Piggybacking on Carlos_Spicey’s STD thread.
One would assume that most people with an STD (e.g. HIV; etc); would be on meds (assuming they are aware of their status).
Makes me wonder if this further diminishes the risk of infection – i.e. if a STD or HIV positive person on STD meds has a much lower risk of infecting someone else – hmm?
I mention it b/c “supposedly” HIV folks that react well to meds often means the virus is barely detectable in their bodies – if this is the case; one may think that “barely detectable” virus load may mean less of a chance of infection – but IDK.
Papi, I agree that your logic makes sense, but I have no more medical training or education than you do. Even if this is right, the big problem is people that don't now that they have an STD. I think I read somewhere, for example, that HIV might not cause symptoms for up to 10 years.
Regarding HIV, those people on meds that have a barely detectable level of the virus still have the virus it just means the viral load per mg of blood is exceedingly low, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean it can't be transmitted. That being said obviously the lower the level of virus should mean there is a lower chance of transmission but that's essentially playing with your life based on a statistical chance. Remember too that just because someone has HIV and you are exposed doesn't mean you get HIV. It's not a 100% transmission rate, no disease works that way.
The meds for HSV only diminish transmission rates by about 50% which is not that great, IMO.
IDK... I sort of though that there was data to the effect that transmission risk was lower if on the cocktail.
However, a large percentage of HIV positive individuals do not know there are infected.
occcurious: ", it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean it can't be transmitted. "
This debate actually came up at an AIDS conference a few years back. The Swiss were recommending to drop that the guidance that people who were HIV+ but who had undetectable virus levels and were on anti-virals be always use condoms. Needless to say it was a bit controversial and I'm not sure how it was ultimately resolved. The chance of HIV infection to white non-drug using males is already pretty small, so I would think that if such a person did have a partner who went with the Swiss recommendation they would be fine.
^^^ My mommie told me not to have sex with sluts cuz the have disease that makes your dick fall off. You retards are prolly gonna have your dicks fall off any day now. Cept Dougster cuz that retard prolly caught a disease and had his dick fall off a long time ago. Thats why he has so much time. To troll TUSCL. Cuz he jest sits at home all day with no dick. What a retard.
Have to agree with Occurious. "Barely detectable" is about as good of a description of infection as a woman be "a little bit" pregnant.
An estimate of the HIV transmission rate is 1 in 2500 for a single vaginal sex encounter with a woman known to have HIV. It's impossible to know how many strippers are infected, but I'm betting that probability is also very low. So the overall risk in a single encounter is exceedingly small.
Strippers are very high risk of stds and if you don't cover up you will catch some nasty. Females often carry stds and don't even know it or show symptoms. Watching porn is the way to go. Saves you money and any std risks.
Are we seriously having another one of these discussions? lol
^ yes - seriously - actually double seriously
I would think not. You either have a contagious disease or you don't.