Florida man who knowingly spread HIV gets 10 years in prison

  • metta

    Posts: 54485

    Aug 01, 2019 6:32 AM GMT
    Florida man who knowingly spread HIV gets 10 years in prison

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-man-knowingly-spread-hiv-095424783.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2019 6:58 AM GMT
    metta saidFlorida man who knowingly spread HIV gets 10 years in prison

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-man-knowingly-spread-hiv-095424783.html


    Yep, another bi guy, why doesn't that surprise me. . .
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 01, 2019 10:02 PM GMT
    Praise be. I well recall a time when law enforcement didn't give a rats arse when gays & bi's were killing each other, with a deadly virus.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 04, 2019 9:33 AM GMT
    Deliberatly infecting others is deplorable, 10 years seems like an appropriate sentence. It is worth noting that jurisdictions such as California no longer view deliberate infection as a criminal matter. The decision to repeal the laws, just is based on an admirable 'aspirational concept', to reduce stigma toward HIV Positive people, of which on the concept level I strongly agree.

    Problem is, the justification is based on floored research, reliance on assumptions and anacdotal evidence and a lack of the recognition of the cost of HIV both in monetary and lifestyle remains even with viral suppression. Most AIDS Counci.s now advocate complete removal of HIV Infecftion from criminal codes, of which the explanation provided is that HIV is no longer a death sentence. This assumes capacity to access ongoing medication and other medical costs to the infected person. The other most commonly cited co-factor is that Criminal sanctions for deliberate infection acts as a deterent for some people, particularly those at risk, from accessing regular testing services and treatment options. The evidence has not been established in any reputible study, additionally, if you consider the concept that attempts to suggest that people who may be HIV Positive, conciously avoid Sexual health testing, so that they are able to continue to engage in high risk sexual activity without fear of legal consequences, provided they don't get tested so they could claim they didnt know. This ignores all the bariers to testing and treatment that need to be addressed and as a logical conclusion, knowledgable HIV Negative people see these claims and are immediately suspicious, which has the effect of unfortunately casting doubt regarding the trust in Public Health messages that are based on scientific (as opposed to anacdotal) which is detrimental to all.

    I suspect a reply will be made to what I have posted which will attempt to include legal requirement, of disclosure of HIV Status related law, in order to envoke sympathy and support for their campaign to De-Criminalise deliberate HIV Infection. I would support any well reasoned changes which reduces discrimination of HIV Positive people, however the removal of criminal sanctions, does not have any known impact on rates of engagement with sexual health services, nor any verifiable effect on rates of treatment. There is a large body of evidence which is discussed regularly by the same AIDS Councils covering the limited rates of engagement of ethnic minorities in particular, despite the long established evidence of their risk.

    The other thing that de-criminalising deliberate infection does, is reducing confidence of the accuracy of sexual health messages for the vast majority who are at moderate risk of HIV, particularly regarding emerging concepts and medical treatment options. Ironically a campaign claiming a goal of reducing stigma, effectlvely does the opposite. Most important to remember, is criminal law is ,made with community protection, which would include aspects of risk to members of the public. Also very important to note that deliberate infecftion requires a choice to engage in unprotected sexual acts, with prior knowledge of the risk or effects. Therefore, Undetectable Positive people are NOT these laws target, nor is there a neccessity for laws requiring disclosure to be affected as they are related but seperate issues.

    Last of all, most AIDS Councils have been pushing the message that sex with persons who have an Undetectable Viral load provides eliminates transmission risk. As persons who have a current Undetectable Viral Load do not transmit HIV, deliberate infection is not relavent. The prevailing stigma around HIV is that people who are HIV Positive are reckless and potentially all an extreme risk of HIV Tranmission, therefore, the existance of criminal sanctions being applied to deliberate infection, provides a basis of increased confidence in TasP treatment as prevention (UVL OR PreP), removal of those measures, increases suspicion and re-enforces stereotypes, achieving nothing toward the 2020 HIV elimination goals. There are versions of criminal law governing deliberate infection which require review and alteration, such as those which do not require actual infection, which is ludicruse. Happy to discuss any of these points above as long as it's civil and preferably fact based
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 18, 2019 3:43 AM GMT
    It's a rubbish headline. The man was convicted of not notifying his partners, not.of spreading HIV.

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

    Aug 18, 2019 10:08 AM GMT
    Actually, the article doesn't specify either way. HIV Researchers have claimed on multiple occasions, that in the testing phase of currently used viral suppression medications, that the only sero-conversions that occured where in HIV Negative men who had aquired HIV from another sexual partner other than their primary partner. This was done by testing the strain of HIV which was then used to discount faliure in the medications effectiveness and to claim the viral suppression is100% safe. The article mentions she saw his medication, so it is clear he has recieved viral suppression treatment at some stage, however he may have ceased taking it and therefore no longer being virally supressed. In cases where transmission of HIV has knowingly occurred, in the interests of developing/maintaining public confidence in the U=U message, regardless of the abiliy where a court case on HIV Transmission occures, for the WHO to test if the strain of HIV in the infected compalinant compared to that of the accussed, as it would have multiple benefits, of increasing confidence in U=U (or potentially exposing problems) and in jurisdictions which prosecute PLWHIV for non-disclosure where no transmission occurs, it would provide the evidence of which would lead to alteration/repealing of non-disclosure of HIV status without any transmission becoming a thing of the past. which it should.

    However at present, just like with Prep, vested interests seem al to keen to trivialise risk and protection of the public, by not been transparent. Til that changes, the public scepticism of both Prep and UVL will not change, people today are far too well educated and truth is, even today, without expensive medication, which in the USA is unaffordeable to many vulnerable people, for them HIV is a death sentence. Those people need to recieve legal recourse against malicious or negligent transmission of HIV instead of the sex rights of the HIV infected being prioritised. Those HIV Positive people who are medication compliant or take appropriate measures to ensure they don't transmit HIV have nothing to fear and probably should complain about how the current srategies are not maximising the opportunities on many levels to eliminate HIV all because of lack of insight that in order to effect change in attitudes to HIV Positive people by HIV negative peoples concerns need to be addressed at every level or face the reality of more of the same.



    Ubeaut saidIt's a rubbish headline. The man was convicted of not notifying his partners, not.of spreading HIV.

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

    Aug 19, 2019 9:26 AM GMT
    Rugbyjock be as denialist as you want but stop this purposeful campaign of misleading people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2019 2:40 PM GMT
    Ubeaut saidRugbyjock be as denialist as you want but stop this purposeful campaign of misleading people.


    Perhaps I will do as you request if you can you specify what I am allegedly denying? What about providing an example where you believe I am misleading people? I have used all the most current and scientific facts, so please specify what you are referring too.