Charlie Sheen

Samaris · 18-11-2015 9:14pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Would people stop saying this, anybody that uses insufficient protection isn't doing it because they have a latex allergy they are doing it because they don't want to use a certain type of protection.
You can buy Mates Skyn's in Tesco and Boots FFS they aren't exactly a hidden away product.
(And to shill them, they are way better than Durex)

Soooo...no-one has latex allergies then? The only reason not to use them is to not use them?

That makes sense.

Azalea · 18-11-2015 9:20pm

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I am amazed by the lack of knowledge about HIV and AIDS. It sounds like 1985 in here.

Fixed your post.

osarusan wrote: »

Even in After Hours, where the term SJW has such lazy and blindly all-emcompassing use as to never have meant anything, this is an extreme.

I saw someone refer to someone else as a SJW yesterday, despite the fact the person on the receiving end of the label is utterly obsessed with sneering at anyone they (often incorrectly) deem a SJW. It literally just gets thrown out at anything at all.

It's really stupid to deem any advocating non marginalisation of people who don't deserve it, to be merely "political correctness", as if it's that shallow, when real human beings are who are being talked about here.

retro:electro · 18-11-2015 9:32pm

Charlie has said he had unprotected sex with two women who were counselled by two doctors before hand and told of the risks of contracting HIV. I don't see why either party would do this. I don't see how he'd take such a risk and it's equally irresponsible for the woman to put herself in such a situation. The mind boggles.

18-11-2015 9:45pm

anna080 wrote: »

Charlie has said he had unprotected sex with two women who were counselled by two doctors before hand and told of the risks of contracting HIV. I don't see why either party would do this. I don't see how he'd take such a risk and it's equally irresponsible for the woman to put herself in such a situation. The mind boggles.

If his viral load was undetectable then the risk is virtually non existent. The blood tests are extremely sensitive and if no copies of the virus are detected then it can't be passed on.

The Swiss Statement of 2008 states the risk of a person with undetectable viral load - and this would be most people in the West on simple enough treatment regimens -

"An HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia (“effective ART”) is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact.”

So it sounds like these women informed themselves and made an informed decision that the risk was negligible.

It is because of the effectiveness of the treatment that babies can now be safely born to HIV+ mothers with only the very remotest theoretical risk of infection. To put that another way, it's unheard of in recent years for an infected baby to be born when the HIV+ mother is undergoing treatment and adheres to the regimen.

Theoretically, if everyone presently infected with HIV was treated appropriately, the disease would die out as that generation does.

Unfortunately the greatest tragedy of our time is that there is approaching 38 million people around the world living with HIV and AIDS, many of whom have no access to treatment.

retro:electro · 18-11-2015 9:51pm

Candie wrote: »

If his viral load was undetectable then the risk is virtually non existent. The blood tests are extremely sensitive and if no copies of the virus are detected then it can't be passed on.

The Swiss Statement of 2008 states the risk of a person with undetectable viral load - and this would be most people in the West on simple enough treatment regimens -

So it sounds like these women informed themselves and made an informed decision that the risk was negligible.

It is because of the effectiveness of the treatment that babies can now be safely born to HIV+ mothers with only the very remotest theoretical risk of infection. To put that another way, it's unheard of in recent years for an infected baby to be born when the HIV+ mother is undergoing treatment and adheres to the regimen.

Theoretically, if everyone presently infected with HIV was treated appropriately, the disease would die out as that generation does.

Unfortunately the greatest tragedy of our time is that there is approaching 38 million people around the world living with HIV and AIDS, many of whom have no access to treatment.

Wow I didn't know any of that. I'm sorry thus if my previous post came across as ignorant. I guess it just goes to show how info on HIV is perpetuated socially and in the media

18-11-2015 9:53pm

anna080 wrote: »

Wow I didn't know any of that. I'm sorry thus if my previous post came across as ignorant. I guess it just goes to show how info on HIV is perpetuated socially and in the media

It certainly shows up a reluctance to shake hands as being uninformed anyway.

Azalea · 18-11-2015 9:56pm

To lighten the mood, I was seven/eight/nine when the AIDS scare was at its peak. I remember it very well - it was being talked about non stop, and that scary ad...

But I didn't know what this terrible, apocalyptic (and that really was how it was spoken about) disease was caused by, and adults tended to be cagey about it. I kept hearing the word "sex" in relation to it also. So one day, when the little old lady up the road was in my mother's house for tea, my curiosity no longer something I could ignore, I sauntered into the room, bellowing "Mam, what's SEXXXXXXXX?!" (I'm imagining myself saying it in a Grandpa Simpson voice).

Sala · 18-11-2015 10:19pm

I have learned more about HIV in the last couple of days than in my life before that. Aside from the tabloid rags, there's good articles about other people living with HIV. Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit this, but I honestly never heard of drugs making the virus undetectable. From what I've read a lot of the people diagnosed early and treated properly seem as healthy as anyone and can have fulfilling safe sexual relationships.
Well impressed with how far the research has come.

Wouldn't wish HIV on anyone but having such a high profile person reveal they are HIV positive really does help educate people. It's working for me anyway

18-11-2015 10:26pm

I think Charlie Sheen coming out as HIV+ is going to be the starting point for a lot of people in finding out the present situation for those with the virus.

It could, ironically, be the best thing he's ever done in his life if he's responsible for people becoming better informed.

retro:electro · 18-11-2015 10:31pm

Sala wrote: »

I have learned more about HIV in the last couple of days than in my life before that. Aside from the tabloid rags, there's good articles about other people living with HIV. Maybe I should be embarrassed to admit this, but I honestly never heard of drugs making the virus undetectable. From what I've read a lot of the people diagnosed early and treated properly seem as healthy as anyone and can have fulfilling safe sexual relationships.
Well impressed with how far the research has come.

Wouldn't wish HIV on anyone but having such a high profile person reveal they are HIV positive really does help educate people. It's working for me anyway

Same. It has also made me want to educate myself more on the subject because it seems to be the case that so many are ill informed about it (myself included)

RDM_83 again · 18-11-2015 10:37pm

Samaris wrote: »

Soooo...no-one has latex allergies then? The only reason not to use them is to not use them?

That makes sense.

Whats so hard to get about non latex condoms being widely available

Samaris · 18-11-2015 11:07pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats so hard to get about non latex condoms being widely available

That's what I'm wondering, but you're the one doing the protesting. Latex condoms just happen to be better than other sorts to prevent the transmission of HIV.

RDM_83 again · 18-11-2015 11:24pm

Samaris wrote: »

That's what I'm wondering, but you're the one doing the protesting. Latex condoms just happen to be better than other sorts to prevent the transmission of HIV.

Can I hammer this point home one final time, there is widely available condoms that are not made of latex that are just as effective at preventing HIV (FDA approved etc).
If somebody has a latex allergy they don't have to have unsafe sex unless they want to.

Your criticizing another user about a lack of knowledge but your displaying the same thing yourself by spouting this information that having a latex allergy excuses risk taking behaviour :rolleyes:

Samaris wrote: »

This one isn't actually about being professionally offended or PCness, it's that you have an astonishing lack of knowledge about HIV, and thus your choices look either ignorant or kinda douchey.

Not -everything- that pertains to acting like a human being is "PC".

Jimoslimos · 18-11-2015 11:33pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

We don't fully understand HIV or AIDS. (The fact we haven't developed a cure for it yet, is strong evidence of this)

I kinda hope you're taking the piss.
Understanding how a disease works and knowing how to cure it are two different thing. We probably know more about the HIV virus than we do about smallpox, polio, measles, etc. Understanding the mechanisms of the body's immune system would probably be as much help in curing HIV/AIDS than any further knowledge on the virus.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Science is always discovering new things that we didn't understand yesterday or today.

Perhaps you should start with trying to comprehend the stuff science discovered yesterday/decades ago.
Might seem trivial to you but the scientific denialism you and a few others espouse here are exactly the sort of stuff that ends up costing peoples lives, whether through crackpot vaccine conspiracy theories or HIV/AIDS denial by the South African government.

AtomicHorror · 19-11-2015 12:03am

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I kinda hope you're taking the piss.
Understanding how a disease works and knowing how to cure it are two different thing. We probably know more about the HIV virus than we do about smallpox, polio, measles, etc. Understanding the mechanisms of the body's immune system would probably be as much help in curing HIV/AIDS than any further knowledge on the virus.

Perhaps you should start with trying to comprehend the stuff science discovered yesterday/decades ago.
Might seem trivial to you but the scientific denialism you and a few others espouse here are exactly the sort of stuff that ends up costing peoples lives, whether through crackpot vaccine conspiracy theories or HIV/AIDS denial by the South African government.

Yep. It's probably the most-studied virus in the world. We know it literally inside out. Every molecule (every atom, in fact). We also know pretty much every molecule in the human body it interacts with to the same degree.

There's still work to be done, but to suggest there's some big mystery around HIV/AIDS is just plain bollocks.

ShowMeTheCash · 19-11-2015 5:11pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yep. It's probably the most-studied virus in the world. We know it literally inside out. Every molecule (every atom, in fact). We also know pretty much every molecule in the human body it interacts with to the same degree.

There's still work to be done, but to suggest there's some big mystery around HIV/AIDS is just plain bollocks.

I think you need to take a step back people are now jumping down peoples throat at the mere suggestion of something.

Yes it is the most studied virus ever, more cash has been thrown at it than any other before it. They know in a lot of detailed how it works, how it infects and how it spreads.

What they don't know is why in some people it will lay dormant for years even decades and then what triggers it to come out of it's dormant state, or maybe they have answered this?

In terms of conspiracy that's partly the fault of Pharmaceutical companies these companies in the 80s used healthy patient with HIV as ginnie-pigs with lethal drugs under the banner of "you're gonna die anyways"... Most of them died within the year, most of which would of lived longer healthier lives without using drugs like AZT.

ShowMeTheCash · 19-11-2015 5:23pm

So what is the story with the law-suits, are people suing for simply being put at risk? Did they not put themselves as risk by having unprotected sex?

If he did not disclose it, it's a scumbag thing to do, but that being said, I liken unprotected sex with Charlie Sheen to that of unprotected sex with an African prostitute whether he disclosed it or did not disclose it these people need to take some responsibility for their own actions.

F##k those greedy sl#ts!

Muahahaha · 19-11-2015 6:16pm

osarusan wrote: »

I remember when I was in primary school, somebody had gone home for lunch and come back with some ice-cream between two wafers.

They wouldn't share it with me 'because of the AIDS.'

Seems like we've still got people with that mentality.

Yeah I remember in the mid 80's playground at school the game of 'Tig' suddenly got renamed 'Aids', in that by touching someone you immediately passed it onto them. By the end of the week we all had Aids by that reckoning :rolleyes:

iirc 1986 was when most people became aware of what HIV was when Freddie Mercury contracted it. There was a huge stigma attached to it but Freddie showed us the human side of it. Then in 1988 Princess Diana campaigned against the stigma by sitting with and shaking the hand of a HIV sufferer in Africa.

I had always thought that Freddie and Princess Di did remarkable work in exposing the ignorance associated with people who are HIV positive. That was back in 1988 and its now 2015 and I can't believe some of the posts on this thread. At least they're in a very small minority.

Galwayguy35 · 19-11-2015 6:27pm

Seems one of his exes has said she knew he was HIV and still had sex with him without a condom so looks like he didn't hide it from her.

A lot of people were ready to tar and feather him without waiting for the full story to come out.

ceadaoin. · 19-11-2015 6:45pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Seems one of his exes has said she knew he was HIV and still had sex with him without a condom so looks like he didn't hide it from her.

A lot of people were ready to tar and feather him without waiting for the full story to come out.

There are two sides to every story. More have come out saying that he didnt inform them and that he paid extra for unprotected sex. Of course, because they are prostitutes and porn stars they are "greedy sluts" (posted above).

Charlie's really done a great job of painting himself as he victim. I'm sure as more stuff comes out the tide will turn.

Charlie Sheen

Comments