Rimming - Is it safe?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Rimming - Is it safe? Inquiring Minds Want to Know

 

This gets Longest Post Award by anyone other than a flipped-out rambling escort (thank god only one or two come to mind).

 

JT,

 

You do good work and I applaude TT's able assistance. THanks guys for shedding a little light on the question of rimming safety issues.

[Guest pickwick]

>Therefore, to assert, as you have done, that I want to take

>ecstacy or that I want to rim - based on NOTHING other than

>the fact that I have pointed out the lack of evidence

>linking those activities to the parade of horribles you

>hysterically assert is casued by them - is simply stupid.

 

Is it any dumber than the assumptions you've made about the motives of researchers you've never heard of and the merits of studies you've never read? Much less so, in my opinion.

 

>All scientists funded by the NIH or other federal government

>programs are not permitted to reach any conclusions with

>respect to drugs other than to conclude that they are all

>unspeakably destructive and lethal. Therefore, any

>researcher who is funded by the NIH is inherently suspect,

>due to the constraints on their objectivity.

 

On what do you base that, other than your own prejudice against those conclusions? Answer: nothing.

 

>In post #27, pshaw pointed out (to you) that the American

>Liver Foundation does NOT list any sexual activity on its

>list of activities "Known to transmit infection" of HCV.

>You ignored him. Why did you do that?

 

If you're talking to me, I didn't read that post. Now that you've pointed it out, I'll take a look at the source he cites. That's a hell of a lot more than you've done with respect to any of the sources cited by any participant in this discussion.

 

>JT assumed that what you represented about the findings of

>the study was true (a precarious assumption, but one that he

>generously made). From that assumption, he proceeded to

>identify numerous logical reasons why the findings of the

>study do NOT support the conclusion that you suggested was

>proven by it. You ignored those reasons. Why?

 

Because they aren't "reasons" in any meaningful sense. Reg provided a very brief summary of some of the study's conclusions and some of the bases for those conclusions. It is ludicrous for you to keep suggesting that JT or anyone else can comment intelligently on the study's methods or conclusions without actually having read them. And yet you keep doing it. Again and again. Why?

 

>Again, we accepted what you said about the study as true.

>From that premise, we pointed out why - even if the study

>said what you claimed - it does not establish any causal

>connection between HCV transmission and rimming. Those are

>arguments for which you have no answer (except to say that

>"the top liver man" says that rimming is caused by HCV -

>even though he didn't say that - so it's good enough for

>you).

 

You are, as Reg said, lying. Once again, you can't claim that Reg provided anything but a brief and nontechnical summary of a study written by and for the review of experts in liver disease. Your assumption that it contains everything that is needed to comment intelligently on the study's methods and conclusions is as witless as most of your other posts here. Or more so.

 

 

>I think it's healthy for you to compliment yourself now and

>then when you feel impressed with what you've written.

>After all, if you don't - who will?

 

You will. I must remind you that several people have insisted that you and I are the same person. Do you really want to start that game again. Or perhaps I should say, "Do I"?

[Guest pickwick]

>I haven't come up with any facts?

 

No, you haven't come up with any additional facts about the patients, the infectious organisms or the other factors that were involved in the study to cast doubt on the study's conclusions. All you've done is mention a few generalizations that may or may not have anything to do with the validity of the study we're discussing. Why would that persuade anyone of anything?

 

>If you'd kindly provide the the issue and page numbers of

>the Worman study, then everyone who is interested in this

>topic can read it and find out on his own whether the study

>actually states that "HCV can be transmitted via the

>fecal-oral route and/or rimming"!

 

Since Reg and I have already mentioned both the name of the publication and the name of the author, why is it that you can't find it yourself? Too much trouble for you?

 

For the record, no one has ever stated (at least in this thread) that the study says anything about rimming or about oral-anal contact. It does conclude that HCV can be transmitted by anal contact. Since that has been said multiple times in this thread I can't imagine why it would be unclear.

[Guest pickwick]

>Well, well, well...I now know why Reg and Pickwick would not

>and cannot provide us any specific quote from the "Worman"

>study in the NEJM. Why? Because there is no such study!!!

>

>Howard Worman DID include a paper by Bronowicki et. al. on

>his website (HepNet

>http://www.hepnet.com/hepc/worman197b.html). The paper was

>published in 1997 in the NEJM but it was NOT a study

>conducted by Worman!

>

>TT, thanks for forwarding the paper to me. I've taken the

>liberty to post the paper here. So here we go folks, read it

>yourself and see whether the so called "Worman" paper said

>anything remotely about HCV transmission via the fecal-oral

>route and/or rimming! It seems that both Reg and Pickwick

>themselves have not read the paper written by Worman, one of

>the top liver experts in the US! The "Worman" study that

>they have been using to defend their baseless arguments

>after all DOES NOT EXIST!

>

>So much for criticizing me for not reading the "Worman"

>study and not having any facts to support my arguments, Reg!

>Did you read it and where are your facts?

 

 

I'm sorry you and TT must resort to such blatant lies. Worman did indeed publish a paper on the study you cite, which can be found at NEJM 337:237-240. Is there anything about that which in any way diminishes or even calls into question the validity of the study's conclusions? Of course not. Those conclusions are exactly as I and Reg have described again and again and again. And again and again and again you have attempted to attribute to us things we DIDN'T say so that you could argue against THOSE things. Why? If you and TT really want to lick someone's asshole, is anything we or anyone else says going to prevent you? Do as you like. And live with the consequences.

[Guest pickwick]

RE: Listening to pickwick and regulation - Is it safe?

 

>LOL!!!! Don't expect either pickwick or regulation

>to come back with anything resembling an apology for their

>intentional misinformation. Someone needs to shove a

>contaminated colonoscope up both of their asses. TT, you do

>one and I'll do the other.

 

Donnie, scum like you will never get near enough to me to be able to determine the color of my shoes, let alone to do anything else. The smell of feces on your tongue serves as an excellent early warning system. :-)

 

My statements in this thread have all been quite truthful. You deliberately lied about the contents of the CDC Fact Sheet on this subject. Does the truth really make you feel guilty about licking someone else's hole? Please don't feel that way. As far as I'm concerned you are free to swallow feces until your liver turns to chalk. In fact, I find the prospect rather amusing.

[Guest pickwick]

>Despite your denial, both Pickwick and you have quoted the

>Worman study to support the argument that HCV transmission

>can occur via rimming. So, would you please provide a

>specific quote from the Worman paper that could address my

>following question which remains unanswered?

 

That is quite false. Both of us have said again and again that the conclusion of the study in question is more limited. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

 

>Sorry, why are you so certain? Do you know what happens to

>the HCV when it's ingested? Can and do they survive the

>host's physical and chemical barriers in the

>gastrointestinal tract as well as the immune response?

 

Excuse me, but who said anything about ingestion? If you are claiming that ingestion is the only method of infection that can occur through contact with the tissues of the mouth, then I am afraid it is you who fail to understand the basis of human physiology.

 

>Please don't try to deny that Pickwick brought up the

>Italian study in an attempt to convince people that HCV can

>be transmitted by rimming. He did not specify the kinds of

>sexual activities that were actually reported to be the risk

>factors for HCV transmission by confusing people to think

>that those unspecified sexual activities must include

>rimming.

 

That is a lie. I brought it up, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, to deal with a (false) statement made about sexual transmission in general.

 

>I'd kindly remind you to do the same.

 

Try practicing what you preach. For a change.

 

>Well, for starter, a mouth (under normal circumstances)

>would NOT be able to bypass the physical and chemical

>barriers (e.g. stomach acids and digestive enzymes) AND

>introduce HCV DIRECTLY into damaged intestinal mucosa and

>bloodstream. A colonoscope CAN!

 

Uh huh. So you would advise people that there is NO danger of any sort of infection through the tissues of the mouth unless the bodily fluids of another person are actually INGESTED and enter the digestive system? I would like to repeat my remark above about your understanding of human physiology.

[DaninWA]

Thank you for the response. I must have missed your follow-up post.

 

Dan

[Guest JT]

>I'm sorry you and TT must resort to such blatant lies.

>Worman did indeed publish a paper on the study you cite,

>which can be found at NEJM 337:237-240.

 

Pickwick,

 

I'm not even going to try to respond to your today's other posts in this thread. I'll be kind and make your suffering short. Ready?

 

It's YOU who are a liar! First, you accused me that I didn't find and read the study when I've both found it, read it and post in right here on this thread even before you posted again today! Surprise! Second, you have the audacity to accuse me and TT being liars. Shame on you! Do you have any integrity left in you? I doubt it. Your lies, intentional misinformation and mis-representation of Worman's work are now clear and open to everyone's view. In order to save your face, you're willing to perpetuate misformation. Shame, shame, shame!

 

I'd advise you to give this a rest. As your lies are exposed, no words from you would ever change the fact that you're nothing but a liar. You've lost all your credibility here (if there is any to start with)!

 

Retreat to your world of lies and deceit. And before you go, in case you haven't noticed, let me tell you something. Many of us have already read the paper Reg and you cited. Why? Because we've found it and posted it here. If you have the courage to click on the link for HepNet (which I've provided in my previous post), a site operated by Howard Worman, you'd have found out Worman did not conduct the study and did not publish the paper! So let me post that information for you for the last time!

 

http://www.hepnet.com/hepc/worman197b.html

 

Go there and take a look! That's what you're going to find:

 

Bronowicki, P.-P., Venard, V., Botte, C., Monhoven, N., Gastin, I., Chone, L., Hudziak, H., Rhin, B., Delanoe, C., LeFaou, A., Bigard, M.-A., and Gaucher, P. 1997. Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus during colonoscopy. New England Journal of Medicine. 337:237-240.

 

Find the issue and page numbers familiar? Of course! This was supposed to be the paper you quoted that Worman wrote! Do you find his name as one of the co-authors? No, you can't! Why? Because he didn't conduct the study and write the paper, moron!

 

Worman just listed someone's work on his site, that's all! Now go read the paper which I've posted earler (or you're more than welcomed to read the paper on the NEJM site). There's absolutely nothing in the study even remotely suggests that HCV can be transmitted by the anal-oral/fecal-oral route/rimming, in contrat to what Reg and you have been implying in this thread all along.

 

 

>Is there anything

>about that which in any way diminishes or even calls into

>question the validity of the study's conclusions? Of course

>not. Those conclusions are exactly as I and Reg have

>described again and again and again.

 

Lie, lie, and more lies!

 

 

>And again and again

>and again you have attempted to attribute to us things we

>DIDN'T say so that you could argue against THOSE things.

 

Just admit defeat and retreat! Everyone here can see why you have to resort to such spineless tactic!

 

You're the weakest link (as compared to Reg)! Goodbye!

 

 

JT

[Guest TruthTeller]

JT - The lies told by Pickwick and Reg are even worse than you suggested. Not only did they lie about Worman having published such a paper (he didn't), and not only did they lie about the content of the paper demonstrating that HCV is transmitted through rimming (it didn't), HERE IS WHAT WORMAN SAYS ON HIS SITE ABOUT THE SEXUAL TRANSMISSION OF HCV:

 

"Sexual intercourse and anal sex with an infected partner are known to be important risk factors for transmission of HBV. Unlike hepatitis B, HCV does not appear to be readily transmitted by sex, either in heterosexuals or homosexuals."

 

(Found in the Epidemology section of Worman's site, under "High Risk Indviduals").

 

So, from the beginning, Pickwick and Regulation trotted out Worman, a "top liver man," as support for his baseless claim that rimming entails a risk of HCV transmission, when all along, he Worman says the opposite, and never published or reported anything in the NEJM regarding this topic, nor did he ever suggest, let alone argue, that rimming entails an HCV risk.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Is it any dumber than the assumptions you've made about the

>motives of researchers you've never heard of and the merits

>of studies you've never read? Much less so, in my opinion.

 

I read the study. I'm the one who sent it to JT. Reading it is what enabled us to know that: (a) Worman had nothing to do with it; (b) it had nothing to do with rimming; and © your statements about the study, both express and implied, were false.

 

HERE IS WHAT WORMAN - ON WHOM YOU'VE CONTINUOUSLY RELIED - ACTUALLY SAYS ON HIS WEBSITE ABOUT THE SEXUAL TRANSMISSION OF HCV:

 

"Sexual intercourse and anal sex with an infected partner are known to be important risk factors for transmission of HBV. Unlike hepatitis B, HCV does not appear to be readily transmitted by sex, either in heterosexuals or homosexuals.

 

Thus, your own expert - on his own website where he lists the link to the NEJM colonoscopy study - says that "HCV does not appear to be readily transmitted by sex, either in heterosexuals or homosexuals."

 

Obviously, HE doesn't think that the study demonstrates sexual transmission of HCV, since: (a) he's aware of the study but (b) he says "HCV does not appear to be readily transmitted by sex, either in heterosexuals or homosexuals".

 

Before you kept insisting that if Worman says it, then it's true. He says: "HCV does not appear to be readily transmitted by sex, either in heterosexuals or homosexuals" - can you now admit that: (a) that's true; and (b) the colonoscopy study, of which Worman was aware when he said that, does not support the misinformation you've been spreading?

 

>If you're talking to me, I didn't read that post. Now that

>you've pointed it out, I'll take a look at the source he

>cites. That's a hell of a lot more than you've done with

>respect to any of the sources cited by any participant in

>this discussion.

 

I've repeatedly told you that other posters posted scientific information that negated what you said. Now that you've read the American Liver Foundation's view, what do you have to say about it?

 

>You are, as Reg said, lying. Once again, you can't claim

>that Reg provided anything but a brief and nontechnical

>summary of a study written by and for the review of experts

>in liver disease. Your assumption that it contains

>everything that is needed to comment intelligently on the

>study's methods and conclusions is as witless as most of

>your other posts here. Or more so.

 

REG MENTIONED THE NEJM STUDY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO - AND IN ORDER TO DISPROVE - MY PROTEST TO YOUR ASSERTION THAT HCV IS TRANSMITTED THROUGH RIMMING. The title of this thread is "rimming - is it safe?", and you and he have continuously relied on that study to refute the original statement that HCV is not transmitted through rimming.

 

Nobody is fooled by your understandable but dishonest attempts to distance yourselves from your original, false claim that HCV is transmitted through rimming.

 

>You will. I must remind you that several people have

>insisted that you and I are the same person.

 

If that's true, I'm a huge advocate of suicide.

 

This whole circus was caused by deep neuroses you have about sex. Your view of sex is a close cousin of your view of escorts - you think sex and your own sexuality are dirty and diseased, and you create links between sex and filth that actually don't exist (just like you think that the escorts you want to have sex with are dirty and diseased, because you hate yourself for wanting to use them).

 

That's fine for you to do yourself (fine but sad). But it's seriously irresponsible to run around publicly claiming that there is scientific support for the fantasies you've created in order to enable you to run away from your own sexuality.

 

It's OK, Pickwick. You can come crawling out of that table you're hiding under in the corner. The sex you want to have won't kill you. Ask Worman.

[Guest seraph250]

I don't really understand the venom that I see in this thread. I think people who try to bring up new information about health risks of sexual practices should be thanked and not insulted. When it first became clear that AIDS is caused by a virus and was being transmitted among gay men by sexual activity some in the community tried to cast doubt on this and made accusations of homophobia against those who tried to spread this information. Something like that seems to be happening here so I guess nothing has changed in twenty years. I don't know if this study about transmission of hepatitis c by anus definitely means that rimming should be considered unsafe but it is information I want to consider in making my decision. I have been vaccinated against hep a but I do not know if there is any vaccine against hep c which I understand is more serious. Thanks to those who brought this up.

[Guest spendlove]

Pickwick,

 

There are some very nasty people on this website, I suppose you should expect that on a website about prostitution. One of the nastier ones said I should come to this thread and get hepatitis myself because I said elsewhere that I found some of your posts interesting. That is typical of the garbage you encounter here. For whatever it's worth I agree that if a study by liver disease specialists shows transmission of the virus through the anal area then that is cause for concern for anyone who likes to rim. Whether it is you or someone else who first brought that up it was a good thing to do. Anyone who says it wasn't doesn't need to worry about rimming because his head is in a place that will prevent any rimming by him or of him.

[+ imagooddog]

I agree with you.....I am almost sorry I even asked the question

originally but I do thank the people who answered seriously with

opinions and facts. But so often, as in the case of this thread,

it turns into a "pissing contest" and bitching between people who

regularly contribute to the various subjects brought up, even

getting off the original subject by throwing barbs back and forth

toward each other. I think its time this thread ended.

[Guest pshaw]

It has been brought up many times in this thread that rimming is not risk free. Hepatitis A, STDs, parasites are all potential hazards. But it is fairly clear that the risk of contracting bloodborne pathogens like HCV and HIV through rimming appears to be negligible. (If there are bleeding hemmorhoids, I would recommend staying away or using a barrier.) The brouhaha began with the confusion over message #11 in this thread which many assumed (myself included) was linking rimming with contracting HCV. Perhaps the poster only meant that HCV is one of the potential hazards of unprotected sex in general, although according the CDC and the American Liver Association that risk is on the low end. As has been pointed out in other messages, everyone has their own comfort level of risk. I personally enjoy deep kissing, rimming, condomless oral sex and and fucking with condoms. Each activity has its potential risks.

 

>I don't really understand the venom that I see in this

>thread. I think people who try to bring up new information

>about health risks of sexual practices should be thanked and

>not insulted. When it first became clear that AIDS is

>caused by a virus and was being transmitted among gay men by

>sexual activity some in the community tried to cast doubt on

>this and made accusations of homophobia against those who

>tried to spread this information. Something like that seems

>to be happening here so I guess nothing has changed in

>twenty years. I don't know if this study about transmission

>of hepatitis c by anus definitely means that rimming should

>be considered unsafe but it is information I want to

>consider in making my decision. I have been vaccinated

>against hep a but I do not know if there is any vaccine

>against hep c which I understand is more serious. Thanks to

>those who brought this up.

>

>

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I don't really understand the venom that I see in this

>thread.

 

It's odd - as well as revealing about your real identity - that you would pop up to condemn the "venom that you see in this tread" while at the same time thanking the person who spread the HCV-rimming myth. The person who spread that myth - Pickwick - said this to someone who disagreed with his claim:

 

<<Donnie, scum like you will never get near enough to me to be able to determine the color of my shoes, let alone to do anything else. The smell of feces on your tongue serves as an excellent early warning system. . . .

 

My statements in this thread have all been quite truthful. You deliberately lied about the contents of the CDC Fact Sheet on this subject. Does the truth really make you feel guilty about licking someone else's hole? Please don't feel that way. As far as I'm concerned you are free to swallow feces until your liver turns to chalk. In fact, I find the prospect rather amusing. >>

 

The person who was insisting that rimming entails a risk of HCV became so irrational and hateful when he got exposed as a liar that he began wishing that other posters would get liver diseases and die. By contrast, the principal persons who were pointing out the flaws in his reasoning focused only on the topic at hand, and never engaged in any such conduct.

 

It's rather bizarre that you would begin a post condemning venom, and then proceed to thank the person who told others to go get fatal liver diseases and who expressed his amusement at the prospect that someone would die from these diseases.

 

>I think people who try to bring up new information

>about health risks of sexual practices should be thanked and

>not insulted.

 

If the information the person is bringing up is false information, and he's lying about the information, then he should not be thanked. Others should point out why it's false. That's what those of us did who knew he was lying. The only one who engaged in "insults" was - as I demonstrated - the one who brought up the false information in the first place.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Pickwick,

>

>There are some very nasty people on this website, I suppose

>you should expect that on a website about prostitution.

 

Are you talking TO Pickwick or ABOUT Pickwick? Pickwick said to a poster who disagreed with him about his HCV-rimming lie:

 

<<Donnie, scum like you will never get near enough to me to be able to determine the color of my shoes, let alone to do anything else. The smell of feces on your tongue serves as an excellent early warning system. . . .

 

My statements in this thread have all been quite truthful. You deliberately lied about the contents of the CDC Fact Sheet on this subject. Does the truth really make you feel guilty about licking someone else's hole? Please don't feel that way. As far as I'm concerned you are free to swallow feces until your liver turns to chalk. In fact, I find the prospect rather amusing. >>

 

Does that strike you as "nasty" at all?

 

 

> For whatever it's worth I agree

>that if a study by liver disease specialists shows

>transmission of the virus through the anal area then that is

>cause for concern for anyone who likes to rim.

 

Too bad the liver specialist whom Pickwick touted as being the Liver God disagrees with this. On the same site where he cites the study in question, he discounts the risk of HCV from sexual transmission, and never once draws the conclusion that Pickwick falsely claimed he drew from this study.

 

But it's OK - there are people who won't get on airplanes because of the infitessimal risk that they'll crash. They have pathetic, sad, limited lives - restraining themselves from living due to every tiny fear - but at least you and Pickwick have company.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>I agree with you.....I am almost sorry I even asked the

>question originally but I do thank the people who answered seriously

>with opinions and facts. But so often, as in the case of this

>thread, it turns into a "pissing contest" and bitching between

>people who regularly contribute to the various subjects brought up,

>even getting off the original subject by throwing barbs back and

>forth toward each other.

 

You raised a topic about which there is disagreement, and people feel passionate about competing opinions.

 

But in response to your question about the risks of rimming, the views of multiple different medical sources on this topic were conveyed; the conclusions of published studies in the New England Journal of Medicine were discussed; and a detailed analysis was provided by someone who is apparently professionaly well-qualfied to provide it regarding the relevant physiological dynamics which inform the assessment of this risk.

 

Given that you asked your question about the risks of rimming on a website devoted to reviewing prostitutes, I would say that the level of substantive response you received was far greater than you could have reasonably predicted or expected. Participating in the discussion required researching, reading published medical studies, and otherwise analyzing various medical claims.

 

It's pretty ungrateful and piggish for you to sit back and do nothing after asking the question - while being the beneficiary of all of this information and work - only to come in at the end and condemn those who answered your question, express regret over having asked it, and decree that the discussion should end.

 

And although certian participants such as Pickwick (who told another poster to go get a liver disease so his liver would evaporate while Pickwick watched in amusment while he died) did become somewhat bitter and hateful, that's hardly unusual in a debate which generates passion and disagreement. On the whole, the substance you received in response to your question was far more than you would get on most Internet message boards, and far more than you had any right to expect.

 

>I think its time this thread ended.

 

I don't think you're in a position to decree that.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>Pickwick,

>

>... I suppose

>you should expect that on a website about prostitution.

 

You guys are always in lockstep and on the same page A little diversity of viewpoint would help sell the illusion -- IMHO.

 

> For whatever it's worth I agree

>that if a study by liver disease specialists shows

>transmission of the virus through the anal area then that is

>cause for concern for anyone who likes to rim.

 

THis is not exactly a switch to the reverse gear, but it is as close as we are likely to see.

 

:-)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>I agree with you.....I am almost sorry I even asked the

>question

>originally but I do thank the people who answered seriously

>with

>opinions and facts. But so often, as in the case of this

>thread,

>it turns into a "pissing contest" and bitching between

>people who

>regularly contribute to the various subjects brought up,

>even

>getting off the original subject by throwing barbs back and

>forth

>toward each other. I think its time this thread ended.

 

Suntan,

 

No need to bemoan or regret this thread -- it was an excellent one in that it acutally conveyed some hard, useful information to the community. The fact that there was passion and some rancor as it unfolded is not new around here... just a reflection of some of the personalities. You will get used to it. Really, it was an excellent thread -- keep your eye on the positive; it ususally outweighs the other bullshit.

 

THat is why we hang around.

 

:-)

[Guest TruthTeller]

>You guys are always in lockstep and on the same page A

>little diversity of viewpoint would help sell the illusion

>-- IMHO.

 

I think it's too late for that. Not only does he trot out his imaginary friends to express support for him (in order not to appear alone in his views), but he actually goes so far as to cross-rate all of his characters in order to make them seem more popular. Can you imagine the severity of the mental needs that motivate that sort of behavior?

 

>THis is not exactly a switch to the reverse gear, but it is

>as close as we are likely to see.

 

Yes, if one compares their original statements with the ones they're now making, they are vastly different, although they will never admit it. As you point out, that's as close to a concession as it's ever going to get with this little family.

[Guest]

I seem to be getting into this discussion a little late, but I'll give my thoughts. All gay men should be vaccinated against Hepatitis A and B. In my state, a five year-old can't get into Kindergarten without being vaccinated against these diseases (hopefully, they've had their shots a little sooner). For adults, it's recommended that everybody get these shots unless they're in a long-standing monogamous relationship and don't travel abroad.

Rimming is a primo way to get Hepatitis A. It takes only microscopic quantities of Hep A-infected stool in the gastrointestinal tract to cause disease. Most cases are actually caused merely by inadequate hand washing followed by food handling. It's the #1 (albeit not the only) reason you see signs in restaurant bathrooms from the county Health Department, announcing the requirement for food handlers to wash their hands after going to the bathroom.

Hepatitis B is spread by body-fluid (mostly blood, semen, or vaginal secretions) to mucous membrane or blood. This is why it is transmitted sexually. The oral cavity has mucous membranes. Blood is often found in the rectum. Therefore Hep B can be transmitted by rimming, although less commonly than through unprotected vaginal or rectal intercourse. This is because cum always contains semen, but the rectum only sometimes has blood. Also, the rectum's mucous membrane is more fragile than the oral mucous membrane. One thing to keep in mind about the rectal mucosa is that while external hemorrhoids are painful, internal hemorrhoids bleed but do not hurt. Therefore, you cannot assume someone doesn't have bleeding hemorrhoids just because he doesn't have pain there.

Hepatitis C is exquisitely easy to spread blood-to-blood (people who've been infected with Hep C are almost always contagious, unlike Hep A and B infectees). Nevertheless, it does not seem to spread through intact mucosal surfaces. This is why we find so many wives of Hep C carriers who never get infected despite years of unprotected sex!! Of course, vaginal mucosa (and certainly rectal mucosa) can get disrupted and bleed, and blood can make it into semen, so sexual transmission is possible, although rare. I suppose it would be possible to get Hep C from rimming, assuming someone with bleeding gums was rimming someone with bleeding internal hemorrhoids.

Hepatitis A and B are avoidable. To be extra cautious, it's wise to check for anitbody levels after you're had your shots in order to be sure you're protected (it took me 5 Hep B shots to get antibodies!). Hepatitis C is probably not a very serious risk with rimming, if you gums are OK. My take on the transmission between the colonoscopy patients is that it is easily explained through blood transmission either through poorly disinfected equipment, or the re-use of the medication syringes as described in the article. I can assure you that the colonoscope causes bleeding often if not usually. There is no reason to invoke fecal-oral transmission here.

That being said, there are numerous parasites, bacteria, and viruses which are transmitted fecal-orally. Some of these are difficult or impossible to eradicate. Some of these are difficult or impossible to detect. Some of these we don't know about. There are also permanent diseases which are suspected of being cause by fecal-oral agents, but we just aren't sure (examples include Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, ankylosing spondylitis, and maybe even multiple sclerosis). Certain Salmonella infections will reach the gallbladder and can only be cured (at least 85% chance of a cure) by surgical removal of the gallbladder.

Therefore, I would say that the hepatitises are of only minor concern to the wise rimmer. However, risks of other diseases through rimming are more ominous...

[Guest spendlove]

>>There are some very nasty people on this website, I suppose

>>you should expect that on a website about prostitution.

>

>Are you talking TO Pickwick or ABOUT Pickwick? Pickwick

>said to a poster who disagreed with him about his

>HCV-rimming lie:

>

><<Donnie, scum like you

 

I was talking about Donnie who referred me to this thread with a wish I that get hepatitis myself because he didn't like something I said in the thread about Rod Hagen. But I am glad I came because otherwise I would have missed the amusing spectacle of you calling someone else nasty right after you started a thread called Ass Licking.

 

>Too bad the liver specialist whom Pickwick touted as being

>the Liver God disagrees with this. On the same site where

>he cites the study in question, he discounts the risk of HCV

>from sexual transmission, and never once draws the

>conclusion that Pickwick falsely claimed he drew from this

>study.

 

I found all the sources you people have been arguing about for days by doing a thirty second search on google. Maybe it takes you an hour to tie your shoelaces as well. This thread is now very convoluted but if I read it right you are now touting the advice of this liver doctor who you said earlier was an idiot when you thought he was disagreeing with you. Very amusing. I posted a brief summary of what the sources say about sexual transmission of hcv in your Ass Licking thread and it is a lot more accurate than what you have been saying. No need to thank me.

[+ imagooddog]

Thanks, Tampa Yankee.

A lot of good information did come from this discussion and I

DO APPRECIATE it. I have read it all and come to the conclusion

that it really is not a very safe practice, at least not for ME.

But it is great that so many people took the time to give

opinions and facts and research results. I think I tend to get

a little upset at times that a few responders (not only in this

discussion but in many others) will get off the subject and seem

to have personal vendettas against other responders. I could name

the names of those who consistenly do this, and I am sure you

can too. But, freedom of speech is what its all about. Thank

goodness we all have that right. Thanks again!