Riobard

I’m not suggesting that anybody should do anything. I’m merely agreeing that a monopolizer already endlessly posts random topics as if tossing a bunch of newspapers down the stairs and picking the headlines that showed most prominently on the landing, the result of the method is sedating, and there’s no point in attempting to undig that one insistent set of 👠 👠. One can consider giving a wide berth to the territorial girl that has nowhere else to squat. Let her stake the pioneering claim to her own Facebook page here since it’s mostly meta about the MO of posting anyway.

Not to mention the micro part.

That’s the Secret nobody can get to the bottom of.

And tongue naturally.

Oh so that’s why

No chocolates ever again for those assholes.

Too much under the influence, sadly.

Busted. Too much I don’t give a fig pudding.

It’s a free cuntry but let's be real. One person apparently predominantly enters 'beer bar' topics arbitrarily and somewhat geographically centric, approaching the level of board tradition, and there will inevitably be a 'red stripe' slashed through the practice by some that find the themes to be irrelevant. So who’s to stop somebody perpetually wielding on any one hill? But if a dozen more were to replicate the pattern, say, Brazilian Report articles and several more thematically centric posts but across a broad range of entry types to infinity the subforum would collapse under overwhelming mixology. What is not lost on me is that one person dictates content through which I must selectively wade and others dictate that such selectivity is everybody's prerogative. Two reaction categories can co-exist and no one preference can prevail. Not this hill.

The point is that the gold standard of analysis is intent-to-prophylaxis and research subjects are usually as a whole more adherent to ideal drug uptake for prevention than in the real world as they are altruistically committed to scientific contribution. The real world assessed estimates of PrEP results are dreadful. Nobody in spite of demonstrated perfect adherence is justifiably dissuaded from regular testing and considerations of transmission risk. “If only they had done it right” as a factor in breakthrough infection is no rational argument for the cavalier assertion that prevention is virtually guaranteed and that the HIV-negative partner of a PrEP consumer need not make all efforts to access the same prophylaxis advantages. The fact is that the relative contributions, to a research trial’s HIV seroconversion rate, of adherence, the much higher known risk of receptive anal intercourse position orientation, encounter risk frequency, co-STI infection, and reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance are unknown. The high rates of breakthrough infection in structured research over short durations are sobering.

Naked model seating evidence all thanks to bum spatter patterns.

To @hotguysATLASt ?

Who needs the usual socials when there are opportunities such as Instagramps, the occasional X-rated Twit, 2Facebrooked, Slinkedin, flamboyant Threads, and Tell-a-Gramp.

I doubt that either the OP or the 1 in 60 research subjects assigned to Truvada and acquiring HIV infection over their first year of enrolment in a more recent trial buy into the lottery odds analogy.

Pretty much all you could do was compliment or validate the confrontational guy’s memory because he caught you out and you were beyond plausible deniability. “You’re better at names and faces” or “No flies on you”. It would be one thing you could do despite his own social etiquette gaffe and there would be no way for him to twist the knife. If you wanted to be a bit snotty or shut the door on the topic when he tried to embarrass you, intentionally or simply awkward himself, you could say “You spelled it out without being asked”. Or turned to your partner, saying “Didn’t I favour the name-tag idea?” In his swimwear crasher #1 had obviously been a ‘no’, not a ‘yes’ or ‘maybe’ for fuckable.

Here’s the very organized and detailed PrEP manifesto. Apparently prescribing and dispensing is covered under the public health system. Locals’ awareness is key. https://prep-colombia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Lineamiento-PrEP_FINAL_Junio2023.pdf

While it’s understandable that your offer of event-driven PrEP may be driven by the reality of uncertainty of your own HIV status between routine testing iterations, there is little basis for the recipient to initiate it without similarly having tested prior to uptake. He would also need the -1-1 follow-up protocol doses, no?, if doing it correctly. You probably grasp that part in your offer. One possible complication is that any testing he pursues shortly after, horse after the cart, may be subverted in that if he happens to be, god forbid, HIV positive but previously undiagnosed the detection of viral antigens or antibody responses may be delayed or reduced due to having antiretroviral drug in his system. This type of trade-off accounts for the clinical imperative of testing first in all cases.

If you don’t think that entry into The Hole is restricted to your tongue put your hand up.

You don’t want to go down like The Titanic.

Not cockatoo, thus monogamish.

Good. We need more appealing crack down on us.

My man. Because for merely G50 N31 minutes you move on from O69 without having explicitly asked B4 and without your head B10 off.