Question:
substantial number of men have contracted AIDS in this way. If o ne man were to catch AIDS from shaking hands with another person (thru c uts on both hands), would that be enough proof for you that AIDS can be contracted thru casual contact?
well i wouln’t consider two people with bleeding, gaping, seeping wouds rubbing those wounds that are bleeding together casual contact…. i think that casual contact is like people who don’t have gaping, seeping, bleeding wounds shaking hands. tina
Response:
I don’t want proof that ONE man contracted AIDS from vaginal intercourse. If only one man in the world has contracted AIDS in this way, then it’s not much of a serious concern, is it? I want proof that a substantial number of men have contracted AIDS in this way. If one man were to catch AIDS from shaking hands with another person (thru cuts on both hands), would that be enough proof for you that AIDS can be contracted thru casual contact? Jason Golbey
Sorry, jason, you posted a statement from BKL asserting that not one man had aquired HIV unless he had penile ulcers and asked for comment. The refutation of that is that at least one man has aquired it without having ulcers. If you now want to shift your postion to that above, then the available data on the risks of transmission as a function of the presence or absence of ulcerative disease are sufficient. To have a venereally transmitted viral disease which went from men to women but not from women to men would be, to the best of my knowledge, medically unprecedented. Perhaps you could cite some analogous diseases.
Response:
… It is important to understand that, even if the precise rate is 1.2 per 1000 episodes, the actual transmission is just as likely to occur on the first act as it is on the last act. … The theory that an infectious agent is involved in "Aids" diagnoses is flatly contadicted by the UK experience of the "Aids" phenomenon. These diagnoses have remained rigidly confined to the "risk groups", subjectively defined on largely social criteria. A BBC documentary programme late last year revealed that claims of "heterosexual Aids" had been a myth.
You get further and further from the truth with time. Evidence that an infectious agent (specifically HIV) is involved in AIDS is abundent in UK research as it is elsewhere and has nothing to do with whether "heterosexual aids" is a myth. By the way do you mean that the myth is in the epidemic spread of heterosexual aids (as claimed in the book of the same name) or in its very existence? The cause of "HIV positivity" and "Aids" diagnoses within these risk groups remains to be fully investigated. How much of the total may be attributed to only testing individuals said to be "at risk", and how much to subjective weighting of the results by social grouping (using mathematics more appropriate to Milken than Medicine) is uncertain, but a dawning awareness of the true situation has led to an accelerating decline in both alleged "HIV" positivity and "Aids" cases in the UK.
You cannot be so completely ignorant of the scientific literature as you profess in the above paragraph. HIV culture and genetic characterization goes on continually. Well, perhaps you are that ignorant of the literature if you get your information from continuum. We have previously documented its unreliabiltiy (Montagner’s postion on HIV, among others — remember?)
Response:
The cause of "HIV positivity" and "Aids" diagnoses within these risk groups remains to be fully investigated. How much of the total may be attributed to only testing individuals said to be "at risk", and how much to subjective weighting of the results by social grouping (using mathematics more appropriate to Milken than Medicine) is uncertain, but a dawning awareness of the true situation has led to an accelerating decline in both alleged "HIV" positivity and "Aids" cases in the UK. — John
I think you are kidding yourself John – I vividly remember a non drug using middle aged woman with only one sexual partner in her life (her husband) who died of AIDS in the eighties – hardly a member of any ‘risk group’. Nothing mysterious about the source of her infection either – her husband liked to use prostitutes on business trips and did a lot of his work in Africa. — generally go to a vet. It’s generally a better bet. There’s more pressure on a vet to get it right.People say ‘it was God’s will’ when granny dies, but they get angry when they lose a cow. Terry Pratchett
Response:
: As someone who both sees patients and does clinical research, I am not sure how : one would go about contradicting such a statement. I met a man today : on rounds who contracted HIV from a woman with AIDS with whom he had had a long : unprotected sexual relationship. No history of venereal ulcerating infections. : He had no idea which episode of intercourse was responsible for transmission. : Now how is such as case immune from the argument that "he had a sore but forgot : it or didn’t notice it"? : One piece of evidence is that studies that show that genital ulcers increase : the transmission of HIV yield estimates of the increased risk that are not : huge. (in one study in the Journal AIDS the relative risk was increased 5 fold : by having a history of genital ulcers AIDS 9:389,1995.) That means there is : plenty of transmission in those who don’t recall having ulcers. : The original statement was that no man ever contracted HIV without having a : sore or ulcer on his genitals. What proof would you accept in order to believe : that at least one man has? I don’t want proof that ONE man contracted AIDS from vaginal intercourse. If only one man in the world has contracted AIDS in this way, then it’s not much of a serious concern, is it? I want proof that a substantial number of men have contracted AIDS in this way. If one man were to catch AIDS from shaking hands with another person (thru cuts on both hands), would that be enough proof for you that AIDS can be contracted thru casual contact? Jason Golbey — _| _| _| _| _| _| _|_| _| (4th Year Genetics)
Response:
… It is important to understand that, even if the precise rate is 1.2 per 1000 episodes, the actual transmission is just as likely to occur on the first act as it is on the last act. …
The theory that an infectious agent is involved in "Aids" diagnoses is flatly contadicted by the UK experience of the "Aids" phenomenon. These diagnoses have remained rigidly confined to the "risk groups", subjectively defined on largely social criteria. A BBC documentary programme late last year revealed that claims of "heterosexual Aids" had been a myth. The cause of "HIV positivity" and "Aids" diagnoses within these risk groups remains to be fully investigated. How much of the total may be attributed to only testing individuals said to be "at risk", and how much to subjective weighting of the results by social grouping (using mathematics more appropriate to Milken than Medicine) is uncertain, but a dawning awareness of the true situation has led to an accelerating decline in both alleged "HIV" positivity and "Aids" cases in the UK. — John
Response:
This was a useful and appreciated post. The data gives us something to discuss productively, with a critical eye. [snip] I will be more accepting of the results if the data were taken from subjects outside of NY, Miami, and Houston, and if they were representative ethnically and economically of Americans.
Unfortunately HIV doesn’t occur in a population representative ethnically and economically of americans. That makes it difficult to meet your standards in a study of any size. I just want to comment on one or two aspects of your post. It is often stated that there are no proven cases of tertiary transmission among heterosexuals. This may be true. I don’t think one should give the weight to this observation that it is often saddled with. We are dealing with a disease (HIV infection) that has a prolonged period between infection and the subsequent immune deficiency and tertiary spread may be difficult to detect. We were fortunate to have the initial cohort of secondary and teriary homosexual spread in the "patient zero" cohort to indicate the infectious origin of AIDS. It might well have been missed. In addition, it is likely that, having established that HIV is transmissible by sex, blood, and via childbirth, there is going to be relatively little interest in seeking out cases of tertiary transmission or in establishing whether the infectivity rate is 1.2 per 1000 episodes of intercourse or 12 per 1000. That is one reason there are relatively few papers in the area. Reading a standard text in VD will get you the information that most VD is more transmissible M-F than F- M, although the balance in the highly infectious ones is closer to 1:1 than is that of HIV. It is important to understand that, even if the precise rate is 1.2 per 1000 episodes, the actual transmission is just as likely to occur on the first act as it is on the last act. Such rates are often misinterpreted to mean that repeated sexual activity is *required* for transmission. Finally, estimating the infectivity of HIV or any other STD via vaginal intercourse alone is a will-of-the-wisp as you point out very well the fact that such activity does not take place in a vacuum.
Response:
: Why? Frankly, I haven’t looked for epidemiological studies that : either confirm or refute the statement. I don’t really care, since : I’m gay. : But let’s presume there’s no evidence (or none that satisfies you). : Let us presume further that you meant to write "straight [MALE] : non-IV…" and further that you meant vaginal intercourse. Let us : presume further no other behaviours were engaged in (no cunnilingus, : anilingus; she’s not menstruating). Let’s presume it’s just the old : in and out, wham bam thank you ma’am. She’s HIV infected. The penis : is pristine (at least to look at). Let’s further presume no : protection is used. So how often does this exact scenario occur? : Does this mean the man can not get HIV? Well, given there’s no : evidence, we cannot say! Does this mean the man should worry he may : have been infected because he was too arrogant or stupid to wear a : condom? The answer to this question is yes. Even if the man doesn’t : fuck all that vigorously, he is still quite likely to cause minute : tears in the skin of the dick. Further, his urethra will invariably : open up whilst inside the woman. : Is the risk in such a very narrow scope situation high? In contrast : to butt fucking, I think the answer is that the risk is less. But : this also presumes the man only fucks her once. Increased frequency : will, like Russian roulette, increase the potential of infection. : What I’m wondering is if your question is designed to serve as a : rationale for not having safer sex? : (Gee, I hope Clinton hasn’t signed that stupid fucking idiotic : Telecommunications Bill. Fuck those bastards in Congress anyway.) : George M. Carter Very eloquent Georgie. I’m always inclined to listen to someone as scientific and well-spoken as yourself. I feel that your ideas of the types of sex that most North Americans have is slightly skewed. — _| _| _| _| _| _| _|_| _| (4th Year Genetics)
Response:
Falciano M; Ferri F; Macedonio A; Mastroianni CM; and others Heterosexual transmission of HIV: a 4 year follow-up. Istituto di Malattie Infettive, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy Int Conf AIDS. 1991 Jun 16-21;7(1):315 (abstract no. M.C.3070). Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of infection with HIV during heterosexual trasmission. METHODS: 90 couples in which one partner was HIV+ have been investigated during the period from 1986 to 1990. Couples having additional risk factors for HIV infection have been ruled out from the study. Both clinical and immunological parameters (HIV-Ag, CD4, Skin test) have been considered: special attention has been paid to the use of condom, the frequency and type of sexual intercourse. RESULTS: At the beginning of the study, in 79 (87.5%) couples the HIV+ subject was a male and 11 (12.2%) was a female. The trasmission occurred in 43/90 couples (47.7%): 5 from female to male (11.6%) and 38 from male to female (88.3%). In 3 cases seroconversion occurred during the follow-up. In the group of 43 couples in which seroconversion occurred, 2 (4.6%) declared of having used condom always or often, 33 (76.7%) seldom or never and 8 (18.7%) used it only after knowing of being HIV+; in the group of 47 couples in which seroconversion did not occur, 16 (44%) had used condoms always or often, 18 (38.4%) seldom or never and 13 (27.6%) only after the positivity for HIV. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that heterosexual trasmission is increasingly important and that the rate in the trasmission is higher from male to female. The follow-up of the 47 couples in which trasmission has not occurred is important. Rehmet S; Staszewski S; Helm EB; Doerr HW; Stille W Cofactors of HIV transmission in heterosexual couples. Center of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt M; FRG Int Conf AIDS. 1991 Jun 16-21;7(2):329 (abstract no. W.C.3132). Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate cofactors of heterosexual HIV transmission in monogamuous couples; to evaluate transmission rates and, in a prospective part of the study, seroconversions after unprotected sexual contacts. PATIENTS and METHODS: We investigated transmission rates and possible cofactors, as CD4 cells, progression of disease, HIV antigen, duration of relationship, previous infections with other STDs in 208 heterosexual couples with known index persons. 40 discordant couples reporting unprotected sexual contacts were prospectively monitored for seroconversion. RESULTS: Male to female transmission was 4 times higher than female to male transmission (31% vs. 8%). Transmission of HIV was significantly higher in patients who had positive serum titers for HIV p24 antigen (42% vs. 14%), and CD4 cells at first examination below 200/ul (52% vs. 22%). Patients having infected their partners also had a more aggressive course of disease (more rapid lost of CD4 cells and higher incidence of full blown AIDS during the observation period). We found no correlation to the duration of relationship nor to previous infection with hepatitis B / lues. Long term monitoring of 40 discordant couples reporting unprotected sexual contacts showed one seroconversion (female to male). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that more infectious patients are characterized by a more aggressive course of disease, but can transmit HIV at any stage of the disease. The period soon after the beginning of sexual relationship seems to be connected with an increased risk of HIV transmission. Johnson AM; Petherick A; Davidson SJ; Brettle R; and others Transmission of HIV to heterosexual partners of infected men and women. School of Medicine, London, UK. AIDS. 1989 Jun;3(6):367-72. Abstract: Future heterosexual spread of HIV will in part depend on the efficiency of transmission from men to women and from women to men. We studied seventy-eight female sexual partners of men infected with HIV and 18 male sexual partners of infected women. Participants were interviewed concerning sexual practices, use of contraception and other risk factors for HIV infection. Fifteen out of 78 (19.2%) female partners and one out of eighteen (5.5%) male partners were seropositive for HIV antibody. All couples had practised vaginal intercourse. Seropositive female partners did not differ significantly from seronegative partners with regard to length of relationship, number of acts of vaginal intercourse, other sexual practices, stage of clinical disease in the index case, or numbers of other sexual partners in the last five years. In two women, seroconversion was documented after one act of unprotected sexual intercourse. The majority of infected female partners (eight out of 15) had sexual relationships with men who were asymptomatic and did not practice anal intercourse. Biological factors such as variability in infectivity of the index case and susceptibility of the contact, as well as behavioural variables may be important in determining transmission. Fischl MA; Dickinson GM; Scott GB; Klimas N; and others Evaluation of heterosexual partners, children, and household contacts of adults with AIDS. JAMA. 1987 Feb 6;257(5):640-4. Abstract: Forty-five adults with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and their 45 spouses, 109 children, and 29 household contacts were studied for evidence of heterosexual, perinatal, and household spread of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-III) infection. Of the 45 spouses enrolled, 26 (58%) had antibody to HTLV-III, including 12 (71%) of 17 male spouses and 14 (50%) of 28 female spouses. Of the 12 seropositive male spouses, nine were seropositive at enrollment and three had seroconversion. Of the 14 seropositive female spouses, four were seropositive at enrollment and ten seroconverted. Lack of barrier contraceptive use and oral sex were associated with seroconversion. Of the 109 children enrolled, 15 had AIDS or an AIDS-related illness, two had evidence of passive transfer of maternal antibodies, and two had HTLV-III infection acquired outside the household. None of the 90 seronegative children seroconverted. Of 29 household contacts studied, none developed antibody to HTLV-III. Falciano M; Bergami N; Rubino L; Macedonio A; and others Heterosexual transmission of HIV. The follow up of 174 couples in the period 1985-1993. Institute of Infectious Diseases, Rome University La Sapienza. Int Conf AIDS. 1994 Aug 7-12;10(1):294 (abstract no. PC0105). Abstract: Recent epidemiological data indicate a clear-cut increase in subjects infected heterosexually. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors implicated in heterosexual transmission. During the period 1985-1993 at the Institute of Infectious Diseases of the University of Rome La Sapienza, 174 stable heterosexual couples were observed. Condom use and the frequency of intercourse before and after finding out about the seropositivity of the partner were examined. The index cases subdivided for sex and risk behaviour were thus divided: 140 males (123 DA, 15 heterosexuals, 2 bisexuals) 34 females (18 DA, 15 heterosexuals, 1 transfusion). The transmission occurred in 61 couples, 5 from woman to man and 56 from man to woman. In 9 cases, seroconversion occurred during follow-up. As for the frequency of intercourse before finding out, in couples where transmission had not occurred, 32 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 42 couples between 2 and 7 times a week and 16 couples more than 7 times a week. After finding out about their seropositivity, 48 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 39 between 2 and 7 times a week, and 10 more than 7 times a week. In couples where transmission had occurred, before finding out, 9 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 35 between 2 and 7 times a week, and 9 more than 7 times a week. After finding out, 24 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 25 couples between 2 and 7 times a week and only 3 more than 7 times a week. As for the use of the condom in couples before finding out about the seropositivity of the partner with no transmission, 69 couples never used it, 16 sometimes, 5 always. After finding out about their seropositivity, only 8 couples never used the condom, 17 sometimes, 72 always. Instead with couples where transmission had occurred, 47 couples before finding out about their seropositivity never used it, 6 sometimes and none always. After finding out, 20 couples never used it, 4 sometimes and 28 always. The data show that an increased frequency of intercourse as well as non-protection favours the transmission of the infection. Thus it is indicated that sexual behaviour be modified after finding out the seropositivity of the index case. Brunet JB Heterosexual transmission of HIV: a European study. European Centre for the Epidemiological Monitoring of AIDS, France. Annu Conf Australas Soc HIV Med. 1993 Oct 28-30;5:40 (abstract no. TE6). Abstract: From 1987 to 1991 563 couples were recruited from 9 countries in a cross-section study. 378 HIV(-) partners recruited in settings adapted for follow-up sectional study. 378 HIV(-) partners recruited in settings adapted for follow-up were included in the prospective study. At each interview partners were tested, interviewed and counselled. Only partners presenting no risk factors for HIV infection other than sexual contacts with the index (HIV+ partner) were included. The follow-up rate was 80.4% (304/378). 245 couples still having sexual contacts 3 months after inclusion were followed for a median of 22 months. 123 (50.2%) couples used condoms for all vaginal or anal intercourse. No serconversions occurred among these 123 partners. 12 seroconversions occurred among the remaining 122 partners (5/100 person-years or 1.2 per 1000 unprotected contacts). Among irregular condom users seroconversion rates (SR) were similar whatever the frequency of condom use and sex of partner. SR were different (p-0.05) between partners reporting no STD (9.5%); non-ulcerative STD (25%), and … read more »
Response:
This was a useful and appreciated post. The data gives us something to discuss productively, with a critical eye. snip Calls to the Information Line are mostly from metropolitan heterosexuals (more male than female) enquiring about oral sex, HIV antibody screening, seroconversion and safe sex. … The prevalence of heterosexual callers asking about safe sex has implications for the education of groups who are not currently targeted for HIV education.
"Has implications"? Just because a long standing campaign of misinformation and distortion of the risks to typical heterosexuals causes fear and confusion among some, does not mean that the fear and confusion is evidence to support the validity of the misinformation. Study #1 At the beginning of the study, in 79 (87.5%) couples the HIV+ subject was a male and 11 (12.2%) was a female. The trasmission occurred in 43/90 couples (47.7%): 5 from female to male (11.6%) and 38 from male to female (88.3%).
These numbers are screwed up beyond belief! 38/79 (M to F) is 88.3%?! Who cares that 88% of the seroconverting participants are female. The non-deceptive number should be that 5/11 (45%) transmitted F to M, and 38/79 (48%) transmitted M to F. These are consistent with drug using couples in which one uninfected partner claims not to be a user. Self reporting is interesting, but not reliable with this type of subject. The other numbers are screwed up, too. GIGO. All the rest of the cited studies below are consistent with each other but not with this. And if "couples having additional risk factors for HIV infection have been ruled out from the study," does that mean that the initially infected partner supposedly became infected heterosexually? Come on, there has never been a reported case of tertiary transmission in the developed world. More likely, as in the real world, the initially infected partner was infected by drug use or bisexual activity, and the uninfected partner was supposedly screened. Really! "Your boyfriend is a junkie, but you never touch the stuff, right, ma’am? Good, we can include you in the study!" And a sample size of 11 infected-female couples? Notice how the other Italian study (#5) by Dr. Falancio, three years later, was primarily studying drug users, and reported numbers that are consistent with the other studies in our body of knowledge. I guess it depends who’s writing the abstract. Study #2 40 discordant couples reporting unprotected sexual contacts were prospectively monitored for seroconversion. RESULTS: Male to female transmission was 4 times higher than female to male transmission (31% vs. 8%). Study #3 Fifteen out of 78 (19.2%) female partners and one out of eighteen (5.5%) male partners were seropositive for HIV antibody.
These and the following studies are consistent with others not listed. A significant minority fraction (20-30%) of women WILL eventually become infected by her infected partner, after hundreds of acts of unprotected intercourse. And condoms DO help a lot. The majority of infected female partners (eight out of 15) had sexual relationships with men who were asymptomatic and did not practice anal intercourse.
More than half had anal intercourse?! Doesn’t that sound a little high for the general population? Shouldn’t we be warning women about anal sex as being much more dangerous than vaginal sex, instead of the blanket fearmongering about sex in general? I find it easy to imagine that half of M to F "cases" are anal caused, and the other half are mostly lying drug users who don’t admit it. The male rates in these studies are a little hard to believe, but bi- and drug using men have long been falsely self reporting hetero- causes. The only places in which you can find many infected women in any significant amounts are the few worst drug cities. Essentially all became infected by drug using male partners, or their own drug use. The researchers found a few infected women whose boyfriends hadn’t seroconverted, then blamed sex when the boyfriend became infected. When a ghetto fella with an infected (read: drug using) girlfriend becomes infected, wouldn’t your first assumption be that he uses drugs as well? How did the researchers control for this? I will be more accepting of the results if the data were taken from subjects outside of NY, Miami, and Houston, and if they were representative ethnically and economically of Americans. Study #4 Of the 12 seropositive male spouses, nine were seropositive at enrollment and three had seroconversion. Of the 14 seropositive female spouses, four were seropositive at enrollment and ten seroconverted.
So what? One is infected first, then the spouse becomes infected. Why blame sex in all cases, particularly the F to M? If a windstorm knocks down your house first, and then knocks down mine, it does not imply that your house knocked mine down. Many of these folks could have been infected by concomitant drug use, with or without needle sharing. Study #5 The index cases subdivided for sex and risk behaviour were thus divided: 140 males (123 DA, 15 heterosexuals, 2 bisexuals) 34 females (18 DA, 15 heterosexuals, 1 transfusion).
Almost ALL subjects are drug abusers (DA). Hmm. Past studies that contriolled for this found that female partners of drug users seroconverted about 50% of the time, as compared to female partners of bisexuals or transfusion infected HIV men, who seroconverted about 20% of the time. It is reasonable to conclude that the difference is not medical, but the fact that gals whose boyfriends use drugs commonly use drugs themselves, regardless of what they admit to doctors and health authorities. Study #6 (50.2%) couples used condoms for all vaginal or anal intercourse. No serconversions occurred among these 123 partners. 12 seroconversions occurred among the remaining 122 partners (5/100 person-years or 1.2 per 1000 unprotected contacts). Seroconversion rates: between partners reporting no STD (9.5%); non-ulcerative STD (25%), and ulcerative STD (40%).
This one is notable for its valuable information, and for its large sample size. It says NOTHING about men being sexually infected by women, and reports that a women will be infected only 1.2 times/1000 contacts. These are low numbers consistent with the other studies. Condoms work for 123/123 (100%) couples! People with other STDs have quadruple the risk, yet our public health efforts have ignored this valuable information, here and in Africa. (Ask an epidimiologist what happens to an epidemic when you reduce transmissivity by a factor of 4. You’ll learn that the epidemic will be soon over. Penicillin can cure the African AIDS "epidemic.")
Response:
No, obviously I don’t mean that at all. I mean that I’m still looking for studies with evidence contradicting the statement below.
As someone who both sees patients and does clinical research, I am not sure how one would go about contradicting such a statement. I met a man today on rounds who contracted HIV from a woman with AIDS with whom he had had a long unprotected sexual relationship. No history of venereal ulcerating infections. He had no idea which episode of intercourse was responsible for transmission. Now how is such as case immune from the argument that "he had a sore but forgot it or didn’t notice it"? One piece of evidence is that studies that show that genital ulcers increase the transmission of HIV yield estimates of the increased risk that are not huge. (in one study in the Journal AIDS the relative risk was increased 5 fold by having a history of genital ulcers AIDS 9:389,1995.) That means there is plenty of transmission in those who don’t recall having ulcers. The original statement was that no man ever contracted HIV without having a sore or ulcer on his genitals. What proof would you accept in order to believe that at least one man has?
Response:
No, obviously I don’t mean that at all. I mean that I’m still looking for studies with evidence contradicting the statement below. George M. Carter : Thank you all for your comments. I had a feeling that it was not : possible (or very unlikely). I would like it, now, if anyone who felt : they could successfully and scientifically contradict the statement, : "straight non-IV drug users cannot get AIDS from intercourse with a : HIV+ female unless they have open sores" to please try.
Why? Frankly, I haven’t looked for epidemiological studies that either confirm or refute the statement. I don’t really care, since I’m gay. But let’s presume there’s no evidence (or none that satisfies you). Let us presume further that you meant to write "straight [MALE] non-IV…" and further that you meant vaginal intercourse. Let us presume further no other behaviours were engaged in (no cunnilingus, anilingus; she’s not menstruating). Let’s presume it’s just the old in and out, wham bam thank you ma’am. She’s HIV infected. The penis is pristine (at least to look at). Let’s further presume no protection is used. So how often does this exact scenario occur? Does this mean the man can not get HIV? Well, given there’s no evidence, we cannot say! Does this mean the man should worry he may have been infected because he was too arrogant or stupid to wear a condom? The answer to this question is yes. Even if the man doesn’t fuck all that vigorously, he is still quite likely to cause minute tears in the skin of the dick. Further, his urethra will invariably open up whilst inside the woman. Is the risk in such a very narrow scope situation high? In contrast to butt fucking, I think the answer is that the risk is less. But this also presumes the man only fucks her once. Increased frequency will, like Russian roulette, increase the potential of infection. What I’m wondering is if your question is designed to serve as a rationale for not having safer sex? (Gee, I hope Clinton hasn’t signed that stupid fucking idiotic Telecommunications Bill. Fuck those bastards in Congress anyway.) George M. Carter
Response:
George; I echo your concerns. I cannot stress enough that the friction of masterbation and/or extended sexual contact can stress the skin tissues and provide a path for transmission. The CDC at their website recently reported that males are at a higher risk of infection of the female partner has an orgasm. This is attributed to greater amounts of vaginal fluid resulting in greater concentrations of HIV in the fluids. There is some very good, well founded information located at the CDC website.
That’s a nice theory to maintain the fear, but has it ever ACTUALLY occurred out of the hundreds of millions of masturbating and sexually active men? Female orgasms might increase the risk, but from what (zero?) Which medical journal published the case? Theoretically, I might get mauled by a tiger in the park, but I think it is worth the essentially nonexistent risk. BKL
Response:
No, obviously I don’t mean that at all. I mean that I’m still looking for studies with evidence contradicting the statement below. George M. Carter
: Thank you all for your comments. I had a feeling that it was not : possible (or very unlikely). I would like it, now, if anyone who felt : they could successfully and scientifically contradict the statement, : "straight non-IV drug users cannot get AIDS from intercourse with a : HIV+ female unless they have open sores" to please try. : By this, do you mean that such (men? or women?) should find an HIV+ : woman with the express intent of having unprotected sex? What an : interesting idea! How long do you think it will take you to enroll : such a study? : George M. Carter — _| _| _| _| _| _| _|_| _| (3rd year genetics)
Response:
Thank you all for your comments. I had a feeling that it was not possible (or very unlikely). I would like it, now, if anyone who felt they could successfully and scientifically contradict the statement, "straight non-IV drug users cannot get AIDS from intercourse with a HIV+ female unless they have open sores" to please try. By this, do you mean that such (men? or women?) should find an HIV+ woman with the express intent of having unprotected sex? What an interesting idea! How long do you think it will take you to enroll such a study? George M. Carter
George; I echo your concerns. I cannot stress enough that the friction of masterbation and/or extended sexual contact can stress the skin tissues and provide a path for transmission. The CDC at their website recently reported that males are at a higher risk of infection of the female partner has an orgasm. This is attributed to greater amounts of vaginal fluid resulting in greater concentrations of HIV in the fluids. There is some very good, well founded information located at the CDC website. Kevin Nixon Kevin M. Nixon
Response:
[edit] I explain it by any dirt or foreign substance getting into the urethra. If you piss and wash soon after sex, you will not have any problems. (This was told to me by public health clinician more than twenty years ago.) I don’t use condoms (with a few rare exceptions) and haven’t had an STD in more than twenty years. And I have a very active sex life. Hooked on Hygiene…worked for me!
[edit] Almost all nonspecific urethritis or nongonococcal urethritis are caused by Chlamydia trachomatis and Ureaplasma urealyticum. Gonorrhea is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. All are sexually transmitted infectious agents that can be successfully transferred despite rigorous hygiene and post coital urination. Treatment is usually uncomplicated except in instances of antibiotic resistance. Postgonococcal urethritis, epididymitis, salpingitis, gonococcal arthritis, and disseminated gonococcal infection with bactermia may occur. Rectal gonorrhea and gonococcal pharygitis are related disorders. The exposure of the mucous membrane to HIV carrying fluids during sexual activity is one of several routes of infection that leads to the development of AIDS, an extremely deadly disease for which there is no cure. The poster of this hygiene routine has obviously pissed his brains out. HIV testing, instruction in the application and use of condoms, and a psychological workup are recommended for this type of immature behavior. Poor self-image, and a lack of any real purpose in life, can lead to many forms of high risk behavior. Although counseling cannot rapidly remove the ignorance accrued in a lifetime, sometimes, with a little luck, it can begin an introspective thought process that may avert disaster. We live and we pray, many are dying… disease knows no favorites, but ignorance chooses disease everytime. Charles P. McCarthy Healthcare Consulting and Medical Research Carmichael, CA, USA
Response:
: If you don’t think that HIV can go from female to male, how do you explain the : instances of NSU and clap? I explain it by any dirt or foreign substance getting into the urethra. If you piss and wash soon after sex, you will not have any problems. (This was told to me by public health clinician more than twenty years ago.) I don’t use condoms (with a few rare exceptions) and haven’t had an STD in more than twenty years. And I have a very active sex life. Hooked on Hygiene…worked for me! Ed in NYC
Response:
Thank you all for your comments. I had a feeling that it was not possible (or very unlikely). I would like it, now, if anyone who felt they could successfully and scientifically contradict the statement, "straight non-IV drug users cannot get AIDS from intercourse with a HIV+ female unless they have open sores" to please try.
By this, do you mean that such (men? or women?) should find an HIV+ woman with the express intent of having unprotected sex? What an interesting idea! How long do you think it will take you to enroll such a study? George M. Carter
Response:
Harvey-Sutton P; Nelson M; Tomkins M Who calls the Sydney HIV/AIDS Information Line? Albion St. Centre, Surry Hills. Annu Conf Australas Soc HIV Med. 1993 Oct 28-30;5:74 (poster no. 2) Abstract: Since its inception in 1985 the NSW HIV/AIDS Information Line receives an average of 100 calls per day from which statistics are gathered about the caller’s sex, location, sexuality, transmission issues, risk behaviour, nature of enquiry, and referral/action taken. These statistics can be used to assess areas of HIV education deficit and response to public education campaigns. During the Grim Reaper Campaign, calls rose to an average of 300 calls per day. Calls to the Information Line are mostly from metropolitan heterosexuals (more male than female) enquiring about oral sex, HIV antibody screening, seroconversion and safe sex. Referrals are mostly to local HIV antibody screening sites, Albion St. Centre (medical and counselling) services, HIV/AIDS organisations (e.g. the AIDS Council of NSW), and HIV/AIDS support groups. The prevalence of heterosexual callers asking about safe sex has implications for the education of groups who are not currently targeted for HIV education. Falciano M; Ferri F; Macedonio A; Mastroianni CM; and others Heterosexual transmission of HIV: a 4 year follow-up. Istituto di Malattie Infettive, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy Int Conf AIDS. 1991 Jun 16-21;7(1):315 (abstract no. M.C.3070). Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of infection with HIV during heterosexual trasmission. METHODS: 90 couples in which one partner was HIV+ have been investigated during the period from 1986 to 1990. Couples having additional risk factors for HIV infection have been ruled out from the study. Both clinical and immunological parameters (HIV-Ag, CD4, Skin test) have been considered: special attention has been paid to the use of condom, the frequency and type of sexual intercourse. RESULTS: At the beginning of the study, in 79 (87.5%) couples the HIV+ subject was a male and 11 (12.2%) was a female. The trasmission occurred in 43/90 couples (47.7%): 5 from female to male (11.6%) and 38 from male to female (88.3%). In 3 cases seroconversion occurred during the follow-up. In the group of 43 couples in which seroconversion occurred, 2 (4.6%) declared of having used condom always or often, 33 (76.7%) seldom or never and 8 (18.7%) used it only after knowing of being HIV+; in the group of 47 couples in which seroconversion did not occur, 16 (44%) had used condoms always or often, 18 (38.4%) seldom or never and 13 (27.6%) only after the positivity for HIV. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that heterosexual trasmission is increasingly important and that the rate in the trasmission is higher from male to female. The follow-up of the 47 couples in which trasmission has not occurred is important. Rehmet S; Staszewski S; Helm EB; Doerr HW; Stille W Cofactors of HIV transmission in heterosexual couples. Center of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Frankfurt M; FRG Int Conf AIDS. 1991 Jun 16-21;7(2):329 (abstract no. W.C.3132). Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate cofactors of heterosexual HIV transmission in monogamuous couples; to evaluate transmission rates and, in a prospective part of the study, seroconversions after unprotected sexual contacts. PATIENTS and METHODS: We investigated transmission rates and possible cofactors, as CD4 cells, progression of disease, HIV antigen, duration of relationship, previous infections with other STDs in 208 heterosexual couples with known index persons. 40 discordant couples reporting unprotected sexual contacts were prospectively monitored for seroconversion. RESULTS: Male to female transmission was 4 times higher than female to male transmission (31% vs. 8%). Transmission of HIV was significantly higher in patients who had positive serum titers for HIV p24 antigen (42% vs. 14%), and CD4 cells at first examination below 200/ul (52% vs. 22%). Patients having infected their partners also had a more aggressive course of disease (more rapid lost of CD4 cells and higher incidence of full blown AIDS during the observation period). We found no correlation to the duration of relationship nor to previous infection with hepatitis B / lues. Long term monitoring of 40 discordant couples reporting unprotected sexual contacts showed one seroconversion (female to male). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that more infectious patients are characterized by a more aggressive course of disease, but can transmit HIV at any stage of the disease. The period soon after the beginning of sexual relationship seems to be connected with an increased risk of HIV transmission. Johnson AM; Petherick A; Davidson SJ; Brettle R; and others Transmission of HIV to heterosexual partners of infected men and women. School of Medicine, London, UK. AIDS. 1989 Jun;3(6):367-72. Abstract: Future heterosexual spread of HIV will in part depend on the efficiency of transmission from men to women and from women to men. We studied seventy-eight female sexual partners of men infected with HIV and 18 male sexual partners of infected women. Participants were interviewed concerning sexual practices, use of contraception and other risk factors for HIV infection. Fifteen out of 78 (19.2%) female partners and one out of eighteen (5.5%) male partners were seropositive for HIV antibody. All couples had practised vaginal intercourse. Seropositive female partners did not differ significantly from seronegative partners with regard to length of relationship, number of acts of vaginal intercourse, other sexual practices, stage of clinical disease in the index case, or numbers of other sexual partners in the last five years. In two women, seroconversion was documented after one act of unprotected sexual intercourse. The majority of infected female partners (eight out of 15) had sexual relationships with men who were asymptomatic and did not practice anal intercourse. Biological factors such as variability in infectivity of the index case and susceptibility of the contact, as well as behavioural variables may be important in determining transmission. Fischl MA; Dickinson GM; Scott GB; Klimas N; and others Evaluation of heterosexual partners, children, and household contacts of adults with AIDS. JAMA. 1987 Feb 6;257(5):640-4. Abstract: Forty-five adults with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and their 45 spouses, 109 children, and 29 household contacts were studied for evidence of heterosexual, perinatal, and household spread of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-III) infection. Of the 45 spouses enrolled, 26 (58%) had antibody to HTLV-III, including 12 (71%) of 17 male spouses and 14 (50%) of 28 female spouses. Of the 12 seropositive male spouses, nine were seropositive at enrollment and three had seroconversion. Of the 14 seropositive female spouses, four were seropositive at enrollment and ten seroconverted. Lack of barrier contraceptive use and oral sex were associated with seroconversion. Of the 109 children enrolled, 15 had AIDS or an AIDS-related illness, two had evidence of passive transfer of maternal antibodies, and two had HTLV-III infection acquired outside the household. None of the 90 seronegative children seroconverted. Of 29 household contacts studied, none developed antibody to HTLV-III. Falciano M; Bergami N; Rubino L; Macedonio A; and others Heterosexual transmission of HIV. The follow up of 174 couples in the period 1985-1993. Institute of Infectious Diseases, Rome University La Sapienza. Int Conf AIDS. 1994 Aug 7-12;10(1):294 (abstract no. PC0105). Abstract: Recent epidemiological data indicate a clear-cut increase in subjects infected heterosexually. The aim of this study is to evaluate the factors implicated in heterosexual transmission. During the period 1985-1993 at the Institute of Infectious Diseases of the University of Rome La Sapienza, 174 stable heterosexual couples were observed. Condom use and the frequency of intercourse before and after finding out about the seropositivity of the partner were examined. The index cases subdivided for sex and risk behaviour were thus divided: 140 males (123 DA, 15 heterosexuals, 2 bisexuals) 34 females (18 DA, 15 heterosexuals, 1 transfusion). The transmission occurred in 61 couples, 5 from woman to man and 56 from man to woman. In 9 cases, seroconversion occurred during follow-up. As for the frequency of intercourse before finding out, in couples where transmission had not occurred, 32 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 42 couples between 2 and 7 times a week and 16 couples more than 7 times a week. After finding out about their seropositivity, 48 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 39 between 2 and 7 times a week, and 10 more than 7 times a week. In couples where transmission had occurred, before finding out, 9 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 35 between 2 and 7 times a week, and 9 more than 7 times a week. After finding out, 24 couples had intercourse less than twice a week, 25 couples between 2 and 7 times a week and only 3 more than 7 times a week. As for the use of the condom in couples before finding out about the seropositivity of the partner with no transmission, 69 couples never used it, 16 sometimes, 5 always. After finding out about their seropositivity, only 8 couples never used the condom, 17 sometimes, 72 always. Instead with couples where transmission had occurred, 47 couples before finding out about their seropositivity never used it, 6 sometimes and none always. After finding out, 20 couples never used it, 4 sometimes and 28 always. The data show that an increased frequency of intercourse as well as non-protection favours the transmission of the infection. Thus it is indicated that sexual behaviour be modified after finding out the seropositivity of the index case. Brunet JB Heterosexual transmission of HIV: a European study. European Centre for the Epidemiological Monitoring of … read more »
Response:
If you don’t think that HIV can go from female to male, how do you explain the instances of NSU and clap?
Response:
Will someone please tell me the risks of a male getting HIV from regular intercourse with a woman with HIV. I’m not quite sure how a male could possibly get HIV, when nothing goes "in" the male (and if anything made it part-way in, it would surely be pushed out). I would really like statistics. Be as scientific/technical as you wish. I would appreciate it if only people answered that had some idea of what they were talking about (ie doctors, or researchers, or students studying AIDS). Jason Golbey 4th year Genetics at University of British Columbia
It has never happened to a man who did not have sores on his penis from another STD. After reading dozens of books on th subject, and following the disputes in this group, I have never heard the above fact refuted by any scientific or medical evidence. The TV movies are wrong.
Response:
Will someone please tell me the risks of a male getting HIV from regular intercourse with a woman with HIV. I’m not quite sure how a male could possibly get HIV, when nothing goes "in" the male (and if anything made it part-way in, it would surely be pushed out). I would really like statistics. Be as scientific/technical as you wish. I would appreciate it if only people answered that had some idea of what they were talking about (ie doctors, or researchers, or students studying AIDS). Jason Golbey 4th year Genetics at University of British Columbia
3142. Padian,NS; Shiboski,SC; Jewell,NP (1991): Female-to-male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus [see comments]. JAMA 266(12, 25 Sep), 1664-1667. <OBJECTIVE.–To examine rates of heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and associated risk factors and to determine the relative efficiency of female-to-male and male-to-female transmission. DESIGN.–Survey of infected individuals and their heterosexual partners recruited since 1985. SETTING.–Participants were recruited from various HIV counseling and testing sites throughout California but were generally interviewed and tested in their homes. PARTICIPANTS.–Data from 379 couples at entry to the study are reported: 72 male partners of infected women and 307 female partners of infected men. The infected index case had a well-established source of risk; couples were eliminated if the direction of transmission could not be established. The majority of couples were monogamous since 1978, white, and in their 30s. Most partners did not know their serostatus at entry into the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE.–HIV serostatus in the exposed sexual partner. RESULTS.–We observed one probable instance (1%) of female-to-male transmission compared with 20% transmission rates in the female partners of infected men. All couples were sampled in the same way. Male index cases were more likely to be symptomatic than female index cases. CONCLUSION.–The odds of male-to-female transmission were significantly greater than female-to-male transmission. The one case of female-to-male transmission was unique in that the couple reported numerous unprotected sexual contacts and noted several instances of vaginal and penile bleeding during intercourse. (Abstract by: Author) [ADOLESCENCE; ADULT; AGED; COITUS; FEMALE; #HIV INFECTIONS/TM [TRANS...]
Response:
How about somebody with AIDS? If your penis is infected, then you have a blood avenue by which the virus could travel from an infected female if she has internal lesions by which the virus can travel. This necessity for both to coincide usually diminishes the chances. The infection of the penis does not have to be STD, it could be simple friction injury from lots of dry sex, so its best to use a lubricated condom of some sort or take the minimal risk. I guess that its each persons choice to see if they can win the lottery. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Will someone please tell me the risks of a male getting HIV from regular intercourse with a woman with HIV. I’m not quite sure how a male could possibly get HIV, when nothing goes "in" the male (and if anything made it part-way in, it would surely be pushed out). I would really like statistics. Be as scientific/technical as you wish. I would appreciate it if only people answered that had some idea of what they were talking about (ie doctors, or researchers, or students studying AIDS). Jason Golbey 4th year Genetics at University of British Columbia — _` <,_ -+—- o/ ~ _| _| _| _|_| (*)/ (*) ____, | _| _|_|_| _| , _|_|_| _| _| _|
Response:
Will someone please tell me the risks of a male getting HIV from regular intercourse with a woman with HIV. I’m not quite sure how a male could possibly get HIV, when nothing goes "in" the male (and if anything made it part-way in, it would surely be pushed out). I would really like statistics. Be as scientific/technical as you wish. I would appreciate it if only people answered that had some idea of what they were talking about (ie doctors, or researchers, or students studying AIDS). Jason Golbey 4th year Genetics at University of British Columbia — _` <,_ -+—- o/ ~ _| _| _| _|_| (*)/ (*) ____, | _| _|_|_| _| , _|_|_| _| _| _|
Response:
Categories: Ulcerative Disease | 
No Comments »
http://www.pi.se/magnus.ugander/fb_home.html lists a Perch of almost 7lb! http://www.pi.se/magnus.ugander/swerec.htm lists a Pike of 49 1/2 lb and a Catfish of over 132lb! Peter Dolman Consultant/Technologist