It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by newcovenant
Eh.. the responsibility lies with the woman to tell if she is infected. Actually to so much so, that if he had contracted it from her (and not gone total psycho and killed her) she would face jail time for not telling him. It's definitely not certain he contracted it, probably depends on how much sex they had and other factors.
Originally posted by blu3nowh3r3
reply to post by newcovenant
Im pretty sure it is illegal... some form of assault I believe.
Your reading comprehension needs a little work.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
You've lost all credibility with me. At least in this thread, and probably beyond. That is one of the most blatant examples of the misrepresentation of data I've seen.
Now normally, this isn't a reason to really care, but BUNK information on this topic can lead people who don't do their own research to get the wrong impression of TRUE RISK. That can get people KILLED.
Now, I may just be a simple guy from Missouri these days, but that sounds exceptionally dangerous and described in biological detail precisely HOW and WHY it's exceptionally dangerous for male AND female. Not alike....it's clear females are more likely to contract by sheer physiology. But..only by a bit.
"If you don't have an open wound...it has no way in" some may say (and.ahem..HAVE). Well, I'm not sure what gender someone is who is saying that, as we all generally know the basic biology of the other sex, let alone our own..and to keep this whole thing as G rated in a touchy subject as possible, there is a BIG GAPING INFECTION PATH at the end of the male genetalia. As this rather clear report...from your source....so graphically describes in detail.
but then, there is your study...which is on the next page in sequence to the one I took those quotes from. With a couple further minutes looking. I found an abstract directly out of the study some are trying to quote here with very badly misplaced context. Dangerously so.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies of the risk of HIV-1 transmission per heterosexual contact. 43 publications comprising 25 different study populations were identified. Pooled female-to-male (0.04% per act [95% CI 0.01-0.14]) and male-to-female (0.08% per act [95% CI 0.06-0.11]) transmission estimates in high-income countries indicated a low risk of infection in the absence of antiretrovirals. Low-income country female-to-male (0.38% per act [95% CI 0.13-1.10]) and male-to-female (0.30% per act [95% CI 0.14-0.63]) estimates in the absence of commercial sex exposure (CSE) were higher. In meta-regression analysis, the infectivity across estimates in the absence of CSE was significantly associated with sex, setting, the interaction between setting and sex, and antenatal HIV prevalence.
Now that is the first part of the abstract. There is another half to it and I'd suggest everyone check that out. It's real clear they are using sampling methods to generate the statistics for per incident exposure numbers across society as a whole as looked at by sub group. That is a WORLD APART from say this specific individual man has less than 1% chance of infection by having sex with a female infected and carrying a viral load.
Bad information in this area CAN get people KILLED. I'd hope everyone check themselves if any questions exist as to what is dangerous for the spread of HIV/AIDS.