CIM - are there degrees of risk?

[SlamBoy]

Correct, and to be truthful I'm not convinced your suggested infection route would work - I've a feeling that the two-stage transference would actually not be viable due to the limited contact time. I'd be interested in Tailseeker's thoughts on that

Yeah. Me too. I can't wait for the next instalment of "The Medical Hour" from the Fake Doctor. Maybe she'll bring her "DIY Doctor Kit" along with her "DIY Sexual Health Knowledge" this time . . .

Hidden Image/Members Only

[MrMatrix]

Yeah. Me too. I can't wait for the next instalment of "The Medical Hour" from the Fake Doctor. Maybe she'll bring her "DIY Doctor Kit" along with her "DIY Sexual Health Knowledge" this time . . .

Hidden Image/Members Only

Considering you were a prime mover in getting rid of Holland, you seem to be taking his place. Both Scutty and Mcawber are interested in Tailseekers comments. They don't seem to be interested in yours though. You appear to be in a minority of one.

[scutty brown]

Considering you were a prime mover in getting rid of Holland, you seem to be taking his place. Both Scutty and Mcawber are interested in Tailseekers comments. They don't seem to be interested in yours though. You appear to be in a minority of one.

I totally agree with you there, Matrix.
She has some interesting things to say and is worth listening to when she does post

[HarryZZ]

Whoa, calm down.

There is a risk but a very low one in comparison to BB where it is easily passed on, if you indulge in BB with somebody who has an STD it will most likely have passed on to you.

If you have OW with somebody who has an STD then it is unlikely, it is possible but it's unlikely, and let me explain why with a question, if you have unprotected oral with an SP and she has a cold, do you think you, or your cock will catch the cold?

It's highly unlikely but still possible.

[Kev40ish]

Considering you were a prime mover in getting rid of Holland, you seem to be taking his place. Both Scutty and Mcawber are interested in Tailseekers comments. They don't seem to be interested in yours though. You appear to be in a minority of one.

I totally agree, he just doesn’t know when to let it rest

[Doc Holliday]

Considering you were a prime mover in getting rid of Holland, you seem to be taking his place.

No idea of Holland's history here but I did spot this when I read through all Slamboy's posts recently.

Chapter 1. The Big Tough Man

Holland is a big tough man. And like a big tough man, he likes to act big and he likes to act tough. One day, he turned on his computer (probably the only thing he has ever turned on) and as luck would have it, he saw the opportunity to act big and tough in his favourite way - by speaking negatively about WGs on a UKPunting.com topic thread. He thought about what to write, and then, as if by magic, the perfectly big and tough words came to him. So he posted them:

'Yeaaahhh', he muttered to himself. 'That will show those bitches how big and tough I am!'

[SlamBoy]

No idea of Holland's history here but I did spot this when I read through all Slamboy's posts recently.

Once again, the fluffy white knight "Doc Holliday" rides in on his trusty white steed to speak up for his favourite SP.

Unlike the Holland situation - What I have done is call out the incorrect medical advice that this fake doctor SP "Tailseeker" spouts on this forum - advice, which if followed, could potentially put punters at risk. That is the sole and only criticism I have ever made of her - and it is completely justifiable criticism - which has been validated time after time by:

(a) her rowing back on her false statements and advice once I call them out and give genuine medical reasons why they are false; and

(b) punters agreeing with me by contradicting her fake advice with their anecdotal stories of circumstances in which they have caught STIs - circumstances in which she said were impossible.

But none of that matters to you. Why not? Because all you care about is rushing to shield the SP from being corrected, like a typical fluffy white knight. At no point has anyone (including YOU - fluffy fanboy) been able to criticise me for giving the correct medical advice and the correct information to punters, your sole contribution has been to constantly whinge "please don't contradict Tailseeker"

- Well, I care about punters receiving the correct advice - especially on matters as important as this - even if you don't. Against that background, I will continue to contradict her if she continues to post incorrect and potentially damaging medical advice - if she stops doing it, I will have nothing to criticise her for and you will hear nothing more from me about it. But I am quite happy to stand alone and hold her to account for any dangerous and incorrect medical rubbish she spouts on here.

This board has differing opinions about a lot of things. And those differing opinions co-exist - however, where incorrect medical advice is being posted by an SP on UKP, it needs to be called out, whether you, as a fluffy fan boy, like it or not - it is up to the punters on here to either take her incorrect advice (they would be fools if they do) or my correct advice (they would be much better off doing that) - and YOU don't get to decide which.

[SlamBoy]

I totally agree, he just doesn’t know when to let it rest

I absolutely do. I will "let it rest" when she stops posting incorrect and potentially dangerous fake medical advice which, if followed, would put punters at risk.

[Doc Holliday]

Once again, the fluffy white knight "Doc Holliday" rides in on his trusty white steed to speak up for his favourite SP.

What? Where? I linked to your post about Holland? I never mentioned her.

[Moresomes]

I totally agree with you there, Matrix.
She has some interesting things to say and is worth listening to when she does post

+1,
 but be warned gentlemen. If you don't worship at the altar of the fountain of all knowledge that is shamboy, he'll trot out the old "fluffy" favourite ad nauseam because that's his only available response.
If the words "I me, Mine, my, myself, and fluffy" were removed from the English language, he'd be fucking speechless.   

[SlamBoy]

+1,
 but be warned gentlemen. If you don't worship at the altar of the fountain of all knowledge that is shamboy, he'll trot out the old "fluffy" favourite ad nauseam because that's his only available response.
If the words "I me, Mine, my, myself, and fluffy" were removed from the English language, he'd be fucking speechless.

Once again - a mere ad hominem attack - and once again NOTHING at all about the medical issues I rightly raised in defence of punters 

[scutty brown]

Once again - a mere ad hominem attack - and once again NOTHING at all about the medical issues I rightly raised in defence of punters 

I've just gone through this thread, and I can't find that you've actually raised any medical issues. Lots of histrionic hyperbole in your assertions about Tailseeker, but little or nothing to show you know what you're talking about. You certainly lack a grasp of the concept of scientific theory

[SlamBoy]

I've just gone through this thread, and I can't find that you've actually raised any medical issues. Lots of histrionic hyperbole in your assertions about Tailseeker, but little or nothing to show you know what you're talking about. You certainly lack a grasp of the concept of scientific theory

Maybe you didn't read (or CHOSE not to read) diligently enough:

There is not a 'theoretical' risk for transmission, there is a 'real' risk of transmission. How do we know? Because STIs have been determined to be transmitted in those ways - which is why the NHS will test for such transmission (they would NOT allocate their very limited public money to it otherwise - just ask anyone at the Jefferiss Centre in Paddington).

[holeymoley]

I totally agree with you there, Matrix.
She has some interesting things to say and is worth listening to when she does post

+1

[scutty brown]

Maybe you didn't read (or CHOSE not to read) diligently enough:

And you think that post "raises medical issues"?
No wonder I missed it

[TailSeeker]

Slamboy, anecdotal tales are a dime a dozen. It's why when I was only sleeping with women I wasn't tested for HIV, hep B, or syphilis, I had to fight with them to get any tests done (as rightly WSW studies show barely any transmission of STDs). Transmission there is mostly only seen as anecdotal. Hell even when I started sleeping with men (using condoms) they still refused to test me (HIV, syphilis, hep B) unless I claimed the man may have slept with another man. Only once I started going to an SW clinic did they do the full battery of tests in all holes.

I am by far not the only person in my field who doesn't view oral as a typical transmission route.

There are certain transmission routes through certain partners that clinicians won't consider because they're not heard of, or rarely heard of.

This isn't just me saying it. This is what research backs up, and what clinicians say. Risks vary between your partner and you (and your respective genders), and how often you're switching partners.

As for the fishy oder that is typically associated with BV, just means there is a slightly higher risk of contracted another STD, but by fractions. Not a definitive sign at all.

BV occurrence is highest in the lesbian population, which also has the lowest occurrence of STDs. It's a suggested risk, which I do think is true (upset in normal protection would surely open them up to infection), but currently nothing formed as a definitive correlation. Mostly as BV is fairly common, and can be there without any signs.

Discharge colour is usually the best sign for STDs, if anything. Unfortunately women generally show no symptoms. Which is why I get tested every 3 weeks. And I recommend people get tested often.

Most STDs are diagnosed based on symptoms not on tests, in men's cases primarily (men around 2/3 to 3/4 likely to show symptoms), so they go based on what the symptoms are and what the partners may have. The tests to vary on accuracy over time. It's generally over a week for an accurate result from tests, but if an producing infection it could be shorter.

Also I know the Jefferiss clinic, I have colleagues that work with them. They don't do the same battery that the S clinic at Ambrose Clinic does. And that place allows you to make text appointments (granted it is for sex workers, and the results are fed back to me eventually, so a bit of a vested interest).

[Doc Holliday]

Once again - a mere ad hominem attack - and once again NOTHING at all about the medical issues I rightly raised in defence of punters 

And so we arrive at the ad hominem argument. Any experienced keyboard warrior worth his salt, will tell you that you should never use that argument, because it is a sign you have failed, ie that you have attracted too much attention to your own internet persona.  Also definitely never resort to using it unless you are squeaky clean in that respect and you are far from being so with your personal attacks. In any flame war there will always be ad hominem attacks on both sides so you just look foolish quoting Latin.

That said here is an ad hominem response. There is perhaps only one thing worse than a fake doctor/scientist and that is a poor keyboard warrior.

If you have aspirations to be a successful one you need to appear forceful, but actually have a cool temperament beneath. You instead have far too much anger and aggression (always from the outset) so the reader will fixate onto that. When you get angry and allow your adversaries to wind you up (as I have) you lose focus and make errors.

Never say something about yourself that your previous posts may contradict and leave you squandering with excuses and having to avoid answering a simple question. https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=239360.msg2478796#msg2478796 .... and yes I did check all your posts before I posed the question so knew you couldn't back up your statement.

You should never repeat yourself ad nauseam especially the same word/phrase and you also tend to overdo the ‘multiple quote’ tactic. It makes the post difficult to read and your audience simply won’t bother. The one liner is much more effective. Then there is the condescending “nice try though” reply which is such a cliché and which you also overuse.
On a punting forum only resort to the ad hominem ‘fluffy’ defence when it is valid and not when you are on the back foot with your argument. Never resort to being the ‘grammar police’ post criticising someone’s spelling or punctuation. There is no mileage in it.

If you have a personal vendetta (as against just trying to start general arguments and trolling on a forum) choose your battles carefully and don’t chase your target around a forum too much. Learn to back down if things aren’t going according to plan.

Having to have the last word is a poor tactic which the more experienced warrior will learn at an early stage and yet clearly you haven’t done so. https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=243407.0

Not to mention the meltdown in that thread. When you are isolated and a lone member comes to your support check just exactly what they are supporting you with and then don’t overdo the idolising of them and put them on an ‘authoritative’ pedestal as it may come back to bite you in the bum later, as I found to my cost once. Never suggest a forum admin is on your side too, as that may really come back to haunt you. Trust me on that.

Never underestimate your audience in particular with respect to how they perceive you. Their perception of you will matter far more than any detailed argument you are trying to make and which they simply won’t read.  You may start with popular support but this will quickly change.

You are clearly an intelligent guy (maybe not the scientist you claim though?), but your persona is far too aggressive and you have become very irrational, perhaps frustrated that you are becoming increasingly isolated? Accept the concept that there will always be someone smarter than you reading.

You need to take a step back and try and read your posts as an 'average' member would (usually not that well) and not as you think they would. Your individual persona and style is dominating your posts and any argument you are trying to make is lost in the background. You lack guile and cunning which you replace with aggression.

As of yesterday I was beginning to wonder if perhaps you had succeeded in stopping the fake doctor from posting STI information and which the majority of readers find useful?

Pleased to see that is not the case.

[SlamBoy]

And so we arrive at the ad hominem argument. Any experienced keyboard warrior worth his salt, will tell you that you should never use that argument, because it is a sign you have failed, ie that you have attracted too much attention to your own internet persona.  Also definitely never resort to using it unless you are squeaky clean in that respect and you are far from being so with your personal attacks. In any flame war there will always be ad hominem attacks on both sides so you just look foolish quoting Latin.

That said here is an ad hominem response. There is perhaps only one thing worse than a fake doctor/scientist and that is a poor keyboard warrior.

If you have aspirations to be a successful one you need to appear forceful, but actually have a cool temperament beneath. You instead have far too much anger and aggression (always from the outset) so the reader will fixate onto that. When you get angry and allow your adversaries to wind you up (as I have) you lose focus and make errors.

Never say something about yourself that your previous posts may contradict and leave you squandering with excuses and having to avoid answering a simple question. https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=239360.msg2478796#msg2478796 .... and yes I did check all your posts before I posed the question so knew you couldn't back up your statement.

You should never repeat yourself ad nauseam especially the same word/phrase and you also tend to overdo the ‘multiple quote’ tactic. It makes the post difficult to read and your audience simply won’t bother. The one liner is much more effective. Then there is the condescending “nice try though” reply which is such a cliché and which you also overuse.
On a punting forum only resort to the ad hominem ‘fluffy’ defence when it is valid and not when you are on the back foot with your argument. Never resort to being the ‘grammar police’ post criticising someone’s spelling or punctuation. There is no mileage in it.

If you have a personal vendetta (as against just trying to start general arguments and trolling on a forum) choose your battles carefully and don’t chase your target around a forum too much. Learn to back down if things aren’t going according to plan.

Having to have the last word is a poor tactic which the more experienced warrior will learn at an early stage and yet clearly you haven’t done so. https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=243407.0

Not to mention the meltdown in that thread. When you are isolated and a lone member comes to your support check just exactly what they are supporting you with and then don’t overdo the idolising of them and put them on an ‘authoritative’ pedestal as it may come back to bite you in the bum later, as I found to my cost once. Never suggest a forum admin is on your side too, as that may really come back to haunt you. Trust me on that.

Never underestimate your audience in particular with respect to how they perceive you. Their perception of you will matter far more than any detailed argument you are trying to make and which they simply won’t read.  You may start with popular support but this will quickly change.

You are clearly an intelligent guy (maybe not the scientist you claim though?), but your persona is far too aggressive and you have become very irrational, perhaps frustrated that you are becoming increasingly isolated? Accept the concept that there will always be someone smarter than you reading.

You need to take a step back and try and read your posts as an 'average' member would (usually not that well) and not as you think they would. Your individual persona and style is dominating your posts and any argument you are trying to make is lost in the background. You lack guile and cunning which you replace with aggression.

As of yesterday I was beginning to wonder if perhaps you had succeeded in stopping the fake doctor from posting STI information and which the majority of readers find useful?

Pleased to see that is not the case.

Once again. Absolutely NOTHING about any of the substantive medical issues I have rightly raised. Just more ad hominem attack and setting out your own rules for how others should be. You're quite the little dictator aren't you. It's absolutely pathetic.

Your computer camera took a screenshot of you writing that:



Hidden Image/Members Only

[SlamBoy]

When you are isolated and a lone member comes to your support check just exactly what they are supporting you with and then don’t overdo the idolising of them and put them on an ‘authoritative’ pedestal as it may come back to bite you in the bum later, as I found to my cost once.

Nigel F. is a much more independent, fair-minded and respected member of these boards than you. Unlike you, he is also not a white-knight fan-boy.

If you spent as much time punting as you do chasing me around on these boards and writing long diatribes about what standards of behaviour you think should apply to these boards, you might have more than THREE punts in FOUR YEARS. You're a tedious blowhard shit-stirrer who contributes nothing.

[Doc Holliday]

Just more ad hominem attack and setting out your own rules for how others should be. You're quite the little dictator aren't you. It's absolutely pathetic.

Ad hominem by my own admission. Not dictating just seeing it as I see you based on my experience and hoping you will take some of it on board? All in good faith.

Remain a positive contributor to the board which you undoubtedly are and tone down the warrior in you.

At the moment I see you in a downward spiral and it won't end well. I have been there and got the T shirt.

[scutty brown]

Once again. Absolutely NOTHING about any of the substantive medical issues I have rightly raised. ............

But the truth is you didn't rightly raise ANY valid issues, you simply indulged in rhetorical bullying, much as you are now.
Lets face it, you're just an intimidatory loudmouth.

[Moresomes]

And so we arrive at the ad hominem argument. Any experienced keyboard warrior worth his salt, will tell you that you should never use that argument, because it is a sign you have failed,

And the saddest thing of all is that he's too stupid to see the irony in his accusations.
If any member of the forum doesn't fall in line to suck his dick, he immediately goes into full rant mode and launches into his, (very slim) repertoire of insults lovingly blended with his cut and pastes from the NHS website.
I've got no problem with him labeling me a fluffy, as long as I can point out that in my estimation he is a know nothing boring chancer, and a one trick pony.
He'd be a lucky man if his cock was as big as his ego.

[MrMicawber]

Slamboy, anecdotal tales are a dime a dozen. It's why when I was only sleeping with women I wasn't tested for HIV, hep B, or syphilis, I had to fight with them to get any tests done (as rightly WSW studies show barely any transmission of STDs). Transmission there is mostly only seen as anecdotal. Hell even when I started sleeping with men (using condoms) they still refused to test me (HIV, syphilis, hep B) unless I claimed the man may have slept with another man. Only once I started going to an SW clinic did they do the full battery of tests in all holes.

I am by far not the only person in my field who doesn't view oral as a typical transmission route.

There are certain transmission routes through certain partners that clinicians won't consider because they're not heard of, or rarely heard of.

This isn't just me saying it. This is what research backs up, and what clinicians say. Risks vary between your partner and you (and your respective genders), and how often you're switching partners.

As for the fishy oder that is typically associated with BV, just means there is a slightly higher risk of contracted another STD, but by fractions. Not a definitive sign at all.

BV occurrence is highest in the lesbian population, which also has the lowest occurrence of STDs. It's a suggested risk, which I do think is true (upset in normal protection would surely open them up to infection), but currently nothing formed as a definitive correlation. Mostly as BV is fairly common, and can be there without any signs.

Discharge colour is usually the best sign for STDs, if anything. Unfortunately women generally show no symptoms. Which is why I get tested every 3 weeks. And I recommend people get tested often.

Most STDs are diagnosed based on symptoms not on tests, in men's cases primarily (men around 2/3 to 3/4 likely to show symptoms), so they go based on what the symptoms are and what the partners may have. The tests to vary on accuracy over time. It's generally over a week for an accurate result from tests, but if an producing infection it could be shorter.

Also I know the Jefferiss clinic, I have colleagues that work with them. They don't do the same battery that the S clinic at Ambrose Clinic does. And that place allows you to make text appointments (granted it is for sex workers, and the results are fed back to me eventually, so a bit of a vested interest).

Thank you, Tailseeker, for your response (and for your earlier posts - it's very helpful to have some specialist input).  It does shed some more light on the issue, which, from my point of interest, was the chance of picking up oral Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia from giving RO, as opposed to picking it up (genitally) from OWO.   Nearly all of the safer sex advice sources I have enquired from over time, when dealing with "oral sex", just seem to make a blanket statement that these infections can be transmitted by oral sex, and seem to concentrate, whether explicitly or by implication, on the risks involved in fellatio, and there is little information available regarding cunnilingus - no doubt for the reasons you have mentioned previously regarding the dearth of suitable research information - in other words, no specific information is given as regards transmission risk via (heterosexual) cunnilingus alone, because nobody has any such definitive information. There is only information where WSW are concerned. As you imply in your response, if a woman is exclusively lesbian, the question will arise as to how she would get the infection "down there" in the first instance, as it would be very unlikely. i.e no infection = no transmission, regardless of what the risk might be otherwise.  So that doesn't really help us from the heterosexual point of view, which is why I found Scutty Brown's reported experience of particular interest.

[MrMicawber]

Been punting for more than 20 years now and I have never caught anything from OWO. So I don't really know what the big fuss is all about.

Perhaps I don't see as many girls as other punters do which would bring down the risk factor obviously, but nevertheless, anyone that catches anything from OWO is either making the wrong choices in choosing girls or is extremely unlucky.

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria should make us all more careful.  Complacency can result from "knowing it can be easily cured", but if that were no longer to be the case, especially in a more widespread sense than it may be at present, we could be facing far more serious health implications.  Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but I wouldn't want to be among the first..... would you?

[workinallweek]

FFS
Surely knowledge is a self perpetuating thing. You hear something from someone and research it to satisfy your own curiosity (whatever the subject) if it’s of interest to you.
Now isn’t everyone on here interested in each other’s health, if only from the point of not spreading something that none of us want.

What do i know .

[Hobbit]

The emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria should make us all more careful.  Complacency can result from "knowing it can be easily cured", but if that were no longer to be the case, especially in a more widespread sense than it may be at present, we could be facing far more serious health implications.  Maybe it hasn't happened yet, but I wouldn't want to be among the first..... would you?

That's a bit overdramatic I have to say. The fact is, that stage will never come, simply because new antibiotics are being made every day, so there will always be antibiotics available to cure any kind of bacterial virus.

Now. The worst kind of virus which is incurable, is the virus of propaganda which the media thrive on because that's how they make their ends meat. So I wouldn't believe everything that you read or see that come from the media.

[MrMicawber]

FFS
Surely knowledge is a self perpetuating thing. You hear something from someone and research it to satisfy your own curiosity (whatever the subject) if it’s of interest to you.
Now isn’t everyone on here interested in each other’s health, if only from the point of not spreading something that none of us want.
 


Absolutely agree.

[scutty brown]

That's a bit overdramatic I have to say. The fact is, that stage will never come, simply because new antibiotics are being made every day, so there will always be antibiotics available to cure any kind of bacterial virus.

Now. The worst kind of virus which is incurable, is the virus of propaganda which the media thrive on because that's how they make their ends meat. So I wouldn't believe everything that you read or see that come from the media.

Thats where you're seriously wrong: there have been no new antibiotic families approved for use in something like 30 years. We're stuck with old technology that has been overused and misused, with resulting increases in drug resistance across the full range of infections. And the worrying thing is there is nothing in the pipeline: if a resistant strain really got wild we'd be fucked. There's no new antibiotics on the horizon.
Maybe we could lash something up using phage technology, but that's real unknown territory.
The risk of drug resistance is here now: we've already had incidences of resistant gonorrhea in the NorthWest

[Hobbit]

Thats where you're seriously wrong: there have been no new antibiotic families approved for use in something like 30 years. We're stuck with old technology that has been overused and misused, with resulting increases in drug resistance across the full range of infections. And the worrying thing is there is nothing in the pipeline: if a resistant strain really got wild we'd be fucked. There's no new antibiotics on the horizon.
Maybe we could lash something up using phage technology, but that's real unknown territory.
The risk of drug resistance is here now: we've already had incidences of resistant gonorrhea in the NorthWest

I understand what you're saying. But I still stick by my point that the media will create a frenzy out of something which may not be as worse as it sounds. The antibiotics side, I will have to agree to disagree with you on that as I have been informed by medical professionals in the past that antibiotics are always being researched and developed. (But who am I to know)

I think sometimes people get carried away.

[Waterhouse]

I understand what you're saying. But I still stick by my point that the media will create a frenzy out of something which may not be as worse as it sounds. The antibiotics side, I will have to agree to disagree with you on that as I have been informed by medical professionals in the past that antibiotics are always being researched and developed. (But who am I to know)

I think sometimes people get carried away.

True that they are always being researched and developed, but only using what we have already as a basis.

Think in comparison of microchip technology, they get faster and smaller and can do fancier things, but they are all based on the same tech that was discovered and developed decades ago. 

In simplistic terms the next leap/generation/family (whatever you want to call it) is still being researched and experimented with and is still yet to happen/be released.

[Hobbit]

True that they are always being researched and developed, but only using what we have already as a basis.

Think in comparison of microchip technology, they get faster and smaller and can do fancier things, but they are all based on the same tech that was discovered and developed decades ago. 

In simplistic terms the next leap/generation/family (whatever you want to call it) is still being researched and experimented with and is still yet to happen/be released.

That makes sense and I agree with you on that. So let's look at it in that way, that would mean that any virus that is created/manifested can only have the attributes which are available on this planet. If the virus has attributes outside this planet then it would be extraterrestrial.

So if we work on that premise, then the antibiotics that we create would also contain attributes from this planet, which would mean that we should be able to find a cure for any virus at some point.

[MrMicawber]

Thats where you're seriously wrong: there have been no new antibiotic families approved for use in something like 30 years. We're stuck with old technology that has been overused and misused, with resulting increases in drug resistance across the full range of infections. And the worrying thing is there is nothing in the pipeline: if a resistant strain really got wild we'd be fucked. There's no new antibiotics on the horizon.
Maybe we could lash something up using phage technology, but that's real unknown territory.
The risk of drug resistance is here now: we've already had incidences of resistant gonorrhea in the NorthWest

Quite right, Scutty, and well said.

Two points to make here.

Firstly, my caution arises not from reading "the media" (whom, I agree, are sometimes prone to sensationalising issues), but from a statement made by the British Association For Sexual Health and HIV,  the foremost professional body in the UK dealing with matters of sexual health (and therefore, one must assume, in close liaison with the science of the speciality as well as the clinical practice), which can be found on the following link:-

External Link/Members Only...

Secondly, whilst it is no doubt correct that new antibiotics are always being developed  (and not just to combat STIs, so drug companies have plenty of R & D work to do), the process is a long and expensive one, and it can take years between a perceived need to arise and new, effective antibiotics becoming available. Set against this, it is also true that bacteria are always mutating into more resistant forms, and they can do so very quickly.  Therefore there is a race going on between the research scientists and the bugs, and it is far from a foregone conclusion that the scientists are going to win ... That's why BASHH is worried, and not complacent.. So I don't think I'm being overdramatic .... I'm just being forward-looking and cautious.

[Hobbit]

Quite right, Scutty, and well said.

Two points to make here.

Firstly, my caution arises not from reading "the media" (whom, I agree, are sometimes prone to sensationalising issues), but from a statement made by the British Association For Sexual Health and HIV,  the foremost professional body in the UK dealing with matters of sexual health (and therefore, one must assume, in close liaison with the science of the speciality as well as the clinical practice), which can be found on the following link:-

External Link/Members Only...

Secondly, whilst it is no doubt correct that new antibiotics are always being developed  (and not just to combat STIs, so drug companies have plenty of R & D work to do), the process is a long and expensive one, and it can take years between a perceived need to arise and new, effective antibiotics becoming available. Set against this, it is also true that bacteria are always mutating into more resistant forms, and they can do so very quickly.  Therefore there is a race going on between the research scientists and the bugs, and it is far from a foregone conclusion that the scientists are going to win ... That's why BASHH is worried, and not complacent.. So I don't think I'm being overdramatic .... I'm just being forward-looking and cautious.

I'm glad we got that sorted then.

[Doc Holliday]

That makes sense and I agree with you on that. So let's look at it in that way, that would mean that any virus that is created/manifested can only have the attributes which are available on this planet. If the virus has attributes outside this planet then it would be extraterrestrial.

So if we work on that premise, then the antibiotics that we create would also contain attributes from this planet, which would mean that we should be able to find a cure for any virus at some point.

Except that antibiotics don't work on viruses.

I take your point on the media. HIV was a big one but (a) we were lucky with it and (b) a shit load of money was thrown at the problem once it began affecting the western world. No cure though.

Then there was new variant CJD which we were lucky with again and that would have been a money pit otherwise. No cure for that either.

What the future holds is anybody's guess?

Antibiotic resistance is real and growing. Antibiotics merely assist your body in reducing numbers to a level your body can deal with on its own. Pre antibiotics people died or got better. Some still die now, but in time this could become more commonplace.

[MrMicawber]

I'm glad we got that sorted then.

You're welcome!

And there's this:-

External Link/Members Only

[MrMicawber]

Except that antibiotics don't work on viruses.

I take your point on the media. HIV was a big one but (a) we were lucky with it and (b) a shit load of money was thrown at the problem once it began affecting the western world. No cure though.

Then there was new variant CJD which we were lucky with again and that would have been a money pit otherwise. No cure for that either.

What the future holds is anybody's guess?

Antibiotic resistance is real and growing. Antibiotics merely assist your body in reducing numbers to a level your body can deal with on its own. Pre antibiotics people died or got better. Some still die now, but in time this could become more commonplace.

Yes, it's a sobering thought that, prior to penicillin, a guy died from an infection caused by scratching himself on a rose thorn. Nobody would give it a thought these days.   

[Hobbit]

You're welcome!

And there's this:-

External Link/Members Only

Okay another thought. Where did all these viruses such as gonorrhoea come from? Were they made by nature or man made? Or perhaps by governments around the world?

[Waterhouse]

Okay another thought. Where did all these viruses such as gonorrhoea come from? Were they made by nature or man made? Or perhaps by governments around the world?

Do I to get myself a tin-foil hat? 

[Marmalade]

TailSeeker is usually knowledgeable about these things, but I think she’s incorrect in saying the risk is only theoretical. It has been discussed before on here. Punters who have clocked up around 1000 punts have mentioned catching gonny maybe once in all those punts. It’s not cast iron — you could manage to get it somehow, especially through carelessness, using a condom, but as that verges on the stupid the reports of 1 in 1000 from experienced punters are reasonably indicative. In other words, very small risk but possible. (I think the clap clinic views tend to bear this out too.) Not that an OWO prossie wants to admit it of course....

Bit of a dumb thread IMO. If you’re that worried, rubber-up for oral. And, even if there’s no traffic, don’t forget to wait for the green man when crossing the road from the GUM clinic. 

[scutty brown]

I understand what you're saying. But I still stick by my point that the media will create a frenzy out of something which may not be as worse as it sounds. The antibiotics side, I will have to agree to disagree with you on that as I have been informed by medical professionals in the past that antibiotics are always being researched and developed. (But who am I to know)

I think sometimes people get carried away.

Unlike you I AM someone who will know........without giving too much away, one of my jobs involves quite close involvement with the drug discovery process.
And you really should take the problem of antibiotic resistance seriously. If we carry on at the current use rates we have maybe 20-25 years before our current antibiotics become effectively useless. And there are no replacements in the pipeline

[scutty brown]

Okay another thought. Where did all these viruses such as gonorrhoea come from? Were they made by nature or man made? Or perhaps by governments around the world?

Gonorrhea isn't a virus

[Hobbit]

Do I to get myself a tin-foil hat? 

Seriously, I wouldn’t put it past them.  Think about it, in over 50 years they still haven’t found a cure for something like cancer or HIV.  But they have managed to send a man to the moon and other planets such as Mars. Something doesn’t add up.

[Hobbit]

Gonorrhea isn't a virus

What is it then? A brand of toothpaste?

[scutty brown]

Seriously, I wouldn’t put it past them.  Think about it, in over 50 years they still haven’t found a cure for something like cancer or HIV.  But they have managed to send a man to the moon and other planets such as Mars. Something doesn’t add up.

Not true
Many cancers CAN be cured
HIV can be suppressed to the point where its not life threatening
The problem is that there's premium money to be made from HIV and cancer cures, there isn't from antibiotics, so little development is done

[scutty brown]

What is it then? A brand of toothpaste?

A bacterium
External Link/Members Only
If you don't know that basic fact then its time to update your knowledge before you make any more stupid comments

[Hobbit]

Not true
Many cancers CAN be cured
HIV can be suppressed to the point where its not life threatening
The problem is that there's premium money to be made from HIV and cancer cures, there isn't from antibiotics, so little development is done

 Chemotherapy is not a cure!
It’s the pharmaceutical companies that benefit financially.

[scutty brown]

Do I to get myself a tin-foil hat? 

Only if you're a rabbit, there's a long standing belief that myxomatosis was bio-engineered in Australia to improve its lethality

[Hobbit]

A bacterium
External Link/Members Only
If you don't know that basic fact then its time to update your knowledge before you make any more stupid comments

Excuse me! There are two types of viruses.
And one of them is bacterial.

[scutty brown]

Chemotherapy is not a cure!
It’s the pharmaceutical companies that benefit financially.

If it stops you dying, its a cure albeit an expensive one

[scutty brown]

Excuse me! There are two types of viruses.
And one of them is bacterial.

Now you're spouting shite
Viruses and bacteria are two completely different things