Printable View
[QUOTE=Bbandit X]IF she was advertising services in the CE section then that would be a prime reason to be flagged. He didn't say whether it was p4p or just non-p4p fun time.[/QUOTE]It was P4P .2 for HJ may of done more but it got the job done. Car date was the listing. But it was posted in the CE section so no wonder the flag. If I see again I'll try and get digits for everybody.
[QUOTE=Ren Man]There are places that will do a full, anonymous STD work-up for about 200. You deal with them online, and then go to a lab that collects your samples. I had it done a couple of years ago. Can't remember the name, but they were easy to find with Google. (PS I was clean!)[/QUOTE]
To follow up on the thread about full panel STD testing, here is my recent experience. I have a warning or two that I'd like to pass on to the breathren, mainly having to do with herpes simplex virus I (HSV I) but perhaps also HSV II. Bottom line is that the tests are NOT that good and you may not want to have these performed for screening only (i.e., you have no symptoms) if you are not prepared to do follow up testing.
I hadn't been tested in about 4 years and then it was only for HSV II and HIV. The idea was rolling around in my head that a full screen might be a good thing to do. No symptoms except occasional psychosomatic worries that I think all of us have from time to time, but which for me have lessened with experience and knowledge.
For the record: For me FS is always covered. As I've written in reviews I am a huge fan of DATY but am very selective about it (as much as anything, to avoid girls with hygiene issues). Unlike most guys I do not live for BJs and usually save myself for the main event. However, every once and a while I just have to have a full-on BBJCIM. As far as I'm concerned this is my only real risk (most stds except HIV).
Ren Man is correct. I purchased a full STD panel through USALabTesting.com. The total was $245, which is a great price (probably over a grand if done through my doctor). I picked a local Quest Diagnostics site to have blood drawn and urine collected. I was in and out in 30 minutes including wait time. FYI the samples are sent to a Quest lab in Tucker for analysis, which is supposed to be completed within 3 days. A downloadable PDF of your results is posted on a password protected web page.
The tests were for hep B and C, type specific HSV 1 and HSV 2, HIV (I think by western blot), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis. Normally it is stupid to test for some of these without symptoms but you get a big price break doing the full panel. Plus I had a fuck it let's do it all attitude.
Three days passed with nothing posted on the web page -- apparently this is not uncommon -- so I called USALabTesting and they did a good job of tracking it down at Quest and getting it posted. I had already seen the PDF when the guy called to say it was available (I had given permission). Anyway, all tests were negative except for HSV 1 and he mentioned that, actually, they usually don't recommend HSV 1 testing for general screening purposes. Oh fucking really?!?! Now you tell me. There is nothing on their web site about this, and why then include it on a full STD screening panel???
Well, I knew that it is "just" HSV I (the common cause of cold sores on the lips) and by age 20 half the population gets it by kissing their grandmother. By middle age 70 percent have it. Not many of us make it to the nursing home without HSV 1. But that doesn't mean I want to catch it. I've never had cold sores and though many are asymptomatic I heretofore believed I didn't have it.
So, I spent a day or two reading up in order to decide what to do. Caveat: take the following for what you paid for it. I know jack shit about medicine (but have a strong science background and understand the statistics.) The actual tests I took were the Herpeselect IGG type specific I and II. You compare your result to an index. Below 0.9 the result is negative. Between 0.9 and 1.1 it is equivocal or indeterminate. Above 1.1 the result is positive. My result was 1.31. I later learned that this number is very low and most with confirmed cases test greater than 5.
To continue, the performance of any test is measured by its [i]specificity[/i] and its [i]sensitivity[/i]. A generalization is that these relate to, respectively, the number of false negatives and false positives a test will give up over time. For the HSV I test the sensitivity stated by the manufacturer was particularly low at 91%. Basically 1 in 10 test results will be a false positive.
So I then headed over to the expert herpes help forum at medhelp (dot) org (see link below). It is moderated by docs expert in STDs. There I learned a lot I didn't know about herpes. One is that in "the field" the HSV tests (but HSV I in particular) result values below about 3 are viewed with suspicion. False positive rates of 30-40% and up are reported. Another is that a common test recommended by regular doctors, the Herpeselect LGM, is basically worthless. (The gold standard is the western blot but that is only available at through the Univ of Wash-Seatle and you have to order the sampling kit and ship it yourself.) Third, there is little difference between HSV I and II. However, there is no societal stigma with HSV I because is not perceived as a sexual disease. That perception is in part wrong. If I contracted it recently it was most likely from a BJ and it would be genital HSV I. But a forth thing I learned was that unlike the oral variant genital HSV I usually presents with the typical symptoms (sores, lesions).
[url]http://www.medhelp.org********Herpes/show/339[/url]
(edit: fuck it, i can't fix the link)
Then I went to Google Scholar and found 4-5 research papers on HSV test performance. I was somewhat shocked because the numbers were all over the map. One found HSV II testing gives huge numbers of false positives in low prevalence populations. Another found that HSV I tests were particularly poor, as described above, and that results below 3 were problematic. One recommended that the equivocal bands be raised or ignored. Why doesn't the the manufacturer change the interpretation guidelins? They'd have to jump through the FDA gauntlet all over again, that's why.
Lastly, by shear chance recently had a small cyst removed from my leg (totally unrelated) and had to go back twice to have stitches removed. The first doc just told me to ignore the HSV result. The second doc (my regular doc) spent time listening to what I thought I had learned. He thought my view of the tests was correct and said to basically forget it, it's nothing.
The point (at last... didn't mean to write a treatise) is that before talking with my docs I was thinking that I needed to be retested even if it was "just HSV I". You guys might want to rethink screening for HSV I and maybe HSV II if you don't have symptoms (HSV II can be asymptomatic but is more unusual). OR find a better set of tests than I had done, one with less false positives. I can't confirm but I think one might be the Herpeselect IGG using the "immunoblot" method which reportedly has a higher sensitivity (>96%). You have to insist on specific methods. If REALLY important, although it sounds like a real pain to do, go for the Western Blot. See the following link on how to get it done:
[url]http://www.racoon.com/herpes/WB_test.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Juker]To follow up on the thread about full panel STD testing, here is my recent experience. I have a warning or two that I'd like to pass on to the breathren, mainly having to do with herpes simplex virus I (HSV I) but perhaps also HSV II. Bottom line is that the tests are NOT that good and you may not want to have these performed for screening only (i.e., you have no symptoms) if you are not prepared to do follow up testing.
I hadn't been tested in about 4 years and then it was only for HSV II and HIV. The idea was rolling around in my head that a full screen might be a good thing to do. No symptoms except occasional psychosomatic worries that I think all of us have from time to time, but which for me have lessened with experience and knowledge.
For the record: For me FS is always covered. As I've written in reviews I am a huge fan of DATY but am very selective about it (as much as anything, to avoid girls with hygiene issues). Unlike most guys I do not live for BJs and usually save myself for the main event. However, every once and a while I just have to have a full-on BBJCIM. As far as I'm concerned this is my only real risk (most stds except HIV).
Ren Man is correct. I purchased a full STD panel through USALabTesting.com. The total was $245, which is a great price (probably over a grand if done through my doctor). I picked a local Quest Diagnostics site to have blood drawn and urine collected. I was in and out in 30 minutes including wait time. FYI the samples are sent to a Quest lab in Tucker for analysis, which is supposed to be completed within 3 days. A downloadable PDF of your results is posted on a password protected web page.
The tests were for hep B and C, type specific HSV 1 and HSV 2, HIV (I think by western blot), Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis. Normally it is stupid to test for some of these without symptoms but you get a big price break doing the full panel. Plus I had a fuck it let's do it all attitude.
Three days passed with nothing posted on the web page -- apparently this is not uncommon -- so I called USALabTesting and they did a good job of tracking it down at Quest and getting it posted. I had already seen the PDF when the guy called to say it was available (I had given permission). Anyway, all tests were negative except for HSV 1 and he mentioned that, actually, they usually don't recommend HSV 1 testing for general screening purposes. Oh fucking really?!?! Now you tell me. There is nothing on their web site about this, and why then include it on a full STD screening panel???
Well, I knew that it is "just" HSV I (the common cause of cold sores on the lips) and by age 20 half the population gets it by kissing their grandmother. By middle age 70 percent have it. Not many of us make it to the nursing home without HSV 1. But that doesn't mean I want to catch it. I've never had cold sores and though many are asymptomatic I heretofore believed I didn't have it.
So, I spent a day or two reading up in order to decide what to do. Caveat: take the following for what you paid for it. I know jack shit about medicine (but have a strong science background and understand the statistics.) The actual tests I took were the Herpeselect IGG type specific I and II. You compare your result to an index. Below 0.9 the result is negative. Between 0.9 and 1.1 it is equivocal or indeterminate. Above 1.1 the result is positive. My result was 1.31. I later learned that this number is very low and most with confirmed cases test greater than 5.
To continue, the performance of any test is measured by its [i]specificity[/i] and its [i]sensitivity[/i]. A generalization is that these relate to, respectively, the number of false negatives and false positives a test will give up over time. For the HSV I test the sensitivity stated by the manufacturer was particularly low at 91%. Basically 1 in 10 test results will be a false positive.
So I then headed over to the expert herpes help forum at medhelp (dot) org (see link below). It is moderated by docs expert in STDs. There I learned a lot I didn't know about herpes. One is that in "the field" the HSV tests (but HSV I in particular) result values below about 3 are viewed with suspicion. False positive rates of 30-40% and up are reported. Another is that a common test recommended by regular doctors, the Herpeselect LGM, is basically worthless. (The gold standard is the western blot but that is only available at through the Univ of Wash-Seatle and you have to order the sampling kit and ship it yourself.) Third, there is little difference between HSV I and II. However, there is no societal stigma with HSV I because is not perceived as a sexual disease. That perception is in part wrong. If I contracted it recently it was most likely from a BJ and it would be genital HSV I. But a forth thing I learned was that unlike the oral variant genital HSV I usually presents with the typical symptoms (sores, lesions).
[url]http://www.medhelp.org********Herpes/show/339[/url]
(edit: fuck it, i can't fix the link)
Then I went to Google Scholar and found 4-5 research papers on HSV test performance. I was somewhat shocked because the numbers were all over the map. One found HSV II testing gives huge numbers of false positives in low prevalence populations. Another found that HSV I tests were particularly poor, as described above, and that results below 3 were problematic. One recommended that the equivocal bands be raised or ignored. Why doesn't the the manufacturer change the interpretation guidelins? They'd have to jump through the FDA gauntlet all over again, that's why.
Lastly, by shear chance recently had a small cyst removed from my leg (totally unrelated) and had to go back twice to have stitches removed. The first doc just told me to ignore the HSV result. The second doc (my regular doc) spent time listening to what I thought I had learned. He thought my view of the tests was correct and said to basically forget it, it's nothing.
The point (at last... didn't mean to write a treatise) is that before talking with my docs I was thinking that I needed to be retested even if it was "just HSV I". You guys might want to rethink screening for HSV I and maybe HSV II if you don't have symptoms (HSV II can be asymptomatic but is more unusual). OR find a better set of tests than I had done, one with less false positives. I can't confirm but I think one might be the Herpeselect IGG using the "immunoblot" method which reportedly has a higher sensitivity (>96%). You have to insist on specific methods. If REALLY important, although it sounds like a real pain to do, go for the Western Blot. See the following link on how to get it done:
[url]http://www.racoon.com/herpes/WB_test.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Outstanding advice Juker. Sounds like you did your homework. Luckily I don't need to get tested for anything but I certainly learned a lot from your post. It's probably the most thorough and significant report I've ever read on any mongering topic. Great job!
Hey guys,
I play the POF game. This one looks like it has potential but it's setting off my tranny detector.
Anyone want to weigh in?
[url]http://www.plentyoffish.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=17844665[/url]
[QUOTE=Christian Troy]Hey guys,
I play the POF game. This one looks like it has potential but it's setting off my tranny detector.
Anyone want to weigh in?
[url]http://www.plentyoffish.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=17844665[/url][/QUOTE]
If its not a Tranny I would be amazed. From the photos (jawline, nose, etc) to the description "I LOVE NSA ENCOUNTERS, FROM WELL ENDOWED YOUNG FREAKY BLACK MALES WHO R OPEN TO PRETTY MUCH WHATEVER AS LONG AS IT IS SAFE." ... its the pretty much whatever part that has me agreeing with you.
I personally would stay away.
Shadow
[QUOTE=Christian Troy]Hey guys,
I play the POF game. This one looks like it has potential but it's setting off my tranny detector.
Anyone want to weigh in?
[url]http://www.plentyoffish.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=17844665[/url][/QUOTE]First and for most look at the pic looks like a man face..second look at the location midtown Georgia equals stay away..Midtown is nothing but tranny, gays,bi sexual people.
[QUOTE=Shadowav]If its not a Tranny I would be amazed. From the photos (jawline, nose, etc) to the description "I LOVE NSA ENCOUNTERS, FROM WELL ENDOWED YOUNG FREAKY BLACK MALES WHO R OPEN TO PRETTY MUCH WHATEVER AS LONG AS IT IS SAFE." ... its the pretty much whatever part that has me agreeing with you.
I personally would stay away.
Shadow[/QUOTE]For me, if I think may be tranny, I stay away.
[QUOTE=Christian Troy]Hey guys,
I play the POF game. This one looks like it has potential but it's setting off my tranny detector.
Anyone want to weigh in?
[url]http://www.plentyoffish.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=17844665[/url][/QUOTE]
Just look at those humongous jaws, sure looks like a TS to me.
[QUOTE=Sgt Soros]Just look at those humongous jaws, sure looks like a TS to me.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for making me lose my lunch. Big jaws or not, that shit is just plain ugly. Any guy who would want to fuck that needs to check his brain.
[QUOTE=Sgt Soros]Just look at those humongous jaws, sure looks like a TS to me.[/QUOTE]Yes it is indeed a tranny.
It post on craigslist all of the dang time I do the POF thing, but I prefer fling.
Best of luck
Wtf does this mean?
[QUOTE=Gaghoes]Wtf does this mean?[/QUOTE]PoF is a free dating site along the vein of Match.com, OKCupid.com, etc.
[QUOTE=Gaghoes]Wtf does POF mean?[/QUOTE]
POF - Pussies On Fire.:) I think he's referring to the Plenty of Fish dating site.
[QUOTE=Sgt Soros]POF - Pussies On Fire.:) I think he's referring to the Plenty of Fish dating site.[/QUOTE]Yes that's correct Pleny of Fish dating site.
[QUOTE=Sgt Soros]POF - Pussies On Fire.:) I think he's referring to the Plenty of Fish dating site.[/QUOTE]
LOL. How the fuck did I miss that? Thx. Gotta drink less I guess.