She's HIV+ ~ Do you spread the word?

[Guest]

I voted:-

I'd be cautious about going public

Indeed for me this is a real life situation that I do not need to be hypothetical about......friends were discreetly informed

[Guest]

No AIDS/HIV pos, Well some good news for a change, I was still stinging after finding out we didn't land on the moon. Can't wait to get back to LOS and barabacking every Ladyboy who will let me which apparently is a lot from some of the braggarts here claim. Imagine the money I have been wasting on condoms.

[BAM]

(roscoe @ Jul. 27 2009,02:20) AIDS Denial,, Elvis sightings, UFOs ............

Did you hear €¦ Michael Jackson is really alive and well and was last seen at the 7-11 in Buffalo, New York.

Jackson faked his own death to get out of the 40 date concert tour he had no possible way of performing, this is why there is no body to have a burial€¦ where is his body? No one seems to know€¦ that€™s because he€™s still alive!


Could this be true? No I just made it all up but soon there will be believers out there because it sounds like it could be true.. believe what you want to believe it€™s €˜Up to You€™

[eslmiker]

(ladyboyluva @ Jul. 26 2009,17:15) Do you know that some studies show it requires around 1,000 sexual encounters between males to transfer HIV (which makes sexual transfer as cause unlikely) or that some studies indicate it is all but impossible for a male to transfer HIV to a female through sex. Argue with the studies.

I've not formed my opinions based simply on that video, I've followed the subject for 20 years, that video just happens to be an effective way to introduce people to all the questions and doubts raised by Nobel level experts on the subject and leading medical experts.

I'd be happy to argue with the studies.  Since you are apparently our resident expert skeptic, on whether HIV is even real, perhaps you would be good enough to list the specific studies you mention, who authored them, what controlled conditions they were performed under and what peer reviewed publications they can be found in. Please don't list some Internet blog or website that any anonymous Tom, Dick or Harry, or idiot conspiracy theorist can post to, who, like you, refers to 'experts' & 'studies' without ever naming them or listing them.

I have given this naming issue a lot of thought, due to a recent incident elsewhere. A certain LB was named as being HIV positive by implication, by innuendo, but not directly.  The poster went on to berate other members for not naming this LB as being HIV positive.  However, he never cleared stated that the implied person was the one who he was talking about.  In a post, I called him on his willingness to blame others for not reporting HIV positive LBs, and yet at the same time being only willing himself to imply that this specific LB had HIV.

This had 3 immediate effects.  First, a very strong reaction from another member who was very angry at me for linking this LB's name directly, with what had only been implied before. Second, the above mentioned poster then directly named this same LB as being the one he was talking about. Finally, the whole thread was then immediately deleted.

After sending PMs back and forth with the member who was very angry with me, we made the peace. He understood that I was trying not to name this LB.  But, to say that she had already been named by strong innuendo and that the original poster should not be willing to blame others, for what he was apparently unwilling to do directly.

Regardless, after giving this a lot of thought, I know that even before this event, I would never, and could never, have condoned the naming of a person in the general population who was HIV positive.  So, to even consider this for a sex worker, was at best contradictory and worse hypocritical.

Everyone coming to Thailand for P4P fun, or having sex anywhere for that matter, should be fully aware of the risks of HIV infection, and their responsibility to wear condoms always.  As RxPharm, Kliome, Stogie, and others have mentioned, only an HIV positive P4P worker who is encouraging unprotected sex, should even be considered to be named.  And, even then, only in a way that is confirmed by independent parties, that this is not the case of a jilted lover, upset sponsor, or some other such person, trying to ruin the reputation of another human being.

[petesie]

Regardless of all the discussion........I personally would thank the person who tipped me the wink prior to doing the deed................would it stop me doing it?...............I don't know...........but I would be discreet about it either way...........

There's a certain degree of implied liability here which will always be debatable..........if a garage knowingly sold you a car with a fault.........you'd have a right for recourse and be suitably annoyed.............

If a guy who knew me let me go with a girl who was HIV without telling me..........I'd be more than miffed...............

While I agree with the general feeling she has a right to her privacy..........if she is operating out of a bar and they know.......do they have a liability issue.....?

I think a good dose of common sense is required all round without losing the plot.

We all bag up regardless......

I get the impression a few people knew but collectively nothing was done...

I don't think deleting the issue makes it go away either..........

[eslmiker]

I understand your feelings Pete, believe me. But, as you stated, whatever your reaction, if someone gave you a private heads up, you would handle it discreetly. And, knowing the gentleman you are, as well as the respect you treat all LBs with, I do not doubt that at all.

However, I feel strongly that outing them on a public forum like this, is an entirely different situation. It is in no way private or discreet.

Would I want and expect potential sex partners in the general population to inform me that they are HIV positive, before we have sex? Yes, I most definitely would. Can I expect that same level of openness and honesty from a generally uneducated, P4P LB, whose whole ability to support herself and her family, depends on her ability to obtain income from providing sexual services? I think not.

Bottom line, just play safe. Bag up, make sure they bag up, and if there is any accidental breakage, get checked after 3-6 months.

[ladyboyluva]

(roscoe @ Jul. 27 2009,03:20) I'd not heard of Gary Null, but then my car radio can't receive either "AM" or "Fox News"

But I think for opinions like Null's (e.g., AIDS Denial, Vitamin C shakes, Elvis sightings, UFOs) to make sense you have to completely suspend belief in medical progress.  To me this means that you also believe that:

You will not get hard after eating Viagra
You will not recover from a bacterial infection with antibiotics
You can drink 50 12 oz cans of beer without ill effect
... and so forth


You get the idea.

Yes. Apparently you're a believer in the aptness of every logical fallacy ever employed.

[eslmiker]

 Speaking of logical fallacies, again, who are the Nobel Laureate & medical experts and what & where are the recognized scientific studies you mentioned, in your dismissal of HIV/AIDS as real health threat, given your '20 year study' of this subject?

[ladyboyluva]

(rxpharm @ Jul. 27 2009,02:23) Here is an interesting article from Wikipedia: AIDs Denialism.

People are free to believe what they want, whether it is actually true or not remains to be seen. As for mass murdering pharmaceutical companies with political and scientific bedfellows - this forum about ladyboys is certainly an excellent venue for discussing the AIDs conspiracy.  

Of some interest perhaps, but wikipedia is basically a voice for the etsablishment paradigm. Its bias is obvious by the title using denialism (an obvious political slur), instead of the more apt dissent.

Their accepted sources such as New York Times ( A CFR propaganda outlet ) and medical journals, who sit at the end of the AIDS money slop table, ensure a very biased review on the topic. There's little if any AIDS money going to sceptics for research, but those who follow the party line will find a career paved with gold and welcoming arms from the journals.

To think these incentives don't skew the research is naive. Yet anyone who questions it is lumped in with the denialists. The pharmaceutical industry is as corrupt as the petroleum and weapons industries.

As for AIDS not being a relevant topic for a ladyboy loving community (or is it a humping community) to discuss, I have to differ. It is a life and death topic and this group would be considered among the highest risk.

[eslmiker]

(ladyboyluva @ Jul. 27 2009,12:09) As for AIDS not being a relevant topic for a ladyboy loving community (or is it a humping community) to discuss, I have to differ. It is a life and death topic and this group would be considered among the highest risk.

How can you say that HIV/AIDS is a life or death topic, so relevant and important for us a high risk group to discuss, if you yourself don't even believe that is in fact a risk at all? Since you like throwing phrases like 'every logical fallacy ever employed', how can you yourself use such an illogical total contradiction in your umm 'argument'?

[ladyboyluva]

(eslmiker @ Jul. 27 2009,12:03)  Speaking of logical fallacies, again, who are the Nobel Laureate & medical experts and what & where are the recognized scientific studies you mentioned, in your dismissal of HIV/AIDS as real health threat, given your '20 year study' of this subject?

That information was in the video I referenced. There are several scholars of high rating interviewed in that documentary including the most well known dissenter Peter H. Duesberg, Ph.D. professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. http://www.duesberg.com/

It's not my job to be your personal instructor. Having an opinion doesn't require that one is the world's authority, nor that they have an obligation to provide proof to support every opinion. If that were the requirement, there would be very little said on forums.

I presented some information that may appear worthy of enquiry to some. It's up to them to follow through on that and form whatever opinion they may.

A quick google search and you'll find answers to many of your questions.

[ladyboyluva]

(roscoe @ Jul. 27 2009,03:20) But I think for opinions like Null's (e.g., AIDS Denial, Vitamin C shakes, Elvis sightings, UFOs) to make sense you have to completely suspend belief in medical progress.

Clearly there is medical progress in various areas, but that doesn't infer that all areas of medicine move constantly forward progressively without mistakes.

In fact, the medical industry makes a huge amount of mistakes, and these lead to an enormous amount of deaths. Over 700,000 per year in the United States each year, according to some studies. See: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medic...med/deaths.htm

That rates medical intervention as the second biggest killer behind heart disease.

The pharmaceutical industry ought to be called the sickness industry, because that's where the incentives are, and that's where the incentives are taking them. The companies that were in it to produce health went out of business long ago.

[eslmiker]

(ladyboyluva @ Jul. 26 2009,17:15) I've not formed my opinions based simply on that video, I've followed the subject for 20 years....

As for AIDS not being a relevant topic for a ladyboy loving community (or is it a humping community) to discuss, I have to differ. It is a life and death topic and this group would be considered among the highest risk.

Again you claim to have a thorough knowledge, through your 20 year study of this topic, and formed your opinions through this study, and not through the video alone.  But, the only 'expert'  you can name, is one from the video.

Given your claimed 20 year study of the subject and your claimed knowledge of experts and studies outside of the video, it is in fact your responsibility to support your argument by naming and listing them, otherwise it is nothing but BS and a logical argument fallacy.

Then you turn your own argument on it's head by telling us, that as a high risk group, our lives are in danger and we should discuss the actual existence or danger of HIV/AIDS that threatens us all so much, when you do not even believe a threat exists!

[ladyboyluva]

(eslmiker @ Jul. 27 2009,12:37)

(ladyboyluva @ Jul. 26 2009,17:15) I've not formed my opinions based simply on that video, I've followed the subject for 20 years....

As for AIDS not being a relevant topic for a ladyboy loving community (or is it a humping community) to discuss, I have to differ. It is a life and death topic and this group would be considered among the highest risk.

Again you claim to have a thorough knowledge, through your 20 year study of this topic, and formed your opinions through this study, and not through the video alone.  But, the only 'expert'  you can name, is one from the video.

Given your claimed 20 year study of the subject and your claimed knowledge of experts and studies outside of the video, it is in fact your responsibility to support your argument by naming and listing them, otherwise it is nothing but BS and a logical argument fallacy.

Then you turn your own argument on it's head by telling us, that as a high risk group, our lives are in danger and we should discuss the actual existence or danger of HIV/AIDS that threatens us all so much, when you do not even believe a threat exists!

I didn't claim a thorough knowledge. Just that I've followed the subject and been critical for around 20 years.

Well, I don't think a list of respected and credentialed experts is necessarily the best defense of my position. It's not hard to find the critics. The video I referenced provides far more information than I could ever write here without appearing a total prat. Hence, I direct those who are interested toward a palatable amount of information. 2 hours worth in fact. That's not indulging in a fallacy.

The danger I am refering to is the danger of being found HIV+ and then being talked into a suicide mission of drug use. Thankfully the drugs these days aren't as deadly as the old AZT chemotheraphy days, but I still think people are better off keeping away from HIV tests and the prescribed medications.

I'm convinced that the HIV of old was based on crap science. If better evidence exists for it today, it's because billions have been thrown at trying to prove its existance. In the same way, economists are able to find emperical evidence that raising minimum wages can increase employment levels. Tweek the studies enough and people can find evidence to suport the ridiculous.

Retroviruses were once thought to cause cancer, now they are supposed to cause AIDS via HIV, which is the weirdest virus ever known to man. The entire science behind it is specious and there are billions of dollars flying in every year to prove it's authenticity. The treatment has become using less dangerous drugs, which means people aren't dying from the drugs as quickly as they used to.

People do get sick and aquire low immunity, for various reasons. They always have and they probably always will.

The stigma of HIV alone is a burden we don't need and it has done much to fuel hatred of same sex loving people and to make many of their lives a living nightmare. That doesn't mean that unprotected sex doesn't have its dangers, Of course it does. Sperm in the bloodstream poses significant immunity risks, not to mention hepatitus and a range of other bugs that act rather predictably.

[anthony70]

i think the problem is, there are two types of comunities on the internet.
the ones that just lurk, read posts, wank over pictures and will never get to thailand.
then there are those of us who walk the walk.

it is one thing having a conversation in a bar if there is a rumour somebody is infected, but at least is it of concern to the person listening as he makes his choice for the night.

but exposing somebodys health issues to the whole world, based on a rumour is just wrong.

if a stupid falang goes bareback and finds out later she was infected.
fuck him.

i just assume they all MAY have it, and act accordingly.