Post: #226

(09-23-2018 03:31 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:28 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  Find me a prominent denialist who is still active in 2018.

Or alive?

These views leads to shit like this occurring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Jane_Scovill

Have whatever views you want. But if you air them publicly you deserve to be ridiculed.

Post: #227

How about you ridicule Luc Montagnier who got the Nobel price for even proving the existence of one of the countless available retro-viruses:





There are still many doctors out there in some conferences, but since the entire HIV thing clearly has not evolved into a new Syphilis, then it's become less prominent.

And if the original science and predictions were true, then similarly to the old times the overwhelming majority of the sexual aristocracy would have AIDS by now. This is only partly true with something as powerful as Syphilis - Syphilis is the strongest most insidious STD we know. Infection rates are extremely high. I knew personally one guy who got it after fucking one girl - a very beautiful but very promiscuous 9-looks girl. He was strong as a horse, but Syphilis is powerful just as many other STDs are super-infectious. Though - those things follow the rule of reality of space and time and are not BSE "diseases" that appear and disappear on EU-command.

You can scream "denier" all you want.

When I studied this years ago I knew that they would come up with either a miracle cure, a miracle prevention cure or any other such concepts that you essentially have it under control or de-facto cure it.

And if you come up HIV negative in future tests OP, I guess that you will continue taking all the meds?

And I am really curious OP, have you tested negative before your positive test?

Post: #228

Seems like your sole argument rests on this guy.

Does he have any recent videos in the past 2 years? I assume not because he has probably faded into obscurity due to the overwhelming amount of evidence that invalidates his position.

Also, I don't need to ridicule him, he has already been ridiculed by the entire medical community. So he's a Nobel Laureate... What about the other 900+ Nobel Laureates that disagree with him?

Yes I had 2 tests before my first positive test.

Tested negative to what? HIV antibodies?

(09-23-2018 03:45 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  How about you ridicule Luc Montagnier who got the Nobel price for even proving the existence of one of the countless available retro-viruses:





There are still many doctors out there in some conferences, but since the entire HIV thing clearly has not evolved into a new Syphilis, then it's become less prominent.

And if the original science and predictions were true, then similarly to the old times the overwhelming majority of the sexual aristocracy would have AIDS by now. This is only partly true with something as powerful as Syphilis - Syphilis is the strongest most insidious STD we know. Infection rates are extremely high. I knew personally one guy who got it after fucking one girl - a very beautiful but very promiscuous 9-looks girl. He was strong as a horse, but Syphilis is powerful just as many other STDs are super-infectious. Though - those things follow the rule of reality of space and time and are not BSE "diseases" that appear and disappear on EU-command.

You can scream "denier" all you want.

When I studied this years ago I knew that they would come up with either a miracle cure, a miracle prevention cure or any other such concepts that you essentially have it under control or de-facto cure it.

And if you come up HIV negative in future tests OP, I guess that you will continue taking all the meds?

And I am really curious OP, have you tested negative before your positive test?

Post: #229

That was from 2012 during an official AIDS conference - the same statement, just without a definitive appraisal, but more of the same.

And I am basing it on many other aspects - you obviously have not looked at it.

Still - I am curious - let's assume you test negative repeatedly in the future, would you continue taking the meds?

I assume you would due to the "science".

Oh - by the way - I was not aware of this, but Charlie Sheen tested negative recently and he does not take the cocktail any more:





If he were a pro-boxer, then he could legally fight again in the ring. Seems all legit.

Post: #230

Test negative for what test? I don't think you really have any understanding about how the tests work.

Lol... that Charlie Sheen video is quite old.

He listened to some quack, went off HAART, his VL shot back up again, got sick and then he came to his senses.

Now he is participating in a clinical trial and administering a drug called PRO-140 and responding well.

I really don't understand your disbelief. It is quite simple how it works. HIV doesn't act differently to dozens of other viruses.

Medication can suppress viral replication and reduce it to undetectable levels in the blood. However, the virus can remain 'hidden' throughout the body in latent HIV reservoirs. These are infected cells that aren't actively replicating.

The meds will stop these cells from replicating but if discontinued eventually they will start to replicate again and viral load will increase.

(09-23-2018 03:59 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  



That was from 2012 during an official AIDS conference - the same statement, just without a definitive appraisal, but more of the same.

And I am basing it on many other aspects - you obviously have not looked at it.

Still - I am curious - let's assume you test negative repeatedly in the future, would you continue taking the meds?

I assume you would due to the "science".

Oh - by the way - I was not aware of this, but Charlie Sheen tested negative recently and he does not take the cocktail any more:





If he were a pro-boxer, then he could legally fight again in the ring. Seems all legit.

Post: #231

The OP registered a month and a half ago and all 49 of his posts are only in this thread. Is that not a bit odd? Why would your first, and only, posts be about this subject? Is there nothing else on the entire forum that interests you?

On top of that the repeated posts about how hes willing to have one night stands with women without telling them he has AIDs, and even date them "for more than few months" before telling them, are extremely morally (and in some jurisdictions legally) questionable. Thats really, really scummy behaviour - and doesn't reflect well on the forum at all. Its exactly that sort of stuff that the tabloid journalists feed off of when trying to present red pill guys as monsters.

I could be proven wrong when 'wrapyojunk' becomes a valuable poster across many topics over the next few years here. But as things are I would worry he, or they, very much has an agenda.

Post: #232

Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

(09-23-2018 05:26 AM)zatara Wrote:  The OP registered a month and a half ago and all 49 of his posts are only in this thread. Is that not a bit odd? Why would your first, and only, posts be about this subject? Is there nothing else on the entire forum that interests you?

On top of that the repeated posts about how hes willing to have one night stands with women without telling them he has AIDs, and even date them "for more than few months" before telling them, are extremely morally (and in some jurisdictions legally) questionable. Thats really, really scummy behaviour - and doesn't reflect well on the forum at all. Its exactly that sort of stuff that the tabloid journalists feed off of when trying to present red pill guys as monsters.

I could be proven wrong when 'wrapyojunk' becomes a valuable poster across many topics over the next few years here. But as things are I would worry he, or they, very much has an agenda.

Post: #233

(09-23-2018 05:35 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

I have extremely high doubts about there being "zero transmission risk" when you have sex with women. There is also a world of difference between informing sexual partners about you having a life changing, sexually transmitted disease and posting on an internet forum - thats a ridiculous comparison.

I know if a HIV positive woman pulled that line with me I would be very, very angry - as I think most people would be. And I know if a HIV positive man had sex with my sister without forewarning her I would be collecting a group of friends to go beat him. I would hope the vast majority of posters here would have a similar moral compass, as its a pretty basic concept to at least warn other human beings of any potential dangers you're deliberately putting them in.

But, even aside from the highly questionable morality, 45 states in the US have laws against HIV-positive persons not disclosing their status during sex. As do many countries. So you are literally admitting to, and advocating, illegal behaviour. Potential headlines of "RooshV forum encourages HIV Positive men not to tell their sexual partners their status" really aren't a good thing.

Post: #234

(09-23-2018 06:02 AM)zatara Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:35 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  Use your brain on why I have only posted on this thread. Not hard to figure out...

The liberal media is very pro-HIV these days. I am now an oppressed minority. So it is actually the opposite of the point you are trying to make?

Your moral argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. There is ZERO transmission risk.

Playing devils advocate, is it a moral requirement to tell a potential bang that you post on a 'sexist, misogynist' internet forum. I am sure many wouldn't bang you after they know you post here.

No one is entitled to know anything about your personal life or health as long as you don't pose a risk to them.

I have extremely high doubts about there being "zero transmission risk" when you have sex with women. There is also a world of difference between informing sexual partners about you having a life changing, sexually transmitted disease and posting on an internet forum - thats a ridiculous comparison.

I know if a HIV positive woman pulled that line with me I would be very, very angry - as I think most people would be. And I know if a HIV positive man had sex with my sister without forewarning her I would be collecting a group of friends to go beat him. I would hope the vast majority of posters here would have a similar moral compass, as its a pretty basic concept to at least warn other human beings of any potential dangers you're deliberately putting them in.

But, even aside from the highly questionable morality, 45 states in the US have laws against HIV-positive persons not disclosing their status during sex. As do many countries. So you are literally admitting to, and advocating, illegal behaviour. Potential headlines of "RooshV forum encourages HIV Positive men not to tell their sexual partners their status" really aren't a good thing.

It's not my opinion that there is zero transmission risk it is the consensus amongst the medical community.

Forgive me for not taking into account your bropinion.

I have never set foot in the US...

Post: #235

Im heading to SAE soonish, to be honest this post will stop me from barebacking "Rawdoging" when Im over there.

However unlikely and however good treatment may be I want to have a kid with an LTR sometime.

Thanks, really OP.

Post: #236

(09-22-2018 07:49 PM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  No I don't bang ladyboys. Why would I live here if I did? I would be living in Thailand if that was my forte. Maybe i banged some postops without realizing. I used to drink quite heavily and some bangs i can barely remember.

(09-22-2018 07:00 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 12:40 PM)Trumpian Wrote:  We really need an answer to the LBQ from OP. Otherwise this thread is probably causing undue paranoia.

I knew a lot of self proclaimed straight dudes in Thailand banging LBs. These were conservative, clean cut guys not your sterotypical SEA degenerate. Thailand just fucks a lot of guys up in the head.

There's been like 5 people asking and op has dodged them. So I'm gonna assume that's a yes unless he says otherwise.

OP please clarify if banging any ladyboys were in your repertoire. Its highly relevant given the geographical particulars

So basically you probably banged some ladyboys then lol.. It's alright OP - you're not the only guy to loose his shit out here.

This is why I never got plastered when I lived in Thailand. It's really not a safe place to do that for a variety of reasons LBs among them.

Post: #237

OP, I'm sorry to hear about your diagnosis. I'm sure it would've been tough hearing about it. And props for speaking out about it. Too many people glorify raw dogging so much in 3rd world countries, that its insane. I've heard of a few Chlamydia and pregnancy scares but never HIV.

I thought I would, for the rest of the readers here put STDS and HIV in perspective. Mark Manson has a great article on it which was written in 2011, and should still apply today.

HIV
Living With It: Expensive and stressful, but assuming you’re not African, you’ll live.
Curable: No
US Prevalence: 1.1 million 19
RAW Score: 1,250 Partners (significantly fewer partners if engaging in anal sex)
Condoms Protect: Yes

HIV is no longer the death warrant it once was. Don’t get me wrong, contracting it would be awful and surely life-altering. But you would live. I just hope you have good health insurance. As of 2011, the life expectancy of someone who contracts HIV is 40 years from the day they contract it. When in doubt, just look at Magic Johnson.

There are some demographics which are far more likely to catch HIV than others, primarily gay men and drug users. 80% of all HIV cases come from gay men or drug addicts who use dirty needles. When it comes to vaginal sex, it’s almost impossible for a man to catch it from a woman, while a woman can catch it from a man. But anal sex seems to be the big culprit here.

Also, I hate to say it, but HIV positive cases are predominantly lower income classes. African-Americans account disproportionately for 42% of all HIV cases in the US. The disease practically doesn’t exist in Western Europe at this point.20 And in 2013, there were some very early accounts of people possibly being cured of the disease and things still look promising.

The symptoms of HIV are flu-like symptoms a couple weeks after contracting it. From there, your immune system slowly shuts down over the period of years. There are a lot of therapies and treatments available and most people who contract it are able to live functional, mostly normal lives, assuming they get the proper medical care. So the news on the HIV front over the past few decades has actually been mostly good.21

But still, use a damn condom.


https://markmanson.net/std-guide

Post: #238

That all might be true in the first world but its a complete different story in the third world.

For example in Thailand 80% of transmissions are heterosexual.

(09-23-2018 06:42 AM)MysteryBlack Wrote:  OP, I'm sorry to hear about your diagnosis. I'm sure it would've been tough hearing about it. And props for speaking out about it. Too many people glorify raw dogging so much in 3rd world countries, that its insane. I've heard of a few Chlamydia and pregnancy scares but never HIV.

I thought I would, for the rest of the readers here put STDS and HIV in perspective. Mark Manson has a great article on it which was written in 2011, and should still apply today.

HIV
Living With It: Expensive and stressful, but assuming you’re not African, you’ll live.
Curable: No
US Prevalence: 1.1 million 19
RAW Score: 1,250 Partners (significantly fewer partners if engaging in anal sex)
Condoms Protect: Yes

HIV is no longer the death warrant it once was. Don’t get me wrong, contracting it would be awful and surely life-altering. But you would live. I just hope you have good health insurance. As of 2011, the life expectancy of someone who contracts HIV is 40 years from the day they contract it. When in doubt, just look at Magic Johnson.

There are some demographics which are far more likely to catch HIV than others, primarily gay men and drug users. 80% of all HIV cases come from gay men or drug addicts who use dirty needles. When it comes to vaginal sex, it’s almost impossible for a man to catch it from a woman, while a woman can catch it from a man. But anal sex seems to be the big culprit here.

Also, I hate to say it, but HIV positive cases are predominantly lower income classes. African-Americans account disproportionately for 42% of all HIV cases in the US. The disease practically doesn’t exist in Western Europe at this point.20 And in 2013, there were some very early accounts of people possibly being cured of the disease and things still look promising.

The symptoms of HIV are flu-like symptoms a couple weeks after contracting it. From there, your immune system slowly shuts down over the period of years. There are a lot of therapies and treatments available and most people who contract it are able to live functional, mostly normal lives, assuming they get the proper medical care. So the news on the HIV front over the past few decades has actually been mostly good.21

But still, use a damn condom.


https://markmanson.net/std-guide

Post: #239

Quoting the article above:

"When it comes to regular sex, it’s almost impossible for a man to catch it from a woman"

Sure about that?

To clarify, did OP ever have unprotected anus sex, or anus sex where the condom broke?

Post: #240

(09-23-2018 06:55 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  For example in Thailand 80% of transmissions are heterosexual.

Source?

80% in Philippines are homosexual, why would Thailand be different?

Post: #241

http://www.thailandguru.com/hiv-aids-thailand.html

Talked to several docs also who told me usually men get it from pros (and often give to their wives)

Post: #242

(09-23-2018 06:55 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  That all might be true in the first world but its a complete different story in the third world.

For example in Thailand 80% of transmissions are heterosexual.

Yes, but I'd imagine the vast majority of those are male to female, which kind of goes back to the things we're talking about here.

That's what has a lot of us wondering about how it's transmitted from female to male, because it seems almost impossible. That's why a lot of users here are asking the lady boy question.

Maybe if you had a cut on your dick and did anal or something you could get it from a female.

Post: #243

Post: #244

4 rep points so far for being extremely reckless towards his fellow human beings, contracting a virus that permanently alters your life and if you don't have health insurance or money like the OP does, could kill you, and then possibly spreading that virus to others while he was ignorant he had it (supposedly), and now refusing to disclose to potential future sex partners that he has it.

I'm not understanding the praise here. Imagine if you were one of the 150 girls, some of which probably have HIV now, in a third world country, with no resources, your body's falling apart, your parents and siblings get to watch you die early, slowly, in a horrible way, on top of the myriad struggles they've already gone through.

All because OP wanted to get his rocks off and put more notches on his belt.

If someone wants to increase their notch count astronomically, I get it, some of that stuff comes because you're really handsome/successful and have access to that, along with no self restraint at that point in your life. At some point, the guys that have this ability due to a combo of success/looks usually calm down or take necessary precautions before it becomes a problem. On the other hand, for some guys this behavior comes from a deep insecurity. In that scenario, to make up for perceived inadequateness in that area of life in the past, guys go crazy in that area and consequences be damned.

I want to say this.

Think about how valuable slim, pretty American women are. They can have almost any guy they want, they could have a line of 100 guys at their door every day, ready to service their needs if they wanted that. Any dating app or Craigslist back in the day would let a slim, pretty American girl accomplish that. Even an unattractive American girl could easily rack up a notch count over 100 by 19 or so if she wanted to.

Here's the thing though. If something is that easy to accomplish, it's not an accomplishment at all. The accomplishment is having the self-restraint to not engage in that behavior, when you easily could.

So now some of us go abroad, where prostitution is legal and we have the resources to pay, or where the demand for a tall, good looking guy with resources is so high that we can basically bed as many women a day as we're able to get an erection for. Three or more a day even, consistently, in the case of those of us in really good sexual health.

But here's the thing.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Think about how much a lot of the guys on this forum rail on the misbehavior of American women because of those women having the power to behave in that way due to the demand for them being so high. This thread, and others like it, show that men can behave just as poorly when given the power to do so.

Don't be that guy. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Look, nobody's going to hold it against you for being a virgin until 22 or whatnot due to, in your own mind, being too short, too socially awkward, too shy, whatever. You're not any less of a man. We all develop socially/sexually at different times. Move on from whatever hangups you have, live in the present, and let those hangups go before they consume you and the people around you.

Post: #245

Paging Thomas the Rhymer . . .

Post: #246

If I understand correctly, the transmission rate is effectively 0% when viral load is under control through drugs, which means that OP CANNOT transmit HIV to any of his sex partners. PERIOD. And further, it seems that this statistic has been substantiated through a large amount of sample data.

Under those conditions, having sex with somebody if you are HIV positive would not put them in any danger whatsoever of getting HIV.

OP - are there any rare circumstances which would temporarily make the possibility non-zero? Say, coinfection with something that facilitates HIV transmission, a cut, anal, etc.? Or does it essentially hinge on the viral load (or lack thereof)?

In short, if you have a deadly disease but there's absolutely NO possibility of you transmitting it, then you're not putting anybody at risk and your decision to disclose that status becomes an issue of your personal choice. Disclosure only becomes a moral and legal issue if you have a non-zero chance of negatively affecting somebody's life through your actions without their voluntary agreement.

@OP, assuming my understanding is correct, I think that probably no amount of explaining the logic and figures and impossibility of contracting it from you will dispel the negative, knee-jerk connotations of the word HIV.

Post: #247

(09-23-2018 03:34 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:31 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 03:28 AM)wrapyojunk Wrote:  Find me a prominent denialist who is still active in 2018.

Or alive?

These views leads to shit like this occurring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliza_Jane_Scovill

Have whatever views you want. But if you air them publicly you deserve to be ridiculed.

There are some very fair points made by Duesberg and others though! Immune suppression resulting from lifestyle choices, meaning poor diet, smoking, alcohol and drugs in particular definitely matters. Also, accumulating a lot of other pathogens will give latent viruses like HIV and CMV etc. (All the herpes viruses are latent) a chance to reactivate. This is not controversial at all, and it will make the situation for the HIV+ worse than it otherwise would be.

So, when Duesberg says that AIDS is caused by sex and drugs, he is basically correct in that isolated sense. And it will probably be of significant value to optimize your lifestyle/health with the right choices if you have AIDS. But as things stand now, I would only skip the antiretrovirals if I had access to the telomere gene therapy I talked about. And also then I would closely monitor my CD4 and viral load.

There are some AIDS thinkers/scientist out there that are active still and have dissident views. I hate the word denialist, science does not depend on consensus nor credentials, but rather on data. (I`m not saying I concur with the people in the video posted below btw.)

Post: #248

(09-23-2018 06:02 AM)zatara Wrote:  I have extremely high doubts about there being "zero transmission risk" when you have sex with women.

Based on what? Your emotions?

OP has skin in the game and has presumably researched transmission risk till his ass went numb in his chair. He says medical consensus is that there is ZERO possibility of transmission. If you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary please do so, otherwise your "extremely high doubts" are based on nothing.

Quote:There is also a world of difference between informing sexual partners about you having a life changing, sexually transmitted disease and posting on an internet forum - thats a ridiculous comparison.

Except if there's literally no possibility that your life changing disease can in any way impact negatively on them, in which case it's effectively the same as not having it at all.

Quote:I know if a HIV positive woman pulled that line with me I would be very, very angry - as I think most people would be. And I know if a HIV positive man had sex with my sister without forewarning her I would be collecting a group of friends to go beat him. I would hope the vast majority of posters here would have a similar moral compass, as its a pretty basic concept to at least warn other human beings of any potential dangers you're deliberately putting them in.

So you would collect an angry mob to go hurt somebody who hasn't (and couldn't) hurt your sister whatsoever through his actions based on your emotions? What does that make you? Where is your moral compass to go around kicking peoples' asses based on nothing but your feelings and deliberate misunderstanding (or laziness to arrive to arrive at an understanding) of an issue, and the ethical implications thereof?

Quote:But, even aside from the highly questionable morality, 45 states in the US have laws against HIV-positive persons not disclosing their status during sex. As do many countries. So you are literally admitting to, and advocating, illegal behaviour.

OP clearly stated that the law in his country of residence doesn't require such a disclosure.

Post: #249

(09-23-2018 11:06 AM)Spaniard88 Wrote:  4 rep points so far for being extremely reckless towards his fellow human beings, contracting a virus that permanently alters your life and if you don't have health insurance or money like the OP does, could kill you, and then possibly spreading that virus to others while he was ignorant he had it (supposedly), and now refusing to disclose to potential future sex partners that he has it.

I'm not understanding the praise here. Imagine if you were one of the 150 girls, some of which probably have HIV now, in a third world country, with no resources, your body's falling apart, your parents and siblings get to watch you die early, slowly, in a horrible way, on top of the myriad struggles they've already gone through.

All because OP wanted to get his rocks off and put more notches on his belt.

If someone wants to increase their notch count astronomically, I get it, some of that stuff comes because you're really handsome/successful and have access to that, along with no self restraint at that point in your life. At some point, the guys that have this ability due to a combo of success/looks usually calm down or take necessary precautions before it becomes a problem. On the other hand, for some guys this behavior comes from a deep insecurity. In that scenario, to make up for perceived inadequateness in that area of life in the past, guys go crazy in that area and consequences be damned.

I want to say this.

Think about how valuable slim, pretty American women are. They can have almost any guy they want, they could have a line of 100 guys at their door every day, ready to service their needs if they wanted that. Any dating app or Craigslist back in the day would let a slim, pretty American girl accomplish that. Even an unattractive American girl could easily rack up a notch count over 100 by 19 or so if she wanted to.

Here's the thing though. If something is that easy to accomplish, it's not an accomplishment at all. The accomplishment is having the self-restraint to not engage in that behavior, when you easily could.

So now some of us go abroad, where prostitution is legal and we have the resources to pay, or where the demand for a tall, good looking guy with resources is so high that we can basically bed as many women a day as we're able to get an erection for. Three or more a day even, consistently, in the case of those of us in really good sexual health.

But here's the thing.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Think about how much a lot of the guys on this forum rail on the misbehavior of American women because of those women having the power to behave in that way due to the demand for them being so high. This thread, and others like it, show that men can behave just as poorly when given the power to do so.

Don't be that guy. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Look, nobody's going to hold it against you for being a virgin until 22 or whatnot due to, in your own mind, being too short, too socially awkward, too shy, whatever. You're not any less of a man. We all develop socially/sexually at different times. Move on from whatever hangups you have, live in the present, and let those hangups go before they consume you and the people around you.

Spaniard, thanks for saying this, it's one of the best posts I've seen on this forum ever and it mirrors my way of thinking almost to a tee. I wish more guys had this mentality.

Post: #250

(09-22-2018 03:39 PM)asdfk Wrote:  Truvada is poison. Not something i'd take on a daily basis. Especially for a longer period.

According to whom?