KingBAD said:

aardvark15 said:

You ain't kidding. For birth control they just said don't have sex, to a bunch a horny teenagers

i'll bet you could never use a public restroom

I usually used the stalls. Some people got creeped out if I was around

An important thread.

I was tested regularly in the days of sewing my oats and a few times after I'd reined it all in... just to be sure. I've been married now for 16 1/2 years, and I'm confident in our monogamy with no otherwise risky behaviour, so I don't currently test. My marriage is rather unconventional, though: My wife is straight, but besides her, I'm historically almost exclusively attracted to other males. Given that, I totally respect the fact that she tests occasionally under her doctor's wishes. (Incidentally, I have utter respect for her doctor.)

Anyway, I've had friends and several family members succumb to AIDS... even back in my promiscuous days. Honestly? I was only ever mindful of their illnesses and/or deaths after a given tryst. I think that for me, like many HIV- people, I suspect, becoming poz was so abstract, so subconsciously assigned to "other" folk, so vague a possibility vis-a-vis the very real and evident pleasure right in front of me at a given moment, that the risk did little to curb my activity. This was all the more true because I had somewhat straightforward sexual tastes and picky standards around potential partners amid a much kinkier cohort, who'd have nailed anything that moved. I'd thus rationalized the ridiculous shit I was doing as comparatively "safe."

At a certain point all the screwing just struck me as old, unfulfilling, not compatible with the man I wanted to be. The fact it could leave me with potentially deadly infections was frankly little more than insult to injury.

Where I'm going with all this: I think HIV/AIDS has gradually lost its spookiness. Treatments have been so successful toward stifling viral loads and opportunistic illnesses -- and new infections have been so concentrated in particular sub-groups (or so we assume) -- that the pandemic no longer scares us. This was generally the attitude when I was still out and about, and my guess is it's only gotten more cavalier in the time I've been out of the hookup scene. I'm glad this erosion of fear comes along with shrinking stigma placed on those who are HIV+, but it also comes along with a resurgence in risky behaviours.

I agree folk should regularly review their risk and stay abreast of their status.

[Edited 7/12/12 3:56am]

MacDaddy said:

My viral load is currently undetectable due to the treatment and I'm actually healthier than I've ever been.

That's good to hear.

A person knowing their HIV status early on can make all the difference in the world. With the HIV med's they have now, people can live for decades with the virus. I'm sure that within the next 10 to 15 years there's going to be a major break thru in the treatment of HIV.

I was more or less relieved after I heard my results were positive. The possibility of contracting the virus was probably scarier than actually being tested positive.

I heard that. Waiting for the results is stressful. The last time i tested, i made myself sick thinking about the what ifs. Its better to know than to not know though.

In this day and age everyone who’s sexually active should get tested for HIV at least twice per year.

[Edited 7/11/12 0:49am]

I Agree. I've been celibate for about 3 years but once i become sexually active again, im getting tested and she's getting tested. No test, no sex.

Lammastide said:

An important thread.

I was tested regularly in the days of sewing my oats and a few times after I'd reined it all in... just to be sure. I've been married now for 16 1/2 years, and I'm confident in our monogamy with no otherwise risky behaviour, so I don't currently test. My marriage is rather unconventional, though: My wife is straight, but besides her, I'm historically almost exclusively attracted to other males. Given that, I totally respect the fact that she tests occasionally under her doctor's wishes. (Incidentally, I have utter respect for her doctor.)

Anyway, I've had friends and several family members succumb to AIDS... even back in my promiscuous days. Honestly? I was only ever mindful of their illnesses and/or deaths after a given tryst. I think that for me, like many HIV- people, I suspect, becoming poz was so abstract, so subconsciously assigned to "other" folk, so vague a possibility vis-a-vis the very real and evident pleasure right in front of me at a given moment, that the risk did little to curb my activity. This was all the more true because I had somewhat straightforward sexual tastes and standards around potential partners amid a much kinkier cohort, who'd have nailed anything that moved. I'd thus rationalized the ridiculous shit I was doing as comparatively "safe."

At a certain point all the screwing just struck me as old, unfulfilling, not compatible with the man I wanted to be. The fact it could leave me with potentially deadly infections was frankly little more than insult to injury.

Where I'm going with all this: I think HIV/AIDS has gradually lost its spookiness. Treatments have been so successful toward stifling viral loads and opportunistic illnesses -- and new infections have been so concentrated in particular sub-groups (or so we assume) -- that the pandemic no longer scares us. This was generally the attitude when I was still out and about, and my guess is it's only gotten more cavalier in the time I've been out of the hookup scene. I'm glad this erosion of fear comes along with shrinking stigma placed on those who are HIV+, but it also comes along with a resurgence in risky behaviours.

I agree folk should regularly review their risk and stay abreast of their status.

[Edited 7/12/12 3:56am]

Interesting. I thought it was something that was inescapable and suffered mentally/emotionally because I thought there was no way to avoid it, protection or not. I am thankful to have made it all these years and remain negative.

I'm negative. I used to be tested every year when I was more sexually active. If I'm in dry spells, I don't get tested because there's no need to. No partners means no infection and I've never done anal anyway, neither giving, nor receiving. I'm strictly oral, but as I said before, I used to be checked when I was more active.

As for knowing people living with AIDS, I know a few. As for knowing people who have died of AIDS, I've known lots. That's why I'm usually at home now on Friday and Saturday nights instead of at someone's house party. Most of my friends that I used to party with have died.

vainandy said:

I'm negative. I used to be tested every year when I was more sexually active. If I'm in dry spells, I don't get tested because there's no need to. No partners means no infection and I've never done anal anyway, neither giving, nor receiving. I'm strictly oral, but as I said before, I used to be checked when I was more active.

As for knowing people living with AIDS, I know a few. As for knowing people who have died of AIDS, I've known lots. That's why I'm usually at home now on Friday and Saturday nights instead of at someone's house party. Most of my friends that I used to party with have died.

So...technically then...(since BJs don't "count")...you're a virgin?

PurpleJedi said:

vainandy said:

I'm negative. I used to be tested every year when I was more sexually active. If I'm in dry spells, I don't get tested because there's no need to. No partners means no infection and I've never done anal anyway, neither giving, nor receiving. I'm strictly oral, but as I said before, I used to be checked when I was more active.

As for knowing people living with AIDS, I know a few. As for knowing people who have died of AIDS, I've known lots. That's why I'm usually at home now on Friday and Saturday nights instead of at someone's house party. Most of my friends that I used to party with have died.

So...technically then...(since BJs don't "count")...you're a virgin?

Well, I guess I would be considered a gay virgin. I've never thought about it that way before. Who would have ever thought that I, of all people, would be pure as the driven snow.

I had sex with a woman or two back in my closet years if that counts.

vainandy said:

PurpleJedi said:

So...technically then...(since BJs don't "count")...you're a virgin?

Well, I guess I would be considered a gay virgin. I've never thought about it that way before. Who would have ever thought that I, of all people, would be pure as the driven snow.

I had sex with a woman or two back in my closet years if that counts.

No, you did not just suggest that sex with women doesn't count.

Genesia said:

vainandy said:

Well, I guess I would be considered a gay virgin. I've never thought about it that way before. Who would have ever thought that I, of all people, would be pure as the driven snow.

I had sex with a woman or two back in my closet years if that counts.

No, you did not just suggest that sex with women doesn't count.

Oh, I count it. I've never denied it. Even if I did have to stare at a great big ole hairy dick in a porno flick to get the erection while going through with it.

vainandy said:

Genesia said:

No, you did not just suggest that sex with women doesn't count.

Oh, I count it. I've never denied it. Even if I did have to stare at a great big ole hairy dick in a porno flick to get the erection while going through with it.

Well, thank goodness that nightmare is over!

Last tested in October 2011. Negative.

vainandy said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Lammastide said:

An important thread.

I was tested regularly in the days of sewing my oats and a few times after I'd reined it all in... just to be sure. I've been married now for 16 1/2 years, and I'm confident in our monogamy with no otherwise risky behaviour, so I don't currently test. My marriage is rather unconventional, though: My wife is straight, but besides her, I'm historically almost exclusively attracted to other males. Given that, I totally respect the fact that she tests occasionally under her doctor's wishes. (Incidentally, I have utter respect for her doctor.)

Anyway, I've had friends and several family members succumb to AIDS... even back in my promiscuous days. Honestly? I was only ever mindful of their illnesses and/or deaths after a given tryst. I think that for me, like many HIV- people, I suspect, becoming poz was so abstract, so subconsciously assigned to "other" folk, so vague a possibility vis-a-vis the very real and evident pleasure right in front of me at a given moment, that the risk did little to curb my activity. This was all the more true because I had somewhat straightforward sexual tastes and standards around potential partners amid a much kinkier cohort, who'd have nailed anything that moved. I'd thus rationalized the ridiculous shit I was doing as comparatively "safe."

At a certain point all the screwing just struck me as old, unfulfilling, not compatible with the man I wanted to be. The fact it could leave me with potentially deadly infections was frankly little more than insult to injury.

Where I'm going with all this: I think HIV/AIDS has gradually lost its spookiness. Treatments have been so successful toward stifling viral loads and opportunistic illnesses -- and new infections have been so concentrated in particular sub-groups (or so we assume) -- that the pandemic no longer scares us. This was generally the attitude when I was still out and about, and my guess is it's only gotten more cavalier in the time I've been out of the hookup scene. I'm glad this erosion of fear comes along with shrinking stigma placed on those who are HIV+, but it also comes along with a resurgence in risky behaviours.

I agree folk should regularly review their risk and stay abreast of their status.

[Edited 7/12/12 3:56am]

Interesting. I thought it was something that was inescapable and suffered mentally/emotionally because I thought there was no way to avoid it, protection or not. I am thankful to have made it all these years and remain negative.

I totally respect that there is different thought. I'm curious, though: At what point did you start to be a bit more relaxed about the threat? Or does it still haunt you as profoundly?

sunflower7 said:

I had no idea what was going on until she said "someone gave it to me and it's my duty to give it to someone else." She has full blown AIDS and now he has it too. This is not a joke. Some people really don't care [Edited 7/13/12 13:56pm]

Very true. I had a personal experience with someone knowing that they were HIV positive and not disclosing it. I met this person and we were going to have sex but something came up on my part, so we never hooked up. A few months later i find out that she was HIV positive, and knew she had been for a while. I was so angry that she was willing to put another persons health a risk. A person being HIV positive wouldn't necessarily stop me from being with them, i would use extra precautions though.

Anyways, I got another question for you guys:

What do you think are the origins of the HIV virus ?

There's a lot of conspiracy theories concerning the origins of HIV. Some people believe that the virus was engineered in a US laboratory as a means to population control of blacks, or that it was introduced to the population via the Hepatitis B experiments that they performed on gay men in the US in the 1970's. Also some people believe that the virus was accidentally transmitted to humans(in Africa) via the polio vaccine. As for the explosion of AIDS. Some people believe that in certain parts of the world, the Smallpox Vaccine contributed to it. They say that the Smallpox Vaccine Comprised peoples immune systems and as a result, some people with HIV developed full blown AIDS(after getting the Vaccine).

Me personally, i believe anythings possible. The US Government performed biomedical experiments on people from the 1930's to the 1970's,without telling them, (Tuskegee Experiment) so who knows.

Anyways, here's some interesting stuff about HIV and AIDS:

Quotes are From the CDC website.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/re.../index.htm

"The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.) Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggested that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s."

"We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid- to late 1970s. From 1979–1981 rare types of pneumonia, cancer, and other illnesses were being reported by doctors in Los Angeles and New York among a number of male patients who had sex with other men. These were conditions not usually found in people with healthy immune systems."In 1983, scientists discovered the virus that causes AIDS. The virus was at first named HTLV-III/LAV (human T-cell lymphotropic virus-type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus) by an international scientific committee. This name was later changed to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)."

On the different strains of the HIV virus.

Also from the CDC website.

HIV-1

"For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates. Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population when hunters became exposed to infected blood."

How HIV is NOT spread.

HIV cannot reproduce outside the human body. It is not spread by:

• "Air or water.
• Insects, including mosquitoes. Studies conducted by CDC researchers and others have shown no evidence of HIV transmission from insects.
• Saliva, tears, or sweat. There is no documented case of HIV being transmitted by spitting.
• Casual contact like shaking hands or sharing dishes.
• Closed-mouth or “social” kissing.

On HIV worldwide.

Info below is from the website amfar.com

http://www.amfar.org/Abou...Worldwide/

Statistics: Worldwide

• More than 34 million people now live with HIV/AIDS.
• 3.4 million of them are under the age of 15.
• In 2010, an estimated 2.7 million people were newly infected with HIV.
• 390,000 were under the age of 15.
• Every day more than 7,000 people contract HIV—nearly 300 every hour.
• In 2010, 1.8 million people died from AIDS.
• 250,000 of them were under the age of 15.
• Since the beginning of the epidemic, more than 60 million people have contracted HIV and nearly 30 million have died of HIV-related causes.

[Edited 7/13/12 18:58pm]

aardvark15 said:

Let's not forget that HIV spreads from any bodily fluid. A lot of people in poor countries get it from their drinking water

That's utter BS. Educate yourself.

Negative. It is a requirement that pregnant women are tested now, and I was tested last time when I was pregnant with my daughter (9 years ago). I was married and there was no cheating going on at that time. I have been celibate for the past 4 years and my husband and I have been divorced for a year, separated 2 years ago. He told me immediately when he cheated, and we never had sex again. At this point in time, I have no desire to "hook up" with anyone. I suppose one of these days I will, and when I do, I will be tested routinely.

I had a friend die from AIDS back in the early '90s. He was an incredible friend. Met him in college. I was working at a psych hospital and one of my patients reminded me of my friend and I asked the patient if they were related. He said, "No, but he's in my AIDS support group." Up to this point, I had no clue my friend had AIDS. I was angry that he hadn't told me and I called him up and explained what had happened and told him I was so pissed at him that he hadn't trusted me enough to tell me, hadn't trusted in my friendship enough. He apologized for not telling me, for how I found out, and said, "When you have this disease, you lose friends you've had for years. When you tell people you have AIDS, they treat you like a leper. I was afraid to tell you I had AIDS because I didn't want to lose your friendship." I understood and forgave him and we continued with our friendship until his death a year later. He developed pink eye (conjunctivitus) and his body just couldn't fight off the infection. He was a good friend, a good man, and I still think of him from time to time. I can still see him, hear his voice, hear his laugh. He got it from an ex girlfriend who had been cheating on him with everyone she could. He didn't know she was cheating until he was told he had HIV, which soon changed to AIDS. The girlfriend knew she had it, had been diagnosed with it a year earlier and never bothered to tell Mark (her live in boyfriend). It still pisses me off when I think about it because he didn't have to die.

(I love you Mark, and still miss you after all of these years. You were my best friend and you were the best.)

SUPRMAN said:

I confess that I avoided a test for years.

Just because I was so afraid, because I had unsafe sex before.

Fortunately, I grew up and had myself tested, and was very relieved to not have the virus.

I'm not having sex at the moment, however, I do hope to get in an intimitate relationship again one day. And I would want him to get himself tested, so we can have sex without a condom.

Now, this thread does make me think again. I like sex without a condom and would feel okay about that after we both had ourselves tested.

Not thinking about the possibility that boyfriend can cheat, unprotected, not tell me, and put me at risk.

That thought is enough to keep me out of any relationship for a while. I just don't want to spend my time wondering if the one I love can be trusted.

Life as a single is uncomplicated and drama free!

Virbritors don't pass on AIDS, so that's save and orgasm guaranteed.

I am in a very low risk group, so not so necessary anymore. I know soooooo many people who have died and know some who are positive.

Yall might think I'm an ass, but a family member recently tested positive (somebody I'm close to) and although I didn't express it to them, inside I was angry with them. I just feel like there is so much information out there, (and this person is generally no dummy) but they habitually exposed themselves within a high risk group--riding bareback. I wanted to scream when they told me they tested positive---because from the extreme behavior I witnessed, it was seriously inevitable. When they called me and told me, I was just pissed adn wanted to say "well what did you expect would happen" Now, on top of all that, they are not even faithful in taking the meds, having ups and downs just from dumb shit. I don't even want to hear any of the complaints about anything at this point from this individual.....I'm done.

sunflower7 said:

My friend tht works as an ER nurse ...postd this on her FB.: ~ , I was in the ER this morning and saw a couple arguing as they were brought into the hospital by ambulance. Each had bruises on their body. He is screaming at her using profanity saying she was his life, including how long they've been together and how she had killed him. She kept yelling back that she's been dead for 5 yearus now. They are yelling and screaming at each other about being dead. I had no idea what was going on until she said "someone gave it to me and it's my duty to give it to someone else." She has full blown AIDS and now he has it too. This is not a joke. Some people really don't care [Edited 7/13/12 13:56pm]

sunflower7 said:

My friend tht works as an ER nurse ...postd this on her FB.: ~ , I was in the ER this morning and saw a couple arguing as they were brought into the hospital by ambulance. Each had bruises on their body. He is screaming at her using profanity saying she was his life, including how long they've been together and how she had killed him. She kept yelling back that she's been dead for 5 yearus now. They are yelling and screaming at each other about being dead. I had no idea what was going on until she said "someone gave it to me and it's my duty to give it to someone else." She has full blown AIDS and now he has it too. This is not a joke. Some people really don't care [Edited 7/13/12 13:56pm]

See....situations like that are how people with my temperment end up on the news with neighbors saying things like "oh, I didn't see this coming. She was nice enough and kept to herself" ..... or perhaps I would end up starring in my very own episode of "Snapped" after murdering the heifer

KingBAD said:

CarrieMpls said:

HIV is not transmitted through urine either.

You've got some bad information, I'm afraid.

unless they pissin BLOOD

Blood in urine doesn't transmit it either. The virus isn't going to survive in urine.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...FNs2mOkKzc

Here's some good news in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

Truvada Gets FDA Nod for HIV Prevention

From the abc.com website.

The Food and Drug Adminstration today announced the approval of the first drug for use in people who are not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), to prevent its transmission, which some are calling a landmark in the fight against AIDS.

The drug, Truvada, is actually a combination of two medicines and is manufactured by Gilead Sciences, Inc. of Foster City, Calif. While Truvada has been approved since 2004 as a treatment for those already infected with the HIV virus, this is the first time any drug has been approved for pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP.

The study that led to the drug's approval found the risk of transmission among men who have sex with men decreased more than 40 percent. Furthermore, it showed a decrease of more than 70 percent in risk of transmission among heterosexual couples in which one partner was infected with HIV but the other was not.

"Truvada should not be used alone for preventing infections," cautioned Dr. Debra Birnkrant, director of the Division of Antiviral Products at the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "However, when used in combination with other prevention methods, such as safer sex practices, counseling, and regular testing to determine infection status, Truvada is effective in reducing the risk of transmission."

http://abcnews.go.com/Hea...d=16789790

And here's some bad news.

Colorado says dentist put thousands at HIV risk from reused syringes

From reuters.com

(Reuters) - A suspended Colorado dentist reused syringes and needles in his now-shuttered practice, potentially exposing thousands of patients to HIV and hepatitis infection, health officials warned on Friday.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment sent letters to 8,000 patients of dentist Stephen Stein, urging them to seek tests for the diseases after learning of "unsafe injection practices" at two Denver-area clinics he owned between September 1999 and June 2011.

Investigators found that Stein reused needles and syringes in several patients' intravenous lines at his oral surgery and dental implant clinics, in violation of standard medical protocol, the department said in a statement.

"This practice has been shown to transmit infections," the statement said. It added that there had been no confirmed cases of anyone contracting the viral infections through Stein's clinics.

http://www.reuters.com/ar...2720120714

Here are some more interesting numbers for you to consider:

In 2001, a little more than a decade ago, approximately 42 million people worldwide had HIV/AIDS, and about 3.1 million people had died as a result of AIDS. In the U.S., roughly 500,000 people were living with the virus. Tests for HIV are quite reliable. The ELISA blood-screening test, for example, tests positive for 95% of people who actually have the disease, and it tests negative for 99% of people who do not have the disease. That seems very good and suggests that universal testing might reliably tell us who is infected. Given such data, the question remains, should we undertake universal testing for HIV/AIDS?

What is the probability that a person who has a positive test result is actually HIV-positive? The reliability of the test seems to answer this question. Recall that when an uninfected person takes the test, the test returns a (false) positive result only 1% of the time and returns a (true) negative test result 99% of the time. This statistic seems to state that a person who gets a positive test result is 99% certain to be HIV-positive. But if we crunch the numbers, we draw a surprisingly different conclusion. Here are some more facts based on numbers I found from 2005:

1. In 2005, the population of the U.S. was approximately 280,000,000.

2. The number of people in the U.S. who - in 2005 - were HIV-positive remained about 500,000.

3. The number of people in the U.S. who do not have the virus would be 279,500,000 (that is, 280,000,000 minus 500,000).

4. Of the 500,000 people infected with the virus, the test would detect the diesease in 95% of the cases - that is for 475,000 people.

5. Of the 279,500,000 people who do not have the virus, the test would report falsely positive in 1% of the cases - and that is, for 2,795,000 people.

6. The total number of people receiving a positive test result is 3,270,000 (that is, 475,000 plus 2,795,000).

7. Of the 3,270,000 who receive a positive test result, only 475,000 would actually have the disease.

By the numbers above, therefore, a person who receives a positive test result has only a 475,000 out of 3,270,000 chance of actually having the disease. As a percentage, getting a positive test result would mean that the person still has a less that 15% chance of actually having the disease! That brings us to an interesting paradox: The test is 99% accurate, but when a person receives a positive test result, that person has less than a 15% chance of actually being infected. The question remains, how can this be?

One way to reconcile the conundrum is to note that, in 2005, there were approximately 475,000 people in the U.S. who had HIV and got a positive test result, while roughly 3,300,000 people in all received positive test results. That means that only about 1 in 7 positive test results could be correct.

Notice that the positive test result does substantially alter the view of the probability of having the disease. Since only 1 in 500 people in the U.S. has HIV, then a random person, with no other information given, would be assumed to have only a 1 in 500 (a one-fifth of one percent) likelihood of having the disease. However, after a person receives a positive test result, the estimate for the probability of his or her being infected with the disease rises to 15% - a substantial increase.

In practice, doctors usually do not live with the uncertainty when a test does come back positive and more refined tests are done. But before that is accomplished, people certainly do worry. So one consequence of universal AIDS testing would be that millions of people would receive frightening false positives and would need to have further testing. One conclusion from all of this data and from such scenario is that clear thinking is absolutely essential when it comes time to make policy decisions. The results may well include significant and harmful unintended consequences.

Diagnosted HIV+ spring 1984. I am living without

treatment actually and feel okay right now.

FormerlyKnownAs said:

Here are some more interesting numbers for you to consider:

In 2001, a little more than a decade ago, approximately 42 million people worldwide had HIV/AIDS, and about 3.1 million people had died as a result of AIDS. In the U.S., roughly 500,000 people were living with the virus. Tests for HIV are quite reliable. The ELISA blood-screening test, for example, tests positive for 95% of people who actually have the disease, and it tests negative for 99% of people who do not have the disease. That seems very good and suggests that universal testing might reliably tell us who is infected. Given such data, the question remains, should we undertake universal testing for HIV/AIDS?

What is the probability that a person who has a positive test result is actually HIV-positive? The reliability of the test seems to answer this question. Recall that when an uninfected person takes the test, the test returns a (false) positive result only 1% of the time and returns a (true) negative test result 99% of the time. This statistic seems to state that a person who gets a positive test result is 99% certain to be HIV-positive. But if we crunch the numbers, we draw a surprisingly different conclusion. Here are some more facts based on numbers I found from 2005:

1. In 2005, the population of the U.S. was approximately 280,000,000.

2. The number of people in the U.S. who - in 2005 - were HIV-positive remained about 500,000.

3. The number of people in the U.S. who do not have the virus would be 279,500,000 (that is, 280,000,000 minus 500,000).

4. Of the 500,000 people infected with the virus, the test would detect the diesease in 95% of the cases - that is for 475,000 people.

5. Of the 279,500,000 people who do not have the virus, the test would report falsely positive in 1% of the cases - and that is, for 2,795,000 people.

6. The total number of people receiving a positive test result is 3,270,000 (that is, 475,000 plus 2,795,000).

7. Of the 3,270,000 who receive a positive test result, only 475,000 would actually have the disease.

By the numbers above, therefore, a person who receives a positive test result has only a 475,000 out of 3,270,000 chance of actually having the disease. As a percentage, getting a positive test result would mean that the person still has a less that 15% chance of actually having the disease! That brings us to an interesting paradox: The test is 99% accurate, but when a person receives a positive test result, that person has less than a 15% chance of actually being infected. The question remains, how can this be?

One way to reconcile the conundrum is to note that, in 2005, there were approximately 475,000 people in the U.S. who had HIV and got a positive test result, while roughly 3,300,000 people in all received positive test results. That means that only about 1 in 7 positive test results could be correct.

Notice that the positive test result does substantially alter the view of the probability of having the disease. Since only 1 in 500 people in the U.S. has HIV, then a random person, with no other information given, would be assumed to have only a 1 in 500 (a one-fifth of one percent) likelihood of having the disease. However, after a person receives a positive test result, the estimate for the probability of his or her being infected with the disease rises to 15% - a substantial increase.

In practice, doctors usually do not live with the uncertainty when a test does come back positive and more refined tests are done. But before that is accomplished, people certainly do worry. So one consequence of universal AIDS testing would be that millions of people would receive frightening false positives and would need to have further testing. One conclusion from all of this data and from such scenario is that clear thinking is absolutely essential when it comes time to make policy decisions. The results may well include significant and harmful unintended consequences.

Does this scenerio assume that all 280,000,000 people i the USA are indeed tested?

I would think the number is far below that.

PurpleJedi said:

vainandy said:

I'm negative. I used to be tested every year when I was more sexually active. If I'm in dry spells, I don't get tested because there's no need to. No partners means no infection and I've never done anal anyway, neither giving, nor receiving. I'm strictly oral, but as I said before, I used to be checked when I was more active.

As for knowing people living with AIDS, I know a few. As for knowing people who have died of AIDS, I've known lots. That's why I'm usually at home now on Friday and Saturday nights instead of at someone's house party. Most of my friends that I used to party with have died.

So...technically then...(since BJs don't "count")...you're a virgin?

Isn't this sort of like saying, because armed robbery isn't murder, he's not a bad boy?

lawd.