Posts made by MrMazda

That's actually a very good question…. To that I say this:

If abortion is murder, then blowjobs are cannibalism!  :crazy2:

@serbiasmiley:

People, AIDS is not dead, use condom

Actually, at this day and age, HIV is the least of your worries. I'll bet you didn't know that more recent studies that attempted to quantify risk factors among gay men have all noted that there has been not a single case of HIV transmission from a person who is HIV+ with an undetectable viral load. The fact remains that most people with HIV (although not all) within North America at least are all on HIV meds and maintain such an undetectable viral load. Simply put, it's a lot harder at this day and age to catch it than you might think.

@harryme:

What was your experience like?

I couldn't tell you honestly… I just can't bring myself to touch something that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't die lol

Also, even if the files are about the same size as the ones currently on the tracker, if the format container is different, or if the files are split into pieces (part 1, part 2, etc) instead of being all together as one big file, you can also still upload it as it technically would not constitute a duplicate.

It wasn't specified that the torrent wasn't listed under "dead". I understood the situation to be that the torrent has disappeared from active circulation. This can sometimes be a system glitch, sometimes it can also be that there are no longer any seeders, and sometimes it can be some other unexplained reason.

Hawt damn!!! Is that you?

As much as it is not really recommended in some ways, there is another way in which to get around this with Vuze…. Just don't use the SSL tracker. For some reason, it's only the SSL tracker that causes this kind of error. There are two different tracker styles that we have. Their Announce URLs start as follows:

SSL: https://tracker.gaytorent.ru/….

Non-SSL http://tracker.gaytorent.tw:2710/…...

Without knowing exactly which torrent you are referring to, it would be impossible to answer that question. Even then, depending on a number of things, it may not be possible to answer that question.

Interestingly enough, neither of the articles seem to mention follow up testing such as the genotype testing to confirm whether the person who was HIV+ and undetectable was the person who caused the infection, or if it came from somewhere else. In some more in-depth studies, they all noted that the genotype tests revealed that the cause of infection in cases where transmission did occur did not actually come from the person with the undetectable viral load.

In reading the article about the antibodies being traceable within urine, that brings me to one question… Is it just the anti-bodies that can be detected in the urine, or is there also the presence of the virus itself? If it's just the anti-bodies, then there isn't really a risk... If however the virus itself does somehow transfer to the urine, then that's a whole other ball of wax. It's definitely something worth taking a closer look at.

Many times…. Other Poz people are actually preferred since my little 5 year long nightmare.

Hehe… In my case, I find it kind of pointless to get an HIV test after March 2009, seeing as how after that point, I already know it will test positive  :hehe:

Monogamous you say? But I always thought that Monogamy was just another expensive piece of wood  ;D

I did back in 2007… At first I thought it to be the biggest mistake that I have ever made, but little did I know that a few years later, it would turn out that getting married was a blessing in disguise.... Long story made short, when my name got dragged through the mud over something that I didn't do, it wasn't my last name that was associated with it, so people that I've known since before I got married never made the connection, since they all knew me under my original birth name. Instead of my family being the target of the harassment that ensued after everything went down, it was my ex-husband's family that got the brunt of it :lolp:

As a general rule, I get tested for anything and everything under the sun except for HIV at least once a year, but usually twice. As for HIV, I have not been tested since March 2009.

I would do the same thing right back, knowing that it would get his attention. It's always worked…

After all, the rules are very clear... Either we both can, or we both can't hehe

More likely than not, it would be the anal sex that would cause it in a case like that. The reason that I say this is that I have a few nurse friends, one of which works specifically dealing with HIV. In their many many years of experience, they have NEVER seen so much as ONE positive test result when oral sex has been the only mode of contact. Granted, this does not prove that it's impossible, but it sure does suggest that it's not very likely.

Yes to all…

In fact, I was just at a sex party today at The Attic hehe.

"Some" cases? The only one that I'm aware of is the woman who claims that she contracted HIV through oral sex when she performed it the day following dental surgery while she was still bleeding somewhat. Some would suggest that there is more than 1 case, which makes me curious to know what case(s) they're referring to….

@Exphleb:

Piss is sterile coming out of the body. However, virii can pass from blood to urine.

Can you provide documentation that this is also the case with HIV? This would be the first that I've ever heard of the potential for the presence of HIV in urine. Also, this begs the question, if urine is sterile, how can it be contaminated with a virus? Wouldn't this mean that it's not sterile? I just don't understand how there can be such an obvious contradiction. As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely NO evidence that proves that this is possible with HIV. By the same token, there is also no evidence that suggests or otherwise proves that HIV is or is not present within ejaculative fluid or pre-cum either… That being said, there is newer documentation that has been made available that seems to suggest (in theory anyway) that with a suppressed viral load, the only place in which to really find the virus within the human body is within the bone marrow. This is why there are a few bizarre and odd-ball cases where claims have been made that HIV treatment medications have been able to remove the virus from the system if administered early enough. Sadly though, there aren't exactly many people jumping at the chance to experiment with this alleged cure theory for obvious ethical reasons.

@Exphleb:

If someone tests negative for HIV, good chance they're clean.

I would beg to differ on this point. Given the reality of the approximately 2 week window (with some tests that can take up to 3 months, or in VERY rare cases, up to 6 months), it is quite possible that someone who sleeps around on a regular basis can test "clean", and then contract HIV the day after the blood was drawn. These are reasons why I say that HIV testing alone is not necessarily all that it's cracked up to be. There are other variables in the equation to take into account, such as whether or not the person is a complete tramp and sleeps around on the daily.

@Exphleb:

Remember, HIV can take 3 months before detection using older systems. Modern tests can get an accurate reading within 24-48 hours after contact.

Actually, there's a slight flaw to that statement. By any government approved tests for the masses, the point of seroconversion must occur before the test will yield any result. The immune system must get overwhelmed with the virus as to begin creating the anti-body and protein necessary. This process generally occurs within about 2 weeks. Perhaps with more sophisticated testing it may be possible to come to a determination about whether or not the virus is present, however any of the tests that are available to the masses do not actually detect the actual virus itself… They only detect the "by-products" for lack of a better term. This is largely due to the fact that Public Health (both in Canada & the USA) use the MEIA & Western Blot for their testing methods, which yield a "non-reactive" result if this process has not yet occurred. If there are such tests that can verify this within 24 - 48 hours, this begs the obvious question of why are these tests not the standard norm, instead of the current system that is used in the masses?

@Exphleb:

The facts have changed dramatically; gays have the lowest percentage of the population who are infected. This number continues to decrease.

Actually, this statement is a little misleading. As far back as 2003, the number of heterosexual women with HIV on a GLOBAL scale exceeded that of gay men. That being said however, within North America, the proportions are actually quite different than looking at stats as a whole on a global scale. According to the CDC, within North America, the number of gay men infected with HIV is still substantially higher than that of any other group.

More recent study results that were recently published seem to indicate that there's another key to take into account. That key is the person's viral load. It is actually noted that if the person is on HIV meds and has an undetectable viral load that there has not been so much as one confirmed case of transmission, even with unprotected sex. Long story made short, there's more to take into account when assessing your risk factor than it would seem on the surface.