Highest Military Court Jettisons 22-Year HIV Transmission Precedent

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

    Mar 01, 2015 11:15 PM GMT
    Even the highest MILITARY courts are recognizing what ART DECO can not accede



    "This ruling raises important issues outside the military context, since some civilian courts have also imposed severe penalties on HIV-positive defendants in comparable situations, using much the same reasoning the military court applied back in 1993. In the past few years, however, courts have started to become much more responsive to the developing knowledge about transmission risks, especially when HIV-positive people are using condoms or are compliant with anti-retroviral therapy and have an undetectable viral load.

    No accusation was ever made that Gutierrez infected any of his sex partners.

    The decision overturns an earlier finding from that court, dating to 1993, that held that “the question is not the statistical probability of HIV invading the victim’s body, but rather the likelihood of the virus causing death or serious bodily harm if it invades the victim’s body. The probability of infection need only be more than merely a fanciful, speculative, or remote possibility.”


    http://gaycitynews.nyc/highest-military-court-jettisons-22-year-hiv-transmission-precedent/


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

    Mar 02, 2015 12:12 AM GMT
    timmm55 saidEven the highest MILITARY courts are recognizing what ART DECO can not accede

    "This ruling raises important issues outside the military context, since some civilian courts have also imposed severe penalties on HIV-positive defendants in comparable situations, using much the same reasoning the military court applied back in 1993. In the past few years, however, courts have started to become much more responsive to the developing knowledge about transmission risks, especially when HIV-positive people are using condoms or are compliant with anti-retroviral therapy and have an undetectable viral load.

    No accusation was ever made that Gutierrez infected any of his sex partners.

    The decision overturns an earlier finding from that court, dating to 1993, that held that “the question is not the statistical probability of HIV invading the victim’s body, but rather the likelihood of the virus causing death or serious bodily harm if it invades the victim’s body. The probability of infection need only be more than merely a fanciful, speculative, or remote possibility.”

    http://gaycitynews.nyc/highest-military-court-jettisons-22-year-hiv-transmission-precedent/

    What the court leaves unanswered is HOW compliance with ART is determined. Because the HIV+ person SAYS it is? That's the question I keep asking you, that you decline to address.

    It's the same as when a stranger tells you he's HIV negative. Do you believe him? And if a guy tells you he's undetectable, based on his word, do you believe him, too? How do you prove the truth?

    And that's the big flaw in your argument for bareback sex. Yeah, let a guy fuck you bareback because he SAYS he's negative, or he SAYS he's undetectable because he's on ART. The proof? You still haven't addressed that dilemma.

    You meet a stranger for anal sex and you wear a condom, period, I don't care what he says. Anything else is potentially suicidal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 12:40 AM GMT
    Congrats, you've created a circular argument that has nothing to do with TasP! Nothing to do with actually being undetectable!

    Your question concerns lying. There is no protocol or study on the effectiveness of lying. You constantly bring it up, it's a social issue, it's unrelated to science of the actual effectiveness of ART or ANY medication.

    If someone lies about having VD, does that mean penicillin or other medications are ineffective?
    Of course not.

    If ART is 96+% effective, and someone lies about being on ART, does that mean ART is not effective? Of course not.

    As I pointed out in the ACON Statement (which you clearly do not understand) if you don't know someone's status, you either use condoms or use other less risky behavior.

    It's your contention that discordant couples...not strangers (Neg/Poz-undetectable) are committing a grave danger. Or two Poz undetectable men are dangerous. They are just as good at risk reduction as someone who uses condoms.

    The question is unanswerable. What if someone puts holes in condoms? Does that refute it's use? That's so utterly inept and devoid of logic. You can't measure lying.







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

    Mar 02, 2015 12:44 AM GMT
    Note that he didn't infect anybody. As has anyone who is fully suppressed to date.

    That is a measure of "HOW compliance with ART is determined."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 1:18 AM GMT
    timmm55 saidNote that he didn't infect anybody. As has anyone who is fully suppressed to date.

    That is a measure of "HOW compliance with ART is determined."

    So are you saying sex with an ART guy is like Russian Roulette? Either he's telling the truth, and his viral load is undetectable, or he's not? Or he THINKS he's undetectable at the moment, but he's not?

    And if he's not, and you get infected, what do you do now?

    Your model continues to fail. Your dog won't hunt. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 saidNote that he didn't infect anybody. As has anyone who is fully suppressed to date.

    That is a measure of "HOW compliance with ART is determined."

    So are you saying sex with an ART guy is like Russian Roulette? Either he's telling the truth, and his viral load is undetectable, or he's not? Or he THINKS he's undetectable at the moment, but he's not?

    And if he's not, and you get infected, what do you do now?

    Your model continues to fail. Your dog won't hunt. icon_razz.gif


    It seems that with this Military Court decision your dog has been kicked in the ass!

    It proves that ART works.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 2:34 AM GMT
    “The most common response I get from disbelievers is that positive men use ‘undetectable’ as a way of getting people to sleep with them without a condom,” says Tyler Curry, an editor with the new group HIV Equal, who has written about his frustration with gay men still ignorant about what it means to be undetectable. “Positive men don’t want to transmit the virus to someone who is negative just as much as a negative person doesn’t want to become positive,” Curry emphasizes.

    The Partner study itself comes with a series of warnings about what exactly the study has really found about undetectable viral loads. Researchers don’t recommend that undetectable gay and bi men have sex without the usual methods of protection, for example.

    While some of this could be used as cover by skeptics, it also means positive people are left to understand and explain all of this science to a world that continues to stigmatize (and in some cases, criminalize) anyone with HIV."


    http://www.hivplusmag.com/sex-dating/2014/09/15/undetectable-new-safe-sex


    This may be hard for you to understand: “Positive men don’t want to transmit the virus to someone who is negative just as much as a negative person doesn’t want to become positive,”

    The facts are simple: most new infections come from people who don't know. Not liars who want to steal Negative virginity.

    Your persistent lying and accusation of others lying is in itself telling. How many times do you and your husband get tested every year, 3-4? How long have you been together? It sounds like trust issues to me.

    The difference between you and me is fear. I'm POZ/undetectable. I'm not getting or giving HIV. I don't give a shit if someone is lying about their status.

    You on the other hand, blame phantom liars, cheating boyfriends (where was their self-responsibility?), you are narcissistic (YOU were the one that got away? LOL I'd like to see the rebuttal from the guy who fled), you stigmatize anyone who is POZ or undetectable. You live in fear.

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

    Mar 02, 2015 7:18 PM GMT
    I must say...it's guys like timmm55 that make me never want to sleep around or never trust anyone.

    Do you actually tell guys that you are fucking without a condom that you have hiv or do you just fail to mention it?

    Yes, taking antivirals and once reaching undetectable levels decreases the possibility of transfer significantly. But there is still a chance of transmission you cannot deny that. And also, there are various strains of the disease, some stronger then others, you may catch a different strain that renders your current medication useless.

    But I see this will just fall on deaf ears due to your previous posts and your determination to justify fucking people without a condom...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 7:41 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    Note that he didn't infect anybody. As has anyone who is fully suppressed to date.

    That is a measure of "HOW compliance with ART is determined."

    And how in NON-compliance with ART determined? The corollary of your statement is that the answer is when someone DOES contract HIV. What negative person wants to be the guinea pig for that test?

    The military court is setting a legal precedence for guilt in particular charges. And actually this is not a significant change in recent legal rulings, pre-ART.

    The issue is whether a person with HIV is equally guilty for having sex with someone, regardless of whether the sex partner contracts HIV or not. Because even without ART not every sexual encounter with a positive person results in transmission.

    There have been cases where poz persons were successfully prosecuted as harshly as when HIV transmission had occured, when in fact it did not. This military court decision merely affirms that not every sexual encounter with an HIV+ person results in transmission, and only the results should be judged. And that ART does reduce the chance of transmission.

    But the court is not making a ruling on ART being SAFE for sex. That's where, as in your other statements on these forums, you misread (or deliberately misinterpret) issues that you fail to fully understand. And then spam your faulty beliefs all over this site, risking the health of others.

    That's why I've characterized you as being "dangerous". You read stuff you aren't qualified to properly understand, and use your erroneous conclusions to wrongly advise others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    Chase646 saidI must say...it's guys like timmm55 that make me never want to sleep around or never trust anyone.

    Do you actually tell guys that you are fucking without a condom that you have hiv or do you just fail to mention it?

    Yes, taking antivirals and once reaching undetectable levels decreases the possibility of transfer significantly. But there is still a chance of transmission you cannot deny that. And also, there are various strains of the disease, some stronger then others, you may catch a different strain that renders your current medication useless.

    But I see this will just fall on deaf ears due to your previous posts and your determination to justify fucking people without a condom...


    What an idiot. I POST here that I'm POZ and undetectable. Same for any ap or site. Accusing me of NOT disclosing when I clearly do every time, show you are just fear mongering with false accusations.

    This is ignorant X 10 "a different strain that renders your current medication useless." I guess you don't have a link to that do you? It's not true.

    I wouldn't say I'm "justify fucking people without a condom." That isn't for you or me to decide. Serodiscordant couples do all the time.....with PrEP, ART. That's up to them. Between the two it's very low risk.




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

    Mar 02, 2015 8:50 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    Note that he didn't infect anybody. As has anyone who is fully suppressed to date.

    That is a measure of "HOW compliance with ART is determined."

    And how in NON-compliance with ART determined? The corollary of your statement is that the answer is when someone DOES contract HIV. What negative person wants to be the guinea pig for that test?

    The military court is setting a legal precedence for guilt in particular charges. And actually this is not a significant change in recent legal rulings, pre-ART.

    The issue is whether a person with HIV is equally guilty for having sex with someone, regardless of whether the sex partner contracts HIV or not. Because even without ART not every sexual encounter with a positive person results in transmission.

    There have been cases where poz persons were successfully prosecuted as harshly as when HIV transmission had occured, when in fact it did not. This military court decision merely affirms that not every sexual encounter with an HIV+ person results in transmission, and only the results should be judged. And that ART does reduce the chance of transmission.

    But the court is not making a ruling on ART being SAFE for sex. That's where, as in your other statements on these forums, you misread (or deliberately misinterpret) issues that you fail to fully understand. And then spam your faulty beliefs all over this site, risking the health of others.

    That's why I've characterized you as being "dangerous". You read stuff you aren't qualified to properly understand, and use your erroneous conclusions to wrongly advise others.




    DECO says: "But the court is not making a ruling on ART being SAFE for sex."

    Of course they are NOT. Courts, judges do not rule on medicine or science, they rule on laws that relate to medical findings.

    Just like in the Rhoades/Iowa case. They take new medical information, as presented by defense, and their experts. And it can be refuted by prosecution.....but they can NOT refute the science.

    I would love to see you on the stand!

    http://www.poz.com/articles/rhoades_charges_dropped_1_26283.shtml
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 3:04 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    What an idiot. I POST here that I'm POZ and undetectable. Same for any ap or site. Accusing me of NOT disclosing when I clearly do every time, show you are just fear mongering with false accusations.

    This is ignorant X 10 "a different strain that renders your current medication useless." I guess you don't have a link to that do you? It's not true.

    I wouldn't say I'm "justify fucking people without a condom." That isn't for you or me to decide. Serodiscordant couples do all the time.....with PrEP, ART. That's up to them. Between the two it's very low risk.

    You do indeed say you are positive. I hope you're telling your sex partners that, too.

    My late partner told me he was poz, and I loved him no less. Well, maybe even more for his honestness with me. And we always had safe sex, I wasn't afraid, as the CDC and other reputable health agencies define safe sex. Not as you wrongly & dangerously define it.

    Nobody here is "fear mongering". Nor discriminating against poz men. Gawd knows I haven't. But your misinformation, and misunderstanding of the data on this subject, is dangerous to our community. You are indeed a menace, who needs to be confronted and challenged about your lethal falsehoods.

    My goal is to see not a single more case of HIV. All the efforts & resources of my husband and myself are directed to that end.

    You, however, seem more interested in a selfish interest in seeing negative guys getting barebacked by positive guys. Or poz guys barebacked by someone with a different HIV strain. Well, yah know, I and a lot of other guys here aren't gonna let that pass.

    So expect to see a lot of opposition to this barebacking propaganda you're trying to spread here. And that you're just not gonna win this argument. Not as long as I'm on this site, anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 8:21 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    What an idiot. I POST here that I'm POZ and undetectable. Same for any ap or site. Accusing me of NOT disclosing when I clearly do every time, show you are just fear mongering with false accusations.

    This is ignorant X 10 "a different strain that renders your current medication useless." I guess you don't have a link to that do you? It's not true.

    I wouldn't say I'm "justify fucking people without a condom." That isn't for you or me to decide. Serodiscordant couples do all the time.....with PrEP, ART. That's up to them. Between the two it's very low risk.

    You do indeed say you are positive. I hope you're telling your sex partners that, too.

    My late partner told me he was poz, and I loved him no less. Well, maybe even more for his honestness with me. And we always had safe sex, I wasn't afraid, as the CDC and other reputable health agencies define safe sex. Not as you wrongly & dangerously define it.

    Nobody here is "fear mongering". Nor discriminating against poz men. Gawd knows I haven't. But your misinformation, and misunderstanding of the data on this subject, is dangerous to our community. You are indeed a menace, who needs to be confronted and challenged about your lethal falsehoods.

    My goal is to see not a single more case of HIV. All the efforts & resources of my husband and myself are directed to that end.

    You, however, seem more interested in a selfish interest in seeing negative guys getting barebacked by positive guys. Or poz guys barebacked by someone with a different HIV strain. Well, yah know, I and a lot of other guys here aren't gonna let that pass.

    So expect to see a lot of opposition to this barebacking propaganda you're trying to spread here. And that you're just not gonna win this argument. Not as long as I'm on this site, anyway.


    That makes you a LIAR yet again. You demonstrate hatred at every turn....why? Because I acknowledge other alternatives?

    Here's the Australian Statement yet again.

    There are now at least five strategies that reasonably constitute‘safe sex’,provided that certain parameters are met.
    They are:
    1.The use of Condoms during casual encounters between men of unknown or discordant serostatus.
    2.HIV negative men taking effective pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).
    3.Men living with HIV who only have sex without condoms when they have a sustained undetectable viral load (UVL) and in the absence of sexually transmissible infections (STIs).
    4.Effective use of serosorting between HIV positive men.
    5.Effective negotiated safety agreements.

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


    Ad I won't be talked down to, certainly not by you. Someone who stupidly says:
    "So all this BS about sex being safe with an undetectable poz guy is just medical talk dealing with controlled conditions. That has no application, bearing or relevance to the real world situations in which you & I actually operate. And such basic medical research shouldn't be misinterpreted to be providing guidance as to how gay men should behave sexually with each other."

    All that does is reinforce the stigma that POZ people are dangerous, and NEG equals good.

    Want a reputable site?

    How about the Depart of Justice? (this thread is about LAW after all, not you ex boyfriends. ).

    U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
    Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV
    -
    Specific Criminal Laws to Align with Scientifically Supported Factors


    Most of these laws do not account for actual scientifically-
    supported level of risk by type of activities engaged in or risk reduction measures undertaken. As a result, many of these state laws criminalize behaviors that the CDC regards as posing either no or negligible risk for HIV transmission even in the absence of risk reduction measures.
    2 The majority were passed before the development of
    antiretroviral therapy (“ART”), which the CDC acknowledges can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by up to 96%.
    3 Most of these laws do not, therefore, account for the use of ART, condoms, or pre-exposure prophylaxis.
    The Article encourages states to use scientific findings to,“re-examine [these] laws, assess the laws’ alignment with current evidence regarding HIV transmission risk, and
    consider whether the laws are the best vehicle to achieve their intended purposes.”

    There is no question that “HIV stigma has been shown to be a barrier to HIV testing” and the CDC has unequivocally asserted that HIV “stigma hampers prevention.

    As a result, certain of these laws do not accurately reflect the current science of transmission, do not account for risk reduction behaviors and medical protocols that greatly reduce transmission risk, and do not reflect that, with testing and treatment, HIV may be a manageable medical condition.

    https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/national-hiv-aids-strategy/doj-hiv-criminal-law-best-practices-guide.pdf



    The message that you put out here is that YOU have the "TRUE WORD" of HIV prevention. That any other view is dangerous and must be stopped.........is rather self-righteous and smacks of Imperialism. But the emperor has no clothes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 8:30 PM GMT
    "You do indeed say you are positive. I hope you're telling your sex partners that, too."

    This is the sort of veiled accusations that I find you detestable.



































































    It makes you a real CU^T
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 8:59 PM GMT
    timmm55 said"You do indeed say you are positive. I hope you're telling your sex partners that, too."

    This is the sort of veiled accusations that I find you detestable.

    What is veiled? I wrote in plain English. If you have HIV you tell your sex partners upfront. Do you believe that ART and low viral count erases that requirement? Or that you can safely assure your sex partner there's no risk at all? If so, that's dangerous if not criminal.

    I think it's becoming increasingly obvious here that you are having serious emotional issues in dealing with your own HIV. I've encountered that before, and you would have my sympathy. But our gay community (at least wherever I've lived) wants to help poz guys, not ostracize or hurt them.

    I can't begin to list all the agencies in this area dedicated to helping poz people, preventing its spread to others, and in educating everyone that HIV is not God's judgment for a wicked gay life. There are almost as many poz guys in our circle of close friends as negative, and I'm always forgetting which is which.

    Because, unless it's important to THEM, it's really not important to ME, not how I identify or think of them. They're just our friends, period.

    But you've also gotta face reality, not the denial myth you seem to be trying to create for yourself. And by spreading that misinformation online you potentially endanger a lot of uninformed guys who don't know any better.

    And that's why I and others here call you on it. It's time for you to stop, step back, and reconsider things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 9:05 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said"You do indeed say you are positive. I hope you're telling your sex partners that, too."

    This is the sort of veiled accusations that I find you detestable.

    What is veiled? I wrote in plain English. If you have HIV you tell your sex partners upfront. Do you believe that ART and low viral count erases that requirement? Or that you can safely assure your sex partner there's no risk at all? If so, that's dangerous if not criminal.

    I think it's becoming increasingly obvious here that you are having serious emotional issues in dealing with your own HIV. I've encountered that before. But our gay community (at least wherever I've lived) wants to help poz guys, not ostracize or hurt them.

    I can't begin to list all the agencies in this area dedicated to helping poz people, preventing its spread to others, and in educating everyone that HIV is not God's judgment for a wicked gay life. There are almost as many poz guys in our circle of close friends as negative, and I'm always forgetting which is which.

    Because, unless it's important to THEM, it's really not important to ME, not how I identify or think of them. They're just our friends, period.

    But you've also gotta face reality, not the denial myth you seem to be trying to create for yourself. And by spreading that misinformation online you potentially endanger a lot of guys who don't know any better.

    And that's why I and others here call you on it. It's time for you to stop, step back, and reconsider things.


    Did you read the DOJ statement?

    God you think you know everything, but your so caught up in your own crusade.


    FACTS! Not your opinions! READ ACON and the DOJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 9:07 PM GMT
    You're no better at being a psychologist than you are being a lawyer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 9:12 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    You're no better at being a psychologist than you are being a lawyer.

    Neither a psychologist nor a lawyer, but I can see when someone is in trouble. I know I won't be the one to help you, but maybe someone else will. And hopefully before you mislead & hurt others.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 9:19 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said"You do indeed say you are positive. I hope you're telling your sex partners that, too."

    This is the sort of veiled accusations that I find you detestable.

    What is veiled? I wrote in plain English. If you have HIV you tell your sex partners upfront. Do you believe that ART and low viral count erases that requirement? Or that you can safely assure your sex partner there's no risk at all? If so, that's dangerous if not criminal.


    (THE REST IS PSYCHOBABBLE GARBAGE)



    There again, it's questioning my honesty and morality!

    Where did I ever say it erases my responsibility? You say that, applying it TO me. THAT is stigmatizing! There is only reduced risk.

    If you had the last word on HIV crime, you'd have us in 'quarantine'...you are a Right Wing fruitcake. You are "Liberal" except for HIV rights.

    As far as criminality, YOU apparently did not read or comprehend the Department of Justice comments.....READ IT AGAIN!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 9:22 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    timmm55 said
    You're no better at being a psychologist than you are being a lawyer.

    Neither a psychologist nor a lawyer, but I can see when someone is in trouble. I know I won't be the one to help you, but maybe someone else will. And hopefully before you mislead & hurt others.


    Poor thing, resorting to such garbage. Emotional fraud.

    What am I doing to mislead and hurt anyone? Nothing!

    Have them read ACON and DOJ?

    If reading the truth and facts are dangerous, what is listening to you?

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

    Mar 03, 2015 9:35 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    If reading the truth and facts are dangerous, what is listening to you?

    You are very obviously a nutjob, and no one is listening to YOU. About encouraging guys to engage in dangerous sex practices.

    All your misrepresenting of ACON & DOJ (I thought it was DOD) statements will not change that. You are totally discredited here. And hopefully no one will be led to make a fatal mistake by listening to you.

    But if they do, I wonder if you could be held criminally and civilly liable for the consequences of someone contracting HIV, who followed your bad advice? Now wouldn't that be interesting. Are you prepared for that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 9:53 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said[quote][cite]timmm55 said[/cite
    If reading the truth and facts are dangerous, what is listening to you?

    You are very obviously a nutjob, and no one is listening to YOU. About encouraging guys to engage in dangerous sex practices.

    All your misrepresenting of ACON & DOJ (I thought it was DOD) statements will not change that. You are totally discredited here. And hopefully no one will be led to make a fatal mistake by listening to you.

    But if they do, I wonder if you could be held criminally and civilly liable for the consequences of someone contracting HIV, who followed your bad advice? Now wouldn't that be interesting. Are you prepared for that?[/quote]

    Are you prepared fro libel?

    By misrepresenting my statements, calling my behavior criminal and illegal, inferring things I don't do that are illegal, and impugning my integrity, you are vulnerable.

    How am I misrepresenting ACON or DOJ (Department of Justice BTW)? I provided the link. It can be read in full by any one capable of clicking on a link.

    If by quoting specific passages, that is not misrepresenting, it is the pertinent information to my argument. Feel free to quote any lines you would like to use to bolster your case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 10:02 PM GMT
    The argument is over, the Fat lady is singing. (YOU)

    Now you are resorting to veiled criminal charges. Take about suppression! Pathetic! You can't stay on point. You can't argue the science. You can't argue the law. So you resort to internet bullying and attempt to suppress. Worse, you imply illegal things that I don't do, because it's the only way to bolster your argument. A LIE on top of a LIE.

    You want the last word that "condoms only" is the only way. It isn't. There are at least 5 ways for risk reduction, but you won't have it.

    Fact is condoms have never been the 100% answer. Only NOW with ART and PrEP have the numbers gone down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 10:47 PM GMT
    6 Reasons To Rethink HIV Prevention As We Know It


    http://www.hivequal.org/hiv-equal-online/6-reasons-to-rethink-hiv-prevention-as-we-know-it/?slide=1

    Of course this guy must also be a "nut job" in ART DECO's uummmm expert opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2015 11:03 PM GMT
    Another NUT JOB


    I tell patients that having an undetectable viral load reduces the risk of transmission either to zero or very close to zero, based on the HPTN 052 and the PARTNER studies. I add the caveat that a viral load that was undetectable 3 months ago may not be undetectable today. But in someone whose virus has been suppressed for several years, a sudden, unexplained failure is extremely unlikely. Therefore, from an HIV standpoint, I view having an undetectable viral load as a form of “protected” or “safe sex”—possibly more protected and safer than a condom, which can break or be used incorrectly.

    Therefore, in talking to a stable and monogamous discordant couple in which the positive partner’s viral load is suppressed, I present condoms as an option, but I tell them that having sex without condoms is a perfectly reasonable choice to make.

    If they’re not monogamous, then my counseling is somewhat different. If the HIV-negative partner has other partners, he should consider PrEP to avoid HIV infection and/or condoms to prevent infection with both HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Likewise, if the HIV-positive partner has other partners, he should use condoms to prevent STIs.

    Theoretically, if both partners consistently wore condoms outside their relationship, they could dispense with the condoms when they’re together, though people rarely follow rules so perfectly. In non-monogamous relationships, the introduction of STIs into the relationship is always a risk.

    http://hivforum.tumblr.com/page/3