I have been reading the posts in here for a while.  And I am quite concerned.  I read one post claiming that it is difficult for a woman to catch HIV.  Another claiming that you can cure HPV or HSV.  While it seems true that the incidence of HIV among the service providers in Nevada seems to be low, it doesn't mean it is difficult for woman to catch this disease.  

In fact, the concentration of HIV particles seems to be higher in semen.  Also the membrane around the anal area tends to be fragile.  Because of these facts, many gay men in 70's were hit with this disease.  Coincidently, I have been told that the STD case among homosexual females is the lowest.  I can't substantiate this.  But it seems logical considering the fact that only body fluid they exchange is salive which is fairly clean.  (the concentration of viral particle seems relatively low in saliva.  That's why it is difficult to contract HIV through saliva. I am saying it is difficult.  The incidence is relatively low.)

Also, if you have any viral infection.  It is going to stay in your body for a quite some time.  HPV which causes warts can be asymptomatic for a long time, but you can still pass it onto other people after 10 years.  I say HPV or herpes are more of a problem, cause it has been linked to cause cancer.  These virus seem to tie up P32 whihc is the oncogene that keeps cell from proliferating out of control.

In any case, service providers are more aware of ways to protect themselves.   But when I hear or read such a post, it concerns me.  There are million things that can kill you in semen.  It is safe to treat the semen as you treat blood.  In any case, as long as you get the facts straight, I am certain that you can make the right decision.  

Any way, this is from a concerned individual.

The problem with AIDs is not that it is very infectious. The problem with AIDs is that it is fatal and a pretty terrible way to die.

The "Related Link" at the end of this post contains the best information on transmissibility that I have been able to find. In particular, note that condoms reduce the (already low) risk only by a factor of seven. While this is VERY significant from a public health standpoint it means that condoms only provide safer sex not safe sex. (Would an ABM defense that could stop six out of seven incoming nuclear warheads make you feel safe?)

Another article of interest on this subject is in the May/June issue of Worldwatch magazine, "Malaria, Mosquitoes and DDT" by Anne Platt McGinn. The following quote is from the Worldwatch Institute homepage ( http://www.worldwatch.org ).

"Every day some 3000 children under the age of five in sub-Saharan Africa die from malaria. This death toll rivals that of AIDs and costs the continent between $3 billion and 12 billion annually."

I don't have the article here in front of me, but I do remember that it points out that malaria is very infectious (because it can be transmitted by mosquitoes). Each infected person can easily infect 100 other persons. The article says the measles is probably the most infectious disease spread by direct contact without an intermediate vector. A person with measles often infects 10 to 12 others. By contrast, according to the article, a person with AIDs, on the average, infects slightly more than one other person. This is barely enough to keep the pathogen alive.

However, AIDs in Africa gets a lot of publicity and malaria gets very little.

As I said, the problem is not that AIDs is easy to get. The problem is that if you are unlucky enough to get it you are almost certain to die a miserable and premature death and (if I remember correctly) only about 1% of the population is immune (because of a recessive gene that disables the receptor that the HIV virus uses to enter the cell).



-- Modified on 6/6/2002 12:26:02 AM

I may have misspoke when I said it was difficult for women to catch HIV. (I recall making a comment to that effect, but don't quite remember the context.) What I meant is that HIV and AIDS is considerably lower among women than men, and considerably lower among heterosexual men than men engaged in homosexual activity. And so HIV instances are much, much lower among women engaged in sexual activity with heterosexual men.

You are, of course, correct that the lowest number of instances, measured statistically as 0%, is among lesbian women. The only less susceptible groups are those who are abstinent and drug-free, and those who are drug-free and monogamous. (But who has any use for any of those people.)

The thing about disease is that it has no respect for political correctness, fairness or nondiscrimination. We're all at risk, but the risk is measured by degrees. So, though it may not be fair to say it's difficult for women to catch HIV, women have less reason to fear AIDS than African American, homosexual men.

Here's some statistics:

http://www.avert.org/usastatr.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/05/31/cdc.aids.01/index.html

"In particular, note that condoms reduce the (already low) risk only by a factor of seven."

"(Would an ABM defense that could stop six out of seven incoming nuclear warheads make you feel safe?)"


Your analogy isn't quite correct...a factor of seven is not just simply "six out of seven". It’s a number larger than I care to try to calculate in my head right now.

A factor of two...which is a number I can calculate in my head...lol...is the same as the more common lay term "squared". So...if you had a one in seven chance of catching AIDS without a condom, and a condom decreased the risk by a factor of two, then using a condom would make that risk one in 49 (or two in 49, depending on how you view probability).

I am not busting your chops...I absolutely agree with the SPRIT of your post...like I said, I am probably bored, so I decided to point out the gap in the analogy.

Perhaps your source unintentionally used the wrong term "factor" in their dissemination of information. Perhaps what they really meant was that it using a condom makes one "seven times" less likely to contract an STD. Seven times...a MUCH smaller number than seven factorial...or a factor of seven.

Just my worthless two cents...in the sprit of the first post in this thread...

When estimating risks, good math skills are vital

-- Modified on 6/6/2002 11:06:08 AM

Actually Mathesar's analogy is pretty good (in a way ... more on that later).  You are getting factor and power confused.  

If you say that a condom makes one seven times less likely to contract an STD, you have essentially said that a condom reduces the risk of catching an STD by a factor of seven.

Your factor of two paragraph is erroneous.  Factor of two and squared are not equivalent.

Maybe you are thinking factor and factorial are the same?

Now about the analogy ... since this is my line of work, I would have to make another analogy about the ABM analogy.  What if your favorite provider had an AP (anti penis) defense system, where 6 out of every 7 penises that tried to enter were Bobbitized.  Do you think that provider would get as many attempts of entry if those around knew what their chances were and what kind of bad shit could happen 6 out of 7 times?


-- Modified on 6/6/2002 5:45:30 PM

-- Modified on 6/6/2002 5:47:07 PM

-- Modified on 6/6/2002 5:47:50 PM