Jump to content

highlander

Registered
  • Content Count

    243
  • Joined

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About highlander

  • Rank
    Swingers Board Addict

Personal Info

  • Location
    Portland,OR

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A big piece of evidence suggesting problems with the US approach on STD's is the fact that Cuba-a poor, 3rd world country, has a lower rate of HIV infection than Puerto Rico. A bunch of US epidemiologists claimed quite publicly that the Cuban emphasis on testing and quarantine would not work. I personally don't see that as a scientifically accurate claim. There are all kinds of potential criticism of the Cuban approach on grounds like human rights or moral considerations. Anyhow, I do NOT think this stuff in conspiratorial in nature. My great grandfather treated STD's decades ago as a practitioner of Native American herbalism (the stuff he did is still taught in schools of herbal medicine today-and was probably better than anything out there until antibiotics came along). Anyhow he had _intense_ community pressure around what he was doing for moral and religious reasons. Folks can get very fixed in a scientific area. This paper discusses some of this issue. Could Gambling Save Science? Part of the question is how to assess the real consensus at any time on an area-properly taking into account minority opinion. Another is how to keep science focused on predictive accuracy and removed from religious and political considerations. I agree HIV is hard to approach directly. The only reported "cure" I've seen involved a bone marrow transplant. The one report of a vaccine actually having a preventive effect came from a friend of mine that used to work at CDC. He claimed the reason that Gardisil was fast tracked the way it was is that there was some statistical evidence that using Gardisil for prevention of HPV had an indirect effect of making subjects less likely to get infected by HIV. HIV is kind of hard to get by itself. A big chunk of HIV infections also involve other STD's and if you treat or prevent those other STD's you'll make acquisition of HIV much less likely. Why would they invest in a hard direction of research when minor treatments could generate similar revenue? One big question is what the prevalence of these viruses was in history-and just how is their presence impacting the health and longevity of contemporary people.
  2. HPV is a _huge_ family of viral strains. The strains involved in genital warts include HPV-6 and HPV-11. As I understand it: the strains involved in genital warts tend to create concentrations of viral material around the area where we find warts. That is possibly why the AIM Healthcare foundation docs reported they were seeing a clearing of HPV-6 and HPV-11 virus from the systems of folks that had their warts removed. I've seen reports that some HPV strains do get periodically cleared from the system of some people-it isn't quite like HSV where the virus _never_ goes away completely once a patient gets infected. Some folks actually do clear an HPV strain from their system-no existing test will show they still have symptoms of HPV or are able to infect others. I don't think it is scientifically accurate to think in terms of "HPV". There are dozens of strains here-only a few of which are clearly identified as being associated with pathological conditions. What AIM discussed in their "Porn 101" Video is the closest thing to a treatment for HPV I've seen. I wouldn't call it a "cure"-but is appears to make natural healing more likely than if the condition is ignored. I have seen nothing about this in a peer reviewed journal supporting or refuting the AIM doc's claims-but I tend to think the AIM docs were accurate in their reports.
  3. I think there is some of that. It is largely just an unintended consequence of the system set up. I don't think the political aspect is conspiratorial. I think is more like group hysteria. I've only met one guy who would come out and say he thought AIDS was a good thing. That guy was a hard core racist that thought the presence of AIDS made it less likely white women would have sex with black guys-and he was very up front about that. I think a lot more folks behave like he did-but would never dare utter what he said. I think is just easy for folks to get unfeeling around a disease they think won't affect them or folks they care about. The thing with STDs: I really think swingers have their own specific issues-and need their own stuff like healthcare foundations oriented toward them. AIM was a good idea-but they got into areas that were just too politically volatile for the level of funding/organization they had. Ultimately they were funded by the porn industry. I really liked the work they did-but I think that maybe a step back is needed on this. I'm wondering just what _can_ be done without setting off the public health folks into error mode. AIM focused on a pretty extreme population-I think fewer than 1% of swingers actually fit into the kind of profile we saw there.
  4. Expanded use of HIV testing as a preventive measure could have been done much earlier than it has. AIM got hounded for claiming their testing program worked for porn actor. I seriously question the scientific soundness of those claims-and yes. I have read some of the literature. AIM claimed to have some success treating HPV related warts. As I remember their claims: treatment of warts tended to accelerate clearing of some strains. I haven't seen good pro/con analysis of that specific claim-but I'm inclined to think there is at least a chance they were right. I would love to see a true cure for HSV-and I think with funding and proper incentives it could happen. I think that is a lower priority than it should be for political reasons. I also think that ramping up testing technology and making it more affordable to detect when someone was contagious for HSV might be done-and would be worth seriously exploring. I'm REALLY disturbed when I hear stories from what I think are credible people saying that folks are having trouble testing such technologies for what appear to be political reasons. I would not say "normal" so much as "expected in the current environment". The question of the incidence of HSV/HPV historically is an interesting one I haven't seen well investigated yet. Urban environments are pretty new in historical terms. I think that historically folks were less monogamous than religious conservatives would like us to think. Hysteria/conservatism around sex is a fairly recent adaptation in evolutionary terms. one point that Kary Mullis makes: we just don't understand this viral/microbial ecosystem very well yet. Most of our knowledge is around a few pathological conditions. Even there the long latency stuff is slowly emerging.
  5. Just because a disease is transmitted sexually doesn't mean that is all there is to it. A Canadian report showed non-drug using prostitutes had a lower rate of STD's than the general public (the increased risk was entire concentrated among drug users). That dutch study showed only a slight difference between swingers and the general public. What one can really do is a real tricky question here.
  6. CDC tends to be conservative on a lot of points-both politically and scientifically. In general CDC is NOT oriented towards providing information to sexually active populations like swingers. "Officially" the only thing that prevents STD's is condoms or monogamy in their eyes. When AIM was active, I think they had a better knowledge of the health issue of sexually active populations than anything I saw out of CDC. Yes, their treatments/tests were sometimes off-label or experimental. On the other had: I know someone from Silicon Valley that told me about a company that wanted to take a testing technology for STD's into clinical trials that would test for a whole battery of STD's inexpensively-and they got stopped because of political pressure. I've reviewed some of the literature on STD transmission-and I find a lot of it limited when it comes to models of why testing would/wouldn't work. I think what AIM did among porn actors worked remarkably well given the conditions they were working within - and with minor changes could work much better (for example I agree with LA Public health that porn actors should be screened for hard drugs).
  7. Before the AIM Healthcare Foundation got shut down, they described treating HPV via removal of genital warts using liquid nitrogen (the standard way to remove warts). Only certain HPV strains are involved in genital warts. From what I can gather only a few HPV strains have been all that well studied. We know what a few do, like the ones involved in cervical cancer and genital warts, but there are a lot of strains out there we just don't know well what they really do (if anything). HPV/HSV2 are two of the biggest arguments around consistent condom use and probably support use of female condoms. I think sharing test results securely with partners via stfree.com is a good idea too, but rather few folks test for HSV and or test for HPV in men (women get HPV tests via pap smears, at least for the strains involved in cervical cancer).
  8. I think a lot of folks have their heads in the sand on the issue of HSV. My own gut : if you swing long enough, there is a rather good chance you will get HSV-1 or HSV-2. The big thing is to be prepared to be VERY careful the next two years after you get it because it is 10 times as contagious during that period than afterwards. What I have seen: most folks don't test for HSV so they don't even know if they have it or not. For most folks HSV is just mildly annoying, but that 2 years after they get it, they are much more vulnerable per contact than folks that are HSV- or have been HSV+ over two years. I have NEVER had a potential partner offer to exchange HSV test results with me, but I have run into people who knew they were HSV-2 positive and were up front about it. The thing that is scary to me: nobody was informed by their doctors just how the infectivity tends to vary with time or how it is associated with vulnerability to other STD's.
  9. I met a guy one time that said he'd take the male of potential swing couple partners to a blood clinic. They'd just put the others phone number down when they filled out paperwork-and do it in front of each other.
  10. I have seen folks that found clinics who would give them printed test results-but you generally have to look for such a clinic. When I was in the SF Bay area, some clinics would specifically refuse to provide printed test results on the grounds people were forging these. AIM Healthcare Foundation used to host results on their web site-and you had to have a long URL to get in-which was their security. AIM got shut down and the ground they lost control of some private information of adult actors. However, LA Public Health was gunning for them a LONG time-there is a big taboo on the idea of sharing test results as a preventive measure in the USA-but not places like Cuba (which despite being a poor 3rd world country has a lower HIV rate than Puerto Rico right next door). Lots of folks just take others word for test results. The thing is: about 25% of folks that are HIV+ will lie about it to partners-and lots more will lie about whether they have in fact been tested. I think fewer will take the time to photoshop test documentation-but still that is too many. "serosorting" in the gay community typically means a guy asking another "are you clean" as a prelude to a sexual encounter. That is much of the reason it just doesn't work that well-that and folks really would need to test much more frequently than the 180 average for it to work at all well. Despite that, serosorting provides some measurable benefits according to the studies on it.
  11. The big issue with stuff like the information from NIH/CDC they aren't really used to dealing with intensively sexually active communities like the swinger community. One organization that had that ability was the AIM Healthcare Foundation but they are no longer active (they used to provide STD testing to porn actors). L.A. Public Health hated those folks, but what got them was some of the confidential information on porn actors got leaked. There is some data out there that is just counterintuitive. For example, a Canadian study shows non-drug using prostitutes had a lower chance of STD infection than the general population.
  12. I guess one question to ask yourself: would putting testing into your mix of precautions be easier for you than condoms? I think it is perfectly reasonable for you to insist any partner present you with recent negative test results for HIV-and all treatable STD's. The ones that might be tricky are HSV I& HSVII - those are ones that a lot of folks have. However, you can look for partners that are either a) HSV - _or_ have had it long enough it isn't as contagious. Another thing you can do: really avoid partners who are users of hard drugs or have drinking issues. Those folks may be HIV- at the moment-but they are more likely to become HIV+. That is 10-20% of potential partners, but over 80% of the potential risk. Yes, using condoms adds some additional safety, but that isn't an excuse not to do other stuff you can do. I suspect you are an attractive woman with more potential partners than you can possibly accommodate - so selecting from the safest pool of playmates will still leave you with lots to choose from. Have FUN!!!
  13. I found the Cure Magazine article to be interesting-and I felt like I learned something. I checked around and found some statistics. Apparently Head/neck/throat cancers are increasing (about 25% the last few decades in the UK). With 150 strains of HPV the overall knowledge here seems pretty basic. Condoms appear to help-but they seem far from a silver bullet-and testing seems in a pretty basic stage. I think we need to keep a perspective here though. Overall incidence of these cancers is 1/93 or so. I'm not sure how much the decision to swing or not really affects that risk. There are a lot of factors in play too. My guess is this means if you do choose to swing, it would be a good idea to pay close attention to your overall health
  14. please keep in mind: there are VERY different populations of MSM. Most MSM do not engage in anal sex-and that is where HIV risk is concentrated.
  15. There are relatively few studies on STD prevalence among swingers vs. other populations. A Dutch study suggested swingers had a slightly higher risk of STD's that then general population. There are a LOT of other factors to consider there: a) does one tend to choose partners from a pool that have good public health resources and access to healthcare? b) Does one choose partners that are users of hard drugs(meth, coke, opiates). HIV has a clear association with IV drug use-but non-IV use of meth/coke also increase risk per coital contact. Having a partner who is either an IV drug user or associates with them is a major risk factor for HIV. One Canadian study showed that non-drug using prostitutes had a lower risk of STD's than the general population. c) age(very young and very old appear most susceptible to HIV for example) d) Alcohol. 40% of new HIV infections are among alcoholics-which are only 8% of the population. Why? impaired judgement (it is hard to use a condom when you are loaded), riskier social networks, and possibly impact on the immune system. Many couples where one thinks they are monogamous are NOT. A big chunk of the customers of IV drug using prostitutes(both gay or straight) are married men. I don't think we are at the point that swinging is a clear HIV avoidance strategy-but I think in time that could become the case.
×
×
  • Create New...