Dj FRIEND WITH HIV!!!!!!!! EVERYONE PLEASE READ AND RESPOND. VERY SERIOUS!!!!!!!

[Shiftkey]

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01042.html

99% accurate means 1 out of 100 are inaccurate. Your friend should get retested.

i have been tested at least once a year for the last 11 yrs and they always took my blood.. the results came back in 2 to 4 weeks.

Well yes, obviously I had a blood test also. Point was, I had nothing shoved up my d1ck.

 

[-HPNOTIQ-]

First off, I feel bad for your friend.

This is the reality most people are scared to face. Until you meet a person or known a close personal friend with HIV/AIDS and shake their hand, give them a hug, or look into their eyes - it becomes very easy to not think about it.

Its sad how people only notice these things when it happens to someone they know.

I'm very curious, like others here, about a 5 hour "quick results" HIV test. I work as a health professional and get tested annually. Results usually take 2-4 weeks, and I have never heard of a test that was same day.

I see the link you placed...but, if this is a hoax, its a sad one at that.

But, hoax or no hoax...this is a senerio that isn't out of the relm of possibilty.

So fellas, strap up and be safe.

I'm goin clubbing....

 

[Unbridled_1]

I read in Men's Health recently that most major hospitals would have a 45 minute test. I got tested once because I was paranoid about this girl who I had sex with. The results came back in a day, it was done at my doctor's office.

 

[david90]

is it possible to cure early stage of HIV?

 

[jakethasnake]

I can't say I feel sorry for your friend. Sorry if I sound callous, but fvck.... what can I say? He totally earned it.

 

[DJDamage]

With every pleasure in life, there is the small percentage calculated risk that something could happen.

- If a chick with H.I.V flossed her teeths recently, she can pass it on to you while giving you an uprotected blow job. As well there are herpes and other std's that are not always visible before outbreaks.

- Even when using a condom, it can break during intercourse. As well your balls are not protected, so std's viruses on a chick (some again are not always visible) can come into contact and you can contract std's on your d1ck.

The risk is there alright, but the same time the risk is there for everyone of us to get into a serious car accident and become handicapped or a vegtable/death the longer you spend on the road. Some of us with light fair skin are risking getting cancer with lots of exposure to sun. There is a risk to everything in life. Even playing a simple game of pickup basketball, you can twist your foot or ankle or break a bone in your leg, and be in a cast for a very long time.

Every think should be done in moderation - the more you do something the more the chance of you getting hurt by it.

Being a Dj is different then being a PUA. A PUA will try to bang as many hot chicks as he can and the more he comes in contact with them, the more he is risking himself.

A Dj needs to be more SELECTIVE in the type of girls he wishes to attract. If a chick has emotional problems/or is a bonefide slvt, she shouldn't be trusted unless she can prove that she has no diseases by getting tested. As well when you condom breaks on girls like that, she can get pregnant and you will be paying child support for the next 18-24 years, think how much is that going to cost you?????

 

[Porky]

- Even when using a condom, it can break during intercourse. As well your balls are not protected, so std's viruses on a chick (some again are not always visible) can come into contact and you can contract std's on your d1ck.

You can't get an STD just by getting her juices on your balls. you contract an STD via your mucus membrane, which is much larger on a woman than it is on a guy. that's why it's much easier for women to catch STDs than it is for men.

anyway, I know an HIV positive guy who has been having protected (read: condom) sex with his girlfriend for six years and she isn't infected.

 

[DJDamage]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anyway, I know an HIV positive guy who has been having protected (read: condom) sex with his girlfriend for six years and she isn't infected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does she know about it? because you have to be a little bit of a nut case to be playing Russian Rollete with a loaded gun (no pun intended).

 

[PoloBlue]

HIV ?

I wonder what percentage of people who get HIV survive?

 

[Porky]

Originally posted by DJDamage
quote:
Does she know about it? because you have to be a little bit of a nut case to be playing Russian Rollete with a loaded gun (no pun intended).

I believe that she was his nurse at one point/still is a nurse. She's aware of the risks and is willing to take them.

 

[jakethasnake]

^ I'm sorry, but now that's REAL love. Good for them.

 

[icecreaman]

I had a scare like this not to long ago. I wasnt feelin to good and I went on the internet and saw that my symptoms were similar to HIV. I freaked out and went and got tested. It took about a week and a half and the doc called me and told me everything was cool. All I did was give blood and peed in a cup. Anyway I was extremely relieved and realized that life is too short. All these cats out here worried about not gettin any girls but the truth is sex is way overrated and isnt worth your life. I also recommed that if your sexually active to go get tested, cause like that AIDS commercial "Knowing is Beutiful". Be safe and always wrap up your "johnson".

 

[Ricky]

Guys I feel horrible for his friend.

You know a friend of mine who's been with a ton of women got sick recently. They actually tested him for HIV. Fortunately he didn't have it.

My stomach sank reading this. I felt sick. If I read something like this everyday, I'd definitely stop hooking up with so many chicks myself.

I had a scare onetime where I thought I had herpes. Thankfully it wasn't that or even any STD.

I can't imagine going through that.

Is there any wonder why I just want to settle down now. I've had my share of *****. I don't want it to kill me!

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

I love how people attempt to discredit truth and serioues life situations by downplaying the severity of the case or dismissing it as "a statistical improbability."

As you sleep with more women, you're odds of "striking it rich with STD's" improve remarkably. And it stands to reason that any girl could be a walking CDC clinic, given the fact men throw their dirty asses at anything with a swagger in her hips. In the days of equality, women have throw away their panties and taken to the dreary restrooms.

Free love is dead. We've witnessed the problems involved. Heck, you can get a cold sore that never goes away on your lips just by kissing another person who has it, or using the straw or cup they recently used. Thus, transfering a type of sore to a woman's pvssy.

Having seen first hand the horror stories of STDs and babies, I now think to myself "Were something traumatic to occur, could I see myself working through this with this girl, be it a child or a disease?"

A friend of mine's sister just had a bachelorette party at 19 years old because she's pregnant and now getting married. I hadn't seen her in awhile, she thought I looked attractive, and now she's locked down for awhile, if not wife (she's spanish and abortion is a no-no). So does it pay to seem "like the man?!"

On the poster's point, I feel for ya man. I can envision this changing the lives of a good many people. What nobody realizes is that time is SO precious. When break life down into weeks for those of us 25, living to 75, we only have about 2600 weeks of life left to live, we've lived about 1300 weeks. Doesn't seem so long now, does it? Not to mention every 7 days is another week lost.

Not to mention, if it's found you knew of your infections and infected someone, criminal charges CAN be brought upon you.


A-Unit

A-Unit

 

[penkitten]

Originally posted by silo
Damn Pen, no fu*king wonder you keep talking about you vagina, you've been testing yourself since 15? just goes to prove that sex can mess you up psycologically if you're not emotionally ready for it. I'm not saying you are crazy but all your posts are one tracked toward sex and that is just not normal.

dude.. i get tested once a year when i have a yearly pap. once a chick has sexO one time.. she gets yearly paps and testing every year for the rest of her little life. that is called normal and healthy.
just for the record...
also not all my posts and replies are about sexO.

 

[CLOONEY]

HOLY FUKC.

I once got tested, and I can say my heart was also in my mouth. I was seriously shi*ing myself!! I should really get tested again!

As far as the q-tip thing, I never had that, I only had a blood test.

As far as the result, it is a well known fact that a small percentage of tests come back with a positive result, even though they are negative. It is not an error, it is done on purpose to make sure your doc double checks. I heard the percentage was as high as 3%. So the odds are your friend does have the HIV virus, but he should definately get double checked. As far as sending back the wrong results, I think it is absolutely brutal and cruel! I can not think of anything worst in my entire life! Other than that, 40% of HIV infected carriers never develop the AIDS virus. So there is a decent chance he will live out a healthy life. Also medication is so good these days, that with some decent money a person with AIDS can survive and live healthily for many years. Not that this is any comfort, just getting the HIV virus alone would make me want to end my life! I am paranoid about it and could honsetly think of nothing worse.

Where abouts are you guys from?

In Australia the HIV virus is very very minute amongst Heteros, 90% of the carrying population is gay, the the aboriginal populations % is rising due to so much unprotected sex.

It is very unlucky for your friend, as if you even have sex with a carrier, it is not highly likely you will contract it. Anal sex is far worst and increases the odds dramatically. There has been many cases where one partner in a relatinoship has had the virus, and they have been having unprotected sex for years without the other partner contracting it (this is hetero parterns of course, the gay community spreads it much more rapidly).

Man, I just feel so damn sorry for your friend, but stick by him and definately tell him to get retested.

 

[JamesMc]

man, reading that stuff about 99% accurate reminds me of something I was reading awhile back that'll put a new spin on things...

it goes something like this:

let's take a hypothetical situation:
Say 1 in 1000 ppl have a certain virus.
The test is 99% accurate.
(In this example, lets say that means that 1% of tests give a 'false positive', and the other 99% give the actual result).

You go to the clinic and get tested for this disease, and, unfortunately the doc tells you that it's positive....
THAT'S PRETTY BAD huh?!
"the guy almost certainly has the disease", you would say.

but look at the math:
out of 1000 ppl, 1% = 10 ppl
So on average 10 people will be told they have the disease when they don't, and 1 person, WILL have the diesease and be told they have the disease.

So that's 11 positives, out of 1000 ppl tested.

You got a positive result, so you are one of the 11.... but ONLY ONE guy out of the 11 actually has the disease.

So what's the chance you have the disease? 1/11 = less than 10%.

OVER 90% likelyhood that you DON'T have the disease!

I was pretty shocked after reading that. Those guys that are good at math will back me up on the stats.

Does this apply to the HIV case in question?? - I think the occurence of HIV is something quite low like the example disease...
you need a low 'base rate' for this 'false positive' influence to be so high.
The lower the occurence, the bigger the 'false positive' effect is.

What i'm definitely NOT saying is that this guy's friend in the post has a 90% chance of being OK...

just that, well this is obvious anyway, I would get tested again if I were him.


--James

 

[Pulsar]

Originally posted by JamesMc
man, reading that stuff about 99% accurate reminds me of something I was reading awhile back that'll put a new spin on things...

it goes something like this:

let's take a hypothetical situation:
Say 1 in 1000 ppl have a certain virus.
The test is 99% accurate.
(In this example, lets say that means that 1% of tests give a 'false positive', and the other 99% give the actual result).

You go to the clinic and get tested for this disease, and, unfortunately the doc tells you that it's positive....
THAT'S PRETTY BAD huh?!
"the guy almost certainly has the disease", you would say.

but look at the math:
out of 1000 ppl, 1% = 10 ppl
So on average 10 people will be told they have the disease when they don't, and 1 person, WILL have the diesease and be told they have the disease.

So that's 11 positives, out of 1000 ppl tested.

You got a positive result, so you are one of the 11.... but ONLY ONE guy out of the 11 actually has the disease.

So what's the chance you have the disease? 1/11 = less than 10%.

OVER 90% likelyhood that you DON'T have the disease!

I was pretty shocked after reading that. Those guys that are good at math will back me up on the stats.

Does this apply to the HIV case in question?? - I think the occurence of HIV is something quite low like the example disease...
you need a low 'base rate' for this 'false positive' influence to be so high.
The lower the occurence, the bigger the 'false positive' effect is.

What i'm definitely NOT saying is that this guy's friend in the post has a 90% chance of being OK...

just that, well this is obvious anyway, I would get tested again if I were him.


--James

yeah but is it 1/1000 or what is the actual 'real' figure?

 

[diablo]

Originally posted by JamesMc
man, reading that stuff about 99% accurate reminds me of something I was reading awhile back that'll put a new spin on things...

The first thing that comes to my mind is that you're skewing the results by saying "only one in 1,000 has the disease". There's no way of knowing how many people out of 1,000 have it, and how many don't. The test is 99% accurate. This doesn't mean that 99% of the people who take it don't have HIV... indeed, 18% could have the disease, false positive or not. By controlling how many people you say have it (1 out of 1000), you can make anything look like it's accurate while it really isn't. By the way, why not just say 1 out of every 100? Why 10 out of every 1,000? They're the exact same thing...

 

[JamesMc]

OK, I'm tryin' to keep the post to a minimum, I just wanna answer every point of this guy's reply...

Originally posted by diablo
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you're skewing the results by saying "only one in 1,000 has the disease". There's no way of knowing how many people out of 1,000 have it, and how many don't.

Yes there is... the government compiles statistics for these things. Take the estimated number of people who have HIV and divide by the entire population (and multiply by 100 to get a percentage).

_Of course_ you can say that they are just averages, and that given 1000 people, none of them may have anything.

That's possible, but inprobable. Over large scales of a country, the "expected" amount of people having a disease can be calculated out those randomly picked 1000.

The test is 99% accurate. This doesn't mean that 99% of the people who take it don't have HIV... indeed, 18% could have the disease, false positive or not.

I totally agree, 99% accuracy means that 99 people get the results they deserve, whilst one poor sap is given the wrong one.

My calculation agrees with this, with a small assumption of the mistake always meaning false positives. With or without false positives, you get the same effect.

By controlling how many people you say have it (1 out of 1000), you can make anything look like it's accurate while it really isn't. By the way, why not just say 1 out of every 100? Why 10 out of every 1,000? They're the exact same thing...

Yes, they are exactly the same thing. But I used the higher scale because it makes the numbers whole for the next step.


BTW, I looked up the actual incidence of HIV in australia from :
National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research
and they say the incidence of AIDS in AUS, at least, is 1.4 in 100,000.
A lot better for the Australian people, but it actually makes the effect I was originally describing a lot worse. (I'm willing to justify this statement too).

(Before you say, "What's australia got to do with UK or USA" and "but you were talking ABOUT HIV BEFORE, NOT AIDS!!"

.. anything that has an occurence of 1 in a_very_large_number .... (that is, rougly over or equal to a 1000)... is all that's required for this effect.

Plus, I'm not prepared to go trawling through websites on HIV all afternoon!)

-James