aids

[im a model]

two quick questions:

1. if you have aids do you infect people with hiv or with aids?

2. once you get hiv, how long do you have with no noticeable symptoms?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
two quick questions:

1. if you have aids do you infect people with hiv or with aids?

2. once you get hiv, how long do you have with no noticeable symptoms?

[/ QUOTE ]

AIDS is a description of a set of symptoms caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (or not, depending on what conspiracy theories you subscribe to). You cannot transmit AIDS, but you can transmit HIV, through any sort of fluid contact, although blood is by far the most contagious.

There is no set amount of time until symptoms start to appear. Most labs recommend waiting until at least 6 months after infection for definitive testing, although there are some problems with that. The average time for onset of symptoms is ~8-10 years, I think. But the viral load necessary for transmission is reached usually far before this, and can fluxuate a great deal.

[im a model]

[ QUOTE ]
The average time for onset of symptom is ~8-10 years, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

mmmmmmMMMMMWHAAAAAAAAAAT? so someone can get pozzed in the butt and on average not have any syptoms for almost a decade? no way. i was thinking more like 8 to ten months.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average time for onset of symptom is ~8-10 years, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

mmmmmmMMMMMWHAAAAAAAAAAT? so someone can get pozzed in the butt and on average not have any syptoms for almost a decade? no way. i was thinking more like 8 to ten months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way too short. 5-15 years covers almost everyone.
Gonna be awhile before you know the consequences of that butt pozzing if you don't get tested.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average time for onset of symptom is ~8-10 years, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

mmmmmmMMMMMWHAAAAAAAAAAT? so someone can get pozzed in the butt and on average not have any syptoms for almost a decade? no way. i was thinking more like 8 to ten months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, symptoms of the infection usually occur in 2-4 weeks. Development of AIDS takes ~10 years.

However, these symptoms are usually very similar to the flu or any other infection and are very commonly ignored or misdiagnosed.

[malorum]

Get tested.
If you look at the overall stats you're very likely in the clear, unless your injecting drugs or going to meth parties.

The relief of a very likely negative test result will be much better than worrying about every cold you get for the next 15 years.
there is of course a small chance of a positive result in which case u would be able to:
1. get treatment and increase survival.
2. not infect anyone you care about.

[im a model]

im not afraid that i have aids. the question was more based on if you were going to die in 5 years would you not have to worry about getting hiv. so evidently if you were going to die in 5 years it would make sense to not care at all about whether you got hiv (except for spreading it to others).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
im not afraid that i have aids. the question was more based on if you were going to die in 5 years would you not have to worry about getting hiv. so evidently if you were going to die in 5 years it would make sense to not care at all about whether you got hiv (except for spreading it to others).

[/ QUOTE ]

Its probably true. There are some people who are going to have AIDS onset earlier than 5 years, and its based on a lot of factors (age at infection, strength of your immune system, other conditions) but yeah, if you are for sure going to die in 5 years, it doesn't make much difference.

A lot of medicine is like this. At a certain age, a lot of doctors recommend that women stop getting mammograms and Pap smears. This isn't because they aren't likely to get breast or cervical cancer (they are pretty likely) but because the treatment plans and the length of time needed for development of a cancer serious enough to cause negative quality-of-life outcomes are longer than the life expectancy for the woman. In other words, the suffering of the test and finding out that she has breast cancer are going to far outweigh the benefits of the diagnosis.

[PLOlover]

a) that one boxer who had tested positive for HIV a long time ago, well it turns out it was a false positive. His whole career ruined for nothing. he was on howard stern and talked about how every HIV test he's taken since then has been negative, and he's trying to get back into boxing after ten years or whatever.

b) Magic Johnson. wtf, maybe he doesn't really have it either, cause he aint dead yet.

[Wubbie075]

[ QUOTE ]
a) that one boxer who had tested positive for HIV a long time ago, well it turns out it was a false positive. His whole career ruined for nothing. he was on howard stern and talked about how every HIV test he's taken since then has been negative, and he's trying to get back into boxing after ten years or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no specific kowledge of this so take what I say with a grain of salt... but I have serious doubts about this "false positive." If he truly had a false positive why did he:

A) Wait for 10 years to actually get back in the ring?

B) Choose to fight in a jurisdiction that conveniently does not require blood tests?

C) Not sue the various boxing commisions for the millions of dollars in lost income due to his unfair banning?

Until multiple doctors go on record confirming that he does not, in fact, have hiv/aids I am gonna be very dubious of his claim (and if these doctors did confirm it please link it)

[PLOlover]

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/DHB/Casile_071806.htm
[ QUOTE ]
PBR:
Tom, your saying, they don’t have anything to worry about, you have said on the record that you are NOT HIV positive right now, and you think the test you got ten years ago was a false positive. Explain to me why you feel that.

TM:
There are several different types of dietary supplements that were on the market back then, that I was taking, and there were a couple of other different things I was taking that would cause a false positive, with the test they were administering back then. They test that they give you doesn’t pick up the virus itself, it only picks up the anti-bodies. So if your exposed to something, and your body is built up to protest yourself the way it is supposed to, your still going to test positive. It has been undetectable in my blood for the last 6 or 7 years, and that’s as far as I am going to go with that. People will find out more about that, when we decide to go to Vegas and take care of this thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

On hward stern he said he tested positive only the first time and every time since he has tested negative.

Not sure of the details but I guess he is gonna try to get back iknto boxing on the grounds that he was never HIV+.

[PLOlover]

Tommy Morrison

[latefordinner]

what is the point of a hypothetical like this? especially something that relies on something as easily researched as average lengths of time for onsets of debilitating symptoms after becoming HIV positive.

To the Magic Johnson poster - there are plenty of HIV+ people who live healthy lives for 10-20 years in the West where retriovirals and other drugs are readily available.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
a) that one boxer who had tested positive for HIV a long time ago, well it turns out it was a false positive. His whole career ruined for nothing. he was on howard stern and talked about how every HIV test he's taken since then has been negative, and he's trying to get back into boxing after ten years or whatever.

b) Magic Johnson. wtf, maybe he doesn't really have it either, cause he aint dead yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the full complement of drug treatments available today, I think the prognosis for a rich, conscientious HIV patient is really good. I'm pretty sure Magic doesn't currently have AIDS, and I don't think he has ever developed it. He had the money and resources to be on the newest, best drugs for the entire course of his disease, and has managed to keep his viral load low. This goes to show the earlier point, that it can take decades to develop into AIDS, depending on a host of other factors.

As to the false positive question: If I recall correctly, the policy is that the boxer is required to get a confirmational test, after a positive, some months later. BOTH of his tests were positive, and he later received a negative test. It is obviously unfortunate, and I might have the details slightly wrong, but that is going to happen, inevitably, with any test.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a) that one boxer who had tested positive for HIV a long time ago, well it turns out it was a false positive. His whole career ruined for nothing. he was on howard stern and talked about how every HIV test he's taken since then has been negative, and he's trying to get back into boxing after ten years or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no specific kowledge of this so take what I say with a grain of salt... but I have serious doubts about this "false positive." If he truly had a false positive why did he:

A) Wait for 10 years to actually get back in the ring?

B) Choose to fight in a jurisdiction that conveniently does not require blood tests?

C) Not sue the various boxing commisions for the millions of dollars in lost income due to his unfair banning?

Until multiple doctors go on record confirming that he does not, in fact, have hiv/aids I am gonna be very dubious of his claim (and if these doctors did confirm it please link it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.