Navigating Mixed Messages About HIV

[The Founder]

We can throw out stats all day long. One thing I don't do when I'm speaking to people about HIV is not even get in to stats. That just takes time up from really talking to that person. There are people in the crowd who are HIV positive and they don't want to hear about stats or why. They want to hear about some hope to help them get through each day of their life.

My opinion on stats is that it leads to a "potential" blame game. This group is doing this...this groups isn't doing that...

 

[unknown1]

That's your choice but the problem is the problem. Don't see how acting like it isn't the issue helps anything.

 

[The Founder]

That's your choice but the problem is the problem. Don't see how acting like it isn't the issue helps anything.

I think it goes a lot deeper. People not getting tested, people not following their physicians protocol, people ashamed of picking up medication.....

If a HIV person went to their HIV doctor every 4 months or 6 months like I do; and go to their primary care physician who is also testing their numbers....taking their medication...the transmittal rate is SLIM.

I'm more solution oriented and right now most put the focus on men sleeping with men who go back and sleep with women. Yes this is a focus but we have also focus on treatment. I have sat down with men and women who are HIV positive and ashamed to go to their doctor or even the pharmacy to get their medications, Instead they would rather live their life and not focus on it.

Now I am the first to say to pick a side. Either be gay or straight. All this dipping on both. SMH

 

[96lioness]

I think it goes a lot deeper. People not getting tested, people not following their physicians protocol, people ashamed of picking up medication.....

I’d like to add people not wearing condoms, and will continue to stress people who knowingly infect others.

If a HIV person went to their HIV doctor every 4 months or 6 months like I do; and go to their primary care physician who is also testing their numbers....taking their medication...the transmittal rate is SLIM.

Any person infected with HIV, regardless of how long they’ve been faithful in seeing their doctor, AS WELL AS taking their medication, should wear protection to ensure a more realistic non-transmittal possibility.

I'm more solution oriented and right now most put the focus on men sleeping with men who go back and sleep with women. Yes this is a focus but we have also focus on treatment. I have sat down with men and women who are HIV positive and ashamed to go to their doctor or even the pharmacy to get their medications, Instead they would rather live their life and not focus on it.

Focus on treatment is always good, but the importance of infection control is imperative! And I pray to God that these same people who you say are ashamed to go to their doctor and/or ashamed to go to the pharmacy to get their meds are smart enough to go anyway. Them NOT focusing on their HIV won’t make it go away nor will it make their lives any easier. With all the education, advanced technology, and medication, we should be seeing an EPIC decrease in the transmittal rate of HIV. But as long as you have people like the ones you talk to going about in life as if they’re not HIV-infected, those stats @unknown1 posted will continue to rise.

Now I am the first to say to pick a side. Either be gay or straight. All this dipping on both. SMH

I’m not advocating homosexuality; however, when it comes to sex (homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, whatever), WEAR CONDOMS! It’s not hard (no pun intended)!

 

[The Founder]

I’d like to add people not wearing condoms, and will continue to stress people who knowingly infect others.

That's the thing the lawmakers don't follow the science and it's sad. Lawmakers state that exposure and knowingly infect are the same thing. Another point is that these same lawmakers are unwilling to reach out to leading HIV researchers. A number of these physicians are damn good and they know if a patient is being honest or not. It's like my doctor checks me and wife because he knows we are trying to have a child.

Any person infected with HIV, regardless of how long they’ve been faithful in seeing their doctor, AS WELL AS taking their medication, should wear protection to ensure a more realistic non-transmittal possibility.

Unless both individuals agree not to. Also, I know a TON of couples where one partner is HIV+ and the other is not and they have children. These are stories that go untold.

Focus on treatment is always good, but the importance of infection control is imperative! And I pray to God that these same people who you say are ashamed to go to their doctor and/or ashamed to go to the pharmacy to get their meds are smart enough to go anyway. Them NOT focusing on their HIV won’t make it go away nor will it make their lives any easier. With all the education, advanced technology, and medication, we should be seeing an EPIC decrease in the transmittal rate of HIV. But as long as you have people like the ones you talk to going about in life as if they’re not HIV-infected, those stats @unknown1 posted will continue to rise.

That's why mental health treatment is so important. Also, as I tell them MANY pharmacies will ship your medication to you. Why of the things that I saw in Fayetteville at their HIV+ clinic was the sign on the door that read HIV/AIDS Treatment and glass window....

I’m not advocating homosexuality; however, when it comes to sex (homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, whatever), WEAR CONDOMS! It’s not hard (no pun intended)!

I never understood why people don't get this.

 

[96lioness]

That's the thing the lawmakers don't follow the science and it's sad. Lawmakers state that exposure and knowingly infect are the same thing. Another point is that these same lawmakers are unwilling to reach out to leading HIV researchers. A number of these physicians are damn good and they know if a patient is being honest or not. It's like my doctor checks me and wife because he knows we are trying to have a child.

I'm aware that there are so, so, so many people who don't know if they've been exposed to HIV (I find that hard to believe, especially when you take into consideration the many ways it's transmitted, but I'll leave it at that). In the case of criminal HIV exposure, to which I've been referring, those people knew they were HIV+ and purposely infected others. So, obviously in those cases, those unscrupulous people KNEW they had been exposed to HIV because they stated it was their purpose to infect as many people as possible. In those cases, I agree with the lawmakers when they state" exposure and knowingly infect are the same thing".

Unless both individuals agree not to. Also, I know a TON of couples where one partner is HIV+ and the other is not and they have children. These are stories that go untold.

I've read those stories about sero-different couples (gay and hetero) and how they have children. And I'm seeing quite a few couples (hetero and gay) here where I work. I'm not talking about those stories. I'm talking about the stories where couples (hetero and gay) contracted HIV from their husband/wife or partner because that person "feared rejection" or "was afraid they'd lose them". No agreement was ever made because the choice was made for the other person.



That's why mental health treatment is so important. Also, as I tell them MANY pharmacies will ship your medication to you. Why of the things that I saw in Fayetteville at their HIV+ clinic was the sign on the door that read HIV/AIDS Treatment and glass window....





I never understood why people don't get this.

 

[The Founder]

@96lioness

I disagree....in Arkansas kissing is exposure. If a law was written in 1989 under the current medical beliefs then there is definitely a problem. No I agree, a person who goes to purposely infect others should be punished. Yet, a person who informs the person prior to sex, but did not inform them prior to kissing should not be locked up.

If we are to use science as a basis for treatment then we should take that same science to address the criminalization.

Overall this is a good conversation. I like it.

 

[96lioness]

@96lioness

I disagree....in Arkansas kissing is exposure. If a law was written in 1989 under the current medical beliefs then there is definitely a problem. No I agree, a person who goes to purposely infect others should be punished. Yet, a person who informs the person prior to sex, but did not inform them prior to kissing should not be locked up.

If we are to use science as a basis for treatment then we should take that same science to address the criminalization.

Overall this is a good conversation. I like it.

Kissing is very general. Specifically, what type of "kissing" are you referring to? Closed-mouth kissing? Peck on the cheek kissing? Deep mouth, tongue-kissing? It depends on "the kiss".

Contact with mucous membrane areas (the mouth, nose, anus, vagina, etc) or broken skin, wounds, open sores.......these are all potential risk factors. Off topic: when I worked as a QA Laboratory Analyst at Coca-Cola, there was a guy who drove the forklift who had the absolute worst teeth in the world! He had gingivitis really bad, so bad to the point you could actually see his gums bleeding while he talked. We had pretty good insurance at Coke, but in the 5 years I worked there, he NEVER went to the dentist or got that fixed. He looked a complete mess!

Back to subject: why do you believe an HIV-infected person (who chose not disclose their status before kissing another person who did NOT know they were HIV+) should not be locked up?

 

[The Founder]

Kissing is very general. Specifically, what type of "kissing" are you referring to? Closed-mouth kissing? Peck on the cheek kissing? Deep mouth, tongue-kissing? It depends on "the kiss".

Back to subject: why do you believe an HIV-infected person (who chose not disclose their status before kissing another person who did NOT know they were HIV+) should not be locked up?

The state does not have to prove what type of kissing. That's my point. As the DA told my lawyer a closed mouth kiss is exposure. Again, this law was written in 1987 or 1989 and you and I both know ALOT has changed with the disease since then.

Again this goes back to laws written versus laws following science. HIV is not spread through saliva. In situations like this it again boils down to he say/she say and how well a jury can be swayed. Also, it boils down to the health of the person with HIV at the time of exposure. None of what I just said has to be proven in court. All that has to be proven is that at the time the person had HIV. Convicting someone of Exposure to HIV is the easiest law to convict because the state has to prove only one thing.

Another point is, in Arkansas you have 12 o 24 months to file a civil suit against someone after the incident happened. Folks asked why a civil suit was not filed against me. That's when the truth came out. That they knew prior to sex and prior to 5 years before they filed charges. Yet, the criminal statute of limitations is 6 years. so the DA pursued the kiss aspect. Hence not needing to prove what type of kiss.

 

[96lioness]

The state does not have to prove what type of kissing. That's my point. As the DA told my lawyer a closed mouth kiss is exposure. Again, this law was written in 1987 or 1989 and you and I both know ALOT has changed with the disease since then.

Again this goes back to laws written versus laws following science. HIV is not spread through saliva. In situations like this it again boils down to he say/she say and how well a jury can be swayed. Also, it boils down to the health of the person with HIV at the time of exposure. None of what I just said has to be proven in court. All that has to be proven is that at the time the person had HIV. Convicting someone of Exposure to HIV is the easiest law to convict because the state has to prove only one thing.

Another point is, in Arkansas you have 12 o 24 months to file a civil suit against someone after the incident happened. Folks asked why a civil suit was not filed against me. That's when the truth came out. That they knew prior to sex and prior to 5 years before they filed charges. Yet, the criminal statute of limitations is 6 years. so the DA pursued the kiss aspect. Hence not needing to prove what type of kiss.

Please forgive me if I missed it, but you didn't answer my question Founder. This is what I asked:

Back to subject: why do you believe an HIV-infected person (who chose not disclose their status before kissing another person who did NOT know they were HIV+) should not be locked up?

Really interested in your answer.​

 

[The Founder]

Please forgive me if I missed it, but you didn't answer my question Founder. This is what I asked:

Really interested in your answer.​

I actually did. The issue is simple, transmitting HIV through kissing is strongly unlikely. The first case was I think in 1997 when a man who was HIV positive had gum disease and noted that his gums frequently bleed after brushing and flossing. He also noted that he did not go the dentist at all, even after his HIV doctors told him that he should. Also, the woman who was exposed had the same history of gum disease. Also, the woman noted that she did use the man's toothbrush and razor on occasion. So given all those factors can we actually say that kissing actually transmitted HIV. Consequently conducting a study on whether Kissing can transmit HIV would be virtually a waste of time and money because finding persons to participate would be EXTREMELY difficult unless you required them to not have sexual intercourse, placed them in a controlled environment for an extended period of time.

It goes back to my earlier point, if a person is HIV positive and following their physician's orders then that should be a part of the prosecution. Which is why HIV doctors are mandated to inform their patients of any problems so that they can seek the proper medical attention.

In short criminalizing HIV again does not follow the scientific evidence and until these laws are updated utilizing current education and current scientific empirical evidence people will use laws to further enhance the stigma.

In short let's go back to the early 80's when people thought hugging could transmit HIV. Science aided that discussion. Why is it that science will not aide this discussion.

 

[JayRob]

AZT kills folks even quicker than HIV. A strong immune system is the key.

 

[96lioness]

A strong immune system is the key.

AND THERE IT IS!!!!!

It all depends on a person’s Immune system!

 

[The Founder]

AND THERE IT IS!!!!!

It all depends on a person’s Immune system!

Which is following science correct. The laws do not address an accused immune system at all. With a law such as this all factors should take place. Also it should be factored in if HIV was transmitted as well.

 

[96lioness]

@The Founder

It must be me, because I read all of your post(s), and I still can’t decipher a straightforward answer to my question. I try to keep my posts basic and simple, but maybe I got a little too complex. So, I’ll just say that I don’t understand why you think an HIV-infected person, who chose NOT disclose their status to a sero-negative person before kissing them, should not go to jail.

I did read where you said the factors listed in your last post “that kissing actually transmitted HIV”. That’s why I brought up my former co-worker from Coca-Cola. There are a whole bunch of folks walking around with bleeding gums, mouth sores, and tongue sores. While HIV has a high unlikely-hood of transmission through saliva, it’s VERY possible to be transmitted through kissing.

Also, take what JayRob posted. The human Immune System. There are people who live with deficiencies called auto immune diseases (disorders/deficiencies that decrease the body’s natural ability of defense against foreign matter). 2 very common ones are MS (multiple sclerosis) and SLE (lupus); but there are many others (Grave’s disease, Hashimoto, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, etc). People with these conditions have a weak immune system, which makes them HIGHLY susceptible to viruses. Take into consideration how anything foreign that gets into the blood stream of someone like this can build an anybody that could attack them and killl them. That’s GVHD (graft vs host disease). Also, consider a person who has an auto immune disease and they come into physical (sexual) contact with an HIV+ person. I said all of that to say this: the human body’s immune system makes the difference. This was a point I was trying to make when I spoke on all these criminals who purposely infected sero-negative people with HIV. It could have been some were already battling with RA or lupus or MS. And this is why I think when an HIV+ person is about to become intimate (kiss OR have sex) with another who is NOT, they should disclose their status. It will protect both parties involved.

I’m beginning to see why you and I disagree (respectfully) on some issues. We’re looking at things from a different viewpoint. We agree on education, treatment, and counseling when it comes to HIV/AIDS. But it’s no secret that we don’t when it comes to criminalization. I think I’m taking a more moral/ethical view and you take a more legal view. But I mean no disrespect.

 

[The Founder]

@The Founder

It must be me, because I read all of your post(s), and I still can’t decipher a straightforward answer to my question. I try to keep my posts basic and simple, but maybe I got a little too complex. So, I’ll just say that I don’t understand why you think an HIV-infected person, who chose NOT disclose their status to a sero-negative person before kissing them, should not go to jail.

I did read where you said the factors listed in your last post “that kissing actually transmitted HIV”. That’s why I brought up my former co-worker from Coca-Cola. There are a whole bunch of folks walking around with bleeding gums, mouth sores, and tongue sores. While HIV has a high unlikely-hood of transmission through saliva, it’s VERY possible to be transmitted through kissing.

Also, take what JayRob posted. The human Immune System. There are people who live with deficiencies called auto immune diseases (disorders/deficiencies that decrease the body’s natural ability of defense against foreign matter). 2 very common ones are MS (multiple sclerosis) and SLE (lupus); but there are many others (Grave’s disease, Hashimoto, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, etc). People with these conditions have a weak immune system, which makes them HIGHLY susceptible to viruses. Take into consideration how anything foreign that gets into the blood stream of someone like this can build an anybody that could attack them and killl them. That’s GVHD (graft vs host disease). Also, consider a person who has an auto immune disease and they come into physical (sexual) contact with an HIV+ person. I said all of that to say this: the human body’s immune system makes the difference. This was a point I was trying to make when I spoke on all these criminals who purposely infected sero-negative people with HIV. It could have been some were already battling with RA or lupus or MS. And this is why I think when an HIV+ person is about to become intimate (kiss OR have sex) with another who is NOT, they should disclose their status. It will protect both parties involved.

I’m beginning to see why you and I disagree (respectfully) on some issues. We’re looking at things from a different viewpoint. We agree on education, treatment, and counseling when it comes to HIV/AIDS. But it’s no secret that we don’t when it comes to criminalization. I think I’m taking a more moral/ethical view and you take a more legal view. But I mean no disrespect.

If the laws took a moral view and we swear on a Bible then those who participate is sex before marriage should go to jail right. I mean if you are practicing Christian and we swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help you God. When courts start going toward the moral view it can place our legal system in a far worse situation that it is now. This is why I am strongly against mixing church and state. Heck, homosexuality, is it morally right? Depends on who is examining it.

We disagree and as I said earlier I enjoy the conversation because it truly needs to be had.

Yet, even with a moral view the time should fit the crime and should kissing someone should send you to jail for a minimum of 6 years and maximum of 30 years (In Arkansas)? Does kissing someone require you to be listed as a sex offender? Especially if there is no transmission.

Now, I never said a person should not go to jail I just fundamentally believe the laws and punishment do not follow the scientific advances which you and I will both agree have made tremendous strides since HIV first started being treated. Case and point I have lived 37 years with the disease. Some people do not live one which makes is a very complex disease.

Like I said good convo. On this topic I get angry because there is somebody or others who are HIV+ posting on this website that need to read this.

 

[96lioness]

If the laws took a moral view and we swear on a Bible then those who participate is sex before marriage should go to jail right. I mean if you are practicing Christian and we swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help you God. When courts start going toward the moral view it can place our legal system in a far worse situation that it is now. This is why I am strongly against mixing church and state. Heck, homosexuality, is it morally right? Depends on who is examining it.

We disagree and as I said earlier I enjoy the conversation because it truly needs to be had.

Yet, even with a moral view the time should fit the crime and should kissing someone should send you to jail for a minimum of 6 years and maximum of 30 years (In Arkansas)? Does kissing someone require you to be listed as a sex offender? Especially if there is no transmission.

Now, I never said a person should not go to jail I just fundamentally believe the laws and punishment do not follow the scientific advances which you and I will both agree have made tremendous strides since HIV first started being treated. Case and point I have lived 37 years with the disease. Some people do not live one which makes is a very complex disease.

Like I said good convo. On this topic I get angry because there is somebody or others who are HIV+ posting on this website that need to read this.

Honestly, I don't call myself a Christian (that means 'Christ-like, and I have an entire lifetime to go before I can even consider myself to be like Jesus). Regarding what you said about the law, well, that depends on the person and who they're living for. Me personally, I don't swear on the Bible, I don't swear to God, nor do I swear by God. But again, that goes to what I said about it depends on who a person is living for.

I wasn't talking about the law in general, but the law when it comes to criminalization and HIV/AIDS. Again, I tend to look at this based on what's morally and ethically right. If I have the sniffles or a little cold, I usually sit in the back at church because I have church members who I know have cancer and/or are elderly. I don't shake hands an/or hug and I announce to my brothers and sisters, "I'm sick". Some shake my hand anyway or give me a hug, some don't (to which I understand). Some have even taken out hand sanitizer, rubbed it on their hands and shook my hand. I wasn't at all offended because it's what comes out of the heart and the mouth that matters. When I announced, "I'm sick" I left them with a choice; I didn't make it for them. If I'm really sick, I don't go to work or church because I know I'm sick and I couldn't be at peace with myself knowing there are immune-compromised or immune-suppressed people around me, and also, I just don't want to make anyone else sick. One of my co-workers is a cancer survivor. I remember when Brant had just came back to work. He was taking chemo and radiation. One day I got sick and saw him walking toward me. I yelled in the loudest voice, "BRANT DON'T COME ANY CLOSER! I HAVE A COLD!". He stopped looked at me, laughed, turned and went a different way. Our lab manager refused to let him draw blood because it exposed him to patients (coughing, sneezing). But as I said twice already, that's because I keep in mind who I'm living (trying to live) for.

Thanks for indulging me.