Posts by Justin Fox

I tore my meniscus once, had a chunk of it removed, and man, getting back to a smooth stride took forever—we're talking months of rehab. But even now, two years later, the feeling just isn't quite right. It’s like I lost that perfect rhythm. One bad hit, and I'll never be at 100% again...

How was the recovery process for you after the surgery? Did things ever actually get back to 100% like they were before the injury, or did you end up settling for an 80-90% fix?

ruggedharbor95 said:By the way, donating blood is an act of humanity—something you clearly lack, you pathetic excuse for a person.👎

Why go after the man personally? If you actually bother to look at his track record, you'll realize he isn't protesting the noble idea of blood donation itself. He's pushing back against how poorly the system handles it due to sheer incompetence within the bureaucracy.

slylynx68 said:Shout out to all those patriots working in the US Armed Forces, because I honestly can't believe any sane person would let their own soldiers go hungry. And a special nod to those bureaucrats at the blood bank who were being so incredibly disrespectful.

I get why slylynx68 is pissed. Honestly, looking at how things are run in the US Armed Forces, the whole blood drive was a total disaster from start to finish. Either the meals were completely forgotten, or—more likely—someone decided to pocket the food for themselves, leaving the soldiers who just donated blood absolutely starving. Since they were stuck on base, they weren't even allowed to leave to grab a burger or something nearby.

It wouldn't be the first time the US Armed Forces acted this way; they have a habit of treating recruits with zero humanity. My own time serving in the US Armed Forces was exactly why I eventually left America for good. Whenever I feel a little bit of nostalgia creeping in, I just remember marching through the snow in boots with paper-thin soles while some flag rises at dawn, staring longingly at the birds flying freely over the base. That usually kills the sentiment pretty fast.

The blame lies squarely with the commanding officer, though the folks at the blood donation center share some of it too. If you're taking blood, you have a basic moral obligation to treat those soldiers like human beings, not livestock you corral into a pen, squeeze them for resources, and walk away without checking if they're okay. They should have made sure people were actually getting fed and given time to recover. If they hadn't, they should have shut the whole thing down, reported the commander to his superior, filed a complaint with the Department of Defense, and leaked the whole mess to the press. Unfortunately, that’s not how things work in America, mostly because our civil society just doesn't function that way.👎

Jose Miller3 said:What an idiot...

That kind of comment is beneath anyone holding a moderator position on this board.

Hannah Scott69 said:It honestly makes me sick to deal with this kind of mindset... at this rate, you wouldn't even let your own kids go to school with a child who has HIV. You wouldn't even offer first aid to someone living with HIV if you found them collapsed on the sidewalk... and so on...

If that's how you all choose to live, go ahead, but I won't.

You have no right to pry into anyone's business. Someone's illness is their private matter.

Now, I’ll agree on just one point. For the sake of their own conscience, perhaps they shouldn't perform surgeries where there's an actual risk involved... in routine checkups, the risk is practically zero. Honestly, you're more likely to fall out of a plane... or get into a fender bender.

That's all from me.

Look, you're being quite aggressive in defending the rights of those with HIV. I agree they deserve privacy, but there are limits—you can't compromise the safety of others. You mentioned that a doctor with HIV shouldn't be performing surgery. Take a boxer, for instance. If he knows he's HIV positive, he might still step into the ring for a match, but is that really okay? He could wreck the arena, and even if he loses the fight, he could end up taking his opponent's life.

To be fair, I'd also be pretty nervous helping someone who's bleeding; you never know. I'd be hesitant to even touch them because you might accidentally cause more injury. I once saw a woman faint in line at City Hall, and these self-proclaimed "helpers" grabbed her to carry her outside, practically slamming her head into a wall on the way. They did a stellar job "helping"—instead of just clearing space and carefully turning her onto her side.

Legal duties to assist are clearly defined by law. There's a massive difference between a trained professional and a bystander. You call 911; you don't start performing craniotomies on someone lying on the street.

Kimberly Davis52 said:Amanda Lee31, do you think a surgeon actually has the right to turn away a patient who is HIV positive?

When are we going to finally wrap our heads around the fact that a surgeon is paid to perform surgery, and the patient—indirectly—is the one footing the bill?

Sure, a surgeon has the right to refuse to do their job: they can quit and go find another way to make a living.

Look, if a patient has the right to demand a certified surgeon instead of some guy with a razor or a butcher, then they also have the right to expect that surgeon isn't carrying HIV, which could be transmitted if an accident happens in the OR. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Kimberly Davis52 said:You've got a point there. 🙂
When people get sick, they stop working. It's just common sense. 🙂

My only real worry is that someone clever might try to spin it—claiming an HIV infection isn't actually a "disease" until those terminal AIDS symptoms finally kick in. That would be a dangerous lie. Even before anyone hits the AIDS stage, an HIV carrier is still infectious.

Drake, Scott Allen10, that sounds reasonable to me. As for massages, I actually agreed to a heavy-duty medical back massage once—first and last time in my life, honestly. I work out regularly and my back is usually fine, but this was something else entirely. It felt like someone was just taking swings at my spine. My skin was raw from all the friction and my muscles were aching from being squeezed way too hard. What’s been your experience with that kind of thing?

brightmarlin44 The user said:Dr.—though I suppose the title really belongs after the name. I always insist on putting it before; there’s just something about the way it feels right to me.😍

If you’ve earned a PhD, you put "Dr." right before your name. If you’re an MD, though, the standard convention is to put "dr. med." after your surname. It’s one of those little nuances that matters more than people realize.
So, where exactly are you putting all those "Dr." titles? It feels like you're just talking about yourself at this point. I remember back in high school, we had this guy come in for some sort of internship program—I think his name was Drago Peric or something similar. He was running a metalworking workshop, which was mandatory for everyone in our vocational track. He always wore these blue overalls and was incredibly insistent on signing everything as Dr. Peric. Quite the character.🤣

How wide or long are your laparoscopic scars?

Kimberly Davis52 said:Justin Fox, how many years can someone realistically live after an IBM infection?

I'm not entirely sure, but a quick Google search suggests "The median interval between IBM testing and an AIDS diagnosis was 912 days." It looks like there are different strains involved. For instance, patients with subtype A saw an average survival time of about 8.8 years, whereas those with subtype D averaged 6.9 years, and those with AD sat at 5.8.

If anyone knows more, please set me straight. 😉

Essentially, you might get a few years of relatively normal life before the heavy symptoms kick in. Once they do, the person is usually unable to work anyway, meaning they'll be on disability, which makes this whole debate feel somewhat moot.

Think about it. If you were facing a situation where you had maybe three years of feeling okay, followed by two years spent in a hospital bed dealing with pain and heavy medication, how would you want to spend those first three good years? Would you spend them grinding away every day, getting worked up over trivialities that you know won't matter in a year? Or would you go sailing, travel, meditate, and find some peace with Bob?

Hannah Scott69 said:Patients living with AIDS deserve a normal life, quality medical care, and privacy!!!!!!!
And doctors do too.

They absolutely have a right to privacy, but they can't compromise anyone else's safety. You have to accept that certain professions come with strict health requirements. If you want to be a commercial diver or a fighter pilot, you have to meet specific standards; otherwise, you’re putting yourself and everyone else at risk, which makes you unfit for the job. Then there's the legal aspect—you can mandate quarantine for people with highly contagious diseases, like SARS, to prevent an outbreak. The same logic applies to physicians. On one hand, the work is incredibly delicate; on the other, they operate in high-risk environments for transmission. Of course, if someone suffers financially because of a mandatory quarantine or a work restriction, there should be a safety net—like disability pay or social security. It's the same if someone loses half their vision; they wouldn't be able to perform surgery safely, so they’d transition to disability rather than risking patients' lives due to impaired sight.

Hannah Scott69 said:You don't have any right to his personal information. LET HIM DO WHATEVER HE WANTS AT HOME, AS LONG AS HE DOES HIS JOB PROPERLY AND PROTECTS OTHERS, I don't think it's any of your business.

Look, this is a discussion about fundamental principles. Did you see that story about the dentist in Europe who intentionally infected twenty patients with IBM? Can you imagine a doctor who thinks they caught something from a patient deciding to just "pass it on" to the next person in line? Because they're all just numbers to them? I certainly can.

Regarding the profession itself, medicine is a massive gray area. You can do everything by the book, with the best intentions and extreme caution, and it can still turn into a total disaster. Or vice versa. There are no guarantees, and oversight is often lacking. We really need to implement some objective standards that protect both the patients and the practitioners. Medicine isn't an assembly line, and there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution.

Hannah Scott69 said:Whether someone (any person) has IBM or not is a private matter. Just like any other illness, it’s personal, and no one has the right to know unless that person chooses to share it (not even family, if they don't want to). Who are you to judge whether someone should work or not?

Not quite, Hannah Scott69. It isn't the same. If someone carries an contagious disease, it’s simply wrong to spread it. Especially when we're talking about a deadly condition with no cure. Honestly, it's bad enough when you show up to the office with the flu and "share" it with your coworkers, but IBM is a much heavier burden.

Keeping a family in the dark is deceptive, too. They could get infected, or perhaps—following the logic of our local churches—you think spouses shouldn't practice safe sex if one partner is positive? That doesn't sit right with me.

Hannah Scott69 said:What if a doctor contracted the IBM virus during surgery?
I PERSONALLY KNOW A DOCTOR WHO CAUGHT HEPATITIS DURING AN OPERATION!!!
Everything involves risk. It's a risk when you have unprotected sex and catch something, or when you drink from someone else's cup at a coffee shop, or kiss someone and end up with mono, or even just walking down the street and getting hit by a drunk driver...

It doesn't matter how they caught it; what matters is that they don't pass it on and endanger the lives and health of others.
Of course, everything carries risk. But it’s reasonable to minimize those risks and find a middle ground. You don't stop walking on the sidewalk because a drunk driver might hit you, but you also don't take unnecessary chances by sprinting across a busy interstate.

Hannah Scott69 said:WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE A HUMAN BEING?
IF YOU HAD A DISEASE, WOULD A DOCTOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT? NO!!!!

I'm not judging anyone. I was merely suggesting that we provide them with a humane way out, like medical leave or early retirement. Would you really want to spend your final years grinding through an eight-hour workday when you know your time is limited?

The distinction is that a patient has the right to refuse treatment from a doctor they don't trust. By that same token, it should be fair for a patient to refuse surgery from someone carrying IBM. Following your logic, people with IBM should be allowed to donate blood without being tested.

I understand the fear of social backlash, which is why we need clear legal protections. If reporting is mandatory, then the state needs to guarantee disability or retirement benefits. Disclosing an IBM diagnosis can feel like professional suicide. We shouldn't force people to choose between putting food on the table and exposing patients to needless danger.

Look, wanderingmarlin352, the government isn't out there peddling drugs. Sure, you might have some corrupt officials working within the system who are doing it, but that’s just individual criminality, not state policy. It makes me wonder—would decriminalization actually be the smarter play here? I’m honestly torn. On one hand, it could slash crime rates significantly, but on the other, there's the nagging question of whether usage would spike. If we knew for certain it wouldn't, I’d be 100% in favor of it.

My point is this: implementing things like supervised injection sites before we even tackle decriminalization feels like a massive leap too far. Just think about the legal headache. You set up a "safe room," but then you have the police stationed right across the street. If they know people are walking in with illegal substances, how do they justify not making arrests? How does that even hold up in court? We already deal with enough legal loopholes and inconsistencies as it is; adding safe rooms into the mix would be an absolute slap in the face to basic legal logic.

I wasn't suggesting the risk of infection is high; I’m simply stating that it isn't zero.

He shouldn't be on the clock because he's dealing with a life-threatening illness, and if he keeps pushing through his current duties, he’s essentially putting his patients' lives at risk.

It’s a heavy situation. I suspect someone living with HIV might only have a few years before complications set in, and as far as I know—correct me if I’m wrong—there isn't a cure. There is treatment to slow things down and manage symptoms, but that stuff is incredibly expensive, and we're still talking about management rather than a fix. Honestly, if a doctor says to a patient, "I'm HIV-positive; is it okay if I treat you?" they’ll likely lose most of their practice overnight. From a purely financial standpoint, there’s zero incentive for a physician to disclose their status.

Then again, HIV is infectious. While the actual odds of transmission to a patient are slim, a doctor still faces risks through contact with open wounds or instruments that might touch a patient's blood. Realistically, the chances are low because you'd need direct contact between the doctor's blood or saliva and an injured area—like a surgeon accidentally nicking themselves during a procedure. Still, an HIV-positive doctor represents a small, yet tangible, risk to a patient's health and life.

So, what takes precedence? The health and lives of the patients, or the doctor's right to keep working?

Personally, I think the wisest and most humane way to handle this is to sidestep the question entirely. If a doctor is HIV-positive, they should be considered medically unfit for duty. They should take medical leave, focus on their own well-being, and just live out their lives. Meanwhile, patients can be treated by people who don't carry a life-threatening virus.

Sure, that costs more than keeping a doctor on the clock, but it's safer for the patients and more compassionate for the doctor. At the end of the day, they simply aren't fit for the job anymore. It’s much like a pilot dealing with even mild epilepsy; you wouldn't want them in the cockpit risking passengers' lives, and the same logic applies to medicine.

I’m against it. Even if you look at it from a humanitarian angle, there's a massive logical flaw: if drugs remain illegal, opening up supervised injection sites just seems counterproductive. And besides, everyone asks the same practical question: who’s picking up the tab?

In my view, we should either legalize everything or nothing. If we legalized it, people could choose how they want to live their lives without having to resort to theft or robbery just to fund a habit.

Public health insurance shouldn't be footing the bill for drug costs any more than it would cover buying booze for an alcoholic.

You're right, Harold Mendoza3, it was something like that with the Buggar folks. To be fair, I misspoke—HIV is the virus itself, while AIDS is the advanced stage of the infection—but I think we all get the gist of what I was getting at.

Check out WebMD if you want to read some actual patient experiences. Honestly, my encounters with OB-GYNs have been pretty grim lately. It feels like these doctors completely disregard a patient's dignity and basic rights, choosing instead to lead with pure arrogance and a "my way or the highway" attitude.