HIV testing - A standard part of your yearly physical

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?

My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?

What I really don't get about any sort of crime related to knowing HIV infection, aside from the sheer stupidity of the whole concept -- isn't it incredibly counterproductive? Assuming that any such law requires the person passing on HIV to know that he or she is infected and not tell the sex partner -- well, duh, let's all just not ever get tested! Then we'll never know and nobody can ever say that we knowingly or intentionally infected anyone!

[GAC3710]

As a person who has had both AIDS and HIV I can honestly say that I do not think it is right to charge someone with manslaughter (or attempted MS) for having sex with someone if one of the 2 is in fact HIV+. Should someone actually do it there are ways around that sort of law. For example, many people are led to believe by government ads that condoms will prevent you from transmitting or catching HIV. This is not the case with all STDs but it is so with HIV. Health departments all over the country will tell you certain types of condoms will prevent HIV infection and others will actually increase your chances due to the type of lube on the condom or things such as sex oils or vasaline(sp?) creating microscopic holes in the "rubbers". The law is not black and white (at least not in my state) but rather "gray" for the most part and open to interpretation. It is however a sex crime and a 3rd degree felony if you have sex with someone knowing you are HIV+ and you do not inform the person (I don't see how this could have a leg to stand on because it could easily turn into a he said she said thing in court). As for any other STDs if you have sex with someone and you have any other STD other than HIV it is a misdemeanor (I can give you the statutes and sub sections if you like). Laws for the most part are not black and white. Thats whats great about our system. Mandatory testing is just another step towards a totalitarian state if you ask me and I pitty the day when our civil liberties are at the mercy of the CDC. I went from having full blown AIDS to being the subject of a study conducted by the leading Univ in my state for HIV/AIDS research due to my recovery. I by no means make 6 figures and my parents are millionaires a few times over so I guess my background is that of a middleclass/upper middleclass family, I'm not gay and I've never used IV drugs. I had a healthy heaping of the pussy pie and it just so happens it caught up with me.

The drugs out there are awesome. I know many nurses that have been exposed to HIV from taking blood from patients and all have taken the meds within 8 hours of being exposed and none have a + status. I went from being on Sustiva and Truvada to starting Atripla (the newest drug available) a few days ago. My life has changed but I am certainly not going to die in the near future or in within the decade as long as I stay on top of everything. My doctors (all 21 of them) have said that if no more advances were made in the field I would still live to be 50+ years old as long as I stayed on top of my game. It is a smart virus and it can really do you in if you allow it but the way I look at it there really isnt much of a choice. I was dealt a shitty hand and I have to win the round with what I have. It is my view that the argument that HIV is a death sentence only comes from people who do not truly understand the virus itself nor the medications already available. Many HIVers look at it as having a nasty case of diabetes, you have to make some changes but as long as you do that and stick to the plan you will be ok.

If there is anything else any of you would like to know please feel free to ask me and I will do my best to answer your questions about laws, infections, medications and yadda yadda yadda.

I wanted to add one more thing: The CDC says about 1,000,000 Americans are infected with 250,000 not knowing it. I believe this number is far lower than what the real number is due to the government not wanting to start a panic resulting in a serious push by politicians to demand a cure. I believe it is a population control and that a cure does exist, military servicemen/women are an example of this. Pharmaceutical comps do not make money off of cures but rather "patching" people up so we have to buy their drugs. But mark my words, should mandatory testing become a reality this country will be in for a serious slap in the face.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by GAC3710

I believe it is a population control and that a cure does exist, military servicemen/women are an example of this. Pharmaceutical comps do not make money off of cures but rather "patching" people up so we have to buy their drugs. But mark my words, should mandatory testing become a reality this country will be in for a serious slap in the face.

Without even getting into the rest of your post, which is commendable, I just want to address this part . . .

The market system for 'big pharma' almost ensures this isn't true - a patentable 'vaccine' or immediate treatment would make billions for the company that designed it, while demolishing the companies producing inhibitors. This would be 20 YEARS with no competition in the market, on a product every living human would willingly pay out the ass for - it makes too much sense, really.

[sdsuchelle]

The CDC isn't saying that HIV testing at physicals will be mandatory. It's voluntary, just like it is now, but maybe it would mean your doctor would mention it or ask you if you'd like to be tested.

Hopefully it will create more awareness.

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

By accepting a drink from someone you don't know, you're assuming the risk that there might be a date-rape drug in the drink...but it's still illegal to slip someone the date-rape drug without their consent, and that person, if caught would be prosecuted.

I was just about to go there.

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

I don't think it's very hard to pull in three figures a year. Also, AIDS has no apostrophe.

Oh, I mean 6, lol!

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Having consensual sex with someone without a condom results in an exchange of bodily fluids. I mean for real, when you have sex and don't use a condom, don't you KNOW that dude's stuff is going to end up in your body? I think that's different from being drugged. A better analogy would be -- if you have sex with someone and don't use birth control, you're assuming the risk that you'll get knocked up. If you get knocked up even though you don't want to, can the guy be prosecuted? Tortious pregnancy? Illegal insemination? Or too bad so sad for you?

My question is -- if you KNOW bodily fluids will be exchanged, why would you ever assume your partner doesn't have diseases?

I think we should tick with an analogy such as the date rape drug. A girl who doesn't use birth control can't claim that the guy knew she would get pregnant. Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

AID's isn't something that kills off one person then goes away, AID's is exponential. 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 and so on. Think about 50 years ago when AID's was unheard of and now is some big figure in the millions. Another 50 years from now we might be saying billions.

I'm not trying to get off topic here, but in my natural resources class we have been talking about exponential growth rate of humans, which is now up to 1.3% which means population growth at this rate could double in 70 or so years. I'm seriously going to see what percentage rate AID's is spreading.

[GAC3710]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Without even getting into the rest of your post, which is commendable, I just want to address this part . . .

The market system for 'big pharma' almost ensures this isn't true - a patentable 'vaccine' or immediate treatment would make billions for the company that designed it, while demolishing the companies producing inhibitors. This would be 20 YEARS with no competition in the market, on a product every living human would willingly pay out the ass for - it makes too much sense, really.

Do you have any concrete evidence to prove this? Do you realize that not having a vaccine would ensure this virus will be with us for centuries, at least? That means "Big Pharma" will continue to make money on PIs for a very long time. Given that outside of the US most of the world's population cannot even afford current medication for HIV let alone even heard of health insurance, so how would "most people" be able to pay out of the ass? Without health Ins most people in the US would not be able to pay HIV meds now. My total med bills (alone) since finding out in Feb 06' have amounted to a little over $50,000. Without HI there would be no way I could have afforded all of that. The average cost of HIV meds is about $1,100-$1,500 a month for HIV meds alone (not including all the non-hiv meds you have to take) per person. How can you honestly believe a vaccine would make more money than meds for big pharma?

Here are few things you should read up on that may open your eyes to this epidemic, our government and big pharma(mainly Merk):

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/shadow.htm

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/pandemic.htm

http://discovery-experimental.com/aids/aids.htm

http://spiripathologyhealing.com/PR_...o_HIV_AIDS.htm

http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1140424088.shtml

http://aliveandwellsf.org/library

(This is about both the HIV/AIDS virus and West Nile)

http://www.whale.to/v/nile.html

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

Your post raises many, many questions, but for a start, can you provide a citation for this?

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

I think we should tick with an analogy such as the date rape drug. A girl who doesn't use birth control can't claim that the guy knew she would get pregnant. Plus like rape purposely infecting someone with AID's is illegal and can get you time in prison.

Regardless of whether the "infector" knew they were HIV+, valkyrie still made a valid point. If you agree to have unprotected sex with someone you are making a choice to put yourself at risk. (I'm not saying the person would deserve to be infected if they did put themselves at risk....so don't even go there.)

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by GAC3710

Do you have any concrete evidence to prove this? Do you realize that not having a vaccine would ensure this virus will be with us for centuries, at least? That means "Big Pharma" will continue to make money on PIs for a very long time. Given that outside of the US most of the world's population cannot even afford current medication for HIV let alone even heard of health insurance, so how would "most people" be able to pay out of the ass? Without health Ins most people in the US would not be able to pay HIV meds now. My total med bills (alone) since finding out in Feb 06' have amounted to a little over $50,000. Without HI there would be no way I could have afforded all of that. The average cost of HIV meds is about $1,100-$1,500 a month for HIV meds alone (not including all the non-hiv meds you have to take) per person. How can you honestly believe a vaccine would make more money than meds for big pharma?

Here are few things you should read up on that may open your eyes to this epidemic, our government and big pharma(mainly Merk):

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/shadow.htm

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/pandemic.htm

http://discovery-experimental.com/aids/aids.htm

http://spiripathologyhealing.com/PR_...o_HIV_AIDS.htm

http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1140424088.shtml

http://aliveandwellsf.org/library

(This is about both the HIV/AIDS virus and West Nile)

http://www.whale.to/v/nile.html

No disrespect, but a lot of what you post seems like conspiracy theory. I remember during "Bigger & Blacker" Chris Rock jokingly made the same argument as you about how big companies will never come up with a cure because there was no money in it that. If that’s the case then why is every big pharmaceutical company spending in the billions to research and come up with the cure?? I can ashore you that at the least in the short run a vaccine for AID's would make a lot more money then just meds. Also look at the fact that if they do come up with a vaccine more then likely it would be short supplied anyway (such as penicillin). Even if that wasn't the case you sometimes have to realize that not everything is about money. If a company would do something such as that it would be looked down on as extremely unethical. The people who run these researches are people just like you and me, and best believe a lot of folks have all this money invested because they hope on saving themselves or a loved one. I can see people withholding a vaccine for some things, but one for AID's would be hard to withhold especially since it's something everybody seems to be looking for. Can you even imagine what the reproductions would be if someone was caught withholding a vaccine for HIV??? That would be the scandal of the century.

It was funny when Chris Rock made a joke stating they would never cure AID's, but that was a joke and nothing more

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

AID's

What does AID possess?

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

What does AID possess?

I don't know, but I can ashore you that you're in for some serious reproductions for questioning it.

(sorry, I couldn't help myself)

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Your post raises many, many questions, but for a start, can you provide a citation for this?

For now here are a couple of people who were just charged. We have a case from back at home that was a little famous a few years back because the man actually wanted to infect as many wmn as possible. The first case I heard on this was back when I was in HS, and a woman had the same intention of infecting as many men as she could, I believe in the 30's before she was caught.

Well I'll see if I can find the case that happened back at home, but for now I did a quick google search and this guy was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I'll see if I can dig up something better in a bit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A961948260

This one is a little more on point except that again it was just a charge and is actually in suppost of the man:
http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com...the-black-man/

[Langox510x]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

What does AID possess?

AID's and HIV are like saying potato (USA) and potato (UK) to me. I know the difference, but I think it’s something a lot of people do.

[OtterXO]

Originally Posted by Langox510x

For now here are a couple of people who were just charged. We have a case from back at home that was a little famous a few years back because the man actually wanted to infect as many wmn as possible. The first case I heard on this was back when I was in HS, and a woman had the same intention of infecting as many men as she could, I believe in the 30's before she was caught.

Well I'll see if I can find the case that happened back at home, but for now I did a quick google search and this guy was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I'll see if I can dig up something better in a bit.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...55C0A961948260

This one is a little more on point except that again it was just a charge and is actually in suppost of the man:
http://www.thebinarycircumstance.com...the-black-man/

I'm at the point where I'm confused about the point you're trying to make. Can you restate it? Are you saying that any and all persons who infect others with HIV should be charged with a crime for infecting person X and every other person that person X infects?