STUDY: Undetectable Guys Do Not Transmit HIV To Negative Sex Partners........???

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

    Oct 01, 2014 4:44 AM GMT
    http://www.queerty.com/study-undetectable-guys-do-not-transmit-hiv-to-negative-sex-partners-20140305


    Hmmm what do you think? I think there should be more studies done. I'm still skeptical but open minded.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 1:15 PM GMT
    tho the risk is low if the virus is not present; people are not that concerned if they are infected by aids anymore.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 1:50 PM GMT
    there´s always a risk, there´s actualy enough cases of infection from undetecteble cases with negs to prove that...
    now matter how low it is, it´s still there...
    think of it as luck, you can buy 10 lotery tickets and get nothing, your friend buys 2 and wins one if not 2...
    you could be very unlucky and get it from a undetecteble on your first mistake or maybe not get it for years...plus undetecteble on blood doesnt mean it is on the butt hole or dong juice xD
    play it safe, the risk is up to each person I supouse, just dont be a nasty "gift giver" if you get it xD
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 01, 2014 1:57 PM GMT
    I have no reason to doubt the study, and even if the specifics are off, we're in the ballpark of 'undetectable is relatively safer'. There are still other HORRIBLE STD/STIs like hepatitis, HPV (warts/cancer) and other incurable viral infections.

    Condom, condom, condom, condom.

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

    Oct 01, 2014 4:03 PM GMT
    pellaz saidtho the risk is low if the virus is not present; people are not that concerned if they are infected by aids anymore.



    I sure am concerned.I'll stick to condoms.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Oct 01, 2014 4:44 PM GMT
    I wonder how long it took them to find participants for the study? "We want to see if there is HIV transmission"...

    I'm not saying it isn't valuable information, but as far as participation...

    I think I'd pass..

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Oct 01, 2014 4:52 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidI wonder how long it took them to find participants for the study? "We want to see if there is HIV transmission"...

    I'm not saying it isn't valuable information, but as far as participation...

    I think I'd pass..

    icon_rolleyes.gif


    I think they culled sero-discordant couples who, REGARDLESS OF THE STUDY, were going to engage in this type of (risky?) behavior. They did not affirmatively change people's behavior to conduct the study.

    Similarly, I could study the effects of suicide attempts with razorblades by finding people who were going to slice and dice themselves anyway, so long as I did not encourage the behavior.

    The behavior is a priori independent of the study.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 4:52 PM GMT
    Let's assume for a moment you believe an "undetectable" guy is safe to bareback you. (And I don't, nor do the infectious disease specialists I speak with).

    But OK, you believe this. How do you KNOW he's undetectable? Because he tells you that? Just like you believe a guy is totally HIV negative because HE tells you that?

    When was this guy tested undetectable? Did he show you the results? Viral loads fluctuate. Was he undetectable last month? What is he THIS MINUTE?

    There is a lot of dangerous distorted information being spread by poz guys who want to bareback with you. They have their agenda, and you should have yours - to stay healthy and negative!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 4:56 PM GMT
    what was the name of that blogger who infected people on purpose.

    he'd make holes in his condoms so that his partners think it was all safe.

    then he'd write everything on his blog all proud of spreading his babies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 5:39 PM GMT
    nelo27 saidthere´s always a risk, there´s actualy enough cases of infection from undetecteble cases with negs to prove that...
    now matter how low it is, it´s still there...
    think of it as luck, you can buy 10 lotery tickets and get nothing, your friend buys 2 and wins one if not 2...
    you could be very unlucky and get it from a undetecteble on your first mistake or maybe not get it for years...plus undetecteble on blood doesnt mean it is on the butt hole or dong juice xD
    play it safe, the risk is up to each person I supouse, just dont be a nasty "gift giver" if you get it xD


    There actually aren't enough cases to show that undetectable people can pass hiv to a negative partner. Because so far there are zero cases. The study is only a few years old so needs more follow through.

    Neither I, nor any other physician would advocate that people stop using condoms. Condoms are good, they reduce but do not eliminate the risk of catching stds. They are one tool in ending AIDS.
    PrEP and TaP are two more tools that have been shown in rigorous trials to also reduce risk of HIV.
    When it comes to calculating what level of risk is acceptable that is a negotiation between the people having sex.
    It would be irresponsible to stop advocating for condoms. However condoms alone are insufficient to stop AIDS. They have to be used correctly 100% of the time. And even then are not infallible.
    TaP and PrEP are major break throughs in stopping AIDS. It would be equally irresponsible to not use these additional tools to stop the spread of AIDS. Without TaP/PrEP those who can't/won't use condoms all the time will continue to get infected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 5:41 PM GMT
    kevex saidhttp://www.queerty.com/study-undetectable-guys-do-not-transmit-hiv-to-negative-sex-partners-20140305


    Hmmm what do you think? I think there should be more studies done. I'm still skeptical but open minded.



    When the funding source for a study and researchers are not mentioned in a news article then it a "plant", that is pure propaganda. Dismiss it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 6:17 PM GMT
    patito saidwhat was the name of that blogger who infected people on purpose.

    he'd make holes in his condoms so that his partners think it was all safe.

    then he'd write everything on his blog all proud of spreading his babies.


    God! Never heard of him. Hope he ended up beaten with a bullet in his head
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 6:41 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    kevex saidhttp://www.queerty.com/study-undetectable-guys-do-not-transmit-hiv-to-negative-sex-partners-20140305


    Hmmm what do you think? I think there should be more studies done. I'm still skeptical but open minded.



    When the funding source for a study and researchers are not mentioned in a news article then it a "plant", that is pure propaganda. Dismiss it.


    This was presented at CROI, it's one of the most prestigious HIV research meetings in the world. This legitimate research. If you'd like me to find you the PubMed citation I will.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 7:14 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    kevex saidhttp://www.queerty.com/study-undetectable-guys-do-not-transmit-hiv-to-negative-sex-partners-20140305


    Hmmm what do you think? I think there should be more studies done. I'm still skeptical but open minded.



    When the funding source for a study and researchers are not mentioned in a news article then it a "plant", that is pure propaganda. Dismiss it.



    Well there is this.
    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
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 7:56 PM GMT
    Undetectable is not HIV-. I prefer to take care of myself including all the other STDs. Always use a condom, period.

    Unless in a monogamous relationships where I trust my partner (under my own risk).

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

    Oct 01, 2014 8:09 PM GMT
    I'm sceptical of this for a number of reasons. The main one is that the idea that someone undetectable at some stage stays that way. There are men who lie openly about their HIV status and justify it later with saying thier undetectable. What a bunch of fools we are for believing in this propaganda. There is no imminent cure despite the hopes their is of which I hope does happen some day.

    But truth is that the longevity of life of people with HIV has not been proven and I am concerned that it is highly dependent on the high vaccination rates which have eliminated most diseases of which would mess with a HIV hosts immune system and with western governments looking to cut back this is could lead to a disaster in the coming years much worse than the original epidemic.

    There are so many holes in em ascertain that un-detectable means almost no risk. Your forgetting gay men's love of danger sex and I will still be laying charges in my. Home state if infected deliberately by a man who is undetectable just the same as I would with someone detectable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 8:26 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Art_Deco saidLet's assume for a moment you believe an "undetectable" guy is safe to bareback you. (And I don't, nor do the infectious disease specialists I speak with).

    But OK, you believe this. How do you KNOW he's undetectable? Because he tells you that? Just like you believe a guy is totally HIV negative because HE tells you that?

    When was this guy tested undetectable? Did he show you the results? Viral loads fluctuate. Was he undetectable last month? What is he THIS MINUTE?

    There is a lot of dangerous distorted information being spread by poz guys who want to bareback with you. They have their agenda, and you should have yours - to stay healthy and negative!


    It's funny that you carry on about people having their own agenda. Because in a way, you do as well. You choose to paint a grim scenario by elaborating on a worst case scenario talking about strangers having sex. If we are going to talk about casual, anonymous sexual encounters we need to be clear that we cannot trust this person in any way, shape or form.

    There are much better scenarios to take into account. These would include couples who are in monogamous, trusting and honest relationships.

    It is also wise to avoid environments that perpetuate disease and poor health. These would include bathhouses and group sex.




    With how much infidelity there exists, and with how promiscuous gay men are, I get the feeling those truly honest monogamous couples are a minority.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 8:32 PM GMT
    "Undetected" just means it hasn't been detected...yet. HIV/AIDS is literally a unpredictable time bomb. It goes off early for some and for others it goes into sleep mode.

    Any idiot who equates undetected with being safe is asking for trouble. Know your status. Stay regularly tested and know who the fuck you're fucking. The basic ABC's of safe sex goes over everyone's head these days.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 8:56 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Art_Deco saidLet's assume for a moment you believe an "undetectable" guy is safe to bareback you. (And I don't, nor do the infectious disease specialists I speak with).

    But OK, you believe this. How do you KNOW he's undetectable? Because he tells you that? Just like you believe a guy is totally HIV negative because HE tells you that?

    When was this guy tested undetectable? Did he show you the results? Viral loads fluctuate. Was he undetectable last month? What is he THIS MINUTE?

    There is a lot of dangerous distorted information being spread by poz guys who want to bareback with you. They have their agenda, and you should have yours - to stay healthy and negative!

    It's funny that you carry on about people having their own agenda. Because in a way, you do as well. You choose to paint a grim scenario by elaborating on a worst case scenario talking about strangers having sex. If we are going to talk about casual, anonymous sexual encounters we need to be clear that we cannot trust this person in any way, shape or form.

    There are much better scenarios to take into account. These would include couples who are in monogamous, trusting and honest relationships.

    It is also wise to avoid environments that perpetuate disease and poor health. These would include bathhouses and group sex.

    But I *DO* have an agenda, which I discuss here all the time: helping to reduce the spread of HIV. Which is why my principle charities are agencies whose goal is to educate about HIV, and prevent & treat it.

    And you did not address my direct question: how do we KNOW that a guy we've met is undetectable before we have sex with him? All the theorizing about the low risk of being so-called undetectable is worthless if the guy is lying. Just like if he's lying about being HIV negative altogether. Please answer that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 9:45 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    patito saidwhat was the name of that blogger who infected people on purpose.

    he'd make holes in his condoms so that his partners think it was all safe.

    then he'd write everything on his blog all proud of spreading his babies.


    ^

    This contribution has no place in this thread. What are you trying to accomplish by providing irrelevant information about a person who is intentionally going around causing harm to others? That was not the nature of this thread at all and has no relation.



    I wasn't really trying to accomplish anything?

    I forget this is realjock.gov.

    serious business!

    are you a moderator?

    btw i did have a point.

    you can read it again until you get it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 10:50 PM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said

    It's irrelevant and the nature of your post is hyperbole compared to the nature of what we are discussing here in this thread. You need to learn to be consistent with the conversation, stay on topic and not go histrionically astray.

    And don't think for a second that I am addressing you in this manner because we are on this site. If I were talking to you in person I would address your stupidity right to your face.

    YOur are discussing a villainous person who has engaged in unacceptably deplorable behavior. That has no place in this discussion and doing so contaminates people's perception of HIV+ people.


    there's not even a consistent convo going on in this thread.

    people were sayin that you shouldn't really trust in people all that much because people can lie. and that is what my post was about, doofus.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't trust anyone that's HIV+.

    but there have been several cases of people intentionally spreading the virus.

    there's one of a guy that was arrested like one month ago:
    http://news.yahoo.com/video/man-accused-spreading-hiv-intentionally-072544752.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2014 10:53 PM GMT
    pazzy saidanybody that has the virus can spread that shit. to me, this level of ignorance of "undetectable people not spreading that shit" is why there's probably going to be a lot more new hiv cases. folks need to stop joking around.


    +1

    Unless the gay men's censorship lobby (let's just be nice movement) stick their beaks in with some story about demonising HIV poz people
  • Brunette

    Posts: 8

    Oct 02, 2014 1:32 AM GMT
    As a person with AIDS, I would not fuck a HIV- man without a condom. I still believe there is a very slim chance that it is possible to infect someone.

    And what the fuck, I got an e-mail from someone, this week, who wants to contract the virus. GOD help him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2014 1:47 AM GMT
    Brunette saidAs a person with AIDS, I would not fuck a HIV- man without a condom. I still believe there is a very slim chance that it is possible to infect someone.

    And what the fuck, I got an e-mail from someone, this week, who wants to contract the virus. GOD help him.


    I will take you at your word as this disease doesn't discriminate between good and bad will among men. Unfortunately I have encountered a number of men I have met as either mine or my close friends sexual partners who do not share your upstanding morals.

    This is not a new phenomenon as I remember knowing a 20yr old who was date raped, go on to repeat the behaviour. This isn't common to be deliberate but the careless transmission is and if HIV positive men take more responsibility for there actions the community would be much safer. Maybe more people like yourself brunette should be speaking out to those who newly contract the virus.

    As for the bug chasers it maybe their needs to be more exposure of their behaviour and have their story and reasons told to the blissfully ignorant masses who don't see that this type of practice is just the outer extreme of what many do. The line between careless and will full can be blurred at times, how about their be some truth told about the benefits vs costs of BB pleasure and the subsequent I'm not responsible mentality that follows them with the sero-conversion
  • SuntoryTime

    Posts: 656

    Oct 02, 2014 2:29 AM GMT
    Sydneyrugbyjock73 said
    Brunette saidAs a person with AIDS, I would not fuck a HIV- man without a condom. I still believe there is a very slim chance that it is possible to infect someone.

    And what the fuck, I got an e-mail from someone, this week, who wants to contract the virus. GOD help him.


    I will take you at your word as this disease doesn't discriminate between good and bad will among men. Unfortunately I have encountered a number of men I have met as either mine or my close friends sexual partners who do not share your upstanding morals.

    This is not a new phenomenon as I remember knowing a 20yr old who was date raped, go on to repeat the behaviour. This isn't common to be deliberate but the careless transmission is and if HIV positive men take more responsibility for there actions the community would be much safer. Maybe more people like yourself brunette should be speaking out to those who newly contract the virus.

    As for the bug chasers it maybe their needs to be more exposure of their behaviour and have their story and reasons told to the blissfully ignorant masses who don't see that this type of practice is just the outer extreme of what many do. The line between careless and will full can be blurred at times, how about their be some truth told about the benefits vs costs of BB pleasure and the subsequent I'm not responsible mentality that follows them with the sero-conversion


    I haven't met a bug chaser yet. I have met a couple of men that became positive after giving up on looking after themselves. However, most of the people I know who are positive truly thought they took all the steps needed to avoid HIV. Sometime ago, a newly HIV positive young man told me he was still too afraid to date another HIV positive man...despite being positive himself. Stigma can run really deep.