Flux

[methodwriter85]

I'm with you on all of this except your inclusion of Wade.  I don't see Wade as a 'clotheshorse', rather, I see him dressing in expensive preppy clothes.  I can't imagine Wade wearing the latest fashions like JJ and Stef would.

 

    Good points.

 

     I've been hoping that you'd have JJ in some Burberry now that he's going to live in a colder environment and will need a lot more jackets and the life. So far you've only really mentioned Dior with him, and he doesn't really strike me as a "one label" guy. Burberry seems like something JJ would rock the hell out of, and it was at its most popular during this time period.

Edited July 6, 2014 by methodwriter85

[impunity]

    Good points.

 

     I've been hoping that you'd have JJ in some Burberry now that he's going to live in a colder environment and will need a lot more jackets and the life. So far you've only really mentioned Dior with him, and he doesn't really strike me as a "one label" guy. Burberry seems like something JJ would rock the hell out of, and it was at its most popular during this time period.

 

Fake Burberry was very popular among football 'hooligans' in the UK in the early 2000s, to the extent that the clothing was banned in bars.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/3583900.stm

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/burberry-shown-the-door-as-bars-ban-the-thugs-uniform-1.102961

Edited July 6, 2014 by impunity

[impunity]

Very interesting. That directly contradicts the information given in the Blood Born Pathogens class I completed three days ago in which saliva is classified as OPIM - other potentially infectious materials.

 

I'm not disputing that saliva can carry pathogens, just not HIV. As an example, meningococcal disease is spread through saliva. So is rabies.

 

I was going to reference the CDC, but Daddydavek beat me to it (above).

[John Prz]

Mhhh... I don't get one thing. If Brad is negative, how Matt could be positive? I'm missing a step...

 

Poor Cam, he finally see Matt for the great guy he is and the morning after he drops a bomb like that. I'm surprised he didn't freak out like a mad man. 

[damejintymcginty]

Think I missing the same step. If Matt says he only barebacked Wade then, using JP logic, Wade must have it. Where would he have got it? Either that or Matt's memory is faulty. Probably my memory is faulty!

Jinty

[Timothy M.]

I'm thinking Matt's previous problems with his kidneys may have messed up the results, the way it happened with JP. On the other hand its not like Mark to use the same plot ploy twice

 

If Matt really is positive and Wade is too, will this increase the likelihood of them being a couple again ? - or will they do the blame game we've seen with Kevin and Cody ? If Matt is positive and Wade isn't, what are the odds then ? If Wade even hints at Matt-being-a-slut-who-has-only-himself-to-blame attitude, I'll lose my respect for him.

 

But the question remains of course: who did Matt get it from originally ? If he has it... But maybe it doesn't matter if it's to be seen as another fall-out from the mess the CAP family members were in after 9/11. I cannot help but recall Brad's anger at Robbie for going back up without considering the consequences, I felt the same when I read that fateful chapter (silently screaming Fuck no, don't turn back, you idiot). In the end Matt may pay a higher price for his father's illogical and emotional ways/actions than Brad has.

[mmike1969]

Think I missing the same step. If Matt says he only barebacked Wade then, using JP logic, Wade must have it. Where would he have got it? Either that or Matt's memory is faulty. Probably my memory is faulty!

Jinty

 

Because Cody has a habit of barebacking Matt. 

[Henson]

Disregarding, for the moment, who gave what to whom (because it really doesn't matter)...

 

I'm with Matt. That information is personal. It belongs to you, and people you have sex with. No one else is entitled to it. Will's reaction was absolutely in character and what I would expect from him, but it is none of his business if his dad has HIV or not.

 

And even if Wade is positive, my take here is that he blew it. Going back to Matt is a way of saying to him, "you are the second choice I had to settle for because you gave me cooties." That's no foundation on which to build a relationship. Their old relationship is gone - he destroyed it when he ditched Matt, and it won't come back. They will be the best of friends for life (if he doesn't fuck that up too) but it would take decades to rebuild the kind of trust that can be made into a true partnership, and even then it would be something different. Beautiful, perhaps, but more mature.

[John Prz]

Because Cody has a habit of barebacking Matt. 

 

Yes back in Bloodlines. They didn't do anything recently at least that I remembered 

 

Mark can we have a poll? I would like to see who we think is to blame. (or also to see how many think it's a false positive)

 

I don't see Wade and Matt getting back together soon.

Will is really an asshole with Brad but he can be a really nice guy if he want

Edited July 8, 2014 by John Prz

[B1ue]

While for most people, I would agree with you Henson, for Brad and Will there are other complications. Brad is a control freak that likes to control other people specifically. He's been doing that, in one way or another, since becoming a narrator. He also likes to control information, and make a situation where he has it all and only dispenses what he feels other people need to know. I think it's important for Will, over and above everyone else aside from Stef, to show Brad that such tactics are not going to be allowed.

 

Plus, Brad can stonewall Will all he wants, but Will can as well. Once he's been emancipated, does Brad still have a legal right to know Will's medical history? Reminding Brad about that particular set up is probably to the general good.

[Mark Arbour]

While for most people, I would agree with you Henson, for Brad and Will there are other complications. Brad is a control freak that likes to control other people specifically. He's been doing that, in one way or another, since becoming a narrator. He also likes to control information, and make a situation where he has it all and only dispenses what he feels other people need to know. I think it's important for Will, over and above everyone else aside from Stef, to show Brad that such tactics are not going to be allowed.

 

Plus, Brad can stonewall Will all he wants, but Will can as well. Once he's been emancipated, does Brad still have a legal right to know Will's medical history? Reminding Brad about that particular set up is probably to the general good.

 

You addressed this much better than I could have.  Thanks.

 

Brad really doesn't have a legal right to know Will's medical history.  Then again, Brad is not necessarily the most law-abiding of citizens.

[Timothy M.]

Will's reaction was absolutely in character and what I would expect from him, but it is none of his business if his dad has HIV or not.

 

No, but having lost one parent (edit or actually two, ie his mom and Robbie, plus Hank), it's certainly understandable how Will would worry about losing Brad too. He may have been justifying his bitchy behaviour when he explains it to Matt, but normally Will is quite honest about how he feels (often painfully so  ). So I'm taking it at face value when he says:

 

“I don’t want to be in a situation where I have to fucking worry about him all the time and I have to quiz him all the time about it so I can sleep at night. And I need to know that when he does tell me, that he’s giving me the straight dope on it, and not some bullshit.”

Edited July 10, 2014 by Timothy M.

[Henson]

In the western world of today, HIV only really kills you if you never test and don't catch it, if you refuse to treat, or if it's paired with some other significant health problems.

 

That said, 2002 is not the world of today when the subject is HIV.  You guys are raising fair points, and the treatment that made my above statement reasonable was very, very new back then.

[Headstall]

In the western world of today, HIV only really kills you if you never test and don't catch it, if you refuse to treat, or if it's paired with some other significant health problems.

 

That said, 2002 is not the world of today when the subject is HIV.  You guys are raising fair points, and the treatment that made my above statement reasonable was very, very new back then.

While I agree totally with you here Henson, I think it should be pointed out that there are HIV positive people who are " fast progressors", meaning that that the disease progresses in them at such a rate that the cocktail is ineffective...people should always keep in mind that it is still potentially a deadly and fatal disease and the cocktail is not the answer for everyone, and it can be hit and miss sometimes to find the right combination of drugs for some people. As far as " False Positives" (in reference to Centexhairysubs great review)...I remember sitting with a friend at Hassle Free Clinic in Toronto while he got his positive results from one of the amazing people who volunteer there( a Doctor). This was in early February, 2003. Needless to say it was devastating but my point is that this doctor imparted on us the information that while not common...false positives did occur with a small degree of regularity, and that he had dealt with five of them in the previous couple of weeks. His cautioning to not get our hopes up was warranted in that there was no happy ending. I do not know if they still occur today, and if they do, to what degree, but I thought that this experience might be relevant for the time period Flux is in.

[Headstall]

Disregarding, for the moment, who gave what to whom (because it really doesn't matter)...

 

I'm with Matt. That information is personal. It belongs to you, and people you have sex with. No one else is entitled to it. Will's reaction was absolutely in character and what I would expect from him, but it is none of his business if his dad has HIV or not.

 

And even if Wade is positive, my take here is that he blew it. Going back to Matt is a way of saying to him, "you are the second choice I had to settle for because you gave me cooties." That's no foundation on which to build a relationship. Their old relationship is gone - he destroyed it when he ditched Matt, and it won't come back. They will be the best of friends for life (if he doesn't fuck that up too) but it would take decades to rebuild the kind of trust that can be made into a true partnership, and even then it would be something different. Beautiful, perhaps, but more mature.

This posting spoke to me for a number of reasons, and while I would like to keep a safe distance from what is happening in Flux...I can't seem to ignore this one.I agree with you in principle on the first part, I am kind of torn because the family dynamic is tricky...Will and his dad are facing the same reality everyday and they have both lost bigtime when Robbie died. I get that Will needs reassurance from Brad, and while needy and maybe even fundamentally wrong, the dad part of me thinks that Brad should try to understand and give Will what he seems to need. Will would never hurt his dad with any information Brad gives him and Brad needs to realize that he sometimes has to give up control in order to HELP his son and other family members. Maybe I am thinking this way because Will is my hero right now because he did to Wade what nobody else in the family would. Finally someone got it...and it turned out to be 15 year old Will...and he got it perfectly...it was a thing of beauty as well as a thing of duty that Will took on FOR THE FAMILY! It wasn't selfish or self serving...it was just Will driving to the heart of the matter and calling Wade out on the enormity of what he has done (the mother comment was so bang on).

As far as your take on Wade with regard to Matt...I totally get it. There used to be a Wade I loved but I don't really know this Wade. And as much as I hate him and what he has done and how he has so far justified it...I still think there is a way he could redeem himself in Matt's and my eyes. The old Wade...I would have had some faith in. This one...not so much. I don't know if he has what it takes to do the soul searching needed to face his own reality and do what it takes. It is my belief that he needs to admit some things to himself before he would have any right to consider himself Matt's equal. My somewhat cynical guess is that he will just go on his merry way with his English twin(please note scorn) if he has the choice. I no longer carry false hope with me about Wade's character...but unlike you..I do think the ball is in Wade's court if he so chooses. Once again I have proved that I am not capable of a succinct post....cheers Henson...your posts seem to always strike a chord with me...Gary

[impunity]

As far as " False Positives" (in reference to Centexhairysubs great review)...I remember sitting with a friend at Hassle Free Clinic in Toronto while he got his positive results from one of the amazing people who volunteer there( a Doctor). This was in early February, 2003. Needless to say it was devastating but my point is that this doctor imparted on us the information that while not common...false positives did occur with a small degree of regularity, and that he had dealt with five of them in the previous couple of weeks. His cautioning to not get our hopes up was warranted in that there was no happy ending. I do not know if they still occur today, and if they do, to what degree, but I thought that this experience might be relevant for the time period Flux is in.

Screening tests (which look for antibodies) are designed to maximize sensitivity, which means there will always be false positives. However, molecular (PCR-based) confirmatory tests, which were widely available in 2002, make it extremely unlikely that a false positive would not be detected as such within a few days. Edited July 10, 2014 by impunity

[Mark Arbour]

Screening tests (which look for antibodies) are designed to maximize sensitivity, which means there will always be false positives. However, molecular (PCR-based) confirmatory tests, which were widely available in 2002, make it extremely unlikely that a false positive would not be detected as such within a few days.

 

Which should make for a tense few days for Matt.

[Headstall]

Screening tests (which look for antibodies) are designed to maximize sensitivity, which means there will always be false positives. However, molecular (PCR-based) confirmatory tests, which were widely available in 2002, make it extremely unlikely that a false positive would not be detected as such within a few days.

 

Thanks impunity. I am not entirely certain but it seems to me that it took at least 4-5 days for his positive status to be confirmed...and it seemed longer. I appreciate the info. Cheers

[impunity]

Screening tests (which look for antibodies) are designed to maximize sensitivity, which means there will always be false positives. However, molecular (PCR-based) confirmatory tests, which were widely available in 2002, make it extremely unlikely that a false positive would not be detected as such within a few days.

 

Actually, after further research, I am going to have to retract this. PCR-based tests for HIV were available in 2002, but they were approved by the FDA only for quantitative monitoring of viral levels in the blood (to guide decisions about treatment), not for diagnostic testing.

Sorry about that.

 

I do know that some academic centers were using PCR as a confirmatory test at the time. The University of Chicago was one of these.

 

False positives with the screening and confirmatory tests commonly used at the time were rare.

[Mark Arbour]

Actually, after further research, I am going to have to retract this. PCR-based tests for HIV were available in 2002, but they were approved by the FDA only for quantitative monitoring of viral levels in the blood (to guide decisions about treatment), not for diagnostic testing.

Sorry about that.

 

I do know that some academic centers were using PCR as a confirmatory test at the time. The University of Chicago was one of these.

 

False positives with the screening and confirmatory tests commonly used at the time were rare.

 

My understanding was that the standard test use for confirmation was the Western Blot, but I'm quite possibly wrong about that.

[impunity]

My understanding was that the standard test use for confirmation was the Western Blot, but I'm quite possibly wrong about that.

 

Yes, either Western Blot or IFA (immunofluorescent assay). But most people will have heard of the Western Blot.

[impunity]

You know, it was actually quite easy. I labored over whether to have Wade narrate, as this isn't his story, but I just had an overriding desire to jump in and show the reader what he was thinking. So it was really kind of a relief, to be able to do that.

 

Certainly easier than continuously having to justify Wade's actions in the forum.  

[Mark Arbour]

Certainly easier than continuously having to justify Wade's actions in the forum.

 

Too funny. 

 

People don't always do what they're supposed to do, or react how they're supposed to react.  When a character like Wade, who is so solid and steady, does something completely unexpected and out of character, it doesn't mean it's not plausible, but it does require an explanation.  In a serial story, that explanation is sometimes a gradual process, so I don't really mind having to ease readers through that time delayed process. 

[Henson]

That's a very fair POV.

 

He gets it, understands he's being a shit, even feels bad about it, but plows on anyway. I think we've all danced that dance.

 

My concern is the sexual mismatch. Speaking from experience, that much of a mismatch is untenable over the long term in a couple where monogamy is desired or expected. Dude is treating Wade like a woman. I always said it takes a bottom to really know how to top well.

[GLH]

I've kept my council and said nothing to this point, but Wade's a bastard.