wood

yes, and no, a majority of researchers are also MD's, so yes they are, but even the ones who are not need to have human testing signed off on by MD's. Things are much different in a crisis, and in the height of the AIDS crisis, in some cases more drastic measures should have been taken. That being said, the crisis is in a much different stage right now. The end argument you are trying to make is something like the argument for assisted suicide, if there is informed consent, and the patient makes the end decision, its okay. The problem with that is the law says differently. Also in the case of random infection with a specific strain, there are way too many variables with such a study, it would never be taken seriously. And lets remember to be taken seriously and to contribute to medicine is the end goal of all researchers MD's or not. They have to follow the scientific method exactly, so the research can be proven. Without that they are laughed out of town, and will likely never publish again.

Because it goes directly against the hippocratic oath. A doctor who did anything close to that would be stripped of his license almost instantly. Also while con-infection is considered to be pretty rare, being infected with a mild strain is little protection against some other more virulent strains. A friend of mine is currently getting his MD/PHD, and is directly involved with HIV vaccine trials. Its kind of morbid, but he said he cant even count the number of monkeys he has killed over the years during his research. The reason this article is even being published is because so many vaccine trials never even come close to making it to the human stage. This occurs simply because what works in theory often kills the subject (monkey, human) almost outright. Based on how often HIV mutates I think a once and done HIV vaccine is pretty far off. What I do think may occur in a shorter time period is something more like the flu vaccine. Its never 100% effective, but you yearly updates and it then further protects you from newer strains of the virus. Remember, we still dont have vaccine's for many virus's, herpes, epstein-barr, coronavirus, rhinovirus, etc, etc. While some of those just cause discomfort, just like HIV many of them stay dormat in the bosy for years, and all of their effects are not known either. The field of virology is still fairly new, and it may be a long time before we know how to control these different pathogens.

That's not really true. Many corporate jobs have what amounts to "morality clauses" in their contracts, they find out, you get canned, and or never promoted again in any way. Many companies dont want the publicity of having a former porn star on their staff. That being said people who work as independant contractors, etc are usually okay. Porn isn't like stripping at a strip club. I know a few former female strippers who used that money to go to med school, and get graduate degrees, and one girl got a PHD. Porn also doesn't pay that well, so if you want to do it for fun thats fine, but most will not gain much monetarily from it.

I read the article on huffpo and it seemed like he was gay for pay in terms of porn. It would be really curious to find out how he got infected. I know his GF got infected, so they likely have the same strain, but it would be interesting to see if he got if from her or vice versa

Unfortunatly its a lot more complicated than that. HIV is a complicated virus, and many people have been working on it for a lomng time, and thus far it has eluded almost all success. I have faith that as computing power, and genetic engineering improves we will one day get a vaccine, but in the mean time, we can just wait.

sexuality is on a continuum, some people are more homosexual, some are much more hetrosexual. Even getting away from social issues regarding sexuality there are many people who just have no desire to do anything sexually with someone different from what they are. Even taking into account bisexual people, people of any form of bi or homosexuality are still the minority. Ironically this is from a catholic site, so ignore the "personal choice" and "crisis zone" parts, but the curve IMO is pretty accurate. So what does this mean for "straight guys" well it means they are more towards the middle of the curve. For the poster I quoted, it probably means he is guy with a fairly high sex drive and is willing to experiment. Your roommate is probably closer to the middle of the distribution curve. In addition to studying sexuality in college, I've had very frank conversations and interviews with many "straight" men. While some admit they have or would try something with someone of the same sex, its not a priority and their primary attraction is to females. That being said the other major issue with all research on sexuality from Kinsey onward is that is is very difficult to take out the variable of social pressure, mores and folkways. Even in closed controlled enviroments it is hard to get clear truthful answers about a persons true desire. Something else that is very interesting about human sexuality is how it is variable among the sexes. The sexuality of males is in general "fixed" at a certain age, usually about 5 years after the end of puberty. At that point the male sexuality does not change. While some people may choose to "come out" at a later time, research shows they almost always identify as homosexual at an earlier age. Ironically it is almost exactly the opposite for females. Female sexuality is actually quite fluid. It is entirely possible for fully mature woman in almost any stage of their life to change to a different sexuality. That being said, that is not a conscience decision. One last thing that I found really interesting that I read in a study is about porn. In summery it said that arousal levels in porn were not always tied to sexuality, and that it was entirely possible for straight men to be aroused by gay porn, and the opposite. The biggest arousal for men regardless of the sexuality of the person or the type of porn was almost always the close up action shot of a penis is a vagina or ass. Food for thought.

hey could one of the moderators do this? Thanks guys.

I think that one thing people are missing here is that truvada for PrEP was fully approved by the FDA for that usage. That alone is not an easy task to achieve. The system isnt perfect, but the drug approval process, and even approving an existing drug for a different use is quite complicated, and the burden of proof is always on the drug maker. If it doesn't work, and isn't safe to do so it doesn't get approved. A perfect example is adderall's ussage as a diet aid. A doctor could in theory perscribe it for diet purposes but it is not approved for that simply because there was way too many issues from addiction to heart problems that can result from its use. Truvada for PrEP isnt perfect, but it is an effective way to help control the spread of HIV. This is not a magic pill that will eliminate risk, but another tool to reduce it.

I agree with the second part you are saying here, but as rawTOP was saying about the first part, garbage in garbage out. I fully understand trying to figure out a way to quantify risk, but its really not that easy. Statistics can be manipulated in anyway you like, and im sure you know that. One way you did was taking the 3% transmission risk for receptive sex, and working down from there. HIV is VERY different to each person. One person may get infected during their first unprotected sexual encounter even without ejaculation with a midly virulent partner, and another person and go for years taking loads from guys with high viral loads. PrEP throws another variable into the loop because we really only have one study on it so far. What we do know is that if taken properly it is very effective. We also know that in the study many did not take it effectively and many of the statistics in the final report were based on that. That being said Im not trying to be naive about PrEP, and pretending its perfect, but I think it represents a step in the right direction.

Its probably psychosomatic, or you didnt get off or have as much sex when you were sick, and now you want more.

Well obviously even with PrEP, you have an increased risk, but yeah the advantage of PrEP is that you still get a significant amount of protection from it even with exposure. Now obviously that is a lot of potential exposure, but if some of the guys were already on medication, that further lowers your risk. I doubt many were neg, but obviously there is no risk from them. Lets look at it this way, your risk of contracting HIV from an infected source during receptive anal sex is .03-3% chance. Considering some were neg, some were undetectable, and you were on PrEP which significantly reduces your risk, Id venture that during your entire week long session you have about a 1-2% chance of converting, although I would more than likely bet you have some other STD now. That being said if you want to stay neg make sure you keep taking your meds at exactly the same time daily.

can you change my username to flyboy? Thanks.

There have always been several types of test. The most common type is antibody testing, namely ELISA or western blot testing. Both have the downside that your boy needs to develop antibodies for these to work, and that can take months to happen. The second type of testing is NAT or nucleic acid testing. In effect this is a viral load test done on someone of an unknown HIV status. The upside of this test is that it is very accurate, and it also shortens the window period down to about 20 days. The downside to this test is that it is quite expensive. Also there is no "quick" version of this test, as labs have to be sent out. The clinic I go to does a rapid blood based antibody test with all HIV testing, and also has an option for NAT testing where you will hear back in 5 days, letting you know if you can reduce your window period to the 20 days prior. There is NO test right now that will let you know within 5 days of exposure if you are HIV positive, and I am doubtful there will be anytime soon, The virus still has to take hold and replicate in the person, and that take time. The most common sign people will have within 2 weeks after exposure is seroconversion or "fuck flu" where many people get quite sick.

masmountainman, you make some really good points in regards to PrEP, and I fully respect your opinion on the matter. That being said, that "article" is terrible in every way from how it is written to the "facts" they are trying to prove. they are simply playing with statistics to make it look like it doesnt work. What they are trying to do is say (falsely) is that it "only reduces your risk 2.8% and it costs 500k a year. The fact still stands that PrEP only reduces risk, it does not eliminate it. So if you are the guy out there getting bred by anyone all the time, you almost certainly will end up poz, PrEP or not. However, if you have a lower constant risk level, IE in a relationship, or something along those lines, it is an effective tool to help prevent infection. from http://www.thebodypro.com/content/69650/truvadas-efficacy-as-prep-reaffirmed.html Heres article explaining the effectiveness of PrEP and how effectiveness dropped when it wasnt taken correctly. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120913105005.htm Heres the long and short of it. 1) PrEP still has to be taken correctly to convey full effectiveness, and even at that it is not 100% 2) People who participate in extremely risky behavior or increase their level of risky behavior will likely still become poz. 3) There can be major side effects to PrEP. 4) Taken correctly it can offer a significant reduction in the chance of contracting HIV. The fact that PrEP works should not really be a surprise to anyone. People who go on PEP for exposure have a significant reduction in the chance of infection, and PrEP is in effect doing the same thing in advance. IMO, far from going away, I think that until there is a cure, or vaccine we will see increased PrEP options, and possibly tailor made PrEP options, with lower doses of medication, but possibly more medication combos.

This is the same thing i posted on another similar topic. Not to be a downer, but i suggest you REALLY make sure you are ready for a lifetime of doctor visits and daily meds, cause thats what HIV is, at its best, at worst you die. At 22, alot of people are pretty stupid and make dumb mistakes, I know I did. That being said I'm very glad I never made one I have to live with forever. Also PrEP may be a good option for you. You can still have raw sex, but it will significantly reduce your chance of HIV infection. lastly on one other note, most relationships that start at the age of 22 or so dont last, so while your current partner may want it, your next may not, or you may fall in love with a neg guy who doesnt want a relationship with you because you are poz. Think about it before you make a lifelong commitment.

There are three main reasons for me. The first being that I tend to be most attracted to black and latin men, both of which have substantially higher rates of HIV infection than other groups. The second was that for me I needed the mental relief of knowing i had an additional layer of protection. One of my biggest fears has always been the guy that says he's neg, but really has no clue, and has a sky high viral load. I have always been very conscientious about regular testing, etc, but i know way too many people who will only go once a year, if that. Undetectable guys ive almost always been okay with because they know whats going on, but many people don't. the third is simply that I am versatile, I also enjoy getting fucked, and that is higher risk activity. And ironically as many have noted before in here, tons of "safe only" tops will try to get in you even for a bit raw, and as we all know there is risk with that too. If side effects occur, I would go off it, but for now its the right option for me.

That sounds depressing as hell. Im sorry give me the scent, feel, imperfection, sound, etc of a real man anyway. Sex isnt supposed to be perfect IMO, its suppose to be an intimate act between people.

I still think San Fran and NYC in the late 70's take the cake. I know a few older gay men who were around for it, and they sex anywhere was a place for sex. You also have to remember that was the time before security camera's were everywhere, so a dark alley, or deserted place was just that, not a potential trap. Cities especially in the US were also much different then, they were dirty, grimy, and sometimes scary. Because of that a lot of things went on that would land you in jail today, including public sex. Bathhouses were also much more common, so there was always a place to go for guaranteed sex. However all that being said, heres a little food for thought. Today people can hook up almost anytime they want via the internet. Before you would actually have to go out and seek people out, Now, sex is your phone/tablet/laptop away. It may not be as public, but seeing the stat that 50% of people who use hookup apps admit to bareback sex with those partners I wonder how far off from the 70's we actually are.

Not to be a downer, but i suggest you REALLY make sure you are ready for a lifetime of doctor visits and daily meds, cause thats what HIV is, at its best, at worst you die. At 19, alot of people are pretty stupid and make dumb mistakes, I know I did. That being said I'm very glad I never made one I have to live with forever. Also PrEP may be a good option for you. You can still have raw sex, but it will significantly reduce your chance of HIV infection.

Unlike a lot of the guys in here, I usually dont have a ton of sex, dont visit bathhouses, and still use condoms quite often. When I bareback I almost always top, and ask about status. Despite these measures, like some of the other guys on here I recently decided to go on PrEP, and heres why. While PrEP isnt foolproof it is one of the best measures that can be taken today to prevent HIV infection. Like a few people on here I was initially wary of taking a heavy medication daily when I have no direct need for it. However looking into it further, I found the cost/benefit to be in my favor. I am not in anyway a bug chaser, and do not want HIV, or any STD, but am aware that sometimes they do occur. PrEP allows me to be significantly less worried about normal sexual activity. This last weekend for example I was having sex with a friend who was in from another city, He was fucking me when the condom broke. While he is neg and recently tested, I still find it hard to go off of anyones word. With PrEP I am significantly less worried about that kind of situation. That alone is enough of a reason for me to do it. On that same note, I also have a friend who was either either recently stealthed or somehow caught HIV through unconventional means. He didnt top or bottom raw with randoms or use IV drugs, but he still caught HIV. He then unknowingly gave it to his BF. He is 27, his BF is 23, and they will both be on meds the rest of their lives. If I can prevent that for myself by taking proactive measures now, I decided that I needed to do that. As far as side effects go, I have not noticed a thing, and taking it at the same time hasnt been an issue for me. My advice for anyone who is neg and wants to at least try and stay that was is to go to your doctor and get on PrEP. Its not for everyone, but for me it was the way to go.

@pisstopper, Really great to hear from an actual physician in here. Please keep the responses coming. One question I had is what are your personal thought on PrEP, and would you go on it yourself as someone who is a medical professional and also engages in risky behavior.

You are kind of asking multiple questions here. 1) do poz bottoms try to infect neg tops. 2) do they lie about it. For the first one I would say that they do not purposely try to infect neg tops. Its much more difficult than a top infecting a bottom, and most bottoms I have know and fucked, really just want fucked, and many want fucked raw. Unlike a poz top fucking a neg bottom, and wanting to convert them, I dont think its that common to do it in reverse. Yes, I have had more than a few bottoms lie to me about their status, and have later caught them in their lies. IMO the ones that lied really just liked me and wanted me to fuck them so they thought I wouldn't do it if they said they were poz. I have found that the bottoms who really want fucked will go to a lot of measures to get fucked, including lying.

Well said. I dont mean to knock the OP, but why do you want to be proud to have an incurable disease? How many people do you know that are proud to have cancer, or parkinsons, or alzheimer's for that matter? It makes NO logical sense to be proud of something that no one really wants, let alone something that can kill you. the best analogy I can make would be someone saying they are proud to have got lung cancer from smoking. Yes, they may have really enjoyed the cigarettes along the way, but does that mean they really want cancer? Id say they dont.

This is a good example about what bothers me when people say things like being poz sets you free. Free from what? disease and possible death? absolutely not. A lifetime of care free sex? Nope, because some people wont want to mess with a poz guy, and or if you dont stick to a drug regimine you likely become very sick and die. Free from commitment? nope, you are commited to doctors and drugs if you want to live. Sorry if you are looking at a whollistic view, there is no way that any rational person can say that being poz sets you free.

I would go on it asap if I were you. The statisitcs say that the vast majority of people are not immune or resistant, so while you may have got lucky in the past, I dont see any reason not to be proactive in the future.