HIV Risk with Bottoming for a POZ Top with Undetectable Viral Load

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
Oh my bad, HIV isn't contagious then. Because that is essentially what I said.

"outdated information"? As other users have said, there has been no formal research done on what you asked (making my post in no way outdated, as it describes the current level of understanding.), it's also just needlessly risky. As in, "risking getting HIV based on here-say with no solid backing is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard of."

As other users have said, you do NOT have to be in an active period to be contagious. This applies to just about every virus, sexually transmitted or otherwise, on the face of the planet.

Herpes simplex, for example, can be entirely dormant, but still infect others.

And, even if it was provable that a reduced load level resulted in a lower level of infection, it is NOT a goddamn flu virus.

I'm utterly amazed by this response. You're acting as if I'm an ignorant redneck who should apologise for not wanting you to risk contracting HIV.



Wow, just wow. I am officially out. Please try connecting with reality some time.

Did you read Lambycake's posts a few back regarding the Swiss Researcher's findings and declaration that HIV positive individuals who are taking antiviral medication and have zero detectable viral load pose no risk of transmitting HIV? Lambycakes - thanks for that informative post. I checked and it is a real finding from HIV researchers in Switzerland.

Maybe you could see what the current medical findings are before spouting off. I posted a response from another AIDS MD regarding current thinking about this topic as well.
 

unhappybigguy

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Posts
32
Media
29
Likes
242
Points
253
Location
East Yorkshire (England)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
*FACEPALM* Stop digging the hole, dude!


Please explain to me exactly what I have said that is incorrect.

Let's see:

1. Pointed out that the current level of research dictates that it is always sensible to use protection because little to nothing is known about the very specific circumstances that the user posited.

2. Pointed out that with many other Viruses, including other sexually transmitted ones "low load does NOT = negligible chance of transmission".

3.That with any transmissible disease, any form of protection should be used.

Yes, I am indeed a monster, damn me for not encouraging people to take a chance at getting HIV. :rolleyes:
 

unhappybigguy

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Posts
32
Media
29
Likes
242
Points
253
Location
East Yorkshire (England)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Did you read Lambycake's posts a few back regarding the Swiss Researcher's findings and declaration that HIV positive individuals who are taking antiviral medication and have zero detectable viral load pose no risk of transmitting HIV? Lambycakes - thanks for that informative post. I checked and it is a real finding from HIV researchers in Switzerland.

Maybe you could see what the current medical findings are before spouting off. I posted a response from another AIDS MD regarding current thinking about this topic as well.


Yes, I am aware of this, this means:

1 source that specifically says that it is in no way proven:

And another, single source that claims that is entirely possible.

All in all, these at NOT the odds you want to bet on. Do you remember all of those mothers who decided not to vaccinate their kids based on that single study that turned out to be utterly fabricated?

Secondly, no matter how much you bleat it at me, I am not providing out-dated scientific fact. I am referring to that which is already proven as concrete, beyond all doubt. A single study that reveals a correlation within a test group is promising, and holds hope, but it is NOT a call to follow.

Bottom line: (and this is what I have been standing with)

There is NO universal agreement on this subject, AIDS/HIV research is still in the VERY early stages, there's still no universal cure, and it STILL kills people.

So once again, I apologise for preferring to stick with that which is held to be absolute certainty, I guess if someone wants a best answer in future I'll ignore mass consensus and just work backwards from my decision to find any evidence, no matter how uncertain or underwhelming, that appears to support my position.

One last time:

Condoms are KNOWN to prevent you contracting HIV. The studies you seem so eager to put your trust in are NOT conclusive. If they were, your doctor would of discussed them with you.

I'm still utterly amazed that you seem open to taking such a risk purely so you can have unprotected sex.
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
There is NO universal agreement on this subject, AIDS/HIV research is still in the VERY early stages, there's still no universal cure, and it STILL kills people.

Most of my friends who are living with HIV, many for over 15-20 years now, agree that it is no longer a death sentence as it was before. With antiviral drugs now, it is similar to a chronic health condition that needs monitoring much like living with diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes either albeit it isn't transmitted thru a virus.

This thread was meant to be a frank discussion on HIV. As I said before I appreciate your safe sex message but I want to be able to guage the real risks of HIV infection beyond the standard line that ALL SEX involving bodily fluids exchanges poses risks and to never ever have unprotected sex.
 
Last edited:

cdog204

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 6, 2007
Posts
708
Media
23
Likes
1,051
Points
573
Location
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Gender
Male
Bottom line is there is an infection risk for person without HIV if they have sex with an HIV-positive individual. It doesn't really matter what the sexes of the individuals are, what the infection status of each is, and whether the position is top or bottom. Even with condoms there is a risk; condoms can break.

Sex used to be called, "Intercourse," and I think that is a good term. Two people get together and exchange a lot. Even if we are protecting against the virus that we know about today (HIV), what new virus that we don't know about might be lurking in our partner? Might that one be small enough to pass through the latex condom? As much as I'm into screwing around, I do always have the lingering thought that the unknown STD could be even worse than the known ones.
 

brooklynjackp

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Posts
146
Media
21
Likes
473
Points
133
Location
brooklyn, ny
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Please explain to me exactly what I have said that is incorrect. .... Yes, I am indeed a monster, damn me for not encouraging people to take a chance at getting HIV. :rolleyes:

Bud - this thread is not about YOU - it is directed to the original poster.
You might want to stop playing the beleaguered victim.

Multiple posters have tried to explain that you are sounding alarms that have been heard, absorbed and acted upon for years. Everyone here is saying that protection is safer, that medication can reduce but nor eradicate HIV, that unprotected sex (esp anal) carries a greater degree of risk, that very troublesome STDs other than HIV can be spread in multiple ways - so use your noggin when you connect with ... anyone.
But there also seems to be a somewhat phobic undertone here - "HIV's gonna get you if you have anything to do with those Aids people, cause they got the Aids, and it could just ... get you ... so stay away from 'em!"

That said - quite an educational thread from many other contributors - thanks!!
 

unhappybigguy

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Posts
32
Media
29
Likes
242
Points
253
Location
East Yorkshire (England)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Right, I've decided to make this my last post because I'm getting fed-up of some of the ridiculous strawman fallacies being not so subtlety aimed in my direction.

1. "it's just like the AIDS propaganda of the 80's!"

Seriously? you're comparing the fact that I pointed out that there's no conclusive, 100% solid backing to this to the openly homophobic campaign of the 80's?

Yes, of course, "please just use a condom and wait for a better understanding of the disease" = "GAYS ARE DISEASE RIDDEN BASTARDS."

"As time has progressed, science has found that HIV is not as easily transmitted as once thought. There are many theories for this, and to discuss them could take pages not a few paragraphs. "

And I never made a claim to the contrary. My STATEMENT was that it is still transmissible and that all available precautions to avoid contracting it should be taken. It is perfectly possible to have safe, enjoyable sex with someone who is HIV positive. And guess what? due to the CURRENT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF HIV, CONDOMS ARE THE SAFEST OPTION. That isn't "scaremongering", Condoms are just really damn effective. Not a massive amount of fun to wear by my own admission, but their practicality and safety make them a prime choice.

"When I was single, I never hesitated to date or have sex with HIV sero positive individuals in any way. I did make some modifications as to what I would do or how I would do it with a person who was sero-positive, and it was for that persons protection as well as for my own. "

Which is the responsible thing to do and what I have been advocating. Safe sex.

"Today, there are so many things that are far more fearsome than HIV, and far more easy to transmit between people."

Yes, yes there are. However these things are not part of the topic, making that statement moot.

" The people who are now losing their lives to this are losing them because they do not make any effort to lead healthy lives. They stay out to all hours, they consume enough alcohol to cloud their judgement especially about their dosages of HIV medications or even remembering to take them, they use other recreational drugs, and they make little effort to insure that the medical issues they have are cared for in anything resembling common sense. This is particularly true of individuals with alcohol or drug problems. "

Whilst that is true in some cases it is entirely unfair to make it a blanket statement. Some people still die of AIDS because even with medication their bodies just can't take it. What you said is by its nature grossly offensive to said people. It doesn't matter if that's even a handful of people, As someone who claims rather ambiguously to have worked "in and around medicine" I'm quite surprised to see something like that in there.

" If you work in research, you get your research grants and your dollars based on what you publish. Remember, with a research grant, nobody has to guarantee that what you publish is 100% accurate. What you have to do to continue your research is to get something out there that provokes thought. "

Whilst cynical this is also unfortunately true. This is how things like the Wakefield study I mentioned happen, and why I am sceptical of lone studies.


"The best weapon against infection from any STD is the two brains located within the two skulls of the two people about to engage in an act of sex. It is that simple. Think with the head on your shoulders not the one between your legs"

In other words. TAKE PRECAUTIONS. LIKE, YAKNOW, CONDOMS N' STUFF? YEAH?
 

unhappybigguy

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Posts
32
Media
29
Likes
242
Points
253
Location
East Yorkshire (England)
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Bud - this thread is not about YOU - it is directed to the original poster.
You might want to stop playing the beleaguered victim.

Multiple posters have tried to explain that you are sounding alarms that have been heard, absorbed and acted upon for years. Everyone here is saying that protection is safer, that medication can reduce but nor eradicate HIV, that unprotected sex (esp anal) carries a greater degree of risk, that very troublesome STDs other than HIV can be spread in multiple ways - so use your noggin when you connect with ... anyone.
But there also seems to be a somewhat phobic undertone here - "HIV's gonna get you if you have anything to do with those Aids people, cause they got the Aids, and it could just ... get you ... so stay away from 'em!"

That said - quite an educational thread from many other contributors - thanks!!


Seriously?

First off, look at the name of this site: If I was a homophobe I'd have to be somewhat masochistic. Insecure homophobic men tend to be worried around anything phallic that is larger than a cocktail Weiner.



Second, just no. This is yet ANOTHER Strawman attack. I at no stage said or even inferred anything anything like that. I ENCOURAGED safe sex. I think sex is a wonderful thing and if there's any way of being able to have it, you should do. And if your partner has HIV, it's pretty damn safe if you use a condom. that is NOT a scare tactic. It is advocating the safest form of sex that ANYONE, male, female or somewhere in-between can practice.


Yes, I'm so phobic aren't I?
 

D_Woody Wilson

Account Disabled
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Posts
62
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
43
The Swiss released a study almost 3 years ago, contrary to anyone saying this topic hasn't been researched. Their findings are that if your level is undetectable you are not going to create a colony of viable viri. Believe it or not one (1) viri can't infect you. HIV is incredibly weak and fragile. When it is dumped into a body at high levels (yes, Virginia, someone NOT on meds can have a MILLION viri in their lil ol' beef injection and THAT WILL cause an infection. Researchers have known for years that small amounts of the virus will not grow, it cannot sustain the chain reaction it needs to reach critical mass. American health professionals refused to recognize the study.. and rightly so.. there are far too many stupid people in the world for large groups to behave responsibly and those with HIGH levels of HIV would most certainly pass it on to their non-infected partners.
Aids patients who take effective retroviral drugs may not pass on the virus through unprotected sex - swissinfo