Has anyone read Peter Duesberg, Robert Wilmer or Kerry Mullins or seen their videos

[nanana]

Since this community doesn’t like safe sex but likes safe brain I’ll just let it be a question… happy safe-brain but not safe-ass Friday!

Especially to the homosexual American Whores a la Lana Del Rey

[viking8x6]

You forgot Linus Pauling.

 

Personally, I prefer Ted Goertzel.

 

And in answer to your question: There's a whole topic on that, from ten years ago, so yes, "anyone" has.

 

[BootmanLA]

On 5/3/2024 at 7:43 PM, nanana said:

Since this community doesn’t like safe sex but likes safe brain

I'd like to point out that "safe sex", by itself, is a misnomer; even strictly in the context of HIV, the only "safe sex" is masturbation, and if you go beyond HIV, even masturbation isn't 100% guaranteed safe (you can shoot cum in your eye and harm your vision, if only temporarily; you can masturbate so roughly you damage some of the tissues in your cock; and so forth).

"Safer sex" - the designation preferred by health advocates - for years meant using a condom, every time, no matter what, even if one also sero-sorted and even if two people were monogamous after being each other's first everything. Anything less than that kind of "we've only ever been with each other, for our entire lives", even with condoms, meant some other STI's could still be transmitted, making them technically not 100% safe. Safer, yes. Anything without condoms was automatically demoted to "not safer sex".

Now we have PrEP, which (when used correctly) is at least as effective as condoms (when used correctly). So even as some advocates have failed to update their recommendations, the reality is that sex without condoms is NOT NECESSARILY "not safer sex".

[PozBearWI]

While there is no way for me to know for sure, it appears that PrEP is being poorly managed.  I observe a lot of profiles which show "on PrEP" but last test was years ago.  

[BootmanLA]

On 5/6/2024 at 10:10 AM, PozBearWI said:

While there is no way for me to know for sure, it appears that PrEP is being poorly managed.  I observe a lot of profiles which show "on PrEP" but last test was years ago.  

I agree with that - both that we can't know for sure, but it appears that way. I say "can't know for sure" because I know a lot of people who never update their profiles. And it's clear on some sites, which require a birthdate to sign up and then show the person's calculated age. I see profiles that say something like "47, 6', 200 lbs," but the calculated age thing shows they're actually now 55 - they just have never read their own profile closely enough to realize it needs updating.

That could be the case with "last tested" info - again, if there's nothing to prompt you to update it, it could go unchanged for years even if, in fact, you're routinely tested.

I make a point of reviewing/updating my profiles on sites every year on my birthday, even on ones where my age is not written in, because it's as good a trigger to "update" as anything else might be. 

[PozBearWI]

Yes I am a fan of periodic profile review and update as well; check on BD (and the damned staggering number it has become).