Study: Undetectable Guys Do Not Transmit HIV To Negative Sex Partners

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2014 3:44 AM GMT
    Undetectable Guys Do Not Transmit HIV To Negative Sex Partners

    Here's the study's data:

    http://www.aidsmap.com/No-one-with-an-undetectable-viral-load-gay-or-heterosexual-transmits-HIV-in-first-two-years-of-PARTNER-study/page/2832748
  • TDSmoove

    Posts: 131

    Mar 06, 2014 4:35 PM GMT
    Potentially great news for HIV+/- couples. The HIV+ partner better have his shit together and stick with his regimen. Interesting that those in the study that did become infected didn't get from the guy they knew was infected but undetectable... They got it from someone they they may or may not have known about.
  • safety43_mma1...

    Posts: 4251

    Mar 06, 2014 4:38 PM GMT
    That is very interesting to me but I am sorry noway. I value my life so I don't take chances like that. I mean I don't have a problem with people with HIV or anything like that just sounds to risky to me
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2014 10:40 PM GMT
    safety43_mma170 saidThat is very interesting to me but I am sorry noway. I value my life so I don't take chances like that. I mean I don't have a problem with people with HIV or anything like that just sounds to risky to me


    Yeah its still risky and I wouldn't go through that either, but it's great news anyways.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 5:58 AM GMT
    Statistically it's more dangerous to have sex with a stated so called "negative" person than undetectable guys. The "DDF HIV- since 12/2013" guys are more likely to have HIV since their long ago test. And then there are the guys who don't get tested at all, but say they are negative.

    BEST:
    "I'm HIV positive, undetectable."
    People in this group clearly know their status. They take HIV medications every day and see a medical provider regularly. The amount of HIV virus in their blood is suppressed below the threshold detectable by available tests. An undetectable viral load greatly reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission. News coming from the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston highlighted the encouraging results of a recent study: HIV positive patients on anti-retroviral treatment who are virally suppressed did not transmit HIV to their negative partners.

    WORST:
    "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).
    Some of the "neg" guys out there belong to this troublesome group. At some point they tested negative for HIV. Months or even years later they believe their status hasn't changed. They proudly assert it left and right. They may even have condomless sex with other self-proclaimed "neg" men (a harm reduction technique called sero-sorting). Sexually active people who uses condoms inconsistently and don't test for HIV regularly cannot call themselves HIV negative. Many may be uninfected indeed, yet among them there are those who belong to the 20 percent of folks unaware of there their HIV positive status. The lack of knowledge laying on a faulty sense of awareness is an aggravating issue for this group.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renato-barucco/beyond-poz-and-neg-five-h_b_5039729.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 4:44 PM GMT
    unckabasa saidStatistically it's more dangerous to have sex with a stated so called "negative" person than undetectable guys. The "DDF HIV- since 12/2013" guys are more likely to have HIV since their long ago test. And then there are the guys who don't get tested at all, but say they are negative.

    BEST:
    "I'm HIV positive, undetectable."
    People in this group clearly know their status. They take HIV medications every day and see a medical provider regularly. The amount of HIV virus in their blood is suppressed below the threshold detectable by available tests. An undetectable viral load greatly reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission. News coming from the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston highlighted the encouraging results of a recent study: HIV positive patients on anti-retroviral treatment who are virally suppressed did not transmit HIV to their negative partners.

    WORST:
    "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).
    Some of the "neg" guys out there belong to this troublesome group. At some point they tested negative for HIV. Months or even years later they believe their status hasn't changed. They proudly assert it left and right. They may even have condomless sex with other self-proclaimed "neg" men (a harm reduction technique called sero-sorting). Sexually active people who uses condoms inconsistently and don't test for HIV regularly cannot call themselves HIV negative. Many may be uninfected indeed, yet among them there are those who belong to the 20 percent of folks unaware of there their HIV positive status. The lack of knowledge laying on a faulty sense of awareness is an aggravating issue for this group.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renato-barucco/beyond-poz-and-neg-five-h_b_5039729.html


    Hmmm.....so why would I have risky sex with either group? If you're on the meds and with a super low count - safe sex please. If you're neg - safe sex please. Like that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 6:56 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    unckabasa saidStatistically it's more dangerous to have sex with a stated so called "negative" person than undetectable guys. The "DDF HIV- since 12/2013" guys are more likely to have HIV since their long ago test. And then there are the guys who don't get tested at all, but say they are negative.

    BEST:
    "I'm HIV positive, undetectable."
    People in this group clearly know their status. They take HIV medications every day and see a medical provider regularly. The amount of HIV virus in their blood is suppressed below the threshold detectable by available tests. An undetectable viral load greatly reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission. News coming from the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston highlighted the encouraging results of a recent study: HIV positive patients on anti-retroviral treatment who are virally suppressed did not transmit HIV to their negative partners.

    WORST:
    "I'm HIV negative." (Or at least he thinks he is).
    Some of the "neg" guys out there belong to this troublesome group. At some point they tested negative for HIV. Months or even years later they believe their status hasn't changed. They proudly assert it left and right. They may even have condomless sex with other self-proclaimed "neg" men (a harm reduction technique called sero-sorting). Sexually active people who uses condoms inconsistently and don't test for HIV regularly cannot call themselves HIV negative. Many may be uninfected indeed, yet among them there are those who belong to the 20 percent of folks unaware of there their HIV positive status. The lack of knowledge laying on a faulty sense of awareness is an aggravating issue for this group.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renato-barucco/beyond-poz-and-neg-five-h_b_5039729.html


    Hmmm.....so why would I have risky sex with either group? If you're on the meds and with a super low count - safe sex please. If you're neg - safe sex please. Like that.


    Note the last line: "The lack of knowledge laying on a faulty sense of awareness is an aggravating issue for this group."

    You wouldn't. Hopefully you don't have "risky" sex with anyone but your lover in a monogamous relationship. BUT Ask the 4 people from the PARTNERS STUDY who came up positive, BUT NOT FROM THEIR HIV/UNDETECTABLE PARTNER, note the virus was genetically tested. They fooled around and got HIV (from a "said" Neg. guy.....wanna bet?)

    But it's from "best" to "worst" case scenario. IF you are going to have sex, at least play your odds right. "Safe" is not sero-sorting (Neg 4 Neg because they say so).

    "IF you're negative" is the key here. People distrust HIV+ people inherently. After 30 years of stigmatization it's no surprise. And that includes HIV+/Undetectable. That people on meds (HIV+/Undetectable and HIV- on PreP) are the safest doesn't mean you shouldn't wear condoms. They are only PART of the equation. They break! And IF they break who would you feel better with as a partner?????? And the condom success rate is less than oral sex, PrEP ( PrEP reduced the risk of infection by as much as 92%), or HIV+/U (essentially "zero").

    "The rate of new HIV diagnosis among men who attempted always to use condoms was 1.5%, among patients who had unprotected sex but tried only to do it with same-status partners was 2.6%[That's sero-sorting GUYS....almost 2X higher!], and among men who had unprotected sex regardless was 4.1%. Adjusting for the number of partners (though not for their HIV status), attempted consistent condom use was 76% effective in preventing new HIV infections."
    http://www.aidsmap.com/Condom-efficacy-in-gay-men/page/1324955/

    For all of you who think condom use is the cure-all you should be slapped or educated, take your pick. If you think condom use with a said "HIV-" is the safest, you are putting yourself at risk. That is NOT the safest....not by a long shot.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 10:29 PM GMT
    Just use a condom. It really makes a difference in taking the worry and guilt away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2014 11:43 PM GMT
    "Viral load suppression means risk of HIV transmission is 'at most' 4% during anal sex, but final results not due till 2017"

    Risk is STILL there. Dont hurry to drop condoms just yet.
    (Misleading title threads like this dont help to stop HIV inside the gay community, all the opposite).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 3:52 AM GMT
    GAMRican saidJust use a condom. It really makes a difference in taking the worry and guilt away.


    All well and good....if people used them. That' been the mantra for 30 years. And there are STILL 40+K new HIV cases every year. I would say it's a complete failure by this point. It's clearly NOT working!!!!! So you're willing to condemn even more Gay men to HIV+ and even death in some cases? By not recognizing PrEP and HIV+/Undetectable as a boon to the eradication of AIDS you are evading reality. The reality is not everyone is like you! Spare me any guilt or finger pointing. 57% are "unsafe"....that's a clear majority. That the CDC sees PrEP as part of the solution should enlighten you.

    Even as far as guilt goes, who would YOU be more comfortable with if the condom broke? A person on PrEP/HIV+U or a so called "HIV Neg"?

    If ANYONE says the "so called "HIV Neg" you need to do a lot of research. YOU are at risk.


    "Certainly, “condom fatigue” among gay men is real. The proportion who reported unprotected anal sex in the previous year rose to 57 percent in 2011 from 48 percent in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    But a recent study found that men in a large clinical trial who believed they were taking Truvada rather than placebo did not increase their risky behavior. For his part, Mr. Rubio, the San Francisco coordinator, said he remained “adamant” about using condoms. “For me, this is a whole other layer of protection,” he said."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/health/a-resisted-pill-to-prevent-hiv.html?_r=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 4:14 AM GMT
    David3K said"Viral load suppression means risk of HIV transmission is 'at most' 4% during anal sex, but final results not due till 2017"

    Risk is STILL there. Dont hurry to drop condoms just yet.
    (Misleading title threads like this dont help to stop HIV inside the gay community, all the opposite).


    It's a useful tool. Unlike you, who says they are Negative today, you can be infected tomorrow and spread it till you get tested again. PrEP and undetectable are NOT passing HIV in many (if any) numbers.


    AT most 4% and "probably zero", which is better than condom rates.

    To say it's the opposite of stopping HIV in the Gay community....that it's actually spreading it is NOT true! If you think "NO Transmissions" is a bad thing I don't know what to say? (If my paraphrase is incorrect, I apologize).
    I'd be curious to know WHAT/WHO you think is spreading it today.

    The TITLE is not misleading at all.
    Study: Undetectable Guys Do Not Transmit HIV To Negative Sex Partners

    The results

    "The main news is that in PARTNER so far there have been no transmissions within couples from a partner with an undetectable viral load, in what was estimated as 16,400 occasions of sex in the gay men and 28,000 in the heterosexuals."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 5:27 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Hmmm.....so why would I have risky sex with either group? If you're on the meds and with a super low count - safe sex please. If you're neg - safe sex please. Like that.

    This unckabasa character continues to promote barebacking. I really think RJ Admin should zap him. He quotes bad science, and encourages the very behavior that is spreading HIV in our community.

    Can we just get rid of this guy? His bad advice is putting gays at risk for HIV. He's got some private agenda to promote barebacking, which is gonna kill men. I think he needs to be banned. This has gone on for too long.

    RJ Admin needs to act responsibly and stop this. I believe lives are being put at risk by this misinformation. What are your thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 8:18 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    meninlove said
    Hmmm.....so why would I have risky sex with either group? If you're on the meds and with a super low count - safe sex please. If you're neg - safe sex please. Like that.

    This unckabasa character continues to promote barebacking. I really think RJ Admin should zap him. He quotes bad science, and encourages the very behavior that is spreading HIV in our community.

    Can we just get rid of this guy? His bad advice is putting gays at risk for HIV. He's got some private agenda to promote barebacking, which is gonna kill men. I think he needs to be banned. This has gone on for too long.

    RJ Admin needs to act responsibly and stop this. I believe lives are being put at risk by this misinformation. What are your thoughts?



    You know what you are one DUMB fuck!
    This is the 6th fucking time you've accused me of promoting barebacking. AND NOW IT STOPS. I'M SEEING A LAWYER ASSFUCK. This is flat out lying and harassment. I've said that you should use condoms in every post. This is a smear campaign, because you will not accept the current medical science and the new models being brought forth.

    Your a fucking failure like cheap condoms.

    READ THIS ASSHOLE!!!
    it's above
    That people on meds (HIV+/Undetectable and HIV- on PreP) are the safest doesn't mean you shouldn't wear condoms. They are only PART of the equation.

    And why I included this quote: "For his part, Mr. Rubio, the San Francisco coordinator, said he remained “adamant” about using condoms. “For me, this is a whole other layer of protection,” he said."

    You say (I) he "encourages the very behavior that is spreading HIV in our community." which is utterly stupid yet again.
    You're the one putting people at risk for a stupid belief that NEG automatically = safe. IT ISN'T. A "Negative" guy who says DDF, tested 11/02/13 is more likely to pass on HIV than I am.
    He's dangerous, so are you.

    That's why the CDC has approved PrEP, essentially "the cocktail" for HIV negative people. Yeah it's that crazy Dr. Fauci again!!! The same guy (who you didn't know, and said I got him to agree with ME! your such an idiot! ) who does the peer reviews, that you trotted out as your expertise.

    Note this is from 1990:
    "In an interview, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the allergy institute's director, said he had waited beyond that before notifying doctors so that the consensus statement and the studies to be published in The New England Journal of Medicine could pass the peer-review stage.

    Dr. Fauci said there was always "a delicate balance" to deciding when new medical information was important and solid enough to release before publication. He said that a meeting like the one urged by Dr. Groopman -- a session that could help determine where that balance should be struck -- was planned for Jan. 15 at the offices of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.."

    Yeah Dr. Fauci is bad science!!!!
    He is considers the leading HIV/AIDS expert in the WORLD.
    And then there is you.....pathetic!

    Here is my agenda: get everyone tested. Those who are POZ go on ART therapy. Those who are Neg go on PrEP. Everyone wears condoms to be extra safe. Then AIDS, like you, will be an anachronism....past and done with. (Which is Dr. Fauci's model, essentially)

    Deco, you remind me of President Reagan when he refused to acknowledge AIDS in the 80s. Maybe it will just go away, or "Just Say NO!" You refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the old, tired and hackneyed "use a condom" line. That message isn't working. people are actually using condoms less. And 40K+ are still getting HIV every year. IT"S A FAILURE. What kind of a Doctor wouldn't acknowledge the leading reason causing HIV? And not address it from a clinical view? Maybe you think "barebackers" deserve it? Just like a lot of people thought about Gay AIDS in the 90s. A good Doctor looks for a solution that encompasses everyone. And that includes people who don't use condoms. I'm sure you think that is immoral and dangerous. But that is reality and what has to be done, otherwise this disease will never be contained. That's were ART and PrEP comes in. The doctors don't moralize, they know it's effective. ART therapy is more effective than PrEP, and that's now CDC approved for prevention.

    It's the judgmental bitches who call PrEP users "TRUVADA Whores." The CDC approves it because it works.

    Apparently I should be banned for not agreeing with you, and BAD science is anything you don't agree with. You've made up lies about me, and even said Dr. Fauci (after I told you who he was) wasn't very well respected (really? Did you do any research on him?) ....with no proof. By attempting to discredit him, the above study (which he is using as a model) and me for citing them and others, it shows your ineptitude. You are so out of bounds on your accusations that's it's libelous.


    Anybody what to join me in telling Art Deco to fuck off????
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 25, 2014 6:51 PM GMT
    Art deco read What Is Defamation?

    "The publication or broadcast of any libelous or slanderous statement about an individual (ME) or business that can be proven to be false and published with the intention of harming that entity's reputation is considered to be defamation. (Your repeated comments about barebacking, and your contention that I encourage it, and specifically in threads regarding legal issues, saying I am doing something ILLEGAL.....and my proof is my written denial and the NUMEROUS posts where I encourage condom use are in every one of my posts about HIV) Online defamation is the publication of such statements made on any Internet based media including blogs, forums, websites, and even social networking websites. While many Internet users believe that they are free to say and do as they like while on the Internet, this is untrue and the same defamation laws and regulations stand for online defamation as they do in any form of media."

    Your defamation of my character is an attempt to impinge my free speech. By doing so you try to make my opinion and research tainted and prejudicial in a negative light. I quote directly from Dr. Fauci and the CDC, yet you've tried to make that despicable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 2:35 AM GMT
    Unkabasa and his long ass desperate posts.
    You know what? You should learn from some of our HIV+ fellow members who unlike you, advocate precaution against this disease. They are men I admire and have my total support and sympathy, but you on the other hand are someone negative for this community.
  • SuntoryTime

    Posts: 656

    May 26, 2014 3:41 AM GMT
    David3K saidUnkabasa and his long ass desperate posts.
    You know what? You should learn from some of our HIV+ fellow members who unlike you, advocate precaution against this disease. They are men I admire and have my total support and sympathy, but you on the other hand are someone negative for this community.


    Unkabasa DOES advocate precaution. How many times does he have to say that people should wear condoms?

    You guys just don't like the fact that people with HIV can and do live normal, healthy lives. That's your problem, not theirs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 4:25 AM GMT
    YourName2000 said
    Am I looking for pos guys? No. But it's also not an automatic no-go for me anymore either....it's the start of a discussion. If I met a guy who was my soulmate, I really don't think I'd let a virus stop me from being with him.

    Good. Exactly what I decided with my first partner.

    He told me he was HIV poz when we first met. I immediately admired him for his honesty. That was a tough step for me, I'll admit, to partner with this guy. But I loved him, and he agreed we'd only have safe sex. With me as the bottom, which is the more risky.

    But I loved him so damn much, I wasn't gonna turn my back on him. I did my research, decided I could have safe sex with a condom. And yah know, ultimately I wasn't so much concerned for my own health, I'm no wimpy coward, but rather worried about his own future, and our life together. Would we even have a future? I knew it could be risky. I'm making an investment here, is it gonna last?

    Well, turned out we didn't have much of a future after all. After 2 years he developed PML, terminal, one of the AIDS diseases. He died in my arms. I loved that guy so damn much, like nobody else before in my life. Try THAT on for size some time. Or, no, sorry, don't, none of you, I'm being rhetorical, my drama queen side.

    But I think you understand my strong emotions about this, why I battle with uncakbasa. The thought of anybody going through what I did, or what my current husband did with his own late partner dying of AIDS, it too awful to wish on anyone.

    And when it's so easy to minimize the risk. I'm still HIV negative, and my husband is, too. You can live with poz guys, it's really very safe & easy, no reason to ostracize them, make them outcasts. We can conquer this disease, prevent its spread, end it, with the right practices.

    All it takes is a cheap condom. I use one anyway, because I don't want shit on my dick, even though we're monogamous. OK, I guess TMI, but the truth. I simply fail to see the argument here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 12:38 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said


    But I think you understand my strong emotions about this, why I battle with uncakbasa. The thought of anybody going through what I did, or what my current husband did with his own late partner dying of AIDS, it too awful to wish on anyone.

    ..... because I don't want shit on my dick,


    Rick La Blue: former boyfriend, the "Marlboro Man" 6'2" died weighing 100 lbs. in 1987.

    Paul Sharp: best friend through College. We moved to California together. One of the funniest people you could know. He was Mr. San Diego....not because he was built, people just liked him! Died of AIDS....and Meth.

    Victor Tito Ramirez: former boyfriend, 42, looked fit as can be. A real jock. Died of pneumonia 2 days after entering the hospital.

    Michael Miller: Mormon boy and looked like one. Blond, blue eyed. My best friend of 10 years after Paul, also a coworker. The last time I saw him at the Hospice, he couldn't recognize me, or anyone.

    Freddy St. George: Canadian living in WeHo. Former boyfriend. He looked like Burt Reynolds (shorter tho) in his prime. First person I ever saw with Kaposi's Sarcoma.

    And many many more. I call my address book from the 90s the "Book of the Dead".



    We all went through it. As a gay person of a certain age. Condoms are great for some. But there are other options that are MORE effective than the 10% failure rate of condoms. And in combination with condoms they can not be beat.

    It baffles me that someone who went through the "plague" doesn't embrace EVERY option available, especially PrEP and HIV+/U ("Therapy as Prevention" as Dr. Fauci calls it) both of which have a better failure rate by themselves. Together, with condoms (or imagine ALL 3!) it's nearly impossible to transmit HIV.
    With modern treatment they would ALL still be alive.
    As for the shit on your dick, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to clean an ass out. I'm sure you've had a colonoscopy by now. Yikes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 6:14 PM GMT
    David3K saidUnkabasa and his long ass desperate posts.
    You know what? You should learn from some of our HIV+ fellow members who unlike you, advocate precaution against this disease. They are men I admire and have my total support and sympathy, but you on the other hand are someone negative for this community.



    I asked you a civil question:

    "I'd be curious to know WHAT/WHO you think is spreading it today."

    Is that short enough for you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 6:54 PM GMT
    David3K saidUnkabasa and his long ass desperate posts.
    You know what? You should learn from some of our HIV+ fellow members who unlike you, advocate precaution against this disease. They are men I admire and have my total support and sympathy, but you on the other hand are someone negative for this community.


    You know....so little it's scary.

    I'm an Advocate of many things. HIV+ Rights is one of them. There you are offensive.

    Who is HIV+ that you admire? I've never seen a positive comment from you. Admiring someone who agrees with you isn't admiration, for you it's your self reflection.

    I admire people who make me think. Even if I don't agree, I learn from them. You never make a clear point. Your comments are shallow, full of lies, hate and distortions.

    I do not want your admiration. I only respond to you because you represent a demographic I try to address, the apparent bottom 10% in intelligence. Once you "get it", it's a given that it's a universal truth.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 26, 2014 7:28 PM GMT
    I'll put the caveat first, so nobody MISSES IT.

    "The same goes for people who are not in a stable relationship," they add. However due to the importance of STIs, use of condoms is still recommended."

    The Swiss Report (similar findings to the OP) published in 2008.

    "Swiss HIV experts have produced the first-ever consensus statement to say that HIV-positive individuals on effective antiretroviral therapy and without sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are sexually non-infectious"

    Something I've been saying about the Iowa case previously (and the courts have agreed):

    "Implications for the legal system

    Finally, the Commission says that courts will have to take into account the fact that HIV-positive people on antiretroviral treatment and without an STI cannot transmit HIV sexually in criminal HIV exposure and transmission cases."


    http://www.aidsmap.com/Swiss-experts-say-individuals-with-undetectable-viral-load-and-no-STI-cannot-transmit-HIV-during-sex/page/1429357/

    Of course people like dodo3k will NEVER get it. For them condoms=safe sex, and safe sex=condoms....and nothing else. Always play safe (including a condom) if you are Negative and sexually active outside of a monogamous relationship. People lie about being Negative....and now Undetectable too. If you are POZ+ and ARE detectable only have the safest sex with a Negative person, or none at all. IMHO even condoms are not safe enough alone.
    ^^^ That's why everyone needs to be tested.

    Even with a HIV+/U or a PrEP partner they need to know you are detectable or Negative. Because full disclosure is good for everybody.


    Is this a green light to "bareback" as Art Gecko is so colorfully fond of saying? No of course not. STDs and liars are in still in abundance.