ladyofthemansion

Will the new HIV injection increase bareback?

52 posts in this topic

I think some WGs and punters may get complacent with that new vaccination thats been in the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some WGs and punters may get complacent with that new vaccination thats been in the news.

Yes, I think they will, I personally would not trust new vaccinations.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some WGs and punters may get complacent with that new vaccination thats been in the news.

well, several problems, it's just experimental at the moment i.e it's not available except in the trials. Also it only reduced infection by a third i.e some people who received this vaccine(actually two vaccines together) still caught HIV. Then it's a vaccine not a cure, so it certainly shouldn't have any effect in the short term until and unless it's made available to the general public. Which will be after they've verified the results, which they're still cautious over as they would always expect different infection rates in the two groups; they just have to be sure the different infection rates are down to the vaccine and not just down to the fact that one group may have had a few people who were taking much more risks than everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the largest vaccine trial to date, undertaken in Thailand, HOWEVER a global vaccine is still probably years away in the making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some WGs and punters may get complacent with that new vaccination thats been in the news.

Not if they both have half a brain. A true global vaccine to kill the virus - it is after all a virus at the end of the day - is probably decades away. Who knows if it will mutate by then as well?

Do you think we will ever have the magic pill or injection to eliminate the common cold or all strains of flu virus? Maybe, but I regret not in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who choose to go bareback in the UK, I would suggest that HIV / Aids is the least of their worries. There are any number of STIs which they are (statistically anyway) far more likely to catch. IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my reading of the research , of 16395 subjects in the trial

0.62% infection rate in those given the vaccine , against 0.9% in those given a placebo, but the numbers involved aren't sufficiently large enough to rule out statistical anomalies.

We are long way of a vaccine, and the only thing to come out of this research is always cover up in Thailand, this wasn't a high risk sample set in major towns or cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I think they will, I personally would not trust new vaccinations.;)

Yes I think so too.

After being on messageboards for for such a long time, and advertising, I can honestly say that Joe Public does not take half of what is put in front of them into their heads.

Joe public reads what it wants to read and sees what it wants to see. (thats how newspapers can be so manipulative )

I think a huge percentage will think its a cure/vaccine full stop. and assume its ok to go right back to pre 70,s style shagging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people with any sense will continue to rubber up before they have penetrative sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A vaccine for HIV wouldn't encourage me to stop using condoms - there are plenty of other things you can catch and itchy, sore parts are not nice.

:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think most people with any sense will continue to rubber up before they have penetrative sex.

I agree that most informed people ( WG's and punters ) especially those who have been around and playing this game a while .would continue to be 'safe'

My fear would be that the young and those entering the game in the future might associate the talk of a vaccine with

" Ah ....Its OK to take even more risks....there's a 'cure' out there.

My worry would be the younger population (who are sexually active earlier and earlier) who are already taking the greatest risk with unsafe sex and its also that younger population where STi rates are rising sharply right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some WGs and punters may get complacent with that new vaccination thats been in the news.

Only if they are stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder if the government stats are correct, a little like the way they portray drug users as only of a certain age. I can confirm that it has usually been guys older than myself by 10 years or more who have been very funny or tried to avoid it when I've asked them to use a condom (private life), as well those who have wanted me to offer bareback as an Escort.

Granted I do tend to go for the older male but younger guys seem to accept wearing a condom more.

By the way, during the short time I was partying a lot at uni I saw just as many middle aged 'respectable' types having hedonistic experiences as those under 25 - yet the police always seem to make out it's only the youngsters.

Hence my distrust of stats that give a certain image of a certain age group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sometimes wonder if the government stats are correct, a little like the way they portray drug users as only of a certain age. I can confirm that it has usually been guys older than myself by 10 years or more who have been very funny or tried to avoid it when I've asked them to use a condom (private life), as well those who have wanted me to offer bareback as an Escort.

Granted I do tend to go for the older male but younger guys seem to accept wearing a condom more.

By the way, during the short time I was partying a lot at uni I saw just as many middle aged 'respectable' types having hedonistic experiences as those under 25 - yet the police always seem to make out it's only the youngsters.

Hence my distrust of stats that give a certain image of a certain age group.

Well on behalf of my generation I apologise!:eek: Personaly I will only go bareback in a relationship. There is another reason why I dont like the idea of seeing a WG who practices bareback and believe me, I am not a prude when it comes to sex!:D The idea of having reverse oral with a working girl is OK provided the last punter only had his tongue and condomed cock there. The idea of doing it if the last punter had bareback sex and jizzed up her is not nice. I wouldnt trust all working girls to shower between every punter, I simply dont believe it happens. I do hope noone was drinking their afternoon tea as I wrote that!

Edited by 6upxxx
another line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do hope noone was drinking their afternoon tea as I wrote that!

Indeed, I hate to think of the effect that could have on someone eating salmon on crispbread, followed by strawberries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Up, I remember reading some stats once about how long semen hangs around in the womb.

Let's not go there but it is one thing I say to those who ask me to forego the condom - "How do you know if I do this with you that I won't with other clients?and wouldn't the idea of having bareback and mixing with someone elses fluids put you off?" sadly it doesn't seem to register.

:eek:

Apologies if this post is too honestly graphic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My worry would be the younger population (who are sexually active earlier and earlier) who are already taking the greatest risk with unsafe sex and its also that younger population where STi rates are rising sharply right now.

I'm wondering with wars not being what they used to be ie. tens of thousands of men being killed every few weeks if infertility will be used in order to control population ? Only those who have money will be able to afford fertility treatments and those who decide not to work will have no chance of breeding.

And lets face it, all those happy, promiscuious buggers bringing STI's and then infertility upon themselves will get little sympathy from much of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to be a wet blanket. But, according to yesterday's Evening Standard:

51 of 8197 vaccinated individuals became infected over the time period

74 of 8198 unavaccinated individuals became infected

A chi square test on these data suggests that the probability of this being a chance difference (i.e with the vaccine having no real protective effect) is somewhere between 3 and 4%.......... So it may turn out to all be a red herring. And, suppose there is a real difference, a 33% reduction is risk isn't enough to make you want to bet your life.

Perhaps the best that can be said is that, if the differencei s real and is confirmed by further trials, then the strategy of using two diffence vaccines may point the way forwards for future development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dare I ask how on earth they actually test this vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dare I ask how on earth they actually test this vaccine?

give the vaccine and placebo to people who are HIV negative and living in a high risk area - in this case somewhere in Thailand. Then come back later and re-test them.

Of course the most perfect way to test would be to stick them all with an infected needle and keep them under lock and key for 6 months then you'd be sure they'd all been exposed equally and the results would be then be far more accurate. Apparently there are ethical concerns with this method.......bunch of chickensh*ts I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that most informed people ( WG's and punters ) especially those who have been around and playing this game a while .would continue to be 'safe'

My fear would be that the young and those entering the game in the future might associate the talk of a vaccine with

" Ah ....Its OK to take even more risks....there's a 'cure' out there.

My worry would be the younger population (who are sexually active earlier and earlier) who are already taking the greatest risk with unsafe sex and its also that younger population where STi rates are rising sharply right now.

Hopefull all facts will be mentioned in the Sex Education Classes.... any teachers out there.... I would put this forward in the next staff meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i dont understand about this study is; the people involved must have been told about the HIV vaccine and what it could potentially do.

By this rational they were probably told about HIV and how it generally becomes AIDS.

What i find astounding is that they still had unprotected sex knowing probably better than most the risks envolved.

I found the whole thing rather sad.

And as a couple of posters have pointed out, HIV is just one of the many potential nasties that unprotected sex can bring. But its good news for the people that are in countries where HIV is rife. Although i cant help but think if they spent the same amount of money educating those that had misconceptions, maybe the money would be better spent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read up about this, and as a trained/educated scientist with some industry experience I would say the trial cannot be relied upon. Simply because we don't know which test subjects were or were not being exposed to the HIV virus. Safe sex may be simply been practised by more people in the vaccinated group, or they simply weren't having sex with HIV postive partners since the numbers are so insignificant. We are only talking about 24 in roughly 8000 test subjects which represents 0.3% of that group and 0.15%of the total number of participants in the trial.

How on earth can this lead to such a high profile news story, let alone have any credence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well how many people do we hear about on this forum - guys posting thinking that BB is ok, then girls advertising it? This is in a country where we have had a public health AIDS campaign, reasonable sex education in schools including the new PSE lessons introduced when I was at school in the late 80s/early 90s. Where we have easy access to information on the internet, as well as free access to GUM and Sexual Health clinics. Heck, in my small town there are sexual health posters, and adverts for the services in my GP's waiting room, window of the Connexions Youth/Careers advice centre which is on the main road through the town centre, all over college etc.

Hang on, perhaps these messages are only aimed at those who really have a thirst for knowledge, are students or visit their GP regularly. Many people don't fit into that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What i dont understand about this study is; the people involved must have been told about the HIV vaccine and what it could potentially do.

By this rational they were probably told about HIV and how it generally becomes AIDS.

What i find astounding is that they still had unprotected sex knowing probably better than most the risks envolved.

I found the whole thing rather sad.

And as a couple of posters have pointed out, HIV is just one of the many potential nasties that unprotected sex can bring. But its good news for the people that are in countries where HIV is rife. Although i cant help but think if they spent the same amount of money educating those that had misconceptions, maybe the money would be better spent

According to the press reports the two groups (those getting vaccine and those getting placebo [dummy vaccine]) were both given advice on safe sex, and therapy for any other STI. This may or may not have influenced their behaviour compared with the general population, but should have influenced both groups equally, meaning that the trial was valid in this respect.

The follow up was for three years and, allowing the general rate of HIV in Thailand, I do not think that the seroconversion rates (<1% in both arms) are particularly high.

After a very bad period in the late 1980s and early 1993, Thailand has been generally rather successful in public health campaigns against HIV/AIDs, raising awareness and advocating condom use. Transmission rates have come down- see http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/335/5/297 and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/countries/th.html

I was in Thailand last spring, for the first time in many years, and found that massage and bar girls automatically provided condoms ['Safer for you, safer for me,' she says.] This wasn't the case 15-20 years ago, when you had to provide your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now