Rhi_Bran saidTheoretically, it IS possible for a single virus to establish an infection if it successfully infiltrates a circulating immune cell and produces enough viable particles. However, the vast majority of shed HIV particles are not viable, because HIV proviruses activate after processes of genetic correction within immune cells that would normally fix errors within the normal genetic code of the immune cell. While this may seem like a weakness, it's also one of HIV's greatest strengths - it ensures that nearly every new particle is a mutated version, different from the virus that infected the cell.
When presenting the findings at a major conference, Jens Lundgren, MD, chief physician and director of the Copenhagen HIV Programme, estimated that the chance of transmitting HIV when the virus is fully suppressed by ARVs is close to zero, and might even be zero.
The keyword there is "might". Personally I don't think there's enough evidence to support your claim, and I don't think there ever will be - how can you prove that a new infection as a result of relations with a + individual on medication is either the result of a small lapse in medication, or due to a few viable virus particles sneaking through even after medication? One should always treat every sexual encounter as having a non-zero chance of infection, regardless of whether or not every party's status is known. That's not discrimination. That's caution.
The lowest anyone has been infected is 362.
How the fuck can anyone reliably measure or ascertain this? A viral load measured at the time of discovering someone elses infection probably will not be the same as the viral load measured at some point in the past. It fluctuates slightly even when on meds. There isn't a fucking fitbit that tells you what your load is at any given time.
"Personally I don't think...." is an opinion. Getting HIV from it sneaking through? Viable particles? While, like Charlie, viral load will go up quickly when stopping meds. HIV doesn't sneak through. There undoubtedly a threshold, we don't know exactly what it is. Yet.
I guess since you don't "fucking" know, no one else can either? http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.525.8972&rep=rep1&type=pdf
You may not think it's safe enough. For you that's true. I'm not accusing you of discrimination. There are many couples gay and straight where this is a real issue.
Dr Julio Montaner said "...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.”
“If you are asking me,” Montaner says, “I’m very comfortable that properly used HAART is at least as protective – or more –than condoms.”
Notice he says a breakdown in adherence, not by 1 copy of the virus sneaking by.