HIV and Aids: 6 facts you need to know for World Aids Day DECEMBER 1

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

    Dec 01, 2014 10:47 PM GMT
    Myth 2 - You’re going to be highly contagious forever
    It may amaze many people to hear it, but HIV treatments have advanced so much that now, drugs can actually prevent people from being infectious, because they lower a person’s viral load (the amount of HIV in the bloodstream) so much that it becomes undetectable.
    "This doesn't happen immediately, it takes a few months, and it's recommended that you keep checking for a further six months to check that your viral load remains at that level,” explains NAT's director of policy and campaigns, Yusef Azad.

    "Once it's deemed stable, the risk of passing on the virus is virtually non-existent."


    http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/wellbeing/hiv-and-aids-6-facts-you-need-to-know-for-world-aids-day-11363947163487

    As long as there are dumb shits like David, who calls me and others "gift givers" I will be repeating this message!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 01, 2014 11:43 PM GMT
    pazzy saidthink that's misinformation right there.


    Maybe "I" think? Did you? Did you read it? Or does your "think"ing go beyond what you "think" you already know.....if only sometimes?

    Is it something that doesn't coincide with something you read 10 years ago? THINK about it, why would it change??

    Here's their Thinking

    Our thinking

    We work closely with a range of different people - including other charities, people living with HIV, doctors, lawyers and other experts - and use all the latest evidence to develop fresh and independent thinking on HIV and to identify solutions. Our thinking influences national policy development and the actions of people and organisations across the UK who have the greatest impact on the lives of people living with HIV. We believe that by working in this way we can make the biggest difference to the largest number of lives.
    - See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/Our-thinking.aspx#sthash.sNJ8Koq3.dpuf
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 12:50 AM GMT
    I remember someone posted an article along the lines of "5-ways to have safe sex" (4 of which don't involve condoms)... one of the methods is "negotiated safety agreement", well there's a fail waiting to happen right there haha
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 1:23 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidI remember someone posted an article along the lines of "5-ways to have safe sex" (4 of which don't involve condoms)... one of the methods is "negotiated safety agreement", well there's a fail waiting to happen right there haha


    So if one of ways included using condoms what is the problem?


    Can you get any more STUPID?????

    The problem is someone was suggesting 4 ways that didn't include condoms, hence, not very safe (unless was of the ways was not having sex at all).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 1:26 AM GMT
    People beware of this guy Timmmm55, he is well known in this forums for advocating bareback sex and promoting unsafe ways.

    What Pazzy said is true. HIV has no cure yet. Undetectable viral load still represents a risk. ALWAYS use condoms unless you are in a monogamous relationship and you and your partner had been previously tested.

    Timmmm you are a piece of shit in this forums and to every person you cross path with. You spread misinformation about HIV infections, you will do anything and everything that will make you feel less stigmatized, even if it means putting others at risk.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 1:42 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said^

    David3K is a blatant liar and continues to call HIV+ men "gift givers who don't agree 100% with his approach to safe sex.

    There are more ways to control the spread of HIV than just using condoms alone.


    Wrong. I don't call all HIV+ gift givers: only the ones that advocate unsafe sex in order to feel themselves less stigmatized like you and Timmmm55.

    Actually more HIV+ men are good people that advocate safety. All the opposite of you.

    And while I agree is good to take extra precautions, there absolutely no reasons not to use condoms, drugs are not the miracle you want them to be - as simple as that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 1:48 AM GMT
    What does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 1:55 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidWhat does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?


    It means I seek out other HIV+ men so as not to put HIV- men at risk.



    Aqueerius, this guy is infected with HIV, is a steroids user and likes to bareback - he probably knows about re-infections between HIV+ people but decides to ignore that as well. Some people just don't care about their health and are destructive by nature.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 1:58 AM GMT
    Safe sex and prudence trump barebacking and promiscuity every time. Even if there were a 100% cure or vaccine, that would be no reason to abandon the former for the latter. Safe control in one thing leads to self control in all things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 2:18 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    David3K said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidWhat does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?


    It means I seek out other HIV+ men so as not to put HIV- men at risk.



    Aqueerius, this guy is infected with HIV, is a steroids user and likes to bareback - he probably knows about re-infections between HIV+ people but decides to ignore that as well. Some people just don't care about their health and are destructive by nature.


    David, stop spreading lies about me. If you want to have a nice body you're going to have to work at it and put some time in the gym. You sit around all day on this site pontificating on what everyone else is supposed to be doing by your standards. And when people's actions or beliefs don't coincide with your rigid views you become a tyrant in the threads and spread lies.

    If you put half of the time and effort into the gym that you invest here in the threads spreading lies you'd probably look halfway decent. Don't be jealous of someone who has put hard work into the gym. I started weight training when you were still wearing diapers.

    Dont turn this on me, its you the one promoting unhealthy ways. On the other hand I'm healthy, strong and perfectly for my age (29). You are the one that uses steroids, got infected with HIV and likes to keep having bareback sex with HIV+ men even though you can get re-infected. Maybe you should stop for a minute and think about what you really want in your life; because right now you're in an destructive path
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 2:25 AM GMT
    MGINSD saidSafe sex and prudence trump barebacking and promiscuity every time. Even if there were a 100% cure or vaccine, that would be no reason to abandon the former for the latter. Safe control in one thing leads to self control in all things.

    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 2:33 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    David3K said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    David3K said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidWhat does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?


    It means I seek out other HIV+ men so as not to put HIV- men at risk.



    Aqueerius, this guy is infected with HIV, is a steroids user and likes to bareback - he probably knows about re-infections between HIV+ people but decides to ignore that as well. Some people just don't care about their health and are destructive by nature.


    David, stop spreading lies about me. If you want to have a nice body you're going to have to work at it and put some time in the gym. You sit around all day on this site pontificating on what everyone else is supposed to be doing by your standards. And when people's actions or beliefs don't coincide with your rigid views you become a tyrant in the threads and spread lies.

    If you put half of the time and effort into the gym that you invest here in the threads spreading lies you'd probably look halfway decent. Don't be jealous of someone who has put hard work into the gym. I started weight training when you were still wearing diapers.

    Dont turn this on me, its you the one promoting unhealthy ways. I'm healthy, strong and perfect for my age (29). You are the one that uses steroids, got infected by HIV and likes to keep having bareback sex with HIV+ even though you can get re-infected. Maybe you should stop for a minute and think about what you really want for your life; its never late to start caring about yourself.


    You think you're perfect, eh? Well, all that matters is what you think of yourself, even it it's grossly out of alignment with the actual, objective truth.

    You are the biggest coward of all. One kid on here posts pics of your stubby dick and how do you respond? You go into hiding yet you still feel compelled to troll the forums. What you're doing here is worst than someone posting your little dick on another site. You're spreading vicious libel.

    I'm healthy too and am grateful to be here. There are no guarantees in life. And you can't get reinfected. There's no proof that this actually happens. My sex life really is none of your business. What kind of coward who hides behind a "football ball" yet feels entitles to trash others and grossly spread libel about them? You're pathetically weak and disgusting.

    I don't care about your sex life but I do care about the unhealthy ideas about HIV that you try to print in others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 2:54 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    David3K said

    I don't care about your sex life but I do care about the unhealthy ideas about HIV that you try to print in others.


    Liar. If you didn't care about my sex life you wouldn't be spreading libel about me and calling me a gift giver.

    You really are arrogant to think that what you know about HIV is superior to that of a virologist or HIV+.


    You like to spread the misinformation that barebacking is safe when it is clearly not. HIV infections in the world keep decreasing except in the gay community where they keep increasing. There is already a huge problem with HIV+ infections through bareback sex and on top of everything people like you and Timm advocate that practice - then you wonder why I call you gift giver. Doing what you do is just crazy selfish.

    If you really cared about others you should be promoting the use of condoms, that's what keep people safe when they do hook ups. NOT trusting others statuses or doing meds that are not miracles. Protect yourselves, wear condoms and don't believe in the status of your partner because you never know if that's true (negative, undetectable, on PrEP, etc).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 3:30 AM GMT
    ^ No dumbass, HIV kept increasing because people HAVENT been using condoms as they should.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 3:32 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidWhat does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?


    It means I seek out other HIV+ men so as not to put HIV- men at risk.


    Most guys won't sero-sort as you do. I see a danger in your message where guys will focus on the more convenient parts and forget the qualifying factors, which sounds secondary to the main message of "end stigma"

    Most guys will do anything to get laid... there's also the danger where counting barebacking while undectable as "safe sex" will give some an excuse to not disclose their status. And I know you'll respond to that last part with assurances of what you do, but just remember what most guys are like
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 3:58 AM GMT
    Why is it so hard for people to just wear a damn condom? I understand that there's a lower chance if you go through the proper methods but either way it's ALWAYS safer to wear a condom. Why support unprotected sex so much? I don't fucking get it. Let it go.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 4:06 AM GMT
    Ckfeezy saidWhy is it so hard for people to just wear a damn condom? I understand that there's a lower chance if you go through the proper methods but either way it's ALWAYS safer to wear a condom. Why support unprotected sex so much? I don't fucking get it. Let it go.



    +1
  • toastvenom

    Posts: 1020

    Dec 02, 2014 4:30 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle and David3k, u guys totally want one another, I think we have our two new cast members should "Moonlighting" ever be re-made.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 4:44 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    pazzy saidthink that's misinformation right there.


    Maybe "I" think? Did you? Did you read it? Or does your "think"ing go beyond what you "think" you already know.....if only sometimes?

    Is it something that doesn't coincide with something you read 10 years ago? THINK about it, why would it change??

    Here's their Thinking

    Our thinking

    We work closely with a range of different people - including other charities, people living with HIV, doctors, lawyers and other experts - and use all the latest evidence to develop fresh and independent thinking on HIV and to identify solutions. Our thinking influences national policy development and the actions of people and organisations across the UK who have the greatest impact on the lives of people living with HIV. We believe that by working in this way we can make the biggest difference to the largest number of lives.
    - See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/Our-thinking.aspx#sthash.sNJ8Koq3.dpuf



    Since infections rates are increasing ( 22% increase in young gay men) not decreasing " National Policy " is in error.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 5:55 AM GMT
    Aqueerius said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidWhat does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?


    It means I seek out other HIV+ men so as not to put HIV- men at risk.


    Most guys won't sero-sort as you do. I see a danger in your message where guys will focus on the more convenient parts and forget the qualifying factors, which sounds secondary to the main message of "end stigma"

    Most guys will do anything to get laid... there's also the danger where counting barebacking while undectable as "safe sex" will give some an excuse to not disclose their status. And I know you'll respond to that last part with assurances of what you do, but just remember what most guys are like


    Confirmed by this study:

    http://www.aidsmap.com/Rejecting-serodiscordant-partners-is-HIV-prevention-strategy-of-choice-for-40-of-gay-men/page/2835100/

    ...viral sorting’ – men basing condom use decisions with HIV-positive partners on whether or not they have a detectable viral load....
    ...The researchers found considerable differences in condom use, STI risk and disclosure between men who adopted a 'viral sorting' strategy and other men with HIV. They found that 57.5% of viral sorters had had recent condomless sex compared with 36% of those who had not and that they were much more likely to say that they had had anonymous casual sex (70% versus 44%).

    ...The researchers were also concerned that the adoption of a 'viral sorting strategy' seemed to involve discussing and disclosing HIV status much less. Only 19% of 'viral sorters' said they had recently disclosed their HIV status versus 42% of others, and only 22% said they had discussed the topic of HIV at all, versus 44% of others.

    This study can’t determine whether gay men living with HIV are using their viral load knowledge to reassure themselves that they do not have to discuss their status with partners, or are using it as a post-hoc rationalisation for not having disclosed.

    Either way, they suggest that when the original "Swiss statement" was published in 2008, it was assumed that viral load would be discussed as part of HIV status disclosure between partners, rather than being used as a substitute for discussion.

    "Without open serocommunication in these settings, other – potentially asymptomatic – STIs may be passed on,” the researchers comment. “Thus, a subversion of a basic condition of viral load sorting seems possible.”

    Given, however, what the Seattle study reveals – that HIV-positive men may meet with a flat rejection of sex by over 40% of HIV-negative prospective partners if they do disclose – it is perhaps understandable if some HIV-positive men regard "undetectable equals uninfectious" as primarily excusing them of an obligation to disclose.

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

    Dec 02, 2014 6:21 AM GMT
    ^^What do you mean "the study doesn't apply to me"?? So you happen to be the 19% who disclose their status... it's the 81% who see their status as an excuse to not disclose that the rest of us are worried about. And telling them that it's ok to bareback while undetectable only does favors the selfish/darker side of human nature. Hence I share Aqueerius' incredulousness at the idea of "negotiated safety agreements"

    The ONLY scenario where it's ok to bareback is when both partners are neg and in a monogamous relationship.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 11:57 AM GMT
    Stupidity runs rampant on RJ!


    Nothing changes.

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

    Dec 02, 2014 12:07 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    timmm55 said
    pazzy saidthink that's misinformation right there.


    Maybe "I" think? Did you? Did you read it? Or does your "think"ing go beyond what you "think" you already know.....if only sometimes?

    Is it something that doesn't coincide with something you read 10 years ago? THINK about it, why would it change??

    Here's their Thinking

    Our thinking

    We work closely with a range of different people - including other charities, people living with HIV, doctors, lawyers and other experts - and use all the latest evidence to develop fresh and independent thinking on HIV and to identify solutions. Our thinking influences national policy development and the actions of people and organisations across the UK who have the greatest impact on the lives of people living with HIV. We believe that by working in this way we can make the biggest difference to the largest number of lives.
    - See more at: http://www.nat.org.uk/Our-thinking.aspx#sthash.sNJ8Koq3.dpuf



    Since infections rates are increasing ( 22% increase in young gay men) not decreasing " National Policy " is in error.


    Stupid assessment. Young gays (13-24) are the least likely to be on successful antiviral therapy (undetectable)....13%.

    Most groups are DOWN. The more on on TasP the more they are down.

    That's like saying car deaths are up with teens, but down for the rest of the population. So air bags should be discontinued.

    Who texts the most while driving? Teens.
    Who is least likely to go an TasP? Young gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 12:12 PM GMT
    "B.C., where the Treatment as Prevention (TasP) strategy was pioneered and implemented, is the only province to promote widespread and fully government-supported access to HIV testing and highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). As a result, B.C. has seen HIV-related morbidity and mortality decline by approximately 90 per cent since the early 1990s, and the number of new HIV diagnoses has fallen from approximately 800 per year prior in 1996 to 238 in 2012.

    “The consistent and sustained decrease in new HIV diagnoses in B.C. reinforces Treatment as Prevention as a highly effective approach in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said Dr. Montaner. “The evidence should be absolutely clear: Treatment as Prevention is the best way to achieve an HIV- and AIDS-free generation. It’s time for Canada’s leaders to emulate the government of B.C. and adopt this as the national strategy to stop HIV/AIDS.”"

    http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/news/forecast/treatment-prevention-leads-bc-having-largest-decline-rate-new-hiv-diagnoses
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2014 12:47 PM GMT
    hentailover said
    Aqueerius said
    MuchMoreThanMuscle said
    Aqueerius saidWhat does sero-sorting have to do with barebacking?


    It means I seek out other HIV+ men so as not to put HIV- men at risk.


    Most guys won't sero-sort as you do. I see a danger in your message where guys will focus on the more convenient parts and forget the qualifying factors, which sounds secondary to the main message of "end stigma"

    Most guys will do anything to get laid... there's also the danger where counting barebacking while undectable as "safe sex" will give some an excuse to not disclose their status. And I know you'll respond to that last part with assurances of what you do, but just remember what most guys are like


    Confirmed by this study:

    http://www.aidsmap.com/Rejecting-serodiscordant-partners-is-HIV-prevention-strategy-of-choice-for-40-of-gay-men/page/2835100/

    ...viral sorting’ – men basing condom use decisions with HIV-positive partners on whether or not they have a detectable viral load....
    ...The researchers found considerable differences in condom use, STI risk and disclosure between men who adopted a 'viral sorting' strategy and other men with HIV. They found that 57.5% of viral sorters had had recent condomless sex compared with 36% of those who had not and that they were much more likely to say that they had had anonymous casual sex (70% versus 44%).

    ...The researchers were also concerned that the adoption of a 'viral sorting strategy' seemed to involve discussing and disclosing HIV status much less. Only 19% of 'viral sorters' said they had recently disclosed their HIV status versus 42% of others, and only 22% said they had discussed the topic of HIV at all, versus 44% of others.

    This study can’t determine whether gay men living with HIV are using their viral load knowledge to reassure themselves that they do not have to discuss their status with partners, or are using it as a post-hoc rationalisation for not having disclosed.

    Either way, they suggest that when the original "Swiss statement" was published in 2008, it was assumed that viral load would be discussed as part of HIV status disclosure between partners, rather than being used as a substitute for discussion.

    "Without open serocommunication in these settings, other – potentially asymptomatic – STIs may be passed on,” the researchers comment. “Thus, a subversion of a basic condition of viral load sorting seems possible.”

    Given, however, what the Seattle study reveals – that HIV-positive men may meet with a flat rejection of sex by over 40% of HIV-negative prospective partners if they do disclose – it is perhaps understandable if some HIV-positive men regard "undetectable equals uninfectious" as primarily excusing them of an obligation to disclose.



    If people lie, it does not refute the effectiveness of medication.


    Effective Serosorting

    (pos/pos men)
    Serosorting is a strategy that aims to limit condomless sex to people of the same HIV status. In order for this risk reduction strategy to be effective, men must not only know their own status but also the status of their partners.
    Data from the Centre for Social Research in Health
    (UNSW) obtained from the Gay Community Periodic Survey across Australia suggests an increase in limiting condomless sex to partners of the
    same status, from 20% in 2003 to 24% in 2012 (2).
    Furthermore, recent research using data
    obtained from Sydney's 2014 Gay Community Periodic
    Survey has found that 39.6% of PLHIV limit condomless sex to partners of the same status
    (serosorting) (1), while 32.6% of HIV negative men actively employ serosorting as a risk reduction
    strategy (1).
    ACON does not endorse serosorting in casual sexual encounters as an effective HIV prevention
    strategy for HIV negative men, on the grounds that ascertaining the current HIV negative status of
    even a familiar casual partner is inherently unreliable.


    However, where this occurs between men of concordant HIV+ status, considerations of HIV
    transmission are largely irrelevant.
    Nonetheless, the risk of STI transmission is significantly increased in the absence of condoms.

    http://www.acon.org.au/sites/default/files/What-is-Safe-Sex-Position-2014.pdf

    I've already posted about HIV POZ undetectable "super-infection" being a myth.