Justin Trudeau - If HIV Is Undetectable - It's Untransmittable

So true!

That is what the science says. This is something that has been heavily studied, someone who is undetectable does not transmit HIV, there are zero cases of it happening.

Wow 😲 Canada 🇨🇦 is amazing

Why would they be charged anyway, unless someone caught the virus from another person?

Good luck with that.

R2, now please explain when someone would know they've transitioned from undetectable to transmittable? This epidemic should have been taken care of decades ago. If you are HIV+ put a fucking condom on. If you don't, you should be in jail forever. If that had been the law from the 80s on, there would be much less HIV infection in the world.

Wow 😲 @ R6 you are such an inspiration 🙇

People who know they are positive and compliant with medication are not the people passing on the virus.

The HIV epidemic continues for two reasons:

1) People don't get tested, and pass along the virus while claiming to their partners they are negative.

2) People who have found out they are positive, but refuse to follow the treatment they are supposed to.

[quote]That is what the science says. This is something that has been heavily studied, someone who is undetectable does not transmit HIV, there are zero cases of it happening.

If there were standardized testing requirements and adherence to drug protocols, sure, that's true.

However, the devil is in the details. If a person doesn't get tested for viral levels, how long are they clear for non-disclosure. The issue is not whether the person was relatively undetectable. The issue is at what point and at what point would someone have to disclose. HIV status is binary - you either are or not HIV-positive and the subsequent disclosure requirement is less subjective.

[quote]When a person first begins treatment, it usually takes three to six months for the viral load to become undetectable. Most people will eventually have an undetectable viral load if they have a drug combination that is effective against their strain of HIV and take it as prescribed by their doctor.

There are two operative portions of that sentence - if they have a drug combination that is effective AND take it as prescribed.

R7, it's not pretty but it's reality. Would you rather have all the people who died over the last 30 years or have a bunch of irresponsible assholes put away for the good of the general public early in the epidemic? Spending all the money and brainpower on studying ways for people to fuck without a condom for the last 30 years is a ridiculous waste. The almost 100% guaranteed prevention costs $1. Every other transmittable epidemic in the history of humanity, especially when it had a very high death rate attached, was solved by either a vaccine or isolation of those infected. That wasn't done with HIV and the world has suffered.

R10 is a troll who is NOT gay

R11 is a stupid troll who doesn't like reality or science but probably does like fucking bareback, screw the consequences to them or their victims.

R12 I'm a virgin

HIV transmission via sex are more often than not caused by:

People who do not know they are HIV positive and don’t practice safe sex OR

People who are HIV positive and not taking ART and therefore NOT UNDETECTABLE

Start at post R492 in this thread.

Virus can mutate. Mutate and start it's own strain inside of 1 single person. A new strain can start using DNA of 2 people when infecting new host and present host infecting new host. A virus CAN HIBERNATE! No detection. If it mutates into a completely presently undectable entity via human or animal host we can't trace it back to its origins and it could decimate populations.

Just follow virus links. Also helpful in shutting down conspiracy theorists who claim these new strains are produced in a lab. Some could be. A virus doesn't need a lab. You're the lab.

Justin, you'll be sorry, my boy

R6 WW

R15 it is 2018 not 1978

R9 and effective against THEIR particular strain. Yikes.

Since Jussy didnt succeed in becoming an Indian when he dressed up as one, hes now pretending to be a doctor & making faulty medical announcements.

What a tool.

R18 a troll who is not gay

R16, do you think something has changed in viral evolutionary mechanics in the last 40 years? People need to learn science or shut up.

R20 it is called Medicine

R21, you're a moron.

R22 why did you write that while facing a mirror?

*sigh*

It’s a virus. Viruses are devious and this one kills. Playing peekaboo with HIV is foolish.

So HIV is like herpes that only can be transmitted when it "flares up" and is labeled as detected?

R23, are you 12? You sound 12. Our current medicine has led to the creation of super-bacteria immune to all antibiotics. What do you think fucking around trying to "cure" viruses by simply making them undetectable is going to eventually create? So fucking stupid.

R26 the topic is HIV not super-bacteria

try to keep up

He was making an analogy.

So, you are just a troll. Good to know, R27. HIV is a virus. Addressed in the other sentence you couldn't quite make it through.

[quote][R26] the topic is HIV not super-bacteria

Not r26.

However, no one can be so oblivious to the point r26 is making regarding increasing speeds and drivers of mutation of the viruses in general and HIV in particular.

Why do you suppose that the earlier drugs began losing effectiveness.

[quote] Why do you suppose that the earlier drugs began losing effectiveness.

Not in 2018

There is AMPLE evidence that taking medication, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT REDUCE VIRAL LOAD TO UNDETECTABLE, effectively reduces transmission. However, only undetectability has a proven track record in this regard. The reason that people with HIV are given HAART is that the act of taking 3 or more drugs almost guarantees that none will become resistant, or, if partial resistance develops in one, the other drugs will make sure that the virus remains undetectable. The weak link is not the act of taking medication. It's in getting people to adhere religiously to their regimens. Partiers and drinkers are notorious for not being adherent, because they wake up in other people's homes without having medications with them, or they go days without thinking about whether they have taken medication. But you probably wouldn't be hooking up with such people unless you were in a similar lifestyle yourself.

Fact of the matter is the detractors of HIV being undetectable on this thread ARE NOT GAY

They are just trolls from Russia

[quote]Why do you suppose that the earlier drugs began losing effectiveness.

[quote]Not in 2018

No one can be this stupid. In 2018, the introduction of multi-drug combination therapies limited the ability of the virus to mount rapid adaptive responses to antiretroviral selection pressure.

No one is debating that transmission is reduced when viral loads are lower or undetectable. The issue is that remaining at that lower viral load REQUIRES a relatively strict adherence to medication regimes. And the specific issue is that it takes time to achieve that undetectable status, as well, as the potential transience of such a status.

The rise of multiple strains of HIV should be a HUGE clue to the rapidity with which that virus adapts.

[quote]Fact of the matter is the detractors of HIV being undetectable on this thread ARE NOT GAY

Given the explosive growth and incipient health crisis HIV is in Russia right now, I'd argue that people spreading rainbows and sunshine wishful thinking, rather than science, are more likely the trolls, as they would like to see the rest of the world succumb to that type of ignorance-fueled health crisis.

Gay men have made too many strides forward to allow ignorance to make us pariahs and lepers once again from this disease. Every one of us should be actively managing our health and sex lives, by making informed decisions, not passively letting other people make them for us, fear mongering or slut shaming.

Undetectable does NOT = Untransmittable.

CURED = Untransmittable.

Its not cured.

Now if only Trudeau could come cleanse DL of it's anti-sex, anti-science trolls (e.g. r36).

HIV policy advocates are mostly HIV-positive gay men.

Instead of making the reduction of new infections the top priority, their paramount concern is "reducing the stigma."

Decriminalizing HIV transmission is part of their broader agenda. It's not about protecting the most vulnerable. It's about old gay men with HIV convincing young men that it's OK to fuck them.

"Hey, if I'm 'undetectable' and you're on PreP, we're totally safe."

(Just don't read the multi-page leaflets of fine print that come with those lifetimes of medications. And ignore those "Russian trolls" talking about resistant strains, and cases of sero-converting while on PreP.)

[quote]Undetectable does NOT = Untransmittable.

True, but utterly misleading.

From the consensus statement endorsed by over 760 organizations from nearly 100 countries:

[quote]There is now evidence-based confirmation that the risk of HIV transmission from a person living with HIV (PLHIV), who is on Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) and has achieved an undetectable viral load in their blood for at least 6 months is negligible to non-existent.

You probably have a higher probability of winning the lottery than transmitting or contracting HIV - under certain defined parameters of undetectable viral load status.

This does not make me feel jealous, just confused

r35 exactly! I have heard many cries of " Russian troll!" but this one is absolutely ridiculous. I would assume the troll is the one who thinks it's a good idea to play (pun intended) Russian roulette with a deadly virus, I would say the non trolls are the skeptics.

Condoms Rose Condoms!!!

JT knows nothing about science.

Let's put is this way. There are MANY studies of sero-discordant studies involving thousands of couples, both straight and gay, in which not one transmission of virus happened from the positive to the negative person in the couple as long as the positive person was undetectable. So, from the perspective of empirical science (science which can be replicated by doing studies and replicating the results) undetectable = untransmissable in spite of what r36 said above. There are theoretical reasons for this as well having to do with a weakened virus with its "attaching parts" being cut off at the knees by medication, but a scientist will always say (to cover his butt), well, theoretically, it's possible that a transmission could occur. That's not saying that he really believes it will ever occur. Russian roulette, which someone used as an analogy, is a situation in which a gun has 6 chambers and one of them has an actual bullet in it. That's a one in 6 odds, which is a foolhardy kind of chance taking . Now imagine a gun which has several million chambers, and only one of them has an actual bullet in it. That's the ACTUAL situation we're talking about. Odds such that you'd be more likely to be killed by a lightning strike than acquiring HIV from an undetectable person. Now compare that to the other possibilities. A condom that rips during sex . A person lying about his status. Two situations MUCH more dangerous than having sex with an undetectable HIV+ person.

I must admit that I struggle with "undetectable = untransmittable" being treated as a scientific fact for the simple reason that I grew up with the belief that you can transmit HIV even in the undetected stage. And I dismissed those saying that (including on sites about Treasure Island Media movies) as, well, trolls who were trolling for bare dick and ass.

Though I do wonder how far the whole being responsible patient who sticks to his health regimen goes? Does untransmittable also include for the patient to be responsible enough to use condoms (in addition to sticking to his medica treatment as prescribed) and having sex with others without drugs or alcohol in his system? Like that you are supposed to use condoms while being on PrEP to be really prevent HIV transmition?

I firmly believe that if someone has sex without a condom and catches something, it's their own damn fault regardless of whether or not the person was lying about having anything.

No one can know I'm am irresponsible whore who depends on luck to remain disease free!

R44, I'll ask again. Exactly how would a person know the moment they went from undetectable to transmittable? And studies of committed couples have exactly zero to do with bar-hopping whores putting their asses in the air or sticking their dicks in said asses at the drop of a hat? They are not going home and taking their meds on schedule, getting regularly tested, or giving two shits about the welfare of the person they are fucking.

Actually, the studies of sero-discordant couples found that a) very few people who achieved undetectable status went to a transmissive state - you have to mess up your medications quite a bit to do that, and b). those negative people on the study who became poz didn't acquire from their partners - they went out, cheated on their partners, and were infected that way. I'm pretty sure there's no place in the studies where a person could check a box saying. "I'm a bar-hopping whore putting my ass in the air". Still, it's quite possible that a number of people in the study fit that description exactly.

When a person is tested for detectability, the result comes back in copies. Undetectable is fewer than 40 copies/ml, but in many cases the lab can't detect fewer than that anyway, so it really means they can't find ANY copies. If a person has been cheating on his adherence so that he is at risk for resistance and ultimately treatment failure, his next test might show 300 or 600 copies/ml. This is still far too few to transmit. Common transmission level would be 100,000 copies/ml, which would be a typical result of someone who just discovers he is HIV+ and has never been medicated. But this would get the doctor's attention, and he would have the patient adhere to medication and try again in a few weeks. If the copy level is still rising after that, the doctor would switch the patient to a new regimen . That's the way it works, not the imaginary scenario you have cooked up in your mind.

If a person is seriously considering a relationship or even merely a regular sexual connection with an HIV+ person who is claiming to be undetectable, instead of being dismissive, a good rule to follow would be to ask to see his latest report. If the relationship is ongoing, it would make sense to involve yourself in his medical care on a regular basis. You're guaranteeing your own safety by doing so, and again, your odds of remaining uninfected by someone who has admitted his HIV status and also volunteered that he is getting regular medical care and is undetectable are infinitely higher than your odds would be trusting a random guy from Grindr who swears he is Negative.

These threads and trans threads exist to create their usual rat fuck. They are created by trolls or invitations to trolls. Does it matter which are first the chicken or the egg? And dismal displays of mental, social and sexual implosion.

Trolls like to spread disinformation and push people's button to make others - who are interested in an actual discussion about the topic - look weak and defensive and, when pushed further, unhinged.

Has an actual physician made the statement that undetectable means untransmissible? If not, I am surprised the PM would go out on a limb like this.

I guess it is similar to that other unpleasant virus herpes in that your doc will tell you that it is virtually untransmissible when you are on Valtrex, but they always say "But it COULD happen.:

R52 Yes actual SWISS DOCTORS made the statement, to much controversy, a decade ago. Big minds were blown but they assimilated. Now small minds twist around it for eternity, much as similar minds wrestle with the ass being a shit and fuck hole, or the huge dilemma of uncut cock. Vote for Trump, it's just easier to believe in lies, rancid old stereotypes, and delusions.

[quote]I must admit that I struggle with "undetectable = untransmittable" being treated as a scientific fact for the simple reason that I grew up with the belief that you can transmit HIV even in the undetected stage

You're describing someone who has seroconverted but has not yet had a positive antibody test. That's generally when a person is considered MOST infectious.

"Undetectable" in this circumstance means "a person with a known HIV infection, but no detectible active virus in the blood." The transmission of disease doesn't actually happen because one copy of a virus is passed from person to person. There is what's called a minimum infective dose. Incredibly aggressive viruses, like Ebola (It's an ELE!!!!) don't need very many, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10. Influenza requires at least a few hundred. To the best of my knowledge, we don't actually know the MID of HIV, just because as the only reservoir for it, no one is going around injecting people to see how many copies it takes. They can only work backwards, and the lowest known actual transmission occurred at about 350 copies. But HIV is really slow to actually start killing, so that's probably a pretty good estimate. The last time I read up on this, current equipment can get a quantitative result as low as about 50 copies, although there's some newer one that can get it to 20.

[quote]Has an actual physician made the statement that undetectable means untransmissible?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. No one is going to say anything to 100% certainty, but the subject is well studied, and it all points to the same conclusion.

I am not saying go out and bareback with aplomb, since there's so much else to catch.

It's good that HIV-positive individuals have to worry about being criminally prosecuted for not informing their partners.

There is only a handful of people who want to reverse these laws: HIV positive men who want to fuck carefree without regard, and people more worried about the feelings of a small fraction of the population than health and safety of the whole.

The stigma of contracting an STD is good when combined with safe sex education and easy access to condoms. Also, the attitude that the other STDs one can contract are "treatable" and no big deal is a public health crisis waiting to happen. All fueled by "U=U" activists who are hedonists looking for an excuse to fuck raw and swap loads. Find out more about these any of these people and you'll learn that they are also pro-bareback porn and pro-sex work. Look into their materials and advocacy and you won't find a single message advocating condom use.

These "leaders" of the community are a hazard and it's unfortunate that they hold such influence in Canada.

R55 IQ = 94

Also a cookie clearing shit stirrer. Troll central, these threads.

How sad to see so many gay men, so close to World AIDS Day choose to promote the dangerous fiction of U=U.

Why not just say the person is HIV-positive, but there is an extremely low chance of transmitting the virus? Because, most potential partners would insist on a condom, or run for the hills. The welfare of society comes before HIV-positive men's desires. I've even heard people say it shouldn't be prosecuted under law because HIV is "no longer a death sentence." (Sure, just take this lifetime medication, and hope for the best.)

Call me a troll R56, but condoms have kept me happy and healthy for 20 years.

R55 has some valid points. Wtf is U=U?

You would have to be an idiot to not understand that a guy is positive if he tells you he is undetectable. The only reason you would have bareback sex with someone you don't know is because you discuss HIV status and PrEP etc etc or because you don't care, or you are an idiot, or you on HIV+ or you are HIV- on PrEP.

There are HIV+ people who are in PRISON who did not transmit HIV, and could NOT transmit HIV. That is what Trudeau is addressing.

I stayed neg by using condoming. It hurts no one to put out the scientific information and let them incorporate it into their choices. Most people are too fucking dumb to handle the information.

R55 is the typical asswipe who thinks his rules, definitions and choices should govern over peoples sexual choices. And also be codified in laws.

R58 good for you.

U=U is not a "dangerous fiction". This is pure stupidity, or deliberate trolling. U=U + PrEP - mixed into current gay practices, is creating a mess. STIs thought the roof. But that doesn't mean U=U is a fiction.

R4 Look at American case-law

I'm not sure that if a guy told e he was on PrEP I would take his word for it.

This is a bit off topic, but it's still in the same general arena. I was watching After Porn Ends Part 2 last week, and the black male porn star who literally shook the straight porno world when he caused 3 women to seroconvert, Darren James, is featured in the film. He still contends that he has no idea how or from whom he contracted the virus, but he "thinks" he may have picked it up from a female in Brazil. This sounds a bit Magic Johnson to me to be honest.

But then he raises the ante when he explains that he has dedicated his life to HIV awareness and educating the public: "If I had worn a condom, I likely would not be sick today."

Say WHAT?? How would him wearing a condom have prevented him from seroconverting?? And this guy is working with a well known AIDS outreach group in LA? Seems to me that if he cannot be straightforward about his disease, he needn't be out there advising others.

"How would...wearing a condom have prevented him from seroconverting?"

Because that's how condoms work.

If his story is that he got HIV as a man who doesn't take dick in his ass, instead he got it by raw dogging, then if he had worn a condom, he would not have been infected. What don't you understand, R64?

I think people understand, but they are incredulous. Sometimes, it's hard to believe that people don't understand the basics of disease prevention.

The average person (gay or straight) under the age of 30 is truly uneducated when it comes to safe sex. Visit any blog, YouTube channel, Facebook group, etc, and you'll never see or hear mention of a condom.

I think there are poverty-stricken African villagers with better information on condom usage and HIV prevention.

The problem is that some people believe they don't get HIV positive when they pull out at the right moment (like not getting a girl pregnant you also don't get HIV poz when you pull out at the right time) or some other bogus myth. They rather believe those myths than actual science and science based education, because they want to do it bare and get that maximum amount of please with no latex dampening the sensation.

Don't forget, R68, the miseducation provided by social media and porn.

The average young gay guy on Twitter or Tumblr might view 10 acts of condom-free anal sex every day. It's literally brainwashing a generation into how sex is supposed to work.

When gay media and government officials can't get behind the proper messaging for STD prevention, we're headed full speed ahead into the next epidemic.

[quote]Virus can mutate.

Indeed. From the land of Justin Trudeau:

Mutated strains of HIV circulating in Saskatchewan are leading to faster-developing AIDS-related illnesses in the Indigenous population, new research has shown.

Strains of HIV in Saskatchewan have high levels of immune-resistant mutations compared to ones in other areas of Canada and the United States.

"Physicians were saying, 'There's something going on here that isn't right, people are getting sick very, very fast,'" said Zabrina Brumme, the lead author of the study. "In Saskatchewan, like other places in the world, HIV is adapting to the host populations in which it is circulating,."

AIDS relief organizations have condemned the CDC two years in a row now for refusing to mention safer sex or condom use at all in World AIDS Day promotions. It’s all PrEP or abstinence.

This is the organization responsible for preventing the transmission of all communicable diseases. All, not only HIV.

I survived the aids so I would never have sex with anyone knowing they have it.

[quote] The average young gay guy on Twitter or Tumblr might view 10 acts of condom-free anal sex every day.

Nobody should ever use gay porn as an excuse to fuck bareback like using action films as an excuse to slow walk away from an explosion. People get that you need to spend some serious time cleaning and emptying your bowels before anal sex or else you will have a really shitty experience. You don't see that preparation in gay porn, but still know that it needs to be done. The same way should go for protecting yoursel from alls sorts of STIs.

R66 Men do not become HIV+ by "rawdogging" women without a condom. Do you think that the virus shoots up his pee hole?

A condom prevents a man or a woman in the passive role from seroconverting when having sex with an HIV+ man.

Good lord. I guess I have to apologize to Mr. James for thinking he was an idiot, or worse, a liar. It seems that people are just as clueless here, and I really did not expect that at all.

[quote][R66] Men do not become HIV+ by "rawdogging" women without a condom. Do you think that the virus shoots up his pee hole?

[quote]A condom prevents a man or a woman in the passive role from seroconverting when having sex with an HIV+ man.

The level of stupid in this is astounding.

R73 Like it or not, showing people doing these things onscreen encourages viewers to do them in their private lives. I admit I started swallowing when porn began to feature that because in my mind I figured, “OK, this has to be incredibly low risk for professional promiscuous sex workers to suddenly be doing it in every movie. They test before every scene, they consult with medical experts, they undoubtedly hear from MDs and community organizers about what they put on screen. It has to be a low-risk activity.”

Then when barebacking started to become common I freaked out. Because it IS reckless, and I knew that it would mainstream the behavior. And it did. Immediately I saw on Scruff and Grindr that more guys were “open minded” (took me a little while to figure out what that was code for), and then suddenly it became the norm.

No one takes any other STD seriously because they think all others are easy to cure. They will not be if people hand them out like Halloween candy; they will evolve to resist available treatments.

And NO ONE, even including public health agencies, considers the threat of emerging/new diseases. Before HIV, there was no HIV. And then there was. Before the recent Alpha Gal red meat allergy (spread by ticks) there was no such potentially deadly allergy; within the last five years it has gone from nonexistent to prevalent. Before the recent Powassan virus (spread by ticks, and deadly) showed up there was no such virus. Now it’s spreading. And it is possible that, for example, diseases spread by ticks and mosquitoes may be sexually transmittable and no one knows it yet, or that they could evolve to become sexually transmissable.

If the CDC and Health Canada and other public health agencies really want to protect public health, they will encourage people to prevent the spread of know and as-yet unknown diseases. When it comes to sex, that means condom use, not just PrEP. PrEP protects against ONE virus. One infection. This is not “the pill.” There is only one kind of pregnancy, so one pill works. There are many infectious agents, so one pill will not work.

Let's not say "stupid", R75. The better word is "misinformed."

Although greatly reduced, there is a chance for penetrative partners to become infected by inserting their penises into the anus or vagina of partners carrying the HIV virus. This is most clearly proven in regions of Africa where many heterosexual men are infected this way. Uncircumsized men are at particular risk.

Which is yet another reason why the rise of STDs (other than HIV) is so worrisome. Skin breakage and sites of infection on the penis multiply the risk for both the active and passive partner.

One cannot compare AIDS in Africa and its transmission with the disease in the US. The bodies of most Africans are so immune compromised to begin with, the transmission is completely different. If it were not, half of the heterosexuals in the US would be HIV+.

The fact remains that in the US and most western countries, the odds of a man becoming HIV+ from having unprotected vaginal sex with a female is infinitesimal.

The transmission in the US and Africa is completely the same, R78 ... heterosexual intercourse with penis in vagina.

As more Americans choose not to circumcise male infants, the transmission rates to heterosexual males will increase.

As more hetero men contract STDs, viral infection via the surface penis and urethra will increase.

As more women become HIV positive, the number of men penetrating the vaginas of HIV infected women without condoms will increase.

There's way too much conflation of "rare, unlikely, improbable, and impossible" in the discussion around HIV and it gives people a false sense of security.

You know it's true because the Prime Minister said it.

can this site please do something to address all the hetero/cis women/girls flooding it?

Cis r81? Nice, made up word. We now know you're an idiot.

HIV transmition occurs with direct blood on blood contact. As in when a penis gets a small tear that bleeds and it comes in contact with a small wound of the vagina, mouth, or ass it currently fucks.

The HIV virus has a very short life span when it's exposed to air.

"Tops can't catch HIV"

"You can't get HIV from sucking dick and swallowing."

A somewhat popular gay black Atlanta YouTuber, Justin J, used to spout all sorts of medical misinformation. Until earlier last week, he announced that he himself had seroconverted and was now HIV-positive. There's a piece on it on Lipstick Alley if anyone wants to start a thread.

So tired of men not wanting to have safe sex and searching for any logic to justify it.

R49, are you a doctor or a PrEP salesman? The very studies you are talking about involve couples who are involved on a regular basis. Some may cheat but the population they are studying is couples. That already skews the results since that population is less likely to spread the disease. As I said, if they were doing the study on drunk bar whores you'd be seeing very different results due to the factors already mentioned. Ideally, people would take their meds, get tested, make sure there was no risk to their partners, and never get drunk or act irresponsibly but we don't live in an ideal world.

The worst case scenario is playing out now. Making a deadly virus seem as harmless as an average cold is dangerous. All it takes is that one, horrifying mutation that changes the virus in a way that makes it more virulent and more easily contagious (which is already happening in places like that Canadian population discussed above) and the approach we are now taking toward HIV is a recipe for exactly that.

R10 Oh, really, possum? So we've totally solved HPV have we. No controversy there. No parents up in arms refusing to get their precious little nookums vaccinated are there?

anyone else?

Didnt read all the posts above, so someone may have addressed this already...

The discussion seems to be centering around undetectable=non transmissable & while that might be the case in wealthy countries like the US & Canada, youre not accounting for INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL.

HIV+ ppl can come to wealthy countries from Africa, Russia, Asia, Latin America & transmit a mutated version of HIV to our local populations.

How long before the virus mutates into a version that present drug therapies cant treat, and starts to spread? If that happens, we're right back in 1981.

And thats not even talking about newer strains of gonorrhea & syphilis alone, that are now completely resistant to available antibiotics. The gonorrhea strain has already appeared in France & Spain. It'll be global before long.

^^ Forgot to add that the intl travel scenario works both ways. Our citizens traveling to those other countries & regions.

R86, drunk? Stupid? Ignorant? All three?

[quote]The discussion seems to be centering around undetectable=non transmissable & while that might be the case in wealthy countries like the US & Canada, youre not accounting for INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL.

Does an undetectable viral load behave differently if said viral load cannot be detected in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Does a different STRAIN of a virus contained in a viral load behave differently? Yes, R91, and there's a good chance that different strains of the HIV virus will respond differently and not stay suppressed to "undetectable" levels using the current treatments.

There's a very interesting article about the worldwide nature of the epidemic at R70 that you obviously didn't read. (Perhaps because it doesn't fit the "untransmittable" narrative.)

[quote] The research from the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and Simon Fraser University was presented at the 2018 AIDS Conference in Amsterdam on Thursday. It showed that the strains of HIV in Saskatchewan have high levels of immune-resistant mutations compared to ones in other areas of Canada and the United States.

[quote] "Physicians were saying, 'There's something going on here that isn't right, people are getting sick very, very fast,'" said Zabrina Brumme, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University.

[quote] "It's almost as if the virus is nastier.l

They're going to be stacking up a lot of dead bodies in 20 years - bodies of gay men that were put on Prep and lied to about undetectable. Mark my words.

Yeah I feel like there’s a slow-moving mass execution taking place right now.

Uh, R94, judging by the stupid 'I wanna fuck anyone, anywhere no matter what!' contingent posting on this thread, I would consider it a slow-moving mass suicide.

R88, you're awfully sane for this thread.

HIV deaths have been dropping, year over year, since 2005. New cases of HIV have overall dropped as well, but there was small uptick in 2010 that reversed the following year. PrEP came on the market in 2012 or 2013.

I'm not saying fuck who you want when you want. I still use condoms with PrEP as a backup. But, like the man said, in God and Barbra we trust, all others must have data.

Anything to get re-elected. Absolutely anything.

I love my haz-mat suit!

Just a wacky question: what happens if there’s a bad batch of PrEP, or if the drug ceases to be manufactured or made available for some reason?

Yet not a soul factored in the fact that a virus can mutate into a NEW STRAIN inside ONE SINGLE PERSON.

Uh, a lot of us are arguing just that, R101. Where do you think these mutations we are talking about would be taking place other than in a person? That's why the treatments that just partially work are so dangerous.

R79 Look you dumbass, I never said that thee METHOD of hetero transmission in Africa was any different from western countries, I said exactly what most doctors say, and that is, "It would be wrong to judge the hetero transmission of AIDS virus in Africa to the disease and its transmission here. There is a very, very low likelihood of a woman passing the virus to a man through vaginal intercourse.

The statistics bear that out. And that is on of the reasons why no one believes men when they say that they got it from women(Magic and Eazy E)

[quote] Anything to get re-elected. Absolutely anything.

So you are voting Andrew Scheer

I believe, in general, in countries like Africa HIV positive patients don't have the luxury to become undetectable since they are not able to reach to, and maintain, that stage by having access to the necessary medication at all times. You only become and stay undetectable when you keep taking the HIV medication as prescribed ... and maybe live and eat healthy.

What if, what if, what if? The reality is that currently undetectable people on medication cannot transmit virus. That's a scientific fact. People are bringing up the HIV in Saskatchewan. If you read the article CAREFULLY, the interviewed person says that he has achieved undetectable status. The issue isn't that people on medication are exposing others to a mutated virus. The issue is that, probably through IV drug use, HIV+ people who are unaware of their status are spreading a variety of HIV that is already resistant to a number of medications. And just as native Americans had no immune resistance to smallpox when the white man came and it wiped out a huge number of them, there are probably factors, such as the CCR5 mutation found in many Caucasians which confers partial immunity to HIV which would not be found in native Americans - therefore it is not surprising that they are getting sicker faster.

No one here is advocating barebacking. Condoms or other forms of safer sex are still important. Nonetheless, your risk of acquiring HIV through barebacking someone HIV+ but undetectable is many many magnitudes lower than barebacking someone who SAYS he is HIV negative. It is people who either have not been tested or who have been tested but refuse to go on medication who are the primary vectors of HIV transmission - as they have been for the past 22 years, since the development of the HAART regimen.

[quote]r32 Partiers and drinkers are notorious for not being adherent

And the tattooed.

Trump is a nightmare and has proven he can and will do anything anyone regards as cruel at anytime. Last night, the Washington Post broke that Trump is threatening to discontinue HIV research with stem cells.

If Pence were to become president, there’s a good chance that Pence would pull the plug on HIV research and I do believe that he likewise would do what he could get away with doing insofar as limiting access to treatment for people with HIV. He tried it in Ohio when he campaigned. People only remember that he campaigned with proposed legislation to institute mandatory state-funded gay conversion torture; they less often recall that his proposed funding source came from de-funding HIV prevention AND treatment programs.

So many people today are dependent on both post-infection medications and pre-infection PrEP. If those drugs become inaccessible, those people will have death sentences with five to 15-year terms at best. It is insane to me that gay men have become so cavalier about their lives and so trusting of the government that completely ignored the plague until the public realized it wasn’t just a gay disease.

The Reagan and Bush administrations both let hundreds of thousands of gay men die from AIDS and felt no remorse. And the reality is that the public at large does not give a damn. Look at how both were lionized when they died. If you don’t look out for your own well being and instead trust the government and pharmaceutical companies to protect it, you cannot call yourself a victim when the worst happens.

Call me a Pollyanna idiot, but I do not believe that Trump would or could discontinue stem cell research. There are far too many people on both sides of the aisle who would crucify him for that. And then there's Ivanka. She would not permit it.

Look, remember Nancy Reagan? Mrs. "I won't do a damn thing about AIDS" Ronald Reagan even came to see that it is imperative.

Don't do it. If someone is poz chances are they probably have other diseases or infections as a lot of poz men think that they don't need to use condoms and can keep having all the bare sex they want with anyone, or with people who they think are clean, neg from everything but HIV, etc. which is how they were infected in the first place.

Agreex R6 I do think that people who are HIV+ who know fully well they are poz but lie about it or don't tell until after bareback sex should be punished and face time in prison. But if someone wants it raw they probably are HIV+, or will be soon and it is best to avoid having sex with them even if they claim to be on PREP or undetectable, or even "neg".