How safe is giving oral without a condom?

[Stewart]

Another question - of all the news organisations in the world, and you CANNOT say they are ALL sheep, why have none of them exposed this sham?

Can anyone help with this question?

[Tomcat]

To keep track of this subject you need to subscribe to either new scientist, Nature or Scientific American. Remember that the sands are shifting every single day on the matter of HIV as more peer reviews are accepted by the whitecoats.

Its now known and confirmed in the last month that people with a certain Gene expression do not in fact ever contract the fully blown aids syndrome. Only about one in a 100 of us are like this. and so it goes on and on....

As for Oral sex, last week a paper was published that claims that Oral sex can give you a much bigger chance of mouth cancers
. The sample group was around 300.

[Guest]

Another question - of all the news organisations in the world, and you CANNOT say they are ALL sheep, why have none of them exposed this sham?

Can anyone help with this question?

I wish I had a good answer to this, but I don't.

The only thing I can say is that it's rather strange if you stop to think about it, to use the news as an arbiter of whether something has scientific validity or not.

I have three points of view on journalism. (1.) I have actually worked in the journalism field in a tangential way, from the educational HS and College area. (2.) I have worked in PR and read and learned a lot about dealing with the media. (3.) Just as any old news observer from the USA.

I don't have a spectacular answer from that to give you. What I can tell you from 1 and 2 is you'd be surprised how much the field just marches in lockstep. You'd expect a bunch of hot yound reporters to be constantly trying to scoop and challenge each other. Unfortunately that doesn't happen nearly as much as you think.

Second, I know that there have been some attempts to get this aired. The problem is that Dr.s Gallo and Maisburg, the biggest proponents of the HIV-AIDS theory are usually called on to be the "experts" and they have refused to acknowledge the issue or take part in anything that questions their theory.

Gallo stormed out of an event when an audience member asked a question about this issue.

The news media is not infallible, and they are not scietifically minded. Again from my perspective 1 and 2, I know that news orgs do not like to pick stories that are complicated, rely on heavy medical and scientific knowledge, or require a lot of thought on the part of the audience. It "doesn't sell".

Complicated hair-splitting scientific debates rarely ever make it as news stories.

I know in the US at least, the news media is wildly liberal in it's personal makeup and therefore it's views. Aside from the politics, every person has their own beliefs and prejudices, which they inevitably bring to their job. When you get any bunch of likeminded people, like journos, they are bound to express their own views in their work. Nothing about the news is neutral.

Another issue is that again, the largest part of the medical community currently called on as experts for any AIDS piece has a lot to lose by anyone successfully showing that HIV#AIDS.

I didn't mention this before but when Deusberg had his oncogene theory, all these cancer researchers sprouted up over night, excited about using his ideas. A lot of money sprang forth to follow this research through. Even after Deusberg realized he was wrong and disproved his own theory, none of these researchers wanted to believe it. They kept on chasing a bogus theory because there was research money in it, even after the theories inventor disproved his own idea. The minute the HIV=AIDS hypothesis hit the street, all those oncogene researchers suddenly changed the sign on their doors overnight and *poof* they were now AIDS researchers.

Another issue, I don't know that its accurate to pose this hypothesis as a "sham" which needs to be "exposed". I think the people who support it for the most part earnestly believe in it. That doesn't make it right.

I don't think any news org is going to "blow the doors wide open" and expose a great conspiracy. It doesn't take a conspiracy for many people to think and behave in the same way.

For instance, if you asked 100,000 people all around the world, "How many forms of matter are there and what are they?"

I'm sure the largest percentage would say "3 - Solid, liquid, and gas". Now scientists and even laymen interested in science now know there are at least 2 other forms, Plasma and Super Solids- possibly a sixth. Does that mean that there is a global conspiracy to defraud people about the forms of matter? Nope. It just means knowledge takes time to spread.

Journalists get crazy crackpot ideas thrown at them all the time. They have to decide which ones to run with and which ones may make them look like a fool. More often than not, they go with what is safe. Frankly, I am a little surprised that there isn't a gonzo reporter who has taken this on as a crusade. But at any rate, in order to get background information, the news people would all be going to the same medical experts- and those people have already shown that they actively shut down any discussion on the topic.

Lastly, I believe ABC Nes did mention this issue during one of their Nightline specials, but I would have to go look that up again. I don't remember much about that.


Oh, one last thing. I'm repeating this for about the fourth time, but some people still don't seem to have absorbed it. Nothing I've said ever discouraged or encouraged any behaviours at all. There are many reasons to wear and use condoms- AIDs or HIV is not the only one. (You wouldn't want to get those ladyboys pregnant).

HIV#AIDS is a medical issue, it doesn't mean AIDS doesn't exist or doesn't have *A* cause. It just means some people don't believe HIV is *THE* cause. It doesn't mean you might not be able to contract it through a mechanism we are presently unaware of. Not to mention any other VD or STDs.

You're statistical chances of contracting HIV with limited hetero sex are less than that of being hit by lightning. If you are having sex with drug users, homo sex (which we are), receiving, your chances go up exponentially. Don't forget, these girls have hundreds if not thousands of partners, all of which have shared all the other girls. So you fuck Betty, and never Sally. Bob fucked Sally rotten then had Betty the next day.

You're pretty much on the receiving end of every swinging dick that ever landed on the island. If there were ever a trap designed to catch every communicable disease available, it's unlikely you could devise a more effective one.

So. Be safe.

[olekunde]

..if you are having sex with drug users, homo sex (which we are),..

maybe you wanna share some of your views in the "gay sex" topic too ...

[thaibound]

..if you are having sex with drug users, homo sex (which we are),..

maybe you wanna share some of your views in the "gay sex" topic too ...

May I safely assume the "homo sex" comment was merely a shorthand (if overly glib) reference to the possibility of ladyboy-lovers engaging in the much higher risk sex act of bottoming for a potentially infected partner? (Something which could not happen if we stuck with dickless GG partners - or post-ops for that matter.) I may then presume that topping a ladyboy is no more (or less) risky than topping a GG, and thusly receiving oral from a ladyboy as equally low-risk - but not risk-free - as receiving oral from a GG.
It would thus be the giving of oral to a ladyboy or being topped by a ladyboy which would be an activity of equal risk (mouth cancers, HIV, AIDS) with "homo sex". Yes/no?

[olekunde]

for some reason grunyen mean that this syndrom is caught during the sexual act. i say speculations!!! why only throw the hiv-exist theory overboard? who have interest in dismiss the hiv-theory and also want people to have sex with a condom? yes, the condom-industry. do not scare away people from having sex, but let have it with their product. how is that for alternativ thinking grunyen haha ..

on the other hand, if i skip the alternative thinking for a moment, and use reason.
condoms may break. actually it happens quite often. and since there are no natural fluid in anus, the condom can break if the anus get dry or using wrong kind of lube(oil=based). otherwise it shouldnt matter what you fuck.

[Guest]

for some reason grunyen mean that this syndrom is caught during the sexual act. i say speculations!!! why only throw the hiv-exist theory overboard? who have interest in dismiss the hiv-theory and also want people to have sex with a condom? yes, the condom-industry. do not scare away people from having sex, but let have it with their product. how is that for alternativ thinking grunyen haha ..

on the other hand, if i skip the alternative thinking for a moment, and use reason.
condoms may break. actually it happens quite often. and since there are no natural fluid in anus, the condom can break if the anus get dry or using wrong kind of lube(oil=based). otherwise it shouldnt matter what you fuck.

What exactly is your point?

It appears that you can barely grasp the English language, and your only purpose seems to be acting like a dick.

I've yet to see you make a point.

[Guest]

..if you are having sex with drug users, homo sex (which we are),..

maybe you wanna share some of your views in the "gay sex" topic too ...

May I safely assume the "homo sex" comment was merely a shorthand (if overly glib) reference to the possibility of ladyboy-lovers engaging in the much higher risk sex act of bottoming for a potentially infected partner?

Yes, I think you got my meaning.

I don't think any of the stuff about "Am I gay" is relevant at all. Who even cares?

I couldn't give a flip about whether someone considers themselves gay or not, or tries to deine gender or sex or whatever they feel like calling it. None of that interests me. I think anyone who is that caught up on definitions is only trying to hide from their own guilt.

Call me a Pear or a Trout if it makes you happy. Call the men with tit-jobs and dicks Filet-O-Fish if it pleases you. We each know what we are attracted to and who or what we want to have sex with. While it may be a topic of interest simply to compare what some like vs. others - which can be interesting, it really doesn't matter to the disease does it?

Since the hardest hit AIDs population is a group of mobile men engaging in frequent drug use, multiple partners, and homosexual (man on man, or really more acurately anal sodomy) sex; then it's relatively rational to assume those conditions would constitute the highest risk factors. I.e. in the absence of other information, parallel risk factors logically predict similar outcomes.

Obviously being on the receiving end of anything is higher risk than giving. Higher friction seems riskier. These behaviours would relate to transmitting any type of blood born pathogen.

No germ cares whether you think of yourself as a poofter. It only cares if it can get into your bloodstream, which it's more likely to do taking it in the arse from a huge pole, than if you're being sucked by a cutie.

You don't have to use a condom. You could stay home and masturbate and be pretty darn safe. A condom is just one of the many steps you can take to reduce your likelihood of transmitting and receiving anything.

[olekunde]

What exactly is your point?
It appears that you can barely grasp the English language, and your only purpose seems to be acting like a dick.
I've yet to see you make a point.

cannot take any sarcasm can we?
sorry dude, but since youre so intellegent(your words), and only write one language i have to battle you on your turf.
it should be quite clear what i meant. you have so far accused the medical industry and the government for a huge conspiracy. and presented a theory from a group of people that has no current info about hiv science. but what is really somewhat annoying is ambassadors of this rethinking of aids(which by the way is quite interesting), which also includes you, act like they have any valid information but just assume and make their own theories about this. and act like they have more knowledge and are superior to those who dont share this way of thinking.

Since the hardest hit AIDs population is a group of mobile men engaging in frequent drug use, multiple partners, and homosexual (man on man, or really more acurately anal sodomy) sex; then it's relatively rational to assume those conditions would constitute the highest risk factors. I.e. in the absence of other information, parallel risk factors logically predict similar outcomes.

in africa, pregnant ladies have the highest aids rate.
as far as i know there arent any frequent use of poppers, coke, smack or whatever in the middle of the bush in uganda, angola, zambia or mali.

i cannot understand why it so more convinient to belive in some mysterious bloodborn pathogen rather than hiv. btw, do these doctors you mention any alternative research besids critize the medical industry and slag what has been discovered? i can see how is it is to critize everything when there is no medicine or vaccine, but arent this the truth more many other diseases too, a plain cold for example, maybe that isnt a caused by a virus either??

[Guest]

Jesus Christ.

Who can understand what the fuck you are saying?


In response to what I can glean from your post; I've already answered the same questions about four times. If you can't read or remember, I'm not wearing my fingers out over it.

And stop telling me what I did. I have a better memory than that. Aside from not saying that there was a conspiracy, I just made a long argument that there doesn't need to be one. And I addressed the issue of AIDS in Africa. It's a bunch of horse-shit to put it succinctly. Checking a box that either will or won't get you funds tends to make thousands of new people "AIDS cases". It also helps if you keep changing the definition of the disease to include more and more symptoms.

[olekunde]

Who can understand what the fuck you are saying?

arent you an alternative thinker, use your imagination..

And stop telling me what I did. I have a better memory than that. Aside from not saying that there was a conspiracy, I just made a long argument that there doesn't need to be one. And I addressed the issue of AIDS in Africa. It's a bunch of horse-shit to put it succinctly. Checking a box that either will or won't get you funds tends to make thousands of new people "AIDS cases". It also helps if you keep changing the definition of the disease to include more and more symptoms.

yeah of course it is bullshit, yeah yeah ..since you say so. very solid arguments. and which lefty bitch sucked your dick to believe this hahaha...

actually you ARE WRONG!!! WHO had to admit hiv cases in central africa was lower than expected, since the previous numbers based on pregnant women which i higher than rest of the population.

and btw, why dont you inject yourself with hiv in the name of science if its harmless. celebrate the worlds aids day by doing it. pretty please, with sugar on top.

[Guest]

You got me.

Your persistence has paid off.

I made the whole thing up. And since you've finally exposed me with your rigorous application of logic, I will now stop discussing this subject completely.

[thaibound]

1. I don't know who's right.
2. Olekunde writes better in his second language than I do, so I have no trouble cutting him slack with his syntax, grammar and spelling. The more time I spend lost in LOS, where I can not write a single word!!, the more slack I cut!
3. Grunyen, if the # of AIDS cases in Africa has been grown by the re-definition of AIDS in order to obtain more funding, has this also affected the # of AIDS cases reported in, say, San Francisco? And how do these altered statistics affect your point that: "Since the hardest hit AIDs population is a group of mobile men engaging in frequent drug use, multiple partners, and homosexual (man on man, or really more acurately anal sodomy) sex; then it's relatively rational to assume those conditions would constitute the highest risk factors. I.e. in the absence of other information, parallel risk factors logically predict similar outcomes. "
Are these activities STILL the greatest predictors of AIDS?
4. Olekunde, how do researchers explain the explosion of AIDS in pregnant women in particular in Africa? Does their pregnancy have ANY causative effect in mutating HIV into active AIDS, or is pregnancy just useful as a classification of known-to-be-sexually-active women in Africa and the point is simply that heterosexual women in Africa are being infected in ever-growing numbers (by their cheating husbands?), thus altering the earlier (anal sex+drug user= hiv risk) paradigm?
5. As regards direct and practical use of this still-conflicting research, do you not both agree, it still seems prudent to use protection even if the cost of not doing so may be greater or lesser or completely different (std's not heretofor mentioned or perhaps even as yet unknown). Whether AIDS comes from hiv or from some amalgam of 'risky' activities in unpleasant concert with germs/viruses/bacteria/genetic material/whatever! -- I THINK (correct me on this, please) it has some basis in some pathogen which is somehow transmitted by some form of body fluid. (I think airborn transmission has been eliminated by the years of hospice handling of AIDS patients, but again, I could be wrong on that one too!)
6. Am I wrong that malaria is a much greater killer worldwide, with much less funding to fight against it?
7. As regards the original question ;-)... receiving oral is low risk by any of your standards, while giving oral would be higher risk, though in the absence of open cuts (including microabrasions) in the mouth, still relatively low risk. HOWEVER, other stds have no problem being transmitted through oral sex in either direction, and as we have no definitive proof that other stds are not in play with regard to the development of AIDS (from HIV or otherwise), there must, sadly, remain the possibility that even low risk activity such as receiving oral from the most beautiful ladyboy on the planet, might yet have negative repercussions for your momentarily ecstatic body.
8. I have enjoyed this discussion, minus the occasional vitriol. If we can be less fundamentalist in our views (my invisible friend can kick your invisible friend's ass), I would hope everyone would feel free to update here as more knowledge is gained. There have been MANY points made with something less than rigorous proof, which is just fine for a forum centered on our love of ladyboys, not in preparing to publish in JAMA! No one should take anything said here as medical advice and act in any way that might endanger themselves or others. I think we all understand that. I hope we do at least. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, so I would love to hear more..such as...I understand a potential AIDS vaccine is being tested in san francisco now...is it HIV-based? Is it just pr to raise funding? Anybody seen Magic Johnson lately?

[Guest]

How about ther forms of sexual contact?

Like rubbing your cocks together? Or if she has just come, maybe there is still some seaman on her hand if she then touches your cock? It's difficult to know quite how safe the various ways of be intimate are. Obviously, a ladyboy would be considered a high risk partner by most people, especially as most of the ones we are likely to sleep with are gonna be working girls.

[olekunde]

first of all there are some intersting links about the people behind the virusmyth. grunyen has had his monolog. here is what others have to say about the rethorics, politics and consequences of these beliefs:

Duesbergs Dismal Failure

Does HIV AIDS exist and the distortion of science

A Rhetorical Analysis of the €œRethinking AIDs€ Website.

open letter to Mbeki

some pro virusmyth stuff. here is the Duesberg-Hypothesis


there has been several programs containging useful stats and data concerning hiv today.. and the topic "

4. Olekunde, how do researchers explain the explosion of AIDS in pregnant women in particular in Africa?

" was being discussed. since the african culture is male dominated, young african girls have no say, and they are getting infected with hiv by elderly men. elderly men prefer them as mistresses as they are being seen as pure/clean. and when one of these african men are hiv+ and he has 5-20 mistresses and practice unprotected sex, well you see the outcome ..

some intersting info about the medical industry also came up. today the medical industry feeds several of the worst hitting countries in africas with free hiv medication, and the avergae cost of medicines a year for an aids pasient is $150!!!!

also, the fact, that after 1997, and aids pasients have been treated with a cocktail of medicines, the number of people of dying from aids in the western world has fallen drastic. and aids pasients that would have died a decade ago are now living close to normal lives, cos of these new medications.