If this story is true....(When these publishers pay for their Information, it is always true) it may serve as an indication of how safe "safe" really is, and how many have been exposed to HIV.  Any Providers know this Famous Star's Identity???  After all, Money Talks, and Bullshit Walks....until you get too scared to walk, that is....

-- Modified on 11/3/2015 2:27:32 AM

Rock Hudson.
Charlie Sheen.
Flipper (known to get frisky during 'swim w/the dolphins sex parties)

Tattooing, slamming drugs and hiring hookers has to be bad boy, Charlie ... That's my guess, but nobody else fits like he does.

Scroll all the way to the bottom of that webpage...You will find the words-  Powered by BS

Guilable much?

Dear anotherdamnalias:  

For sure, the World runs on BS, including these boards!  But seriously, IF this article ends up being true, then light may be cast upon several areas; to wit:

1.  Use of poppers....Many say the use of "poppers" and "speed" greatly increases the odds of "picking up" HIV. Such use seems to be higher among gays and trans, (but let's hear feedback from the experts on the boards here, if they can cast light upon this subject, well, cast, please...).  

2.  Source of the HIV for the actor:  Did he use lots of "Providers"??  With tons of cash, one imagines her could afford plenty of "10 rated" party friends.  Or was he just having fun with "Civies" and regular "Stars" or wanna be Stars, in Hollywood, or other locations... (think NYC, if the article's subject did Broadway, and also hung in NYC...).  

3.  What is more interesting, (this has been commented upon in different boards here) is the use of drugs that "lower the viral count."  In the article: "the Hollywood figure has so far been successfully treated with an “AIDS Cocktail” of high-powered drugs meant to counteract the effects of the disease, including the medications Truvada and Isentress."  Wonder how many of the deeply involved players around the country are using these kinds of drugs to "Pretend" that, because their viral count may be greatly lowered, they "Really are not carriers of HIV"??  

4.  In other words, if this report ends up being essentially accurate, then it could change, perhaps, the perceptions of "Risk and Return Space" to use a financial concept, as applied to "having fun."  In recent years, it can be observed that HIV risk is now treated by many players as if it only exists within elements of certain classes, or subsets, of the general population:  ghetto, sports, aggressive gays, etc.  The perceptions seem to indicate that playing and providing outside these realms really carries essentially -0- risk of negative health surprises.  Might this be changing?  An emerging trend?

Who knows, maybe multiple players in the story will get, or have, already been, "paid off" and may never say anything..they too may be masking their "safety status" with such medications as Truvada and Isentress.

If greater details emerge, then the story will be worthy of more observation along several fronts, especially in terms of the social and economic cohorts that seem to be involved....Anyway, hope the readers here find the story to be useful.  "Risk" is that which can not be reversed, while "Return" is, of course, having fun!  May we all remain lucky!

Regards, from the "Street

-- Modified on 11/3/2015 7:23:53 AM

Magic Johnson got HIV and the sun still rose in the East, if Charlie Sheen or some other celebrity has HIV it's a shame for that person, but I really don't see how it effects us substantially.

Now if a "top" provider or a reviewer with a couple of hundred reviews were to come out as carrying the virus, that would be a bigger shock to our community than some unnamed movie or TV star.

Ok, let me clarify my statement for you. The story is VERY likely total BULLSHIT. Just because you read it on that website that is known for coming up with bogus stories in the name of entertainment DOES NOT make it true.

If you read it on TMZ, Dish Nation, E ! or some other entertainment industry site it would lend more credit to the story, however, as it is written is has ZERO merit.

Just food for thought since you live in fear of things....Lightning strikes kill from 10 miles away. Are you going to stay inside every time there is a thunderstorm nearby?

Say it isn't so.

A simple Google search of "Charlie Sheen Aids rumors" reveals this.

https://regularrightguy.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/does-charlie-sheen-have-aids/

 
Just one big yawn fest IMHO.

I don't think he's  a "Super Star Celeb" who is worried about not being remembered for his great body of acting work. Now Robert Downy Jr who was a wild one and a druggie before he got his act together is an accomplished actor and I'm just sayin....it might be him. Hope not though.

Steph xoxo

-- Modified on 11/3/2015 6:53:34 AM

-- Modified on 11/3/2015 6:57:54 AM

If they're under medical care and taking medication, there's an incredibly likely chance that regardless of the fact that this person has HIV, the chance of them transmitting the virus is very low.  

There's this thing called viral load; to put it as basically as possible, it's how many copies of the virus are floating around inside someone's bloodstream.  and when you're under the supervision of a doctor, the goal is to get that viral load to an undetectable level, meaning that the testing mechanisms currently available cannot detect the virus in the HIV-positive person's bloodstream.  

this is from the AIDS.gov website. the study this quote references is linked below. Note the study is restricted to heterosexual couplings:

"Researchers are studying how much you can lower your chances of transmitting HIV when your viral load is undetectable. One large multinational study indicates that ART that consistently suppresses HIV is highly effective at preventing sexual transmission of the virus in heterosexual couples where one person is HIV-infected and the other is not. In fact, that study found that ARTreduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by 93% or more if viral suppression is achieved and maintained. Researchers did not observe any HIV transmission during this study when the HIV-infected partner’s virus was stably suppressed by ART. "

Also note that seroconversion from exposure such as a needle stick where blood is visible on the needle is incredibly low (.3%) (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/782611-overview); while the study that this is pulled from pertains to healthcare workers that are in direct contact with HIV-positive patients, my thought was that the risk might be similar for those of us who engage in p4p (i haven't been able to find studies that apply to p4p).  

For those of us seriously concerned, PrEP (pre-exposure prophylactic) medication is available, though it's efficacy has only been studied amongst men having sex with men. PEP (post-exposure prophylactic) is  also readily available at emergency rooms and through clinics.  

Just some food for thought, more than anything.

-edited for typos and word choice at the beginning-


-- Modified on 11/3/2015 6:18:48 PM

Of course, if someone has a gold plated medical care plan, and they are taking, ONCE THEY KNOW THEY CARRY THE HIV VIRUS, anti-HIV medications, then their viral loads can drop to essentially -0-, and presto, you can stop worrying about getting the HIV virus from them when you are intimate.  Of course!

Nevertheless, this is why GG providers, to the extent possible, avoid having relations with Johns who see Trans, or who are African or Black or whatever the Politically correct phrases might be non-offensive to that sub-set of the population...you all know the numbers...

The Viral Load has been shown to be the Greatest around 28 days after first infection with the HIV virus.  Ask your doctor.

There are usually -0- symptoms, or they are quite minor, at this point.  This is the place of max danger.  So, to get you to think a bit, imagine some nice John is short of cash, depressed, or drunk or high or whatever, and instead of using a $600/ hour GG VIP, crosses the line into the "cheap side," whether GG or Trans.  Poof, HIV enters the John....Then, the John hits in AC at the craps table, or scores a big trade in the Market in NYC, or gets a consulting deal in DC,  and, being verified, meets up with that $600/hour VIP doll (whether GG or Trans) in NYC or DC,  three and one half weeks later.  Presto, John looks cool, wears nice Armani or Brooks or whatever, and a great time is had by both, or by all, (ok, $1200 for tea for 2).  No biggie...biz as usual, but,  

That is the danger....the "sad, honest mistake," followed by, 28 days later, real "bad luck."  The intelligent providers know the odds, but no one will say it directly, it seems.  Certain elements of the population have much greater odds of carrying the HIV virus...if you think about this logically, the intelligent John could not really pay enough to be involved with the most careful and cautious Providers.  The best of the best, and the safest, should command a significant premium, in risk-return analysis.

It is what it is.....Feeling Lucky??? It is Always better to be Lucky than Smart!  Ms.Black, your post was smart, indeed, but other elements of timing, and a lack of early treatment of the un-aware, trump the ideal analysis, where some poor thing has HIV, but has taken enough anti-aids drugs to lower their viral load to -0- zone.....All of this is dependent on identification of a condition, and the application of expensive and complex technology to treat the condition successfully. That is the bet. In recent years, the financially well off, seeing VIP level GG Providers, face low risk odds.  Will the odds shift, when the economy starts its coming downturn??  Stay Observant.

"The Street"  

-- Modified on 11/4/2015 6:46:29 AM

END OF MESSAGE

1. That the person in question and is aware of their status
2. That the person is being treated for HIV under the care of a doctor.  

I'm very, very aware that the 14-28 day window is the one in which a person is most highly contagious.  I'm also very, very aware that socio-economics keep seeking treatment out of reach for lots of people.  

But I wasn't discussing providers in the first part of my argument. I was discussing the unnamed celebrity, who happens to be of a certain socio-economic class.  

Only later, when discussing the study pertaining to needle-sticks, do i posit that the study might shed some light onto exposure conversion in the P4P world. I even state that it's probably not even a great comparison.  

Quite frankly, I'd rather be smart than lucky.  I'm smart enough to know and understand that while this information is good to have, it might not apply in real-time. I'm smart enough to know that most HIV testing is only accurate insofar as it doesn't detect new infections; if the person being tested was infected a month prior to the test, the test won't register the infection and produce a false negative.  I'm also smart enough to know that engaging in sex with risk-reduction in mind, combined with taking care of my own health will reduce my risk for getting STIs.  I'm also smart enough to know that it's not 1992 anymore, and the HIV/AIDS scare that a lot of people my age were exposed to at that time no longer applies (at least not for me, and yes i do realize that i say that coming from a position of privilege).  

While I understand that everyone has a right to sero-sort their partners as they see fit based on things like gender-nonconformity or ethnicity, what you're doing by sero-sorting in that way is basically stating that all people from sub-Saharan Africa and all Trans people are dirty.  

There's a reason why every health organization that deals with HIV/AIDS makes the same recommendations for prevention of new cases.  There's a reason why knowing your status and safe sex/safe sex education work. I'm lucky enough to be in a position where I don't have to compromise my health in order to put a roof over my head or food on the table, and as far as luck goes, I'm thankful for that.  

I'm not advocating a bareback free-for-all in the above message.  I'm advocating being risk-aware