Toronto Passions
Massage Adagio

hiv test...

JEFF247 said:
Still a lot of misconceptions out there. I saw an aids TV spot the other night and it kept repeating "Anyone can get Aids". Made it sound like the common cold.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the Gay Agenda. Make AIDS everyone's disease because if it's thought of as a disease confined to the Gay / Drug user community they know that funding will dry up or at least be reduced.

They spend more on AIDS research than they do on Cancer Research.

I have a severe problem with this. I've known many people who've died from cancer. (Knock on wood) I don't know anyone who's died from AIDS. Not discounting AIDS, however, your odds of having cancer at some time in your life are 1 in 2. AIDS - a lot less.
 
james t kirk said:
.

They spend more on AIDS research than they do on Cancer Research.

.
Click to expand...
This simply isn't true.
 
chiller_boy said:
This simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

Your 100% correct.

Because all the funds donated to AIDS charities are just used in a way the sex industry big shots wash money.
 
Call the Hassle Free Clinic, where you can get tested for free and anonymously, and you have a choice between the quick test result (in the next 10 minutes) or the longer test result (2 weeks).

The test is the same, with the same accuracy. The quick test result is done on site, and if it's negative, you know in 10 minutes. If it's positive, they'll take another blood sample and sent it to the lab to have it double check for false positive.
 
james t kirk said:
It's the Gay Agenda. Make AIDS everyone's disease because if it's thought of as a disease confined to the Gay / Drug user community they know that funding will dry up or at least be reduced.
Click to expand...

Be careful there. Do you want to be labelled a "bigot", "anti-gay" and "homopobic"?:mad:
 
pencilneckgeek2 said:
So, you never get yourself tested? :eek:
Click to expand...

I got tested, thought I put that there.
The good ol' q-tip swab test, that's always fun with a doctor you meet for the first time.
 
Rockslinger said:
Be careful there. Do you want to be labelled a "bigot", "anti-gay" and "homopobic"?:mad:
Click to expand...

I am hardly any of the above, However, you are correct. It could get me labelled all of the above and more.

So be it. The numbers back me up.
 
james t kirk said:
So be it. The numbers back me up.
Click to expand...

If you're talking global dedicated research numbers, I'd love to see them. That'd be government spending, plus private sector spending, plus NGO/UN/Foundations spending... It's almost impossible to find hard data.

* In 2006 the number for dedicated cancer research was between 12-13 billion (globally). Google-fu had that number pop up a few times.

* Total global HIV / AIDS spending in 2004 for BOTH research and treatment was 6-7 billion. (Less than just the amount for research for cancer.) They were hoping to get the total number up to about 22 billion in 2008. Once again via google-fu.

Unless you think they're spending 60% on research and 40% on treatment, I'd say your numbers are whack.

edit: Ooops the 2006 cancer number is 2001. Since cancer is a well established disease I imaging funding growth would be about the rate of global growth.

edit 2: Not really trying to pick a fight but if you have contradictory numbers that are sourced please share. I keep tripping over the same ones. Knowledge is power and all that jazz (or jizz)...
 
james t kirk said:
You are surely going to die man.

Better make your will out now. And no more sex either.

A broken condom at an MP. Lord only knows what harbinger of disease that little slut was.

I knew this guy.... he went to an MP..... got a BBBJ and 6 months later - he had the AIDS man. A year after that - he was dead. No kidding.
Click to expand...


Jesus Christ James Tiberius Kirk, that is just way too cruel. Don't sweat it joeythecat chances are extremly small that it is HIV.
 
The Options Menu said:
If you're talking global dedicated research numbers, I'd love to see them. That'd be government spending, plus private sector spending, plus NGO/UN/Foundations spending... It's almost impossible to find hard data.

* In 2006 the number for dedicated cancer research was between 12-13 billion (globally). Google-fu had that number pop up a few times.

* Total global HIV / AIDS spending in 2004 for BOTH research and treatment was 6-7 billion. (Less than just the amount for research for cancer.) They were hoping to get the total number up to about 22 billion in 2008. Once again via google-fu.

Unless you think they're spending 60% on research and 40% on treatment, I'd say your numbers are whack.

edit: Ooops the 2006 cancer number is 2001. Since cancer is a well established disease I imaging funding growth would be about the rate of global growth.

edit 2: Not really trying to pick a fight but if you have contradictory numbers that are sourced please share. I keep tripping over the same ones. Knowledge is power and all that jazz (or jizz)...
Click to expand...

Total US AIDS budget = 21 Billion

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/F...g-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf

Mind you, that is distributed more to care than just pure and applied research, never the less, in total, the US gov't spending on AIDS as an issue is 21 Billion Dollars.

The National Cancer Institute in the USA had a budget of just under 5 billion for the year 2007.

http://plan2007.cancer.gov/NCIBudgetRequest.shtml


I agree that one needs to be able to compare apples to apples and that appears to be a lot of work for which I don't have time, however, my point is that 1 in 2 North Americans will develop cancer in their life times, however, the same can not be said of AIDS.
 
trust me i have been there it makes you sick just thinking about it but the best thing is when you get the negative result and trust me you will

btw negative is a good thing
 
james t kirk said:
Total US AIDS budget = 21 Billion

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/F...g-for-HIV-AIDS-The-FY-2006-Budget-Request.pdf

Mind you, that is distributed more to care than just pure and applied research, never the less, in total, the US gov't spending on AIDS as an issue is 21 Billion Dollars.

The National Cancer Institute in the USA had a budget of just under 5 billion for the year 2007.

http://plan2007.cancer.gov/NCIBudgetRequest.shtml


I agree that one needs to be able to compare apples to apples and that appears to be a lot of work for which I don't have time, however, my point is that 1 in 2 North Americans will develop cancer in their life times, however, the same can not be said of AIDS.
Click to expand...

That's US spending-- The one area where Bush was a decent human being was in AIDS funding and research. He put a big push on there. WRT global funding the picture is different.

It's fair to argue if it was / is worth it, but the places where HIV is the worst just don't have the funds. I think the idea was to race ahead of a speeding train to tell to stop before it crashed into something he actually cared about. :)

And note, that was research, prevention, and treatment (advanced anti-retrovirals) are the only way to get the genie back in the bottle without a 'cure'. If you get everybody on anti-retrovirals those viral loads in people can go down to the point where even being unsafe and infected is relatively safe (at least in the case of sex)...

You can disagree with American policy on that, but unlike cancer, you can actually get the genie back in the bottle on this. Every year you don't spend that money tends to exponentially increase the cost the next year.

It still doesn't change the fact that the global research numbers favour cancer. (As they should, IMHO.) But getting the genie back in the bottle on something that could go 'exponential' is a noble endeavour. (Especially in places the have double digit infection rates-- Those numbers flirt with the sort of mass political instability that tends to blow up in people's faces.)

Most hetero men in North America would do better by a cure for herpes though...
 
Cobster said:
The good ol' q-tip swab test, that's always fun with a doctor you meet for the first time.
Click to expand...

Do they still shove the q-tip up your ureter? Isn't it a blood test now?
 
If you have HIV, chances are your lymph nodes won't just automatically swell up after 3 months, and bam..there you have it.

Do you have any other symptoms? sore throat? fever? muscle aches? etc?

I'd honestly think you have a MUCH higher chance of something like lymphoma, or mono, than HIV.

I'm honestly not trying to scare you. I'm trying to point out that it could be something else... People do get sick from time to time you know. Just wait on the tests like people have said. Go get a quick tes, abstain from sex for a bit, get one in 3 more months (six month period) just to double check.

Hopefully things will work out for you. Don't go crazy over this. Good Luck.
 
Cobster said:
I got tested, thought I put that there.
The good ol' q-tip swab test, that's always fun with a doctor you meet for the first time.
Click to expand...
The swab test is not for HIV.
 
lomotil said:
The swab test is not for HIV.
Click to expand...

...and blood work was done, geezus.
I was only stressing out the displeasure in having to meet a doctor for the first time for an STD test.

Fackin guys.:rolleyes:
 
just an update, went to the doctor today, everything negitive. and to james t kirk, i hope you think this situation is funny when it happens to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back