virus there is no transmission risk. I will still of course wear condoms whenever I have sex just in case.

(09-24-2018 01:20 AM)Sidney Crosby Wrote:  

So OP blabbers on about how it's impossible to get HIV...... but he has it.

[wrapyojunk]

So the viral blip theory is just that.. a theory. There hasn't been a single recorded case ever of transmission occurring due to a viral blip.

However, I will still always wear a condom since I am not arrogant to think that I know everything and I will take every safety precaution available.

(09-24-2018 12:14 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

I have to say this is a fascinating topic.

I did a bit more research and I found 2 things:

1. "Based on the findings of three separate high-quality studies, the CDC now reports that the risk of HIV transmission from someone who is on “durable” antiretroviral therapy (ART) with viral suppression is 0 percent. The studies used to make this conclusion noted that transmission events, when they occurred, were due to acquisition of new infection from a separate, non-suppressed partner. Because of this, there is virtually no chance of transmitting HIV with an undetectable viral load. Undetectable was defined differently in the three studies, but all were < 200 copies of virus per milliliter blood."

Daniel Murrell, MD (from Healthline)

2. There's a situation that can occur with HIV positive persons called 'blips' where viral load temporarily spikes, and often asymptomatically.

I think these blips change the moral implications a bit because it means that even if your effective transmission rate is zero because you're on the suppressive therapy, you can still have random increases in viral load of which you're not aware.

[wrapyojunk]

(09-24-2018 12:14 AM)VincentVinturi Wrote:  

I have to say this is a fascinating topic.

I did a bit more research and I found 2 things:

1. "Based on the findings of three separate high-quality studies, the CDC now reports that the risk of HIV transmission from someone who is on “durable” antiretroviral therapy (ART) with viral suppression is 0 percent. The studies used to make this conclusion noted that transmission events, when they occurred, were due to acquisition of new infection from a separate, non-suppressed partner. Because of this, there is virtually no chance of transmitting HIV with an undetectable viral load. Undetectable was defined differently in the three studies, but all were < 200 copies of virus per milliliter blood."

Daniel Murrell, MD (from Healthline)

2. There's a situation that can occur with HIV positive persons called 'blips' where viral load temporarily spikes, and often asymptomatically.

I think these blips change the moral implications a bit because it means that even if your effective transmission rate is zero because you're on the suppressive therapy, you can still have random increases in viral load of which you're not aware.

The CDC statement (made in 2017):

"Scientific advances have shown that antiretroviral therapy (ART) preserves the health of people living with HIV. We also have strong evidence of the prevention effectiveness of ART. When ART results in viral suppression, defined as less than 200 copies/ml or undetectable levels, it prevents sexual HIV transmission. Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive. This means that people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner."

Do you really think the CDC would make such a statement if they weren't absolutely positive that was the case (no pun intended).

[Roosh]

The OP has been banned for attacking another member.

I also don't believe he has been honest with how he contracted the disease.

[spydersuit]

Agree 100%. Thanks Roosh!

[PrettyBoyAJ]

Wow. So he took the L in life an he took the L on the forum.

[renotime]

According to CDC:

Three recent studies, PARTNER, Opposites Attract, and PARTNER2 (an extension of PARTNER focusing on HIV-discordant MSM couples), report similar results. None of these studies observed any genetically linked infections while the HIV-positive partner was virally suppressed and the couples were engaging in condomless sex and not using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).8,9,10 In these studies, viral suppression was defined as less than 200 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter of blood; most HIV-positive participants in the PARTNER study had less than 50 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter of blood.8 The three studies included over 500 HIV-discordant heterosexual couples, with about half having a male HIV-infected partner (PARTNER), and more than 1,100 HIV- discordant MSM couples (PARTNER2; Opposites Attract) from 14 European countries, Australia, Brazil,
and Thailand.
The studies reported transmission risk estimates and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals as:
• PARTNER study:8
- For any sex among heterosexual and male-male couples: 0.00 (0.00 – 0.30) per 100 couple-years - For anal sex among male-male couples: 0.00 (0.00 – 0.89) per 100 couple-years
• Opposites Attract study:9
- For anal sex among male-male couples: 0.00 (0.00 – 1.59) per 100 couple-years
• PARTNER2 study (which includes data from PARTNER):10
- For anal sex among male-male couples: 0.00 (0.00 – 0.24) per 100 couple-years

Together, the data from the PARTNER2 and Opposites Attract studies produce a combined transmission risk estimate for condomless and PrEP-less anal sex among MSM couples of 0.00 (0.00 – 0.21) per 100 couple-
years, with the upper bound equal to a 0.21% annual risk (unpublished data). Pooling data from all three studies produces a combined transmission risk estimate for condomless sex among heterosexual or MSM couples of 0.00 (0.00 – 0.14) per 100 couple-years, with the upper bound indicating a 0.14% annual risk (unpublished data). These data provide solid evidence of the power of viral suppression in preventing HIV transmission. Statistically, the possibility exists that the true risk is greater than zero; however, data show no linked infections while the HIV- infected partner is virally suppressed, based on tens of thousands of sex acts without a condom or PrEP. Based on these data, future HIV transmission is not expected when persons with HIV remain virally suppressed.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/art/cdc...ession.pdf

It sounds like chances of transmission are nil as long as you're on the proper meds.

[username]

Pretty weird thread. All 58 of his posts are about his HIV. Took him 9 pages to finally give an answer to the Lady Boy Question. Two other new accounts also came in to this thread and got bans they deserved. Very strange.

Another odd thing is his proof, it says "Station: Medical Clinics (BIC 15A)" but a search of "Medical Clinics (BIC 15A)" returns results only from a Thai hospital. He didn't mentioned being in Thailand for some reason, only Vietnam and Philippines.

I don't know, this thread raises more questions than answers. Really wish we could've dug down deeper and found out the truth of his sexual escapades and habits but it seems we're left guessing. I think the common wisdom still stands for now... never fuck dudes, never fuck ladyboys, girls that give off a red flag either avoid or be extra vigilant and wear a condom, avoid needles, and don't get wasted/drugged to the point where you don't know what happened the night before.

[renotime]

He's not telling us the whole story. I'm still of the belief that it's extremely difficult for straight males to get HIV.