Rod Daily tweets hes HIV Postitive

I think that rule should apply for all Tyler.... and anyone who goes to an escort and has bareback with them should realise that if the escort offers that, then they are probably positive - whether they know it or not. It's an expensive game of Russian roulette.

Thats what I was getting at Tyler. My point is they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tyler___Durden

Ah ok but immaterial.
I'm in the UK where testing is free, even if you go get tested 4 times a day!!!
The point is that people (civilians) generally don't bother getting tested at all.
That's why I assume they all have AIDS and I act accordingly.

And seat belts don't work either, if people don't wear them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictoriaVeil

@bluesoul: Say tommy got tested two weeks after he had sex and was negative for STD's. He goes six months between encounters. Because it was less frequent is he still not potentially dangerous to his second partner? Of course he is, It generally takes more than 14 days for HIV to show up in a test. THats why I am advocating that people take advantage of whats available to get tested.

As for the analogy, I don't really follow. It seems that it would correspond better to wearing a condom every time a person has sex, not whether some should get tested regularly. #IMO

---

i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying.

This is scary I didn't know this about the gay industry.

I think we should all have the same universal testing, but when I suggested that this is what I was informed with.

Wow at this Ricky Larkin article salute to him

http://therealpornwikileaks.com/walk...-ricky-larkin/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

This is scary I didn't know this about the gay industry.

I think we should all have the same universal testing, but when I suggested that this is what I was informed with.

---

Crazy story Kelly.

Since Alot of Gay performers work in the TS niche, wouldn't that bring the risk up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

i don't think you're understanding what i'm saying.

---

Apparently Not. :geek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I think that rule should apply for all Tyler.... and anyone who goes to an escort and has bareback with them should realise that if the escort offers that, then they are probably positive - whether they know it or not. It's an expensive game of Russian roulette.

---

Yep, totally.

Any time some caller asks for BB, I say:
"Sure, but I only have BB anal sex with clients who have done BB Anal with other escorts"
--"Ok that's fine"
"And you'll have to sign an insurance waver, coz the last 8 clients who had BB with me all caught AIDS*
and died and this is to prevent your next of kin suing either me or my insurance company after you die too."
--"You haven't really got AIDS?"
"No but there's an 87%** likelihood that you Have, ...bye"
and add them to my BLOCKED LIST.
I would hope this will prompt them to alter their sexual behaviour and go get tested, but who knows....
I then stop thinking about them and their current & future partners
but in hindsight it's dreadfully sad.


*You don't catch AIDS, rather you get infected with HIV which {without continuous treatment of PEP meds, for life} weakens the immune system and you die from secondary infections, but I don't think these callers appreciate the distinction, nor care...

**Made up stat.
A huge range of factors determine % likelihood of transmission,
from whether the other person is infected or not (obviously) through to factors which apply if they are HIV+:
Like the HIV+ persons viral load, Anal or vaginal sex, Whether the HIV+ person is penetrating or penetrated, In the case of HIV+ men and trans whether they are circumcised or not, Whether there was any bleeding or tears (even microscopic ones) If the immune system of the other person is compromised by another infection such as even a bad cold, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

This is scary I didn't know this about the gay industry.
I think we should all have the same universal testing, but when I suggested that this is what I was informed with.

---

I noticed an earlier post which talks about studios for HIV+ performers
with presumably the view that as everyone is HIV+ there is no risk from
BB performances.

There are huge risks.
Firstly because there are different strands of HIV. So if an HIV+ person
gets infected with another strand, this will necessitate a change in PEP meds.
This usually involves a much bigger cocktail of PEP meds. For life.
And the drug effectiveness drops, the more complicated the HIV infection base is.
Also because BB sex can lead to transmission of other STI's like syphilis and gonorrhoea.
Any further infection on top of HIV, compromises the immune system
and reduces the effectiveness of the anti viral drugs which were
initially keeping the original HIV infection in check.

I've got no medical training (I had to spell-check the STI words!!!)
and all my thoughts on this thread are from things I've read
and numerous discussions with the medical staff in my GUM clinic.
It's all so complicated.
At least the decision process and physical action of using condoms is a lot easier,
or my head would explode!

Out on the gay industry

http://www.out.com/entertainment/200...uth?page=0%2C1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serial138

I should have known better than to argue with a conspiracy theorist.

You forget that treatment only affects those who have the disease, while a preventive measure such as a vaccine can be administered to the entire world population. The CDC says that there are currently 35 million people living with HIV around the world. World population is 7 billion. Which target market would you prefer to have a product aimed at, 35million, or 7 billion?

But lets say that between now and 15 years from now the number of HIV cases triples to 105 million. That's unlikely to happen but just for shits and grins lets go ahead and make that assumption. And we'll also assume everyone pays $30,000 a year for treatment, going off your $2500 a month number. Not figuring inflation, price erosion, or any of a host of other variables in, you get about $47.3 trillion for treatment if that 105 million cases was treated the whole 15 years. Now lets say 3 billion of the world's 7 billion people get a one time treatment for $30,000. That comes out to $90 trillion. Which one would appeal more to the greedy corporations you think?

In addition, you've noted that one patient paying $2500 a month for 15 years is $450,000. You also mentioned that the price is declining, so that $2500 can be expected to decline further, eroding your $450,000 to even less than that. That is not a good investment. Companies want to keep margins up, not see their goods become commodities. And especially in Pharmaceutical companies, generics manufacturers are ready to eat those margins up as soon as the patent expires, so you need to get your money in before it does.

If you do any basic time value of money computation you can determine that any investment returning only 3% (basically just a tiny amount more than inflation) over that same period would yield $567,000. You're going to tell me the greedy company is going to settle for $450,000 (or less because of price erosion) instead of getting $567,000? What about investing it and getting a 5% return, and yielding $676,000 over that 15 year period? Any company would be happy to be able to get their investment out of treating HIV and reinvest in bigger returns.

What was that about intelligent individuals now? For someone who has Gordon Gecko in his avatar, you are extremely naïve about finance and economics.

---

You have a decent thinking mind, i am not a conspiracy theorist, Did i insult you in my previous comments? NO
I am a REALIST.
You believe they will charge $30,000 for a cure? What world do you live in.
You are wishful thinking , I am naive about finance and economics ? haha

Try to find ONE company charging $30,000 for a HPV Vaccine.

You believe 35 Million are currently infected ?
You think everyone infected has been accounted for ?
Welcome TO THE REAL WORLD.......

Buy the time drug companies start pumping out drugs, and all companies begin making it, no insurance company would ever pay that.

So lets speak now with realism, 7 billion people, and as you stated say 3 billion get the vaccine, at even $5,000 which is unlikely, as it will be much lower is a ONE Time cost of $35 Trillion.
Now as you stated 35 million are currently infected that they KNOW OF, so lets say 50 Million total.
Treatment, lets not say $2500 Per Month, Lets say even as low as Charging $1500 a Month X 12 Months = $18,000 X 50 Million people is $9 Trillion.

So let us review
One Time Cost : $35 Trillion in Profits
Treating 50 Million yearly:$9 Trillion YEARLY
Now Lets not forget AZT was approved in 1987, and today is 2013
And that is how many years?

So once again, your math just does not justify what has been made in profits of since the first treatment rolled out in 1987, as well as current greed, even with inflation in minds of drug companies.


One FANTASTIC Update as well, as i previously posted.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/0...ds-in-monkeys/

A Step Closer hopefully...

If I insulted you before, I apologize. That was not my intention.

I'm not following your logic about more infections than what the CDC is reporting. You want to assume that 50 million cases are treated yearly when only 35 million cases are reported. So the extra 15 million cases nobody knows of, they're just taking the treatment for fun? Or if they aren't reported, then how are they getting these expensive treatments monthly? Do they even know they're infected? Are drug companies shipping treatment drugs and not telling anyone? While I could grant you there is a decent number of cases not accounted for because of timing errors and miscommunication, I doubt that number is almost one and a half times the size of the currently reported infections.

Also your math is a bit off. 3 billion people getting a $5000 treatment is $15 trillion, not $35 trillion. You gave the entire world population the vaccine. But 50 million people getting a $1500 treatment monthly comes out to $900 billion annually as well. So if we stick with your numbers, in a 15 year span getting $15 trillion this year and never receiving a dime again comes out to about $23.37 trillion at 3% annually. If you start with $900 billion now (I'll spot you an extra year here for money in the bank) and do 15 annual payments of $900 billion and compound the interest you get a return of $18.14 trillion. I'm thinking most drug companies would be happy with the one time payment that nets them over $5 trillion more.

Now I will grant you treatment has made a ton of money in the past, but as any financier can tell you, past performance does not guarantee future success. All that money has been made, and spent, already. Never assume because a venture was profitable in the past means it will remain that way. You can't make money off the past, only the future.

Not even talking money wise though, no company would be crazy enough not to pursue a cure like a vaccine. Remember you can't give a vaccine to someone who already has the disease, it does nothing for them. You still get to rake in your treatment money AND make a ton of cash immediately. And even if you are big evil corporation that doesn't want a cure so you can grow your treatment business, small greedy company that wants to make a name for itself IS going to go after that cure so they can make a ton of cash and erode your market share, possibly leap frogging you and becoming the dominant player. And lets not even consider what would happen to any company or employee found to be actively suppressing a cure.

Keep doing porn, whores. You'll end up like him