What would you do if you are tested HIV positive?

[Amused]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Amused
Bullsh!t. No one WANTS HIV no matter how managable it is.

I didn't say that anyone will want it. I said that people will become complacent, and will not worry about preventing it. Perhaps you think too much of the general public.

Originally posted by: Amused
But to say someone should want to die because they have it is just ignorant. Spreading baseless lies and fear never solved anything.

Quote me saying that. I have never said any of that; you're reading into what I say, and you're doing so incorrectly.

I said that *I* would want to die, not that *anyone* else should. Nor am I spreading baseless lies. Prove me wrong.

So you want people to lie and say living with AIDS is horrible and painful. That new drugs don't save lives and make the quality of life almost normal?

OK, we'll lie. Why not? It worked for drugs and guns, why not AIDS? We'll spread ignorance and fear instead of facts and education.

You're a god in your own time!

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Amused

The discussion was about KNOWING you are HIV positive.

If you KNOW you are HIV+. you have to INTENTIONALLY transmit it. There is no accidental transmission once you know you have it.

The only thing ended here is the last remaining faith in your reading comprehension.

I disagree. I remember a case years ago when someone got shot by these bullets that fragment. The doctor, while trying to save the patient, cut himself on a bullet fragment and got HIV. The patient knew he was HIV positive. Please explain to me how this is intentional.

I also know of another HIV patient that was getting a blood draw and moved his arm during the draw. The needle slipped and the nurse got his blood in her eye. Hmmm...intentional?

edit: spelling, punctuation

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/

in both media player and real player a new documentary from frontline about the history and impact of aids. made for the anniversary thing.

it does have a bit on the denial of aids. like with the south african president that was convinced it was a conspiracy, and well, its not a harmless conspiracy, i'm sure countless have died from this stupid idea.

i'd love to see the pushers of this idea just have unprotected sex with someone who's positive to show the world how deep their belief in their bs really is. its such a simple experiment but none of the main proponents of this conspiracy theory seem to want to do it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pinion9

And since some HIV positive people are athletes, can I assume that HIV will me an athlete? I heard it is a wonderful diet, at the very least.

People with HIV can do whatever they want, for the most part. And that includes being athletic. Hell, they can even choose to be ignorant fear mongers who think ignorance is best.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Amused
Bullsh!t. No one WANTS HIV no matter how managable it is.

But to say someone should want to die because they have it is just ignorant. Spreading baseless lies and fear never solved anything.

True, no one wants it. But if HIV is sooo manageable and easy to live with, maybe the benefits to some outweigh the risks... Same reason people have unprotected sex...they may catch something, but they are all so treatable it is *worth the risk.*

It's not worth the risk to so severely limit your marriage/dating possibilities, being faced with a drug regimen so strict you cannot miss one pill or risk dying.

You guys use the same arguments religionists use to spread fear about sex in general and promote abstinence classes... all of which is a total failure.

Ignorance never saved anybody.

How is that promoting ignorance?

*YOU* view it as "not worth the risk"... that doesn't mean that everyone will.

 

[jonessoda]

Let's put it this way, Amused. The only people I've ever known (and I've met several) who have had AIDS for more than ten years are walking skeletons. They are impoverished from having bought the cocktail for years, and are now either indebted or under charity to make the money to get it. If they begin to make enough money to buy the cocktail themselves, they're off charity. You can never have sex with an uninfected person again, because to do so is actually at the very least considered felony criminal negligence in many states, if you have knowledge of your condition and willfully have sex. You are prone to diseases most people are immune to. You can be incapacitated by diseases that others would take a few Tylenol for.

A 2005 report (Schneider et al) gives life expectancy, with antiretroviral treatments, as an average of slightly over five years rather than your optimistic 20-30. From the evidence, I would say 20-30 is the absolute, rare, best-case scenario.

No, thank you, I'd rather take a controllable, painless death while I still have some modicum of health than wasting away on the dollar of the taxpayer and the good samaritan.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Find a chick with HIV and bang her. You know she wants some action, and you're already infected.

One person's infection is totally different from another's. The only thing you'll accomplish is wasting both of your drug "cocktails" and possibly creating a more resistant strain.

How do people not know this in this day in age?

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew
How is that promoting ignorance?

*YOU* view it as "not worth the risk"... that doesn't mean that everyone will.

I Agree.

I view lung cancer as not worth the risk. Others think smoking > chances of lung cancer.

I view addictiona as not worth the risk. Many others view crystal meth high > chance of permanent addiction.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Amused

The discussion was about KNOWING you are HIV positive.

If you KNOW you are HIV+. you have to INTENTIONALLY transmit it. There is no accidental transmission once you know you have it.

The only thing ended here is the last remaining faith in your reading comprehension.

I disagree. I remember a case years ago when someone got shot by these bullets that fragment. The doctor, while trying to save the patient, cut himself on a bullet fragment and got HIV. The patient knew he was HIV positive. Please explain to me how this is intentional.

I also know of another HIV patient that was getting a blood draw and moved his arm during the draw. The needle slipped and the nurse got his blood in her eye. Hmmm...intentional?

edit: spelling, punctuation

:::sigh:::

Why bother?

Oh, well, here goes... In both cases universal precautions were not properly followed and neither were the patient's fault. These are not accidents on the patient's end, but caused by others who knew better.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Amused
Bullsh!t. No one WANTS HIV no matter how managable it is.

I didn't say that anyone will want it. I said that people will become complacent, and will not worry about preventing it. Perhaps you think too much of the general public.

Originally posted by: Amused
But to say someone should want to die because they have it is just ignorant. Spreading baseless lies and fear never solved anything.

Quote me saying that. I have never said any of that; you're reading into what I say, and you're doing so incorrectly.

I said that *I* would want to die, not that *anyone* else should. Nor am I spreading baseless lies. Prove me wrong.

So you want people to lie and say living with AIDS is horrible and painful. That new drugs don't save lives and make the quality of life almost normal?

OK, we'll lie. Why not? It worked for drugs and guns, why not AIDS? We'll spread ignorance and fear instead of facts and education.

You're a god in your own time!

Christ! Quite construing what I say!

I do not want to spread *any* lies about it. I did not say that I disapprove of the new drugs. I did not say that drugs do not save lives, nor did I say that they do not assist in making QOL almost normal. QUOTE WHERE I SAID ANY OF THAT.

Tell me *exactly* where I'm lying. Spread the facts, but *ONLY* the full facts. Include the negatives with the positives. Spreading partial truth is worse than lying.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: GeekDrew

Originally posted by: Amused
Bullsh!t. No one WANTS HIV no matter how managable it is.

I didn't say that anyone will want it. I said that people will become complacent, and will not worry about preventing it. Perhaps you think too much of the general public.

Originally posted by: Amused
But to say someone should want to die because they have it is just ignorant. Spreading baseless lies and fear never solved anything.

Quote me saying that. I have never said any of that; you're reading into what I say, and you're doing so incorrectly.

I said that *I* would want to die, not that *anyone* else should. Nor am I spreading baseless lies. Prove me wrong.

So you want people to lie and say living with AIDS is horrible and painful. That new drugs don't save lives and make the quality of life almost normal?

OK, we'll lie. Why not? It worked for drugs and guns, why not AIDS? We'll spread ignorance and fear instead of facts and education.

You're a god in your own time!

Christ! Quite construing what I say!

I do not want to spread *any* lies about it. I did not say that I disapprove of the new drugs. I did not say that drugs do not save lives, nor did I say that they do not assist in making QOL almost normal. QUOTE WHERE I SAID ANY OF THAT.

Tell me *exactly* where I'm lying. Spread the facts, but *ONLY* the full facts. Include the negatives with the positives. Spreading partial truth is worse than lying.

My entire point was to tell people there is no reason to end their lives if they find themselves HIV+.

That is a FAR cry from promoting or condoning risky behavior.

If you cannot see the difference, you're blind. I am not addressing the risky behavior in this thread because that's not the topic. I am addressing the question of what one would do if they found out they were HIV+... in this case, it's too late to address risky behavior because they are already +.

Start another thread about risky behavior and we'll discuss your points there.

 

[Platypus]

Isn't it funny how Amused is never wrong and has nothing better to do than pick apart your words and fight you tooth and nail on every point possible?

Oh wait no, it's really really sad.

I can't wait to be quoted

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Amused

The discussion was about KNOWING you are HIV positive.

If you KNOW you are HIV+. you have to INTENTIONALLY transmit it. There is no accidental transmission once you know you have it.

The only thing ended here is the last remaining faith in your reading comprehension.

I disagree. I remember a case years ago when someone got shot by these bullets that fragment. The doctor, while trying to save the patient, cut himself on a bullet fragment and got HIV. The patient knew he was HIV positive. Please explain to me how this is intentional.

I also know of another HIV patient that was getting a blood draw and moved his arm during the draw. The needle slipped and the nurse got his blood in her eye. Hmmm...intentional?

edit: spelling, punctuation

:::sigh:::

Why bother?

Oh, well, here goes... In both cases universal precautions were not properly followed and neither were the patient's fault. These are not accidents on the patient's end, but caused by others who knew better.

There seem to be many exceptions to the rule. Wow. By your logic, the only way to transmit anything is intentionally.

What about that tennis player who got HIV from a blood transfusion?
How about a pregnant mother that has HIV? Does she intentionally transmit it to the fetus?

You stated that THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSMIT IT IS INTENTIONALLY AND WILFULLY and this is clearly not the case. See, the great thing about making some universal qualifier like that is I only need to find one example to debunk it is a myth. I did my job. Please try again.

 

[Quasmo]

Marry my girlfriend.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Find a chick with HIV and bang her. You know she wants some action, and you're already infected.

One person's infection is totally different from another's. The only thing you'll accomplish is wasting both of your drug "cocktails" and possibly creating a more resistant strain.

How do people not know this in this day in age?

People believe AIDS is survivable these days. And so we've seen the emergence of "Pos parties" where HIV positive individuals get together for orgies. They swap around their various strands of AIDS and create new, treatment resistant strains. So far they haven't made one that's resistant to everything, but it's really just a matter of time.

 

[DainBramaged]

Let's put it this way, you would read about me in the news.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Amused

The discussion was about KNOWING you are HIV positive.

If you KNOW you are HIV+. you have to INTENTIONALLY transmit it. There is no accidental transmission once you know you have it.

The only thing ended here is the last remaining faith in your reading comprehension.

I disagree. I remember a case years ago when someone got shot by these bullets that fragment. The doctor, while trying to save the patient, cut himself on a bullet fragment and got HIV. The patient knew he was HIV positive. Please explain to me how this is intentional.

I also know of another HIV patient that was getting a blood draw and moved his arm during the draw. The needle slipped and the nurse got his blood in her eye. Hmmm...intentional?

edit: spelling, punctuation

:::sigh:::

Why bother?

Oh, well, here goes... In both cases universal precautions were not properly followed and neither were the patient's fault. These are not accidents on the patient's end, but caused by others who knew better.

There seem to be many exceptions to the rule. Wow. By your logic, the only way to transmit anything is intentionally.

What about that tennis player who got HIV from a blood transfusion?
How about a pregnant mother that has HIV? Does she intentionally transmit it to the fetus?

You stated that THE ONLY WAY TO TRANSMIT IT IS INTENTIONALLY AND WILFULLY and this is clearly not the case. See, the great thing about making some universal qualifier like that is I only need to find one example to debunk it is a myth. I did my job. Please try again.

If you donate blood and you know you have it... you are transmitting it intentionally.

If you know you have it, and become pregnant, you are willfully putting your baby at risk, (although, far less risk than most believe).

This is all about KNOWING you have it. Not about people who do not know they have it doing things unwittingly.

You did nothing but pull up extremely rare cases of medical neglegence in your first post, and in this post you did even worse. You pulled up cases of people who did not know they had it transmitting it, or cases of people that did know they had it INTENTIONALLY transmitting it.

I believe it is you who needs to "try again."

 

[jonessoda]

Oh, and a point of clarification, just so nobody takes what I'm saying in the wrong way. I am, in no way, suggesting that the right thing to do is off yourself if you have AIDS. I am saying that is what I would do.

Amused: I don't know how to put this lightly, but I wonder if you perhaps have an agenda or if, perhaps, your training (I believe you said you worked with an AIDS center, correct?)focused more on dealing with the suffering of the victims of the disease rather than controlling the outbreak? I am not suggesting you wish to further the spread of AIDS or are willingly and knowingly working towards that goal, but you must understand that this is an extremely dangerous and virulent disease. To say that you must avoid all contact with a sufferer of AIDS is ignorant, but to likewise say that there is no need to take care around those who suffer is also ignorant. Again, to say that the lives of the victims are pure hell is ignorant, but to say there is no suffering is also ignorant.

I agree that there should be no overall social stigma attached to AIDS, but there should be caution. GeekDrew is right, we must not understate the dangers of the disease, gloss over it, and say "it's okay to have AIDS. You'll manage." To do so breeds complacency, and then what is an epidemic becomes pandemic.

Edit: also, it's true that there can be unintentional transmission. If blood is improperly screened, the transfusion could contain undetected HIV. It's happened. If someone is unaware of their condition, they can transmit it sexually. Even if you are completely aware, you can transmit it unintentionally. Say you accidentally cut yourself what chopping some meat. Blood drips a little but you don't notice, you cook the steak rare, somebody eats it. Sometimes you can have an open, bleeding wound and not notice. I've had a couple like that. Say you have a little bleeder on your hand, shake hands with someone, they pick their nose (mucous membranes) or have a couple chips... sure, it's slightly far-fetched, but it's possible, and there are certainly more likely scenarios.

 

[DAGTA]

Eat loads of lauric acid (found in pure virgin coconut oil) since it strips the protective layer off of virii, allowing the body to kill them. Works on every virus, including HIV.

 

[necine]

Originally posted by: DaWhim
discuss.

I don't want to think about that...

HIV = AIDS - Fact or Fraud

cool, I just found this documentary on HIV I watched before. some may say conspirarcy theory, but it is very convencing. question like what if HIV is not the cause of AIDS?

This video is crazy. Before this video I would've offed myself if I found out i had HIV... now, I dunno about that.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jonessoda
Oh, and a point of clarification, just so nobody takes what I'm saying in the wrong way. I am, in no way, suggesting that the right thing to do is off yourself if you have AIDS. I am saying that is what I would do.

Amused: I don't know how to put this lightly, but I wonder if you perhaps have an agenda or if, perhaps, your training (I believe you said you worked with an AIDS center, correct?)focused more on dealing with the suffering of the victims of the disease rather than controlling the outbreak? I am not suggesting you wish to further the spread of AIDS or are willingly and knowingly working towards that goal, but you must understand that this is an extremely dangerous and virulent disease. To say that you must avoid all contact with a sufferer of AIDS is ignorant, but to likewise say that there is no need to take care around those who suffer is also ignorant. Again, to say that the lives of the victims are pure hell is ignorant, but to say there is no suffering is also ignorant.

I agree that there should be no overall social stigma attached to AIDS, but there should be caution. GeekDrew is right, we must not understate the dangers of the disease, gloss over it, and say "it's okay to have AIDS. You'll manage." To do so breeds complacency, and then what is an epidemic becomes pandemic.

I believe the topic of the thread was:

What would you do if you are tested HIV positive?

My points were based on that alone.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Amused

If you donate blood and you know you have it... you are transmitting it intentionally.

If you know you have it, and become pregnant, you are willfully putting your baby at risk, (although, far less risk than most believe).

This is all about KNOWING you have it. Not about people who do not know they have it doing things unwittingly.

You did nothing but pull up extremely rare cases of medical neglegence in your first post, and in this post you did even worse. You pulled up cases of people who did not know they had it transmitting it, or cases of people that did know they had it INTENTIONALLY transmitting it.

I believe it is you who needs to "try again."

It doesn't matter. Extreme case still means it is a counterpoint and your blanket, universal statement does not hold up. Ever do math? Try and do a proof.

What about someone who has protected sex and the condom breaks? Is that intentional transmission since they didn't take necessary precautions?

Please tell me then of a disease/virus that people can transmit unintentionally if they know they have it?

Going in public with a cold? Intentional transmission.
Going to work with the flu? Intentional transmission.
Getting pregnant while you know your baby is at risk for PKU? Intentional transmission.

QED, b|tch.

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: Amused
I believe the topic of the thread was:

What would you do if you are tested HIV positive?

My points were based on that alone.

Next time, consider that you shouldn't limit your comments to that alone when dealing with such a controversial subject, since nobody else will.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Amused

If you donate blood and you know you have it... you are transmitting it intentionally.

If you know you have it, and become pregnant, you are willfully putting your baby at risk, (although, far less risk than most believe).

This is all about KNOWING you have it. Not about people who do not know they have it doing things unwittingly.

You did nothing but pull up extremely rare cases of medical neglegence in your first post, and in this post you did even worse. You pulled up cases of people who did not know they had it transmitting it, or cases of people that did know they had it INTENTIONALLY transmitting it.

I believe it is you who needs to "try again."

It doesn't matter. Extreme case still means it is a counterpoint and your blanket, universal statement does not hold up. Ever do math? Try and do a proof.

What about someone who has protected sex and the condom breaks? Is that intentional transmission since they didn't take necessary precautions?

Please tell me then of a disease/virus that people can transmit unintentionally if they know they have it?

Going in public with a cold? Intentional transmission.
Going to work with the flu? Intentional transmission.
Getting pregnant while you know your baby is at risk for PKU? Intentional transmission.

QED, b|tch.

Willfully putting anyone at risk is an intentional transmission, yes. And the fact of the matter is, with HIV, that means swapping blood or having sex. Two easily avoidable activities.

The fact that you are gloating over your own stupidity is amazing.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Find a chick with HIV and bang her. You know she wants some action, and you're already infected.

One person's infection is totally different from another's. The only thing you'll accomplish is wasting both of your drug "cocktails" and possibly creating a more resistant strain.

How do people not know this in this day in age?

People believe AIDS is survivable these days. And so we've seen the emergence of "Pos parties" where HIV positive individuals get together for orgies. They swap around their various strands of AIDS and create new, treatment resistant strains. So far they haven't made one that's resistant to everything, but it's really just a matter of time.

Dear God...I truly hope you're kidding. POS-parties? And ya'd think that the people who're HIV+, having had talked with doctors (certainly they do if they're on a drug regimen) would know better.