Why didn´t Miguel get Aids too?

Your posr is a couple of years old, but I already have been bumping old threads, so maybe this answer will help. They meant "receiver" as in Andy was likely the partner who had receptive anal intercourse, which is the easiest mode of transmission. Colloquially referred to as "a bottom" partner. Miguel was likely "a top"--insertive partner--where transmission is much less common.

This is assuming these two partners had anal intercourse. Many people don't know this, but some homosexual men aren't into anal sex. (It's true.) However, intercourse is more likely than not, so let's look at the numbers. "A top" partner with an infected partner has only about a 1 out of 1,500-1,600 chance of infection per act. (1 out of 909 from one study.) These stats are assuming circumsized and also acknowledged it can be higher when another STD that causes an open sore is active. (Although these stats may include such transmissions--it's fuzzy.)

A receptive partner's chance of being infected by a poz partner per act? Anywhere from 1 out of 58 to 1 out of 122, delending on the study.

It's easy to see how one partner--if they are, in fact, exclusively or even routinely the receptive partner--is at the greater risk. Miguel not getting it from Andy is very realistic even when assuming they had regular intercourse without protection before Andy became aware of his status. There are also going to be the rare people who can be exposed countless times (including receptive partners) who will never seroconvert. They likely have a gene that safegaurds them for the virus either for longer than most people or even forever.

There are so many things to consider for how some never get infected.

Actually, I think there is a small part of the European population that is somehow not as succeptible to the disease. They have something different about the marker or receptor on their cells that make it very difficult for them to get the disease, which some people think may be from the time of the plague (it made them less resistant to the plague).

But yeah, overall not really possible to be immune. Just a luck of the draw sometimes, I guess.

Not that this is the reason why, but it is impossible to be immune to AIDS just like how someone can be immune to something else. But it is a very small percentage of the population.

Your post is really old, but I can't not say something as it sits on this board unchallenged.

For starters, I was very receptive to HIV/AIDS dissidence. After all, science still could not explain so much with this disease, and even certain things did not pan out or were controversial. (Heterosexual epidemic that never was, apoptosis hypothesis, NRTI monotherapy disasters, CDC changing the criteria for AIDS even though now people spring back to non-AIDS even without antiretrovirals.)

However, years of Deusberg being wrong, the Perth Group being a joke, and HIV-positive dissidents with progressively lowering CD4 counts with increasing viral loads that either have died of classic AIDS or getting better when they "cave" and take antiretrovirals, led me to never supporting any dissident belief.

Not to mention all of the mounds and mounds and mounds of peer reviewed data that shows the entire genome of the virus and how it replicates. Yes, we still don't know why non-infected T-cells die. (Pyroptosis is likely the forefront of some very important answers.) It's important to realize we don't know the etiology of many diseases yet they still exist. I never want to hear fallacies about Gallo being a crook, Montagnier in broken English saying, "the virus can be cleared in healthy systems" (as if that means he doesn't think HIV is real). I don't want to hear about "the virus has not been isolated or purified." It. Is. All. Rubbish.

As of last month, the fifteen-year-old AIDS-denying message board finally shut down, after years of poz members either dying of classic AIDS or going on antiretrovirals after declining health and then getting better, so hopefully dissidents will really finally go away for the most part. (I'd be a fool to think they'll all disappear.) Some of the questioners are quite bright and bring up many important issues, and I support their decision to not be quick to take the drugs if natural treatments are working. Heck, even doctors are realizing the mantra "drugs into bodies now" can do more harm than good.

However, when a poz person has a steady decline of T-cells and increased viral loads, it's time they be proactive in their health care and not die for some ideology. AIDS denialism is what needs to die.

AIDS in Africa is not diagnosed with tests, it is diagnosed by symptoms, most of which are those of old diseases that have existed in Africa for centuries.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just stating the obvious.