Art_Deco saidTHEY won the awards, not you for misinterpreting what they said.
Unsafe sex is still unsafe sex. And barebacking is gonna get guys killed.
You are a danger to this site, and a danger to gay men.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you are a menace to gays. If we follow your advice we'd become as sick as you are. Which apparently is your perverted goal.
You are as blunt as a dull knife. By limiting treatment options, YOU are preventing (through shame, stigma, intimidation, lies, etc.) other valid, new, alternatives.
Can this be anymore to the point?Montaner:
”Well, I think that the data is very definitive at least in the case of sero-discordant heterosexual couples where we have the best available data, as a result of the randomized controlled trial reported on last year where we know that, after you become (viral-load) suppressed, in the absence of other co-morbidities – STIs and the like – the likelihood of transmission is very, very, very low indeed. Now, the problem here is that people very often want to know is there a risk or isn’t there a risk? And that’s a different discussion. We cannot prove the absence of risk.”
Montaner adds: “So I’m perfectly comfortable to tell people that if you want to go forward and have, for example, unprotected sex while you are being protected by antiretroviral therapy, that is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, you need to know that in the process of doing that, if there was a breakdown in adherence for example, you put yourself at risk. As long as you are willing and able to live with that kind of small risk, I’m perfectly happy to live with it.”
“Some people, they want to be 100% sure that there is no risk. So they are not very comfortable with this kind of approach. What I usually tell people is look, if you think wearing condoms is the way to go and you are happy to advise and counsel people that condoms are as good as safe sex, I think you should be fully comfortable with advising fully suppressed individuals on HAART that they are as well protected as when using condoms, if not better protected. If they are concerned and want to use HAART and condoms, that would be even more protective. But that’s a judgement that fully informed couples should make.”http://www.positivelite.com/component/zoo/item/a-passionate-man-the-julio-montaner-interview-part-twoFauci:
The model, says Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is based on the observation that, "When you follow couples—one who's infected, the other who's not—the probability of infection diminishes when the viral load is very low," as when drugs have been administered. So, the study intends to get infected individuals' viral loads down to levels where they cannot infect their sexual partners#8212;even in the absence of a condom. "The philosophy," Fauci says, "is if you test everybody, and treat everybody who has HIV, you could use treatment as prevention."http://www.realjock.com/article/1546/
Patients with H.I.V. were 96 percent less likely to pass on the infection if they were taking antiretroviral drugs — a finding that is so overwhelming that it is likely to change the way American AIDS doctors treat patients and what treatment policies are adopted by the World Health Organization and other countries,
said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci,
head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which paid for the trial. Dr. Julio Montaner
, an AIDS specialist at the University of British Columbia whose work among Vancouver heroin addicts helped lead to the Unaids policy, called the result of 96 percent protection “as good as it gets.”
“This is consistent with what we’ve been saying and doing in British Columbia for close to a decade,” he said. “How much more evidence do we need before we implement what we know works?”
The $73 million trial, known as HPTN 052, involved 1,763 couples in 13 cities on four continents. One member of each couple was infected with H.I.V.; the other was not. In half the couples, chosen at random, the infected partner was put on antiretroviral drugs as soon as he or she tested positive for the virus.
Get off your moral high horse. Here the moral implications are raised in NOT doing TasP.
"The results carry moral implications
for doctors in the United States. Although medical associations like the Infectious Diseases Society of America advocate starting patients on AIDS drugs early, the decision is made by the doctor and patient. Some patients fear the reported side effects of AIDS drugs and want to delay taking the drugs until they get obviously sick or until their CD4 counts fall, and some doctors go along with that, Dr. Fauci said, especially as long as their patients’ CD4 counts remain above 350.But that means the patient may infect others during the delay.
Of the 27 people in the study who became infected while their partners were not yet taking the drugs, 17 had partners whose CD4 counts were still above 350.
Asked if it could now be considered immoral for a doctor to accede to a patient’s request to delay starting drugs,
Dr. Fauci said: “I’m not going to go there. I’m not going to say it’s immoral. But there is more and more data showing the advantages of starting as early as you can.” "
(That is the new US protocol, ASAP regardless of CD4 counts) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/health/research/13hiv.html?_r=0
Before you get your panties in a soiled bunch, the above was heterosexuals. The Partners Study was also Gay.
"Montaner noted that the evidence has firmed up appreciably even in the last year. He cited the recent release of the interim PARTNER study results at CROI 2014 where there were no new infections in a large cohort of people with undetectable viral load, heterosexual or homosexual, confirming in effect the results of HPTN 052 and the often dismissed Swiss Cohort Study before that."http://www.positivelite.com/component/zoo/item/the-train-has-left-the-station