Jump to content
World's Largest Herpes Support Group
2kroc

JUST WEAR CLOTHES DURING SEX!

Recommended Posts

2kroc

This just occurred to me, 90% of us could've avoided contracting herpes by just wearing clothes during sex. It's impossible transmit herpes if theres no skin to skin contact!  

Just unzip your pants and put on a condom. Yes, there are little exposed areas in the zipper openings but you could easily modify your clothing for this. Heck, put in a little bit of coconut oil or whatever in the crotch area and that should provide decent protection for those little areas. Yes, Certain clothes can be uncomfortable to bang in so I reccomend looking for loose fitting clothing like cotton sweatshirts and sweatpants (poke a hole in em).

If you have oral herpes then just dont kiss or rub necks.

you simply can't deny that If people commonly wore clothes during sex then herpes infection rates would be cut down by MORE THAN HALF. It's so simple yet you don't see any major businesses or companies developing on this simple concept. What a corrupt world we live in.

 

 

 

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
1 hour ago, 35hope said:

rub necks?

sometimes people have  herpes in the neck/chin area due to deep make out sessions, so i suggest avoid contact anywhere above the neck area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePrinceofPoon

I have thought of this before but it doesn't always work. Many people get obs on their legs/thighs and not their genitals (like me) and even with underwear on covering the ob area it can still be passed on because of the tiny holes in the underwear.

Maybe if you wore thick jeans it could prevent risk of transmission but I don't see how that would be fun or sexy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
16 minutes ago, ThePrinceofPoon said:

I have thought of this before but it doesn't always work. Many people get obs on their legs/thighs and not their genitals (like me) and even with underwear on covering the ob area it can still be passed on because of the tiny holes in the underwear.

Maybe if you wore thick jeans it could prevent risk of transmission but I don't see how that would be fun or sexy.

Of course, I'm not talking about just wearing a thong or whitey tidies.That would achieve nothing. Indeed, My herpes outbreaks are located in my legs/thighs which is what led me to this line of thought. I'm talking about full body clothing. You wouldn't even need thick jeans, Simple cotton jogging pants would do just fine. Their nice, non-friction, light, flexible and more than thick enough to prevent herpes virus transmission.  

Although the groin region is susceptible, however if the hole is small enough only for the penis to get through it should provide decent covering for the scrotum.

Yes, It should ALWAYS work. If you're talking about herpes then simple clothing should be just as effective as a hypothetical full-body condom. Assuming that clothing remains BETWEEN the two sexual partners bodies.

 

Onesie_peter_animation.png

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quest

I have brought up latex, I think it is very sexy! My boyfriend said no to boxers:perverted: what about the liquid gloves to protect the rest of the ground area? Amazing video if it is real!?!

s-l1600.jpg

41Ub-LVCkbL.jpg

s-l640.jpg

Edited by Quest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ill47

I assume the OP is a joke, but something like the scro-guard would have been useful for discordant couples and I don't understand why there isn't something like that for couple who have one negative and one positive partner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quest

I want more protection for my partner.  I think lovers will do anything for sweet heat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
1 hour ago, ill47 said:

I assume the OP is a joke, but something like the scro-guard would have been useful for discordant couples and I don't understand why there isn't something like that for couple who have one negative and one positive partner. 

Nope, not a joke at all. If you adhere to  the effectiveness scroguard then why not full on pants? The only difference is that scro guard potentially protects against vaginal fluids, but that's not the topic here.

 I've had sex fully clothed before, it does not take away much from the experience due to the fact the penis and vaginal regions compose most of the physical sensations during sex.

I dont understand the scrutiny against this. Do you really need to be naked  to enjoy sex? Youd rather risk your partners health or not have sex at all then just fuck in a good pair of duds?

This is freedom, this is a solution. Yet weve been conditioned to be closeminded that we cant work our minds around such trivial matters as quarter inch of cloth ruining our libido?

Ay caramba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
20 hours ago, 2kroc said:

This just occurred to me, 90% of us could've avoided contracting herpes by just wearing clothes during sex. It's impossible transmit herpes if theres no skin to skin contact!  

Just unzip your pants and put on a condom. Yes, there are little exposed areas in the zipper openings but you could easily modify your clothing for this. Heck, put in a little bit of coconut oil or whatever in the crotch area and that should provide decent protection for those little areas. Yes, Certain clothes can be uncomfortable to bang in so I reccomend looking for loose fitting clothing like cotton sweatshirts and sweatpants (poke a hole in em).

If you have oral herpes then just dont kiss or rub necks.

you simply can't deny that If people commonly wore clothes during sex then herpes infection rates would be cut down by MORE THAN HALF. It's so simple yet you don't see any major businesses or companies developing on this simple concept. What a corrupt world we live in.

 

 

 

No Sir, 90% of us would not have avoided hsv by wearing clothes during sex. Ridiculous.

The skin to skin contact that results in obtaining ghsv, occurs at the genitals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc

Again, Clothes can indeed cover your genitals.  I've had clothes sex, my balls werent exposed  and at most the tiny space between the base of condom and balls was the only spot that couldve had any sort of exposure. And even if that's a problem, that just means that only 1% of your body is it at risk for herpes. 

 

You're mistaken, Ghsv can occur anywhere hence certain terms such as "oral ghsv". I have ghsv on my inner thighs and the girl that gave it to me probably had it on her ass. If I had been wearing jogger pants while I was hitting, my inner thigh WOULDN'T have been exposed. You cant dispute this

 

Clothed sex is safer sex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
58 minutes ago, 2kroc said:

Again, Clothes can indeed cover your genitals.  I've had clothes sex, my balls werent exposed  and at most the tiny space between the base of condom and balls was the only spot that couldve had any sort of exposure. And even if that's a problem, that just means that only 1% of your body is it at risk for herpes. 

 

You're mistaken, Ghsv can occur anywhere hence certain terms such as "oral ghsv". I have ghsv on my inner thighs and the girl that gave it to me probably had it on her ass. If I had been wearing jogger pants while I was hitting, my inner thigh WOULDN'T have been exposed. You cant dispute this

 

Clothed sex is safer sex

Sir, no clothes are going to protect an infected penis from making contact with the lips and inner area of the vagina. And no clothes are going to protect an infected vagina from making contact with a penis.

oral ghsv??? What are you talking about??? The only connection between oral and ghsv is from oral sex; e.g. a person with ohsv performs oral sex OR a person with ghsv has oral sex performed on them. Oral dams are used for protection in those situations, NOT CLOTHES!

Herpes can occur anywhere? No shit!  So what does that have to do with clothes and GHSV ?

Are we going to mention some outside case where the woman has hsv on her butt cheek and then rubs her butt cheek against a mans penis? Would clothes covering her butt have prevented that exposure? Sure. But that doesn't represent 90% of ghsv exposure and infection.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9

This thread is somewhat ridiculous. But I do greatly appreciate the picture of the lady in latex :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
32 minutes ago, Cas9 said:

Sir, no clothes are going to protect an infected penis from making contact with the lips and inner area of the vagina. And no clothes are going to protect an infected vagina from making contact with a penis.

oral ghsv??? What are you talking about??? The only connection between oral and ghsv is from oral sex; e.g. a person with ohsv performs oral sex OR a person with ghsv has oral sex performed on them. Oral dams are used for protection in that situation, NOT CLOTHES!

Herpes can occur anywhere? No shit!  So what does that have to do with clothes and GHSV ?

Are we going to mention some outside case where the woman has hsv on her butt cheek and then rubs her butt cheek against a mans penis? Would clothes covering her butt have prevented that exposure? Sure. But that doesn't represent 90% of ghsv exposure and infection.

"Sir, no clothes are going to protect an infected penis from making contact with the lips and inner area of the vagina. And no clothes are going to protect an infected vagina from making contact with a penis."

Are you serious?  Thats what condoms are for. I'm not telling  people quit using condoms, I never implied that. That should be common sense. I shouldn't even have to address it 

"oral ghsv??? What are you talking about??? The only connection between oral and ghsv is from oral sex; e.g. a person with ohsv performs oral sex OR a person with ghsv has oral sex performed on them. Oral dams are used for protection in that situation, NOT CLOTHES!

Herpes can occur anywhere? No shit!  So what does that have to do with clothes and GHSV ?

Are we going to mention some outside case where the woman has hsv on her butt cheek and then rubs her butt cheek against a mans penis? Would clothes covering her butt have prevented that exposure? Sure. But that doesn't represent 90% of ghsv exposure and infection."

Yes, I agree ghsv can be transmitted through oral sex and is most commonly found in the genital region. My point with that was to simply show u that it can be found anywhere. To which u also, agree. that aside, this is irrelevant.

 

"Sure. But that doesn't represent 90% of ghsv exposure and infection."

I slightly disagree, if 90% of ghsv is coming from the genital region then it's from unprotected penises and vaginas, which is what condoms are for.

The other areas of the genital region where condoms dont protect are the major risk. Which CAN be covered.

As for the other regions (testicles, perineum, lower abdominals, etc) clothes CAN cover those areas, As I've explained thoroughly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
1 minute ago, 2kroc said:

"Sir, no clothes are going to protect an infected penis from making contact with the lips and inner area of the vagina. And no clothes are going to protect an infected vagina from making contact with a penis."

Are you serious?  Thats what condoms are for. I'm not telling  people quit using condoms, I never implied that. That should be common sense. I shouldn't even have to address it 

"oral ghsv??? What are you talking about??? The only connection between oral and ghsv is from oral sex; e.g. a person with ohsv performs oral sex OR a person with ghsv has oral sex performed on them. Oral dams are used for protection in that situation, NOT CLOTHES!

Herpes can occur anywhere? No shit!  So what does that have to do with clothes and GHSV ?

Are we going to mention some outside case where the woman has hsv on her butt cheek and then rubs her butt cheek against a mans penis? Would clothes covering her butt have prevented that exposure? Sure. But that doesn't represent 90% of ghsv exposure and infection."

Yes, I agree ghsv can be transmitted through oral sex but is most commonly found in the genital region. My point with that was to simply show u that it can be found anywhere. To which u also, agree. that aside, this is irrelevant.

 

"Sure. But that doesn't represent 90% of ghsv exposure and infection."

I slightly disagree, if 90% of ghsv is coming from the genital region then it's from unprotected penises and vaginas, which is what condoms are for.

The other areas where condoms dont protect are the major risk. 

As for the other regions (testicles, perineum, lower abdominals, etc) clothes CAN cover those areas, As I've explained thoroughly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Lord, it is so difficult explaining to you.  What I'm saying is that the clothes are UNNECESSARY when a person has hsv on their genitals, BECAUSE THEY DON'T do a damn thing!!! That's what the condom is for. That's what's required, NOT CLOTHES!!!

The rest of your comment really makes no sense; i.e. it doesn't justify the comment that 90% of ghsv would have been prevented had we been wearing clothes during sex. But please, do go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
1 hour ago, Cas9 said:

Dear Lord, it is so difficult explaining to you.  What I'm saying is that the clothes are UNNECESSARY when a person has hsv on their genitals, BECAUSE THEY DON'T do a damn thing!!! That's what the condom is for. That's what's required, NOT CLOTHES!!!

The rest of your comment really makes no sense; i.e. it doesn't justify the comment that 90% of ghsv would have been prevented had we been wearing clothes during sex. But please, do go on.

Its difficult for you explain because you dont even understand your own statements or what "genital region" implies.

Condoms are designed only to protect the penis. Not the entire "genital" region as you seem to think according to your comment. 

Ill spell it out for you, that clothing will protect the REST of the genital region. This includes inner thighs, pelvis, groin, perineum, everywhere else around the penis.  Since condoms cannot protect beyond the penis it is the job of clothing to protect the surrounding areas.

They will damn thing because they will prevent skin to skin contact.

I'll rephrase it a few more times again, just for you. So you understand that I understand 

>I'm not suggesting in any way shape or  form that you should put a sock over your penis.

>clothes cannot replace condoms for penis protection

>only condoms can protect the penis.

>Condoms do not protect the surrounding genital regions of the penis.

>the genital region composes of penis and its surrounding areas (Which the condom cannot protect but clothes can).

USE CONDOMS DURING SEX

----------------------------------

 

The percentage is irrelevant. If MOST people got herpes on their penis or inner vaginas then, they should've wore a condom.

 

 My main point for that is that wearing clothes during sex couldve prevented from  herpes in instances were herpes was contracted in areas surrounding the penis.

 

Do you understand now? I'm saying that people should wear clothes AND condoms during sex to provide maximum protection from herpes. I shouldn't have even had to break this down.

 

Before u respond

just think for about it 2 minutes. During sex, If you're not kissing, youre wearing sweatshirt, sweats pants with a hole poked small enough for only your penis to get through, AND A CONDOM (which is protecting the penis to its base) then were is the risk for herpes? Where is the risk for skin friction?

The only possible scenario of exposure  is the centimeter ring of skin between the sweatpants and base of the condom. And that if the hole is too big.  Scroguard would SOLVE THAT PROBLEM COMPLETELY.

 

If there is no skin friction, Cas9, you simply have no argument. Instead of getting pissed like a kid, u tell me where the friction is. Tell me logically. If not then either agree or leave.

 

 

 

 

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9

The majority of infection occurs at the genitals, not the area surrounding the genitals. I thought my comments made that clear. So, no, 90% of cases would not have been prevented by being clothed, which has been my contention all along. They would have been prevented by simply wearing a condom. The Scro guard is reasonable for those cases where the infection is just outside the immediate area of the penis; e.g. the scrotum.  That should be good enough. I see nothing wrong with the scro guard. Being clothed, as you suggest, is not required.

Edited by Cas9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
1 hour ago, Cas9 said:

The majority of infection occurs at the genitals, not the area surrounding the genitals. I thought my comments made that clear. So, no, 90% of cases would not have been prevented by being clothed, which has been my contention all along. They would have been prevented by simply wearing a condom. The Scro guard is reasonable for those cases where the infection is just outside the immediate area of the penis; e.g. the scrotum.  That should be good enough. I see nothing wrong with the scro guard. Being clothed, as you suggest, is not required.

 

"The majority of infection occurs at the genitals, not the area surrounding the genitals. I thought my comments made that clear. So, no, 90% of cases would not have been prevented by being clothed, which has been my contention all along."

You and I have 2 different ideas of what the genital region is. You refer to penis, I refer to the penis and surrounding areas as the genital region. This doesn't matter. You could've made yourself clearer by simply stating the penis and vagina are the most common sites for infection. 

I used condom and I still got herpes on my thighs because they were not protected by the condom. Not even scro-guard would've blocked the area. Pants would've saved me  though.

People can easily have herpes and hpv on their tummies,  breast, necks, ass hips, etc that in itself is a strong enough to reason to wear clothes during sex. Scroguard will not protect those extra areas, therefore, clothes are required as I've suggested. Even if the chance of someone having herpes anywhere else but the penis is 1%, it's still worth wearing clothes if you have sex with a stranger.

The fact that this could've prevent me from getting herpes is enough for me to SUGGEST THIS! This shit should be common knowledge and a viable option for everyone.

Also consider the migratory nature of herpes and asymptomatic shedding, GHSV can spread to other places of the body. If your clothed then that becomes a non-issue.

 

Anyway, What is your issue? You seem to agree with me on all major points. As long you're wearing a condom, scroguard, and clothes there is virtually no way for you to transmit or recieve herpes. At this point, you're just arguing to argue.

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
4 minutes ago, 2kroc said:

 

"The majority of infection occurs at the genitals, not the area surrounding the genitals. I thought my comments made that clear. So, no, 90% of cases would not have been prevented by being clothed, which has been my contention all along."

You and I have 2 different ideas of what the genital region is. You refer to penis, I refer to the penis and surrounding areas as the genital region. This doesn't matter. You could've made yourself clearer by simply stating the penis and vagina are the most common sites for infection. 

I used condom and I still got herpes on my thighs because they were not protected by the condom. Not even scro-guard would've blocked the area. Pants would've saved me  though.

People can easily have herpes and hpv on their tummies,  breast, necks, ass hips, etc that in itself is a strong enough to reason to wear clothes during sex. Scroguard will not protect those extra areas, therefore, clothes are required as I've suggested. Even if the chance of someone having herpes anywhere else but the penis is 1%, it's still worth wearing clothes if you have sex with a stranger.

The fact that this could've prevent me from getting herpes is enough for me to SUGGEST THIS! This shit should be common knowledge and a viable option for everyone.

Also consider the migratory nature of herpes and asymptomatic shedding, GHSV can spread to other places of the body. If your clothed then that becomes a non-issue.

 

Anyway, What is your issue? You seem to agree with me on all major points. As long you're wearing a condom, scroguard, and clothes there is virtually no way for you to transmit or recieve herpes. At this point, you're just arguing to argue.

I'm arguing that being clothed the way you are suggesting, is not necessary; It's overkill and will not result in a 90% reduction of cases. Covering just the penis with a condom, would greatly reduce the spread of infection. Covering the area just outside the penis (e.g. scrotum) would also help and that's where something like scro guard would help. But I think it's quite reasonable to say that the percentage of transmission from the scrotum is far less than the penis.

Other than that, those other areas you speak of are very unlikely to spread infection via shedding because they are in contact with the areas of the partner that have a thicker skin. They would also not necessarily be associated with the sacral ganglia so it wouldn't result in ghsv. If there were sores present instead of just shedding, the thicker skin would still be in play AND it would be more obvious that sores were present so the one with the sores would avoid contact with their partner in those areas.

The bottom line is that being clothed would have very little effect on hsv transmission. Your position was that it would have a major affect (you said 90%). I disagree with that. If my position is still not clear, I don't know how else to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
51 minutes ago, Cas9 said:

I'm arguing that being clothed the way you are suggesting, is not necessary; It's overkill and will not result in a 90% reduction of cases. Covering just the penis with a condom, would greatly reduce the spread of infection. Covering the area just outside the penis (e.g. scrotum) would also help and that's where something like scro guard would help. But I think it's quite reasonable to say that the percentage of transmission from the scrotum is far less than the penis.

Other than that, those other areas you speak of are very unlikely to spread infection via shedding because they are in contact with the areas of the partner that have a thicker skin. They would also not necessarily be associated with the sacral ganglia so it wouldn't result in ghsv. If there were sores present instead of just shedding, the thicker skin would still be in play AND it would be more obvious that sores were present so the one with the sores would avoid contact with their partner in those areas.

The bottom line is that being clothed would have very little effect on hsv transmission. Your position was that it would have a major affect (you said 90%). I disagree with that. If my position is still not clear, I don't know how else to explain it.

"Other than that, those other areas you speak of are very unlikely to spread infection via shedding because they are in contact with the areas of the partner that have a thicker skin. They would also not necessarily be associated with the sacral ganglia so it wouldn't result in ghsv. If there were sores present instead of just shedding, the thicker skin would still be in play AND it would be more obvious that sores were present so the one with the sores would avoid contact with their partner in those areas."

Bullshit. This is how I got genital herpes! My "thicker skin" in that area did jack shit to protect me. I checked her ass and body, saw no sores yet i still caught it there. Condoms didn't stop it, and if you look at the scro-guard it does not protect the area i've mentioned. In my specific case, pants would've prevented infection. Are you going to address this?

"The bottom line is that being clothed would have very little effect on hsv transmission. Your position was that it would have a major affect (you said 90%). I disagree with that. If my position is still not clear, I don't know how else to explain it."

Ok, If penis/vaginal infection is where the majority (90%) of herpes infections happen then I'm wrong in stating it would've prevented most herpes causes. A condom is all that's needed. But this not mean wearing clothes is overkill or unnecessary. You don't need to bring this up anymore.

 

 But clothing/scro guard would prevent every other case WHICH IS STILL A LARGE   RELEVANT AMOUNT; A CONCERN. My situation is proof positive that wearing something beyond a condom and scroto guard is not enough. How have wearing pants have been overkill?  I'll repeat it again, My situation is proof positive that wearing something beyond a condom and scroto guard is not enough, how would wearing pants have been overkill?l This is why in an individual scenario, it  makes complete sense to wear pants before sex. Why bother risking it? You don't know how immune you are and you don't know how contagious she is.

So all this shit about tummy and leg herpes not being worth the precautions? Just no. 

Btw it's called Herpes Gladitorum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_gladiatorum

"In one of the largest outbreaks ever among high-school wrestlers at a four-week intensive training camp, HSV was identified in 60 of 175 wrestlers. Lesions were on the head in 73 percent of the wrestlers, the extremities in 42 percent, and the trunk in 28 percent.[3] "

These statistics are big enough to requisite clothing use. Take note of how the COVERED torso areas had the lowest percentage.

Also, Scro-guard is no longer being produced because assholes kept mocking it online. Therefore clothing is all we have now to protect the regions beyond the penis, in absence of the scro-guard which you acknowledge as useful.

 

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc

"The bottom line is that being clothed would have very little effect on hsv transmission. Your position was that it would have a major affect (you said 90%)."

 

no no no, i could care less about the 90%. If someone's too dumb to use a condom, that's their fault. I'm talking about maximum sexual protection for each individual scenario beyond condom use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
3 minutes ago, 2kroc said:

"The bottom line is that being clothed would have very little effect on hsv transmission. Your position was that it would have a major affect (you said 90%)."

 

no no no, i could care less about the 90%. If someone's too dumb to use a condom, that's their fault. I'm talking about maximum sexual protection for each individual scenario beyond condom use.

Your very first sentence of your OP:
"This just occurred to me, 90% of us could've avoided contracting herpes by just wearing clothes during sex."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2kroc
7 minutes ago, Cas9 said:

Your very first sentence of your OP:
"This just occurred to me, 90% of us could've avoided contracting herpes by just wearing clothes during sex."

So what? I already addressed this, now you're just grasping at straws. You quoting either shows you're desperate or do not understand the debate going on here.

"Ok, If penis/vaginal infection is where the majority (90%) of herpes infections happen then I'm wrong in stating it would've prevented most herpes causes. A condom is all that's needed. But this not mean wearing clothes is overkill or unnecessary. You don't need to bring this up anymore."

 

Edited by 2kroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cas9
1 minute ago, 2kroc said:

So what? I already addressed this, now you're just grasping at straws. You quoting either shows you're desperate or do not understand the debate going on here.

"Ok, If penis/vaginal infection is where the majority (90%) of herpes infections happen then I'm wrong in stating it would've prevented most herpes causes. A condom is all that's needed. But this not mean wearing clothes is overkill or unnecessary. You don't need to bring this up anymore."

 

Good, I'm glad you finally admitted you were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Advertisement

Try a Lysine supplement for cold sores

  • The Hive is Thriving!

    • Total Topics
      68,848
    • Total Posts
      460,466
  • Posts

    • emz
      Is someone able to kindly explain to me what synergy products actually do without opinions or disagreements on its effectiveness? For example what ingredients are involved and how does it aim to target the virus. Can't find any info online. Hope someone can help. Many thanks 
    • Roja
      Why is it your worst fear to have GHSV-1? 
    • Miss Horne
      Not sure if this has already been mentioned before, could we donate to his lab? Hsv specifically? 
    • Gems
      It can be very difficult to diagnose I do not know the lab discussed here but I have read about sexual health clinics that no longer use the blood tests for this reason of false negatives. Even swabs can be hard they were in my case.  I know I have it and never resorted to the biopsy.

      Do your own research and consult with GP's. I would assume you have this until its totally ruled out.  

      I read about a person on this site who tested neg on the IgG and pos on the weston blot.

      Please do your own research. 
    • Gems
      If it is an issue why not speak to admin about creating two separate threads...one for those looking at natural management and "supposed" natural cures and one looking at medical breakthroughs. That way both interests are served, no one is offended and people who wish to look at both can. No one is excluded and everyone included. Those who want to stay with the medical threads can. Maybe there will be less issues that way. 

      Personally I would prefer not to engage with those who are seeking vaccines and gene tech ect esp if they are nasty or condescending and prefer to support and encourage like minded without the excessive debates in a supported enviro.

      Just putting it out there.

      @Heatbroken Sydney

       
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.