The Undetectable = Uninfectious doubters

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

    Oct 18, 2016 10:47 PM GMT
    “Undetectable viral Load means I can’t pass the virus on to anyone” GMFA

    “We can now say with confidence that if you are taking HIV medication as prescribed, and have had an undetectable viral load for over six months, you cannot pass on HIV with or without a condom." Dr. Michael Brady, Medical Director, Terrence Higgins Trust, London, England (July 2016)

    “People living with HIV "are leading lives that are normal in quality and length. With effective treatment, they are not infectious.” Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer, England. The Telegraph (Aug. 2013)

    “Research has shown that these same treatments mean that poz folks can lead active, healthy sex lives, without fear of HIV transmission to their HIV-negative partners” AIDS Committee of Toronto (ACT)



    4. We need to wait for more data.

    My response: say hello to those who won’t cross the road or ride in an airplane. We have lots of data. At some point the evidence is compelling - and we have now reached that point. I believe that 58,000 unprotected sex acts in the PARTNER Study, and the message of the studies before that, is enough. Others don’t. But then, by their logic ten million unprotected sex acts is not compelling enough, because there will still be a minute theoretical risk to prevent them from using the “uninfectious” word. I believe that’s an untenable position.

    http://www.positivelite.com/component/zoo/item/the-undetectable-uninfectious-doubters
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2016 10:08 AM GMT
    I guess, speaking about a chance of transmitting HIV by an undetectable partner to his negative one, the risk is always to be ... even 0.0001 per cent is the risk! Moreover, I suppose all the data we`re waiting for will still represent occasional events thus as breaking of a condom or "being in a changed conscience conditions", where risk of infectionig is really tiny. I hope none of the scientists urges unprotected sex as a normal.
    However, no one of sane persons will never expose his parnter to HIV infection. Do I still believe in a perfect world? :-))

    (Once again, sorry for my broken English)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2016 9:01 PM GMT
    TheElijah saidI guess, speaking about a chance of transmitting HIV by an undetectable partner to his negative one, the risk is always to be ... even 0.0001 per cent is the risk! Moreover, I suppose all the data we`re waiting for will still represent occasional events thus as breaking of a condom or "being in a changed conscience conditions", where risk of infectionig is really tiny. I hope none of the scientists urges unprotected sex as a normal.
    However, no one of sane persons will never expose his parnter to HIV infection. Do I still believe in a perfect world? :-))

    (Once again, sorry for my broken English)


    Undetectable has been studied more than contracting HIV from kissing. At some point we all have to make a leap of faith based on facts and reasonable doubt.

    I don't think you understand, PrEP And TasP ARE protection, both are better protection from HIV (not STIs of course).

    You have a greater risk with the unknown population. You reinforce the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2016 1:52 AM GMT
    PreP is a way of bypassing sexual responsibility for many people. FYI, STI's and HIV exist to discourage people from having dangerous and unsafe sex. This treatment may work for now, but all diseases will begin to adapt and become dangerous again in my opinion. The problem is the vilification of the outcome of an unsafe sexual practise instead of the process itself, because if we discourage the process itself it means that many men would have to confront the idea that maybe being an irresponsible sex maniac isn't exactly healthy. But I am sure left wing liberetards would say that's just homophobia, and also that if you have a deadly virus in your body you're still just as clean as everybody else's body. I mean we're all the exact same right? Even though some make good choices and some don't, we're all equally entitled to the same treatment. Yeah, my ass. Because you're entitled to the word healthy even though you don't take as many safety precautions as other people, that sounds really fair. All that is is social welfare, which is meant to be a temporary means until you get off of your feet and take responsibility for your life after the shock has worn off.

    P.S. if you reply and say some people get raped/cheated on and it's unfair for me to blame them, that is how a small minority of the population contracts such and i'm obviously not talking about those people
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2016 1:43 PM GMT
    TO23 saidPreP is a way of bypassing sexual responsibility for many people. FYI, STI's and HIV exist to discourage people from having dangerous and unsafe sex. This treatment may work for now, but all diseases will begin to adapt and become dangerous again in my opinion. The problem is the vilification of the outcome of an unsafe sexual practise instead of the process itself, because if we discourage the process itself it means that many men would have to confront the idea that maybe being an irresponsible sex maniac isn't exactly healthy. But I am sure left wing liberetards would say that's just homophobia, and also that if you have a deadly virus in your body you're still just as clean as everybody else's body. I mean we're all the exact same right? Even though some make good choices and some don't, we're all equally entitled to the same treatment. Yeah, my ass. Because you're entitled to the word healthy even though you don't take as many safety precautions as other people, that sounds really fair. All that is is social welfare, which is meant to be a temporary means until you get off of your feet and take responsibility for your life after the shock has worn off.

    P.S. if you reply and say some people get raped/cheated on and it's unfair for me to blame them, that is how a small minority of the population contracts such and i'm obviously not talking about those people


    Well said. glad to hear someone else pointing out the obvious
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2016 8:16 PM GMT
    TO23 saidPreP is a way of bypassing sexual responsibility for many people. FYI, STI's and HIV exist to discourage people from having dangerous and unsafe sex. This treatment may work for now, but all diseases will begin to adapt and become dangerous again in my opinion. The problem is the vilification of the outcome of an unsafe sexual practise instead of the process itself, because if we discourage the process itself it means that many men would have to confront the idea that maybe being an irresponsible sex maniac isn't exactly healthy. But I am sure left wing liberetards would say that's just homophobia, and also that if you have a deadly virus in your body you're still just as clean as everybody else's body. I mean we're all the exact same right? Even though some make good choices and some don't, we're all equally entitled to the same treatment. Yeah, my ass. Because you're entitled to the word healthy even though you don't take as many safety precautions as other people, that sounds really fair. All that is is social welfare, which is meant to be a temporary means until you get off of your feet and take responsibility for your life after the shock has worn off.

    P.S. if you reply and say some people get raped/cheated on and it's unfair for me to blame them, that is how a small minority of the population contracts such and i'm obviously not talking about those people


    Ummm, yes you are a homophobe! "Irresponsible sex maniacs", "liberetards", "clean" are words of bias. And Lies. Health is not an entitlement, no matter how it's acquired.

    No one can sit in judgement of who is good or bad, deserving of treatment or not, certainly not you or Snarkeyjock73. If you think you are entitled you are above God, only in your opinion. Do you blame women who get cervical cancer from HPV?

    Here's where your stigma falls apart..........if someone is using PrEP and doesn't get HIV, what does that make him? You can't brand them with HIV. You seem to WANT people to get HIV as some sort of a moral punishment. The responsible measure is to end HIV by 2020 or 2030. Not by castigating those who use PrEP or TasP.


    The person you mentioned who gets HIV from a partner does NOT have to HAPPEN anymore. (and that IS how it is most often spread!). If he isn't "guilty" to begin with, why should he have to get HIV when he can prevent it with PrEP? The very person you cite can get HIV....OR NOT by using PrEP. If you can prevent yourself from getting HIV (even in a relationship) it is a no brainer.

    If you bother to make up lists of people who are at "blame" you miss the point of prevention. REAL prostitutes who use condoms or PrEP are not getting HIV, but newbies that get HIV....doing the same sexual acts........are somehow "sluts" and guilty? The overwhelming increases are among young and people of color. Not getting to them for treatment BEFORE they get HIV is a form of racism.


    You probably agreed with Ronald Reagan LAUGHING about AIDS, and his refusal to do anything about it. He had the Moral Majority on his side, sentencing Gay Men to death.