Tony From Syracuse wrote:
well, one thing...I am assuming anyone who had a go with charlie sheen went in knowing, that guy possibly could have HIV and hopefully practiced safe sex.

apparently his second wife didn't "know", or assume.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'd really love to see this as a teaching moment around the stigma, misinformation and fear campaign around STIs..but of course it will be a shameful media circus instead. People wonder why hiv+ folks don't disclose. It's absolutely disgusting that someone else, especially the media, outted him.

It's actually not all that easy to contract HIV, at least in comparison to other STIs. Blood, semen, vaginal fluid, or breast milk has to enter the blood stream. Just getting it on your skin won't cause you to become infected, and getting it inside your genitals doesn't inherently infect you either, you'll need to get it inside an internal cut, sore or tear. Rubbing skin won't do it, spit, sweat, urine, etc won't do it. While things like needle sharing are obviously very high risk activities, things like oral sex are low risk, since most of us won't engage in oral sex if we've got sores/cuts in our mouths cuz it fucking hurts us. Unprotected anal sex is high risk because people commonly fail to use enough lubrication to prevent tearing, vaginal sex is lower risk provided the person with the vagina is lubricated well enough. Vagina-vagina sex is lower risk. Manual sex is low risk. All properly protected sex is low risk.

Having sex with a sex worker is not inherently any higher risk than a non-sex worker. Many sex workers get tested regularly and use protection, since their whole job depends on them remaining healthy. Your average white college student making fun of "gross hookers" and laughing at herpes jokes has never thought about taking a trip to the campus clinic to see if they've got the clap, let alone something more serious, because they don't think STIs are something that happen to them.

We have no idea if Charlie has been taking medication to manage his infection and keep his partners safe, we have no idea if any of his partners were taking medication to keep themselves safe.

The worst of the worst people in the world still shouldn't have their statuses disclosed without their permission. If nothing else, it tells the world they get to choose when someone is "shitty enough" in their opinion to be outted, it builds shame and fear, increases stigma, and ultimately means you are LESS safe because your partners are not disclosing (or seeking testing at all) so as to not be treated badly.

some points are valid, but the highlighted text is to point out a rather sweeping generalization, especially since you're insinuating the subject of said text does the same.

all i was pointing out was that it seems mr. sheen has made a name for himself, as far as his promiscuity goes. if he had informed all of his partners of his condition (since learning about it), then i would have no issue with him. basic instinct tells me that probably wasn't the case. if he indeed had, then i have no beef with his actions. 

he resides in ca. there are no laws on the books here in regards to making any potential sexual partners aware, if you're hiv+. that still doesn't mean you can't--or shouldn't--do the right thing. regardless of how hard it may be to contract.

how would you personally feel if a partner of yours (especially long term) was hiv+, and didn't inform you of it? just curious.

GK photo wrote:
some points are valid, but the highlighted text is to point out a rather sweeping generalization, especially since you're insinuating the subject of said text does the same.

all i was pointing out was that it seems mr. sheen has made a name for himself, as far as his promiscuity goes. if he had informed all of his partners of his condition (since learning about it), then i would have no issue with him. basic instinct tells me that probably wasn't the case. if he indeed had, then i have no beef with his actions. 

he resides in ca. there are no laws on the books here in regards to making any potential sexual partners aware, if you're hiv+. that still doesn't mean you can't--or shouldn't--do the right thing. regardless of how hard it may be to contract.

how would you personally feel if a partner of yours (especially long term) was hiv+, and didn't inform you of it? just curious.

I'd of course be upset. I'd be upset if my husband didn't tell me he caught strep throat while I was away and kissed me on the mouth when I came back, and that's something I'd make a full recovery from.  Upsettedness is fine. I'm not saying his partners shouldn't be allowed that.

I'd also understand that we've built a fear shame and silence culture around HIV, though, I'd understand the difficulty of disclosure. And then I'd just go get tested...like I already do...I wouldn't out him, even if I thought what he did was shitty. Do I think persons with serious infections should disclose? Absolutely. Do I get why they don't? Fuck yeah I do.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'd also understand that we've built a fear shame and silence culture around HIV, though, I'd understand the difficulty of disclosure. And then I'd just go get tested...like I already do...I wouldn't out him, even if I thought what he did was shitty. Do I think persons with serious infections should disclose? Absolutely. Do I get why they don't? Fuck yeah I do.

charlie sheen's adult life has been a panoply of bad decision making. anyone who wants to get involved with him--in any way--has had ample examples of that. if in this instance, he took it upon himself to do the "right thing", then i applaud him. from my (very limited) understanding, he didn't even inform his second wife, until they had been divorced.

if he was just outed for some monetary gain, or publicity, and he had been acting in a responsible manner, then that--indeed--would not be cool. but the real possibility exists that he may have been outed (i don't have that information, either way) to protect future partners.

i don't know any of the specifics. he gets to state his case tomorrow. from there, the chips (or litigation) will fall where they may.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'd also like to know what part of that bolded section is a sweeping generalization. It's evident in all sorts of studies that middle class white people DONT think bad things can happen to them.

please cite these studies, especially if they contrast those with (or include) studies of any other segment of the society, regardless of the country of origin (the studies, that is). i'm only assuming, but i'm guessing you're discussing the us in these studies.

i'd like to take a peek at them.

GK photo wrote:
so he says he was being blackmailed, and that he's paid millions to keep this out of the news. i'll have to take his word for it, but i wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the end of the story.

if--indeed--he had been acting as responsibly as possible, since being diagnosed, then i have no problem with it. i wonder why he didn't take action to have these blackmailers brought to justice.

I find that hard to believe when Heidi Fleiss was on speed dial 24/7

Koryn wrote:
Yet, for some reason, people don't make a huge deal out of someone famous getting Hepatitis C. Maybe there's a story in a tabloid mag, but whatever. People will stand behind them, support them through the brutal treatments that are necessary for Hep C.

They sure made a big deal of it when Pamela Anderson announced she had it. 

And, there is now a cure for Hep C that's 99% effective and has no side effects (unlike the older Interferon based treatments). The problem is that it costs $80K and private insurance doesn't cover it... trust me, I know. People on public support are getting it for free though.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'd really love to see this as a teaching moment around the stigma, misinformation and fear campaign around STIs..but of course it will be a shameful media circus instead. People wonder why hiv+ folks don't disclose. It's absolutely disgusting that someone else, especially the media, outted him.

It's actually not all that easy to contract HIV, at least in comparison to other STIs. Blood, semen, vaginal fluid, or breast milk has to enter the blood stream. Just getting it on your skin won't cause you to become infected, and getting it inside your genitals doesn't inherently infect you either, you'll need to get it inside an internal cut, sore or tear. Rubbing skin won't do it, spit, sweat, urine, etc won't do it. While things like needle sharing are obviously very high risk activities, things like oral sex are low risk, since most of us won't engage in oral sex if we've got sores/cuts in our mouths cuz it fucking hurts us. Unprotected anal sex is high risk because people commonly fail to use enough lubrication to prevent tearing, vaginal sex is lower risk provided the person with the vagina is lubricated well enough. Vagina-vagina sex is lower risk. Manual sex is low risk. All properly protected sex is low risk.

Having sex with a sex worker is not inherently any higher risk than a non-sex worker. Many sex workers get tested regularly and use protection, since their whole job depends on them remaining healthy.

Well, you're not 100% accurate in your information.  You left out the important words "mucous membranes."  Here's good info from aids.gov:

"HIV is spread from an infected person to another person through direct contact with some of the body’s fluids. It is not spread easily. Only certain body fluids from an HIV-infected person can transmit HIV:

    Blood
    Semen (cum)
    Pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum)
    Rectal fluids
    Vaginal fluids
    Breast milk

These body fluids must come into contact with a mucous membrane or damaged tissue or be directly injected into your bloodstream (by a needle or syringe) for transmission to possibly occur. Mucous membranes are the soft, moist areas just inside the openings to your body. They can be found inside the rectum, the vagina or the opening of the penis, and the mouth."

Laura UnBound wrote:
It's absolutely disgusting that someone else, especially the media, outted him.

I really think it's disgusting that we want to protect someone like Charlie Sheen who knowingly had sex with thousands of women with no disclosure and seem to have little to no sympathy for those he put at risk.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'd really love to see this as a teaching moment around the stigma, misinformation and fear campaign around STIs..but of course it will be a shameful media circus instead. People wonder why hiv+ folks don't disclose. It's absolutely disgusting that someone else, especially the media, outted him.

Personally, I think its MORE disgusting that he's knowingly not informing his partner(s) that he's tranmitted the disease while still having sex, thus putting them at risk as well as their future sex partners.

But that's what we've come to expect from Charlie Sheen & shouldn't be surprised.

Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Between drugs and sex with Hookers, what could possibly go wrong?

.... his "partners" are shocked and dismayed that he lied to them? Because his, and their, excessively hedonistic lifestyle is well known for truth, honesty, and consideration?

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
well, one thing...I am assuming anyone who had a go with charlie sheen went in knowing, that guy possibly could have HIV and hopefully practiced safe sex. but that aside I feel bad for him.... a good actor,wasted talent.....drugs,prostitutes,the cliche'd story...and now HIV.   he's very recognizable..everyone will be thinking HIV when they see him....his acting roles might dry up now...it will probably hard for a guy who seems to thrive on sex to get sexual partners, and Its possible in some years time we will hear about him being on the streets. a sad end to a pretty good actor.

Not necessarily.  Look at Magic Johnson.

Stephen Fletcher wrote:
Between drugs and sex with Hookers, what could possibly go wrong?

Yeah. That kind of puts a dent in the idea of being a "victim" doesn't it?

Life in the fast lane. Welcome to Hollywood.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Was STI the source?

There are many theories that heavy drug use over a long period of time can be so immune depressend that the t-helper cell count is so far below 200 (I think that's the number) that it can destroy the immune system and since the t cell count is a marker, people test positive for HIV and since AIDS is an umbrella term that includes a myriad of symptoms... people are considered HIV positive.

Considering Charlie's long abuse of drugs, stress and alcohol... ending up in the famous melt down... I am not surprised that he tested positive... completely independent from that elusive virus.

udor wrote:
There are many theories that heavy drug use over a long period of time can be so immune depressend that the t-helper cell count is so far below 200 (I think that's the number) that it can destroy the immune system and since the t cell count is a marker, people test positive for HIV and since AIDS is an umbrella term that includes a myriad of symptoms... people are considered HIV positive.

Considering Charlie's long abuse of drugs, stress and alcohol... ending up in the famous melt down... I am not surprised that he tested positive... completely independent from that elusive virus.

That would be a bummer to call it HIV if it wasn't what people think it is.

Click Hamilton wrote:

That would be a bummer to call it HIV if it wasn't what people think it is.

I know it's not very popular to say this, and I usually get some heat for this, although I haven't mentioned this in years... but... there are noted AIDS researchers who became dissidents to the popular belief into a virus. They demonstrated the history of that "discovery", etc., and although they say that AIDS is in fact the disease, they also challenge the widely accepted idea that an actual retro-virus is the cause of it.

Naturally, those dissidents are being heavily criticized and attacked, but some of those are pioneers in AIDS research and one a Nobel Prize laureate.

Take it with a grain of salt, but I think that this is a (award winning) documentary that certainly gives food for thoughts. On a side note, a very close friend of mine was the editor on that documentary.

This documentary I am linking to is the follow up version to the first one: AIDS, Inc. that contains footage from the original version.

udor wrote:
Take it with a grain of salt, but I think that this is a (award winning) documentary that certainly gives food for thoughts. On a side note, a very close friend of mine was the editor on that documentary.

Your friend would probably be interested in some of the boxes of crap I have. My mother in law was very close to Jonas Salk (mainly through his widow Francoise Gilot, who is also the mother of two of Pablo Picasso's sons).  After Jonas died, Francoice gave my MIL tons of papers, notes, etc. We have lots of correspondence on Picasso too,,, even a typewritten play he did, complete with handwritten corrections/notes. Someday when I have the time I'll have to go through some of that stuff.

For the technically minded, here's one of the papers Salk had presented somewhere on post-exposure immunization:

http://hollywoodwebs.com/Salk_87003.pdf

Koryn wrote:
I've known a number of individuals, and was close friends with one of them, who had Hep C. People get that infection in a similar manner to HIV. Those I've known who had it, all got it through past histories of IV drug use. Left untreated, it's just as deadly. You have it for life, just like HIV.

Yet, for some reason, people don't make a huge deal out of someone famous getting Hepatitis C. Maybe there's a story in a tabloid mag, but whatever. People will stand behind them, support them through the brutal treatments that are necessary for Hep C.

When someone comes down with HIV, it's like the media explodes. One disease isnt inherently worse or more newsworthy than the other - just the stereotypes associated with HIV+ people are more persistent and insidious.

If we lived in a world that was a little more enlightened, Sheen's medical concerns would not be a topic of nationwide conversation.

Your facts are a little dated and inaccurate.
Hepatitis C can be fairly benign in many hosts depending upon various health factors. Although it can be serious in terms of life endangerment (again depending upon individual health), it is not comparable to hiv in that  regard. Within the last year there is now a "cure" which is a considerably shorter treatment regiment pill, versus the basically chemotherapy injections which was the historical treatment.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Your facts are a little dated and inaccurate.
Hepatitis C can be fairly benign in many hosts depending upon various health factors. Although it can be serious in terms of life endangerment (again depending upon individual health), it is not comparable to hiv in that  regard. Within the last year there is now a "cure" which is a considerably shorter treatment regiment pill, versus the basically chemotherapy injections which was the historical treatment.

There is indeed a very effective cure for Hep C, with no real side effects. Unfortunately it costs $80,000 and the ACA doesn't allow any insurance carriers to cover it.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

There is indeed a very effective cure for Hep C, with no real side effects. Unfortunately it costs $80,000 and the ACA doesn't allow any insurance carriers to cover it.

Interesting - could you cite an authoritative source?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

Interesting - could you cite an authoritative source?

Yea, me. I have Hep C and have for years been going to Dr. Han who is the head of the liver clinic at UCLA.  My private insurance used to partially cover those annual checkups and associated tests, but that stopped a year ago of course with the Affordable Care Act. I did lots of research last year when I bought my plan, and again in the past couple of weeks in preparation for next year's coverage. I am told by all the carriers that the ACA simply does not cover the cure medication (Harvoni).

I'm hoping that in a few years the price will come down, and perhaps I will be able to go to Costa Rica or someplace and buy it for much less.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Yea, me. I have Hep C and have for years been going to Dr. Han who is the head of the liver clinic at UCLA.  My private insurance used to partially cover those annual checkups and associated tests, but that stopped a year ago of course with the Affordable Care Act. I did lots of research last year when I bought my plan, and again in the past couple of weeks in preparation for next year's coverage. I am told by all the carriers that the ACA simply does not cover the cure medication (Harvoni).

I'm hoping that in a few years the price will come down, and perhaps I will be able to go to Costa Rica or someplace and buy it for much less.

I don't think the ACA dictates specifics of what's covered do they - I know it prevents the denial of insurance based on pre-existing conditions - but it's the insurance companies themselves that create the plans that have specific coverages. How do I have this wrong?

All Yours Photography wrote:

Not necessarily.  Look at Magic Johnson.

Dont see how you put these 2 in same basket ??