Article

2005-03-01 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-03-01 2:29:33 PM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Professor Kent said the therapy had even proved effective against drug-resistant forms of the disease.

This would make sense because it looks like the mechanism of treatment is outside of what a virus can adapt to. It seems that the treatment might be capable of mutating as fast as the virus does. Fascinating...

Posted by BigEd 2005-03-01 4:29:12 PM|| 2005-03-01 4:29:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 If only the gay community would take the bug seriously after the cocktails and vaccines are created. They look at the risky behavior as OK, since AID's not a killer (as much) anymore. Meth-fueled binges with 20-30 partners are gonna get you sick with SOMETHING, idiots

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-01 4:36:21 PM|| 2005-03-01 4:36:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 If this treatment pans out and becomes an accepted procedure, the same shit's gonna happen again.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-01 5:04:43 PM|| 2005-03-01 5:04:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't understand why the gay community doesn't come up with some way for those who are infected to mark themselves so that other infected people can go keep up their lifestyle without spreading the disease or changing their ways. That 20-30 partner gang binge is less lethal if you know everyone is either clean or infected going in.

I don't understand why they don't have some kind HIV test every week. Make it a bonding gay pride thing and make certain they are clean so they could continue their wild ways without spreading the disease. That would make that 20-30 partner binge that much safer as far as HIV was concerned.

I don't really understand why they don't change their wild ways but since that seems beyond so many why not at least work the system?

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-03-01 6:07:41 PM|| [http://rjschwarz] 2005-03-01 6:07:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 But RJ, there's that horridly deceptive 6-month period between being infected and testing positive for HIV, when one shares everything with one's partners...

And of course, just because one has a certain version of HIV doesn't mean one can't be infected subsequently with other variations. So it would have to be all safe sex, all the time, for a group that likes risky behaviours.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-03-01 10:07:56 PM|| 2005-03-01 10:07:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 RJ-

I have a friend, Madoc, who writes extensively about this very subject.

Getting infected in our day and age is not considered a 'bad' thing anymore. The cocktails you are give involve steroids so you end up with an excellent physique (if you believe Will & Grace this is a high mark in gay society). It is actually a way to mark those who are HIV pos.

The fact of the matter is, as TW mentions, risky behaviour will always endager you and this community hates not being risky.

Posted by Jame Retief 2005-03-01 10:13:48 PM|| 2005-03-01 10:13:48 PM|| Front Page Top

23:53 badanov
23:51 CrazyFool
23:47 CrazyFool
23:46 CrazyFool
23:42 Sobiesky
23:41 Cyber Sarge
23:38 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:37 Phil Fraering
23:34 Phil Fraering
23:34 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:33 Phil Fraering
23:16 anymouse
23:11 crazyhorse
23:07 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 crazyhorse
22:51 Bomb-a-rama
22:46 Formerly Dan
22:45 crazyhorse
22:24 trailing wife
22:16 trailing wife
22:13 Jame Retief
22:13 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:13 Deacon Blues
22:07 trailing wife