Charlie Sheen will announce he's HIV+ on Today Show with Lauer...
Woot said:
I had just read an article that stated (with data) that being infected with Hepatitis C was worse than having HIV - based on recent advancements in medicines.
Hepatitis C is now curable. I think your article may be outdated, because Hep C treatment is pretty darn good (and extremely expensive, of course)
Bree Olson was just on the Howard Stern Show. She left porn when she started dating Charlie and living with him. She claims he never told her that he was HIV+. I believe her as Carlos Estevez is a major douche.
mjh said:
Woot said:Hepatitis C is now curable. I think your article may be outdated, because Hep C treatment is pretty darn good (and extremely expensive, of course)
I had just read an article that stated (with data) that being infected with Hepatitis C was worse than having HIV - based on recent advancements in medicines.
I concur. Harvoni will run you around $100,000 for a full course of treatment.
I am challenging the characterization that having HIV is "sad." I am a gay man, an HIV and PrEP activist, I feel strongly about this.
Many people take meds daily for chronic issues of some kind. Many were treated with cruder, stronger meds at some point - most pharma treatment have evolved across disease categories. Is it sad that someone has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes? Someone diagnosed decades ago with those diseases, and yes, HIV too, was treated so now there can be complications. That's difficult, that's sad. But treatment paradigms have changed drastically and we know more about HIV (and those other diseases).
When I challenge "sad" -- its not about how he contracted it, his partners, and now we hear the blackmail he dealt with. Or his mental health issues. There is probably a lot "sad" about that for sure.
HIV doesn't prevent a person from having relationships, intimacy, and a very long life. It's chronic and requires lifelong treatment to be managed. Charlie Sheen is very unlikely to die of HIV related complications. If his meds are monitored and he maintains a 0 viral load, he won't pass HIV on. To me, none of that is "sad," for him and other HIV+ persons.
Because peteglider is saying, no one who is HIV+ should be sad and that we shouldn't be sad about someone being HIV+. That it isn't a big deal because life expectancy is near normal now. That's a pretty simple analysis, if you ask me. And equating being HIV+ to having high cholesterol is absurd.
I challenge the implication in your words that it isn't "sad". You can say all you want how it doesn't affect relationships and then I can tell you a dozen stories of how people in various stages of relationship have simply looked at my loved one, said "sorry" and left never to be heard from again after knowing about it. For her, it's a lonely life and one where she is discriminated against even today. Most recently last week by a dentist, a few months before by a parent of a child her child wanted to have over, years ago in the endless judging for her deciding to have a child- the list goes on and on. Taking the medicines every day, day after day, is for her both an emotional and physical challenge. There are real elements of "sadness" to the disease even if life expectancy has changed and it hasn't been passed on to anyone. That doesn't mean she walks around crying every day but it also doesn't mean she is able to just have a completely normal life either. If you don't want to be sad, that's fine. But, for plenty of people, there is more to this than "take your medicine and stop whining".
As for Charlie Sheen, douchebag or not, I feel terrible sadness and pain for someone who is mentally ill and in such as a state as Charlie. I wish him peace.
Conandrob, just because it is sad to you doesn't mean it is universally sad to one and all. I am far more sorry for your relative than I could ever be for Charlie Sheen. If ever there was a perfect example of chickens coming home to roost, he is it.
It's not often I find myself unable to feel sympathy for another human being, but he is one of the rare exceptions. I just hope he didn't infect any of the lovers he didn't bother to tell. Someone who gets a diagnosis and hides it is beneath contempt. But in no way does that affect any sympathy I feel for someone who was exposed and is living with it and the treatment and ongoing stigma.
At the same time, I understand Peteglider's position and agree with it for the most part.
Isn't there room here for more than one point of view?
Got it. But isn't using the word "sad" just a state of emotion from a person feeling empathy towards another? I understand what PeteG is saying as well. From what I got is that he doesn't want anyone to feel sorry for him or what he's going through. He's telling us that he's okay and will continue to be okay and he's not at all "sad." Got that too.
Listening to Howard Stern now and he's speaking with Bree Olson - ex-porn star/sex worker. Matt Lauer needs to speak with her next. Her timeline is totally different from Charlie's. Not only that, she said that Charlie always had a doctor visiting him. She thought it was part of his sobriety status and never thought it was because he was HIV+. She said that when Charlie told Matt that he had known his status for 4 years (I think that was the number), she was in a relationship with him and he never disclosed that info to her. Also, during their relationship, they used condoms but only lambswool which does not prevent the spread of HIV.
peteglider said:
I am challenging the characterization that having HIV is "sad." I am a gay man, an HIV and PrEP activist, I feel strongly about this.
Many people take meds daily for chronic issues of some kind. Many were treated with cruder, stronger meds at some point - most pharma treatment have evolved across disease categories. Is it sad that someone has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes? Someone diagnosed decades ago with those diseases, and yes, HIV too, was treated so now there can be complications. That's difficult, that's sad. But treatment paradigms have changed drastically and we know more about HIV (and those other diseases).
When I challenge "sad" -- its not about how he contracted it, his partners, and now we hear the blackmail he dealt with. Or his mental health issues. There is probably a lot "sad" about that for sure.
HIV doesn't prevent a person from having relationships, intimacy, and a very long life. It's chronic and requires lifelong treatment to be managed. Charlie Sheen is very unlikely to die of HIV related complications. If his meds are monitored and he maintains a 0 viral load, he won't pass HIV on. To me, none of that is "sad," for him and other HIV+ persons.
The sentiment that an HIV diagnosis isn't sad (no longer a death sentence and easily managed by meds) has contributed to a laissez-faire attitude among some young people in the gay community. As I referenced above, my friend was diagnosed in 2009 and treated the news as if it were an inevitability and nothing to particularly worry about. I don't know if this is progress, but it certainly makes me sad.
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
peteglider said:
I am challenging the characterization that having HIV is "sad." I am a gay man, an HIV and PrEP activist, I feel strongly about this.
Many people take meds daily for chronic issues of some kind. Many were treated with cruder, stronger meds at some point - most pharma treatment have evolved across disease categories. Is it sad that someone has high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes? Someone diagnosed decades ago with those diseases, and yes, HIV too, was treated so now there can be complications. That's difficult, that's sad. But treatment paradigms have changed drastically and we know more about HIV (and those other diseases).
When I challenge "sad" -- its not about how he contracted it, his partners, and now we hear the blackmail he dealt with. Or his mental health issues. There is probably a lot "sad" about that for sure.
HIV doesn't prevent a person from having relationships, intimacy, and a very long life. It's chronic and requires lifelong treatment to be managed. Charlie Sheen is very unlikely to die of HIV related complications. If his meds are monitored and he maintains a 0 viral load, he won't pass HIV on. To me, none of that is "sad," for him and other HIV+ persons.
The way I see it, those people reacting negatively to someone who is HIV+, their mindsets entrenched in fear and ignorance, are far FAR more saddening than the virus will ever be.
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
This for sure!!
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
It's not either/or.
mjh said:
conandrob240 said:FYI, most HIV "cocktails" come in a one-pill/once or twice a day form these days. Likewise, most people tolerate them very well.
This is why the research of modern medicine is so vital. We have made great advances in the care of HIV patients. It came too late for my dear friends who succumbed to AIDS, but I am happy for the bright outlook for the future.
NizhoniGrrrl said:
it's amazing he's not already infected with a host of other diseases. Hepatitis? Herpes? Or dead already. The really sad thing is that he was probably spreading it to others because of his selfish and reckless behavior. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.
I don't know much about Charlie Sheen, but I always got the impression that his lifestyle wasn't conducive to good health.
ctrzaska said:
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
It's not either/or.
It should be. People's priorities are screwed up.
mumstheword said:
ctrzaska said:
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
It's not either/or.
It should be. People's priorities are screwed up.
Once you go down that path, you could say that there are thousands of people suffering in many parts of the world, why are they only talking about Paris? (as many people already have) There is suffering on great and small levels. If nothing else, perhaps Charlie Sheen coming forward will help keep HIV and safe behavior in the conversation and prevent someone else from getting ill. Silver lining, I guess.
AIDS/HIV is one of the largest epidemics in human history. I think there is room to discuss both.
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
Six ex-lovers of Charlie Sheen plan to sue, claiming he hid HIV status before sex: report
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/ex-lovers-charlie-sheen-plan-sue-hiv-report-article-1.2437823
Fortunatley he has the money to pay for the medications many do not, so the advanced medication is not available for them. His life stlye certainly was a high risk HIV probability, I guess his partners threw caution out the window when you date a star and has all of that money. I still feel sorry for him and his partners, no one deserves this, he obviously has drug and mental issues.
mumstheword said:
ctrzaska said:
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
It's not either/or.
It should be. People's priorities are screwed up.
I think they're saying that people are able to focus on more than one thing at a time.
+++
In regards to Charlie Sheen, how much of his behavior was a result of mental illness? It is easy to say "well, he should have gotten help for it then" but in reality when people are in a manic swing they feel freaking awesome and truly don't believe there is anything wrong with them. Try to imagine watching your child graduate from Harvard, how happy would you be? Now imagine if while feeling that over the top life is awesome experience people told you that you were too happy and you needed help because it wasn't normal. This is how it can be for many people in a manic phase, they feel great and just can't comprehend someone telling them that they are sick.
As such while I can say I am not surprised by his announcement, I also don't feel that he deserved it or that it was karma or anything like that. His hiding his status from sexual partners, on the other hand, is morally reprehensible and possibly even illegal depending on the laws of the state this occurred in.
mumstheword said:
ctrzaska said:
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
It's not either/or.
It should be. People's priorities are screwed up.
Then don't participate in the discussion. Is there a rule on what can be discussed on MOL in order of world tragedy? HIV and AIDS is still a part of a vast world discussion and not just because Charlie Sheen has contracted it.
Lambswool --- LOL!!!!
kibbegirl said:
mumstheword said:
ctrzaska said:
mumstheword said:
What's "sad" is that the world is talking about this, when there are thousands of people suffering from the bombings in Paris.
It's not either/or.
It should be. People's priorities are screwed up.
Then don't participate in the discussion. Is there a rule on what can be discussed on MOL in order of world tragedy? HIV and AIDS is still a part of a vast world discussion and not just because Charlie Sheen has contracted it.
Lambswool --- LOL!!!!
I never said anything about what can be discussed on MOL and what could not. I said that people's priorities are screwed up, meaning that all this hype about friggin' Charlie Sheen (and it's not about HIV/AIDS awareness, it's about another publicity hound) when there are other important things out there to talk about. Sorry if you feel that every comment is directed toward you and the other sacred cows on MOL.
it seems to me Denise may have been the only level-headed one in the bunch. I would imagine her silence was out of friendship and compassion not blackmail. I would guess it was all the y-by-night "girlfriends" that are filing the lawsuits and doing the blackmailing. Another lovely effect of manic behavior- everyone's your best friend. You have no judgement at all and you wind up with the dregs of society because they are telling you what you want to hear. The people who love you, who are looking out for you are made out to be villains. My sense is that denise was one of these "villains" in Charlie's mind. But who the hell really knows.
Funny, this is a typical MOL reaction: I'm going to open up a post, read several comments, decide the post is a time waster and not my cup of tea but instead of moving on to a post that is suitable to my interests, I'm going to post to let participants know it's a time waster and shouldn't be discussed because, well, other stuff is happening in the world far more important. Did I decipher it correctly? BTW, your disapproval is directed at me. I'm the OP.
Enjoy your important discussions. I'll look for you on Charlie Rose.
He never seemed like a particularly pleasant or nice guy, so I agree.