Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on More on the Local "Cluster" of Drug-Resistant HIV Cases


Wow... this is scary and King County's judgmental attitude is not only dangerous to individuals but to local and world health. If they gave specifics about where these people were infected, people would get tested and they could possibly identify or mitigate the spread of this strain. Instead, they pull a Jesus and say, "hey, everyone, stop having unsafe sex and we'll be fine."

Imagine if a sniper was picking off speeding drivers. "No, we won't tell you where we think the shooter is, the behavior that got them snipered was unsafe driving speeds, and probably the SUV didn't help."

Posted by jamier | February 1, 2007 9:13 PM

Mr. Sanders...

getting a little too hot on your post below about the exact same topic?

Why don't you, Dan and Chris respond to some of the questions on the post below.

Here's a link so your readers don't have to scroll down.

Posted by BD | February 1, 2007 9:29 PM

not good news, but no time to panic - not sure of the facts as presented so far

but do keep sending money to AIDS Inc.

Posted by sidney | February 1, 2007 10:29 PM

You know "back in the day" when I was just coming out in the early 90's and I was a young kid in my early 20's there was a pretty simple rule. Fuck without a condom and die. Seriously folks, and the HIV rates were going down. Fucking without a condom was the SAME THING AS PUTTING A DAMN GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND PULLING THE TRIGGER!! Oh, and you should ask the guy you are about to fuck about their HIV status too. Which brings me to another point. If the guy you want to boink has slept with every single guy in town you may want to be a little leary about sleeping with him. At the least you want to wear a damn condom and probably ASK to see his last HIV test results. There is something to be said about being a little selective of who you screw around with. ((remember that condoms are NOT 100% effective!!!???))

And now, the good Dr is saying that the "meth probably did not help?" SHIT, gee you think that it did not help??? But we must never be judgemental, oh dear no. That would make people uncomfortable!!! FUCK making people uncomfortable!!! YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO YOUR FEELINGS!!!!! Use a rubber ALL THE TIME. Unless you are trying to have a kid or want to die.

I have wanted to go off on tirad for awhile. Thank you.

Posted by Andrew | February 2, 2007 2:13 AM

How about considering the phenomenon of the strategy of
potential sex partners getting tested TOGETHER for A
VARIETY of sexually transmitted infections BEFORE having
sex. A thought experiment Any ideas? suggestions? A few
of us with personal experiences have been discussing a
thought experiment the strategy of potential sex partners
getting tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of sexually
transmitted infections and revealing their results to one
another BEFORE having sex Public health officials have not
been observing the phenomenon of this strategy. Informally,
clinicians for example like those at Dartmouth College
Health Service student medical services have seen same sex
and heterosexual couples who say we haven't had sex yet and
we want to know more about what could happen before we
begin the sexual part of our relationship. Journalists
have not observed the phenomenon other than the syndicated
Ann Landers' columns recommending the strategy for
potential couples concerned about their sexual histories.
Here's a collaborative blog
Questions. How widespread is the phenomenon going on of
the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of
STDs BEFORE we have sex? Besides reducing ambiguity for
the respective sex partners doing the strategy, what would
be the effects on the epidemic? the effects on
transmissions of human immunodeficiency virus? if 1% of the
population did the strategy? if 10% of the population did
the strategy? If some percentage of the population did the
strategy, at what level could the course of the acquired
immune deficiency human immunodeficiency virus epidemic
change? What related studies are going on now or proposed?
What related reports have come out? What media have
covered or mentioned the strategy? Have you or anybody you
know actually tried the strategy

Posted by don saklad | February 2, 2007 5:20 AM

BD --

Whatever the fuck your obession is here with Savage, Sanders, and Frizelle, it's unhealthy.

Posted by Jonathan | February 2, 2007 7:05 AM

Hey now Jonathan, be nice to BD. Besides the only one of the three that you mentioned that is attractive is Frizelle. But you are right that none of them are worth stalking on line.

Posted by Andrew | February 2, 2007 7:23 AM

When I was younger I worked with an AIDS service group that would visit people at Bailey-Boushay, the MAPS houses, Cal Anderson, etc. Seeing how AIDS ravaged both the body and mind was enough to keep me stocked with condoms - and I was something of a tramp. As for oral, I was a firm believer in the "Harmonica Method" that I read about in Savage Love.

By the time meth came along, I was working at the Cuff, which pretty much cut into my trampiness - contrary to popular belief, bar employees don't get laid all the time. But I could always tell the tweakers: They smelled, they usually only drank water, they tended to be bitchy, and they never tipped. I saw a lot of formerly handsome guys reduced to twitchy, ugly, unpleasent jerks. That introduction made it easy for me to say no to meth.

I'm not saying that everyone should emulate my far-from-virtuous life (I was always dirt poor, and could never find a boyfriend), but at least I had some perspective. A look at the other side of life might be helpful for some of these guys who buy into the "glamour" of things like barebacking and meth.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | February 2, 2007 8:34 AM

@ #5 I agree! I'm hetero, but I always ask to see proof of latest test results. I'm probably a bit psycho about testing, I do it every three months. But that's mainly because I was raped 3 years ago and the guy didn't use a condom. Since it can take a while for HIV to show up, I still get tested regularly just to be sure.

My most recent partner and I waited to have sex until we were both tested. Once we came back clean, we proceeded, but still very cautiously. It's been four months and we still use condoms. We aren't in an "exclusive", so I'd just like to be sure that I stay clean. And so would he. I really don't understand why more people don't discuss this stuff. I understand being caught up in the moment. But one night of amazing sex isn't worth contracting an STD of any kind, especially HIV/AIDS.

Be smart, folks! This isn't the 50s! Even if they say they're clean, and even if you trust them, nothing is better than having written scientific proof.

Posted by Faux Show | February 2, 2007 9:30 AM

For the critical thinkers out there, this is related to the NYC superstrain scare.

Posted by BD | February 2, 2007 10:17 AM

Be smart, folks! This isn't the 50s! Even if they say they're clean, and even if you trust them, nothing is better than having written scientific proof.

Are you talking about scientific proof like this?
Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth, or in this case, the Abbott Labs HIV ELISA test.

“At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.” And: “The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatably reactive serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.”

If your reading and comprehension skills are in working order, you'll understand something frighteningly simple...there's NO STANDARD for determining whether or not a person is harboring HIV-antibodies (heck, they're not even talking about the VIRUS yet!).

For a very quick video review of the HIV tests, click on this link:

Posted by BD | February 2, 2007 10:28 AM

Holy shizz! I just watched that youtube video that BD linked to. The part with the list of things that could cause a false positive was most interesting to me! I just had an HIV test taken a couple weeks ago. Right before I did, they gave me a tetanus shot (I was there for a checkup). According to that list, that is something that could cause a false positive. Now why would the doc even risk that? Wouldn't that be a waste of a test? :(

Posted by T | February 2, 2007 11:10 AM


We gave them all lots and lots of drugs and, surprise, they're not feeling well.

Or, surprise, they're 'viral loads' go all over the place.

so, what is in a viral load?

Posted by Liam | February 2, 2007 11:14 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).