rawTOP

In 1994 I watched as a nurse administered some incredibly powerful medications to my HIV positive boyfriend in the wrong order. I had been told by the doctor the order was important and questioned the nurse, but she insisted she was right and I was wrong. I didn't stop her and when I woke up in the morning my boyfriends heart was racing - it had been racing for hours. The doctor said he had essentially run a marathon in his sleep. That incident was the beginning of the end for him. He never got back to anything close to healthy and died a couple months later. I have to ask myself if I had stood up to the nurse and insisted a doctor confirm the order whether he'd still be alive today. In 2003 my friends said my neurosurgeon (the chief of neurosurgery at MSKCC) looked deeply disturbed when he finished doing my second "brain tumor" biopsy. We're convinced something went wrong and my life was in danger - all for an operation that wasn't really necessary. My brother-in-law is now a ghost of the vibrant, fun-loving person I looked up to as a kid and I suspect his medical issues are due to over aggressive medical treatment. I've worked on the marketing of drugs that caused such serious problems that they're now banned by the FDA. I saw first hand how pharma companies identified, recruited and trained "thought leaders" to get those drugs accepted. I've helped organize the dinner meetings and ski resort vacations to influence those thought leaders. And I've seen in my own experience how reluctant doctors are to question those thought leaders. Exactly how many people do I need to see put at risk and hurt before I say "enough" and have the right to question doctors? I don't have to be a scientist to use common sense and demand that medical authority figures genuinely do what's best for me and the people I love. A one-size-fits-all approach is becoming the dominant treatment plan for HIV and one size doesn't fit all.

You know me... I'm far too much of a hard-nosed New Yorker to believe that medicine is irrelevant. At the same time having a doc tell you to go on meds for 20 to 60 years is a decision that requires close examination and people shouldn't be criticized for saying "I'll wait". Honestly, I'm not poz and if I became poz I'd research things more carefully and make my own decision. Everything I've learned over the last 25 years tells me that going on meds quickly is not something I'd want to do personally. I can't say whether it's 200 or 350. I know I would be more concerned about sustained trends than I would be about a temporary spike/drop. I'd want to see repeated tests at the threshold level to go on meds. Honestly though - I've been around the block enough to know where those doctors who say "under 200" are coming from. They come from the same school of thought as the social worker who observed that the less you do, the better the outcome. They've been around long enough to know the dangers of aggressive treatment. I respect that. And I'd bet those same docs aren't dogmatic about what they advise - they lay things out and let the patient figure out what's right for them. To me, that's good medicine. I've seen to many "top doctors" do stupid things - things that hurt, rather than help their patients. I've seen that the average doctor will refuse to contradict the opinion of "top doctors". Finding "the right doctor" is like finding a needle in the haystack - more often than not you don't wind up with the right doctor - you wind up with one that's just "good enough" (even when you think you have a good doctor). I've seen bad doctors over and over and over. Bad doctors are the rule, not the exception. It's one of those "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me" scenarios. I now think for myself and on major stuff I stop and consider their recommendation and see if it's right for me. Your tin foil hat mom is actually close to the truth. Vaccines are one of the leading theories for the dramatic rise of autism. However sensible folk aren't against vaccines all together - instead they want to tweak the timing of vaccines. Some vaccines can be given a little later, when the child's body is a bit more mature and that delay means there's far less side effects. Case and point - I went to military doctors my entire life. When I was a teen it came out that a certain vaccine could be dangerous if given to children too early. My mom looked at my vaccine record and saw that military doctors knew (or suspected) the danger 10+ years before the general public and had delayed giving me that particular vaccine. That's not tin foil hat - it's prudent medicine. Of course.

Getting second opinions from people at the same institution is generally a bad idea. For second and third opinions it's best to go to a doctor who is completely unconnected to the original doctor. I've seen it in action - if they know and respect the other doctor they won't contradict the diagnosis - even when it's wrong.

Ah... You should have heard the discussion of hormones in animal feed that my sisters had... One is a scientist with a Ph.D. in animal nutrition. The other had a daughter go into puberty at the age of 9 because the artificial hormones in the meat she was serving her kids. When she cut out things like Purdue chicken her daughter went back to normal for a girl of her age. Or ask yourself where the epidemic of autism is coming from... I'd almost put money on it being caused by something that scientists say isn't known to be harmful. At the same time I completely respect science. But science has practical limits and sometimes it takes a while for scientists to see the full picture.

Personally, yes, I'd wait. The issue is that the study can't be conclusive 'cause it can't tell me what the drug side effects will be in 30, 40 or 50 years - it will always inherently be an incomplete study. So if they give me a range - I'll pick the edge of the range that keeps me off drugs the longest. And yes, I'll continue to point out what's missing from the studies. What they're not saying. What they can't promise you. And what the backroom, big-money antics might be that are influencing the recommendations. That's not tin foil hat - that's just observation. One of the principles of science is that you understand the assumptions that go into your conclusions - that's really all I'm doing. I didn't even go into my brother-in-law's case... He was diagnosed bipolar a while after my sister married him and they put him on some powerful drugs that never quite worked properly. Then at one point he and my sister sat me down to tell me he was "bisexual". To me that sorta explained his bipolar issues - he wasn't at peace with who he was and the internal turmoil was causing him big problems psychologically. Rather than dealing with the underlying issue (his homosexuality) they gave it the fashionable diagnosis of the day and tried to medicate the problem away. Then, after years of powerful drugs he got diagnosed with Parkinson's. Conveniently Parkinson's is one of those illnesses that you can't prove with a lab test. Personally I think what they interpreted as Parkinsons were the effects of the meds he had been taking for years. Then they started giving him more meds to deal with the side effects of his Parkinson's meds. He takes something like 30 pills a day now and is a complete basket case. Honestly I think he'd be living a healthy happy productive life if he had just come out all those years ago and lived his life as an openly gay man. It's really pretty sad. I know that's all speculation - but try and prove me wrong. I keep seeing bad things happen (medically) to people who aren't at peace with who they are. It's not pharma related but one of my bf's best friends died of breast cancer after being in a rather hostile corporate environment. On so many levels your inner chi is incredibly important. People who are at peace with themselves tend to die of rather ordinary and boring things... Moderation and inner peace... I'll take that over aggressive medication any day... And if I die a little early - so be it - I had a good life.

Let's see... One of the top neurologists in the world (the chair of neurology at MSKCC) insisted I had a brain tumor when it was a scar. Even _after_ two biopsies both said it was just scar tissue. She literally discounted the results of 2 biopsies that were done by one of the top neurosurgeons in the world (the chief of neurosurgery at MSKCC). The second biopsy was incredibly aggressive - you can still feel the hole in my head from it nearly a decade later. After all that, I've earned the right to be skeptical of doctors (not to mention seeing a lover die in part because of overly-aggressive treatment). I even asked her whether the "growth" she was seeing was due to MRI technology showing more and more detail over the years. She was wrong, the radiologist and public university-educated neurologist were right. My hunch about MRI technology improvements looking like growth were right as well. God gave me a brain - I intend to use it and not just accept what I'm told. You should never do something serious health-related without getting a second and possibly third opinion. Doctors are often wrong and in an era of drug reps giving free meals and vacations to doctors that prescribe and malpractice insurance companies telling doctors they won't get sued for doing too much - only for doing too little - you really do need to question your doctor's advice - especially on the big stuff like "take these pills for the next 50 years".

look at what i've said... it's hardly tin foil hat wearing sorta stuff... i say people should go on meds when they need them. you're 200/350/500+ question is exactly where the debate should be. thing is, meds from day 1 no matter what your t-cell count is, seems to be where policy is going. that scares the shit out of me. and now with PrEP they're trying to give meds to people who aren't even poz. what happened to "first, do no harm"? i mean PrEP completely violates that principle. these aren't asprin they're telling guys to take (hell, even asprin can be dangerous)... to answer your question if it were me, i'd take meds starting when my t-cell count consistently dropped below 500, but before it consistently got down to 350. but that would be after i saw how things stabilized - from what i've heard things bounce around a bit the first 6 to 12 months. and when i would go on meds i'd take as few meds as possible, and go for the mildest ones that work on whatever strain i had. i wouldn't shoot for absolute zero viral load - i'd be happy enough with "détente" - just enough meds so my t-cells stay good and things are generally in balance. if i'm a bit above detectable that would be fine with me (though i'd do more research to make sure that's not a bad choice). overly aggressive medicine isn't something that's theoretical for me. for 22 years i was told i had a brain tumor and doctors had me on meds to stop seizures that were supposedly caused by the tumor. the meds fucked with my gums pretty badly - still have problems in that respect. the doctors did very dangerous biopsies to figure out the type of tumor but refused to believe the results of the biopsies - that it was just scar tissue. i don't have a brain tumor - never did. and i don't have seizures - never did. i have a scar that was caused when i fell and hit my head on concrete steps when i was a kid in summer camp. and i have vasovagal reactions to things - pretty simple blackouts. it was all quite clear when you look at the records but i was essentially lied to by doctors for years and years - and they were some of the top doctors in their field - some of them were quite senior at memorial sloan kettering. i knew the MSKCC doctors were full of shit - i knew my body. but it took me years before i could find doctors who were willing to go against the MSKCC diagnosis. it goes further... when my lover died of aids in '95 his social worker said "you know, his doctor is really well respected and he's at all the conferences giving papers, etc. but a lot of his patients die whereas the doctors who are less well known and aren't as aggressive in their treatments - their patients tend to live". those experiences, and what i've seen of the pharmaceutical marketing business scares the shit out of me when i see doctors treat aggressively. there are certain forms of cancer where aggressive treatment is called for - but beyond that the less weird shit you put in your body, the better... [i'm not big on recreational drug use either...] the other thing is that i had to deal with my own mortality pretty young. they told me i had a brain tumor when i was 18. the next few years were an emotional roller coaster but as the years went on i became less afraid of death. in that whole process i learned to focus on the quality of life rather than the quantity of life. it's not about how long i live. it's about accomplishing something and enjoying the journey - no matter how long or short that journey is. treating people aggressively is usually focused on the quantity of life, not the quality of life - it's the wrong objective. and as wrong objectives often do, i predict it will backfire and the people who treated their hiv aggressively will live shorter lives as the drug side effects start damaging their bodies. i came to peace with "my brain tumor" and when i see poz guys, the ones i respect the most are the ones who've come to peace with their hiv. hiv doesn't define them, they're not consumed with it, and they're not trying to eradicate every trace of it from their bodies. they may even embrace it. their lives are about other things - they just go on living, they don't ignore their medical needs, but they're ok with a moderate approach to things. what i'm advocating isn't hardly in the category of tin foil hat - it's about finding a middle road - everything in moderation... but you have to be at peace with things to be ok with that sort of approach. i understand how some people just aren't in that mindset. i saw it in my boyfriend that died. being poz destroyed him emotionally to the point where he'd take toxic doses of herbal remedies. i had to lock all of the pills he bought at the health food store away in a cabinet - they were hurting him. he never did come to peace with being poz and i think it was a big reason why he didn't survive. he wanted the aggressive treatment - but that aggressive treatment killed him. if he could have just been at peace with things and taken things more slowly and calmly he might still be alive - it was only a year later when ARVs came onto the scene... but slowly and calmly just seems wrong when you're in the middle of what you think is a crisis - often it's only later that you understand it was the right approach.

@GermanFucker & Tony... You're both ignoring the effect of the pharma industry on the research and discounting the long-term side effects 20, 40+ years from now. I mean doctors put people on meds before they even know whether the person is genetically able to suppress HIV. What pharma affiliations do the researchers of those studies have? Do you know? It makes a huge difference. Seriously... Tony I know you shoot for super undetectable. For you that's an informed choice (and ironically from what you told me I'm the one that got you interested in being super undetectable), but it's one thing to make a decision like that for yourself. It's another one for it to become general medical policy (for the reasons I've stated above).

Related to the cost of meds - remember that at some point the drug companies will lose their patent on the current ARVs. I'm sure they'll come out with new and better ones, but at that point a generation all the current ones (which seem to be pretty decent) will become FAR less expensive. I'm sure doctors will start prescribing the cheap ones to people with minimal or no insurance and the new expensive ones will just be for the people with good health insurance. So at some point being poz will be far less costly than it is currently.

Here are pics of Antonio topping... And a close up of his monster thick dick marking it's territory...

Hey boy... I'll be there in late March.

I'm not going to be able to go this year and I have a (larger) corner King-size room booked. Does anyone want to take over the reservation?

My goal is to get more guys to have the same realization

I'd just say the bottom was 'riding' my dick...

All I can say is 5 out of the 6 status options encourage people to be open and honest about their status. But then there's the one for the people who don't want to share their status (for whatever reason).

Funny, people on BBRT (which uses "Ask Me") say "Ask Me" = poz. In contrast, DADT = "I don't want to talk about it" or "It's none of your business". It's not saying anything about whether your poz or neg. That said, "assume everyone is poz" is a good mantra when it comes to bareback sex. The fact that "Ask Me" or DADT may be interpreted as poz is not a bad thing. Given the discussion on this site, HIV status is very relevant. Because no one ever does. If you want to state your status you can either be up front about it or mention it privately. "Ask Me" puts a false veneer on the issue, and if there's one thing I don't like is false veneers.

I hear you, but 1) I don't think I can make it mandatory, 2) blank statuses are boring, an 3) I've never liked "Ask Me" - 'cause it's rare that people actually do ask - far more people just don't ask and don't tell...

The idea behind Don't Ask, Don't Tell (besides the political pun) is that a lot of barebackers don't want to discuss their status or think about the risk they're taking or the risk their fuck buddy is taking. If someone isn't telling their status, that's more or less where they're coming from. They have to be general categories - not freeform dates. You can put the date in one of the other profile fields.

Just wanted to let people know I've updated the choices for HIV status for profiles... The new choices are: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Poz, Not On Meds Poz, On Meds Neg, Recently Tested Not Sure, Probably Neg Not Sure, Probably Poz Notice neg only applies if you're recently tested - otherwise, Not Sure - Probably Neg would be the best choice. I've also separated poz guys based on whether they're on meds or not. If you don't want to say whether you're on meds - then Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the best answer for you. The statuses you selected in the past haven't changed. So take a moment and go into your profile and pick one of the new HIV statuses to let other guys know more about you...

Probably. BMP is Windows-specific. JPEG and PNG are cross-platform file formats and more likely to work.

What's done is done. Stop feeling guilty and make the best of your current situation. Sounds like you want to be a slut - so be a slut! You're already paid to ride the ride - go ahead and ride it...

I've been wanting a slave/houseboy for a while now. In a month or two we'll be moving and I'll finally have the space to have a slave. The concerns about what the slave does when his master is done with him (or dies) is a concern, but not so much in my case... I'd have the slave work for me and from that work he'd have a half-way decent resume when he's no longer my slave. The trick is health insurance... The slave would need it and I'd need two employees before the cost of health insurance gets reasonable. So the OP isn't crazy - it can work - but it's best to find a master who is self-employed to keep the resume active. Then there's also the immigration issue...

Thanks guys, but I'm sorta suspending the search until approx. February... Too much going on in my life until then.

Have any of you bottoms tried advertising in the straight venues (like the straight part of Craigslist) - basically saying "when you can't find a woman and just need a hole... An ass is an ass..." Wonder if you could attract straight guys that way...

Let me know if you want my load...