Poz1956

Last November the Impulse Group hosted a roundtable discussion called " ." In the section Dr. David Hardy of UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine said a minimum of two days. Based on that comment, your doctor's advice of three days is not out of line.On page four of the Important_Safety_Information_for_Uninfected_Individuals.pdf pamphlet from Gilead, it says "You may have to take TRUVADA for a few days before there is enough in your blood for it to help decrease your chance of getting HIV-1." The standard recommendation I've seen is seven. A friend who just started PrEP was instructed that he needed an absolutely wacko 28 days.

The reason people suggest following the 28 day PEP guideline, when you stop PrEP, is the same reason why a course of PEP is 28 days. Lets say the last load you took was from a newly infected, didn't know he was Poz guy, with a viral load in the 10 million neighbourhood. I've read somewhere that it would up the chance of transmission to 1 in 3. Some CD4 cells may have become infected. Truvada interferes with the viral replication process, not with the attachment or fusion of the virus to the CD4 cell. While reproduction is inhibited in most cells, there may be some where the virus manages to make copies of itself. The 28 day regime is enough time for the original virus, and any of the first few generations to die out. No more replication = you don't become Poz.

For you spreadsheet guys, it's worth taking a look at Jake Sobo's piece called "What makes good sex." He tracks more than just the number of loads. The spreadsheet is even available on Google Docs. He is learning a lot about himself, and what he enjoys the most. One of the comments is from a guy who tracks even more data

Before starting treatment blood samples are usually tested for drug resistance, to aid in the selection of antiretrovirals best suited to that individual. In theory, everyone who starts treatment with that process, should be able to achieve an undetectable viral load, and most people do. The vast majority of people who don't, have problems with adherence to to the daily dosing schedule. That's the same situation we have with guys on PrEP. The Partner study showed Poz gay men had better adherence to their meds than both straight men and women. A Washington DC study presented at CROI 2014 showed that overall 93% of people achieved an undetectable viral load. It also showed that gay men were more likely to reach undetectable than other risk groups. A British study said that 95% of Poz guys on treatment were noninfectious (It did not specifically use the term undetectable - It also said that 62% of the people who could transmit the virus, didn't know they were Poz.) If we look at a drug trial comparing standard first line treatments to new drug combinations, 87% of people on the more common combination were undetectable by the end of the study. With people who started treatment with lower viral loads, it was 89%. Older documents tend to peg it at 85% become undetectable.

The recommended drugs for PEP vary depending on your location. Retrospective studies have shown no difference between two and three drug PEP. Some jurisdictions take a heavy and hard approach to PEP. For example, the province of British Columbia in Canada uses a four drug regime. The Australian PEP guidelines discuss both two and three drug protocols. Since their two drug regime recommendation is for two NRTI class antretrovirals, I suspect Truvada would be the combo pill they most often use. For a three drug combination the guidelines specifically recommend against using an NNRTI, so Atripla would not be a choice used in Australia. (The side effect profile of Efaiarenz is high, so I doubt it is often used for PEP anywhere.) I think you'll need to get your "story" together before you present at an ER for PrEP. It was a random hook-up, you met on a beat & you don't know how to get in touch with him (otherwise they'll want to bring him in for consultation and testing). You'd get a one week supply, & need to attend a follow-up session to get the rest. Expect a little more counselling when you go for round 2 and 3, because the guidelines say "Those who present for repeat NPEP should be supported, with each presentation assessed on its merits. Such presentations show a need for education and counselling and assessment of predisposing medical, psychological and social factors." There looks to be three PrEP demonstration projects starting in Queensland, NSW, and Victoria. The Victoria one only has room for 100 people. If possible see if you can get on one of those trials.

The World Health Organization DID NOT SAY "All gay men." In the 184 page report titled Consolidated Guidelines on HIV Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment and Care for Key Populations, on page number 44 (66th page in the PDF) The Press Release titled WHO: People most at risk of HIV are not getting the health services they need says: In the Policy Brief Note that none of those three quotes contain the word "ALL"As two examples of very sloppy, sensationalized reporting: After the news reports with the torqued up headlines containing the word "ALL", the WHO emailed a clarification: It's noteworthy, and important that the WHO has endorsed PrEP. It certainly adds more weight to arguments we can show the non-believers. The WHO and the CDC are two pretty powerful organization with a lot of gravitas. If we get a similar statement out of the European Union that should silence any doubters.There is going to a lot of HIV related news over the next couple of weeks. The 20th International AIDS Conference is being held in Melbourne Australia from July 20th to 25th. I looked through the highlights, and saw a couple of interesting things , but no "Must See This" items. Sometimes the most important stuff comes out of the pre-conference session, or the smaller presentations not listed in the highlights.

The #TruvadaWhore shirts are a fund raising gimmick. A guy on PrEP, who works in a gay health clinic started the movement. But yes it was a brilliant marketing move to take take back the word. I can see a couple of reasons for a Poz guy getting one. To support the cause is the first. The second is getting the word out. There's a whole whack of guys who have never heard of Truvada for PrEP. Higher visibility = more conversations = more knowledge. Porn stars are in the spotlight, and idolized. Wearing one just adds to the buzz, and we need more discussion and uptake of PrEP. Poz and wearing it at the tubs, or in a cruisy park - the "health discussions don't happen" venues, would be poor form, and misleading. Let's face it, those hypothetical cunts don't need a fucking T-Shirt to press charges. They'll file a complaint, and often win, with zero facts - just their word against the Poz guy's. There are even cases where the Negg guy didn't call the cops, but a health care worker he talked to started the ball rolling. Rather than bitch about a Poz guy wearing the shirt, bitch to your Governor and representative about getting the laws repealed. It takes pressure to make that happen.

Sensitive real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays have an HIV RNA detection limit below 1 copy/mL of plasma. It's just horribly expensive, and usually only used in research studies.A 2012 French study used RT-PCR, and looked at 1392 people who had a viral load <50. 34% had a completely undetectable viral load, 44% had a viral load between 1 and 20, and 21% had a viral load between 20 & 50. The greatest predictors of having an completely undetectable viral load were: - having and VL <50 for two years or more and - a highest ever viral load of of <100K Taking regime that included an NNRTI increased the odds. Pop: I think getting nervous about the blood test results is natural. I still get a little on edge, and I've had an undetectable viral load since the fall of 1999, with never a single blip. CD4s took a lot longer to recover from a low of 89. It was a few years before they settled into an almost sine wave pattern between the lower and upper 400s. The last set was a surprise in the upper 700s. I'll believe that number when I get a second result in the same neighbourhood. I'm sure your numbers will be just fine.

It's a pretty tepid comment about our current knowledge. "Some" is definitely an understatement. There is quite a large body of evidence and medial opinion.While I wouldn't exactly call Psychology Today a widely read, mainstream magazine, it is kind of exciting to see the protective benefits of an undetectable viral load mentioned in the non GLBT press.

Just spend a day on any hook-up site and talk with any average dude who uses language like "Healthy," "Clean," "D & D Free" and "UB2." You will be equally shocked at how ignorant they are concerning their own health. Those guys think that language is magic talisman to keep them Neg. Most of them have zero knowledge around HIV, other than Bad - Scared - Run Away!For that matter, talk to any random heterosexual male on the street. He'll be even more clueless about his health. Probably been years since he checked his blood pressure, or had his cholesterol numbers done Personally I think most Poz guys are reasonably aware of their health. But yes, I can think of several situations where somebody might know less than average. People for whom English is a second language probably can't understand the jargon. A doctor trying to squeeze as many patients as possible into each day might not take the time to explain things. Viral load, CD4 count, CD4/CD8 ratios and the rest are pretty deep geek science. It's all probably well above somebody who struggles with the three Rs. People with substance abuse issues have other things on their mind. The homeless are more worried about their next meal than their viral load. Then there are those formerly "Clean" and "D Free" guys who knew nothing about HIV before they caught it. Many of them won't bother to lean anything now. And quite honestly, after a few years the doctor's appointments get down to "The numbers are all good. No need to change anything. Keep taking the pills."

Saying I've used both for years with no ill effects, is like a smoker saying he smokes a pack a day and is no worse for ware. Just because YOU haven't experienced a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't a strong potential for things to go bad. It's important to remember that both Cialis and Poppers started life as heart drugs (vasodialators). That's why mixing them is a BAD idea. It might not hurt you, but it has made people keel over with heart attacks, or low blood pressure blackouts. Viagra and Levitra are similar dealing with the same chemical receptors. Certainly the Poppers of today bare little resemblance to the originals, but they still make your heart race. The big difference between Cialis and the other two ED drugs is that metabolizes more slowly (slower to be removed from the system). Half of it is out of your system in 17.5 hour. About 25% of it is still in your system after 36 hours. The recommendation is that you should not use Poppers for at least 48 hours after taking Cialis.

Treatment Cascade graphs are meant for health care professionals. There is a lot of jargon in the reports that accompany these charts, and Undetectable is defined in the accompanying text. The target audience understands the meaning of Undetectable in the context of the area covered by that specific treatment cascade analysis. I don't think you'll get these guys to use dumbed down language.

Research shows that around 50% of guys say they will never knowingly play with a Poz guy. Amusingly it get as high as 68% for guys that have never been tested. My personal experience says that there is a good chunk about that (maybe 20-30%) who don't agree with "Never" but turn down Poz guys when the situation comes up. They'd cross the serosatus divide if they loved the guy, or felt some real connection, but not for a one night stand.When I try to discuss the protective level of undetectable viral loads with "Think they're Neg" guys, there always seems to be a sticking point around this issue. Since most people are going to reject a Poz guy as soon as he reveals his status, I've always felt that it was illogical that someone would lie about meds, adherence, and viral loads. I've always figured that if a guy was going to fib to fuck, he'd lie about his status. The serostatus unknown guys always counter that a Poz guy might lie about being on ARVs, taking them regularly without skipping doses, and his viral load. He'd do it just to get laid. They insist that admitting he's Poz does not mean the rest is the truth. We go round and round and round, between my view and theirs. I guess they're right, and I've just been proved an idiot. There really are sociopaths who will reveal their status, and lie about the rest. It's comments like this that make me continually reevaluate whether or not I want to contribute to this community. This just added another tick to the "Not" column.

The simple answer is "No," and there likely never will be research like that.The only way to ethically study HIV transmission is long term follow-up of serodiscordant (serodifferent, magnetic, Poz/Neg) couples. The Partner study was the first to look at condomless sex when the Pozzie has an undetectable viral load. It was also the first study to include enough gay couples to produce statistically significant results. In the first two years of the study, none of the negative partners, gay or straight, caught HIV from their Poz spouse. There were roughly 16,400 gay BB fucks (and 28,000 straight ones), with no transmissions. During this study all of the conditions occurred, that people warn might make a Pozzie infectious (Colds, Flu, Vaccinations, STIs, a few missed doses of ARVs for up to 4 days), yet there will still no cases where the Poz partner passed on the virus. Partner2 is adding about 450 more gay couples (dropping the straight ones) and continuing 2017. I think they are aiming for around 100,000 gay BB fucks by the end. There is also a similar study underway in Australia. Opposites Attract will publish its findings in 2017 For a study of the effectiveness of combining viral load with PrEP, we would first have to establish that undetectable Pozzies CAN transmit the virus. It would need to happen with high enough frequency to test the protective abilities of Truvada. I for one (and pretty much everybody else [except condom manufacturers]) hope there are zero transmissions from the undetectable Pozzies in Partner2 and Opposites Attract. With the current data on PrEP and Undetectable Viral Loads, a study of their combined effects would seem to be an unnecessary waste of money and resources. It would be like studying the efficacy of Condoms + PrEP.

The "Treatment Cascade" is the current vogue "thing" in HIV treatment circles. It's a report card, and a measurement of how effective a healthcare system is at Testing, Diagnosing, Linking to care, Retaining in care, Starting people on ARVs, Achieving an undetectable viral load, and Keeping people in care and virally suppressed. RT's graphic is missing a couple of the steps. The cascade is a good metric for health care officials to see which areas are most in need of improvement. I think it's bad info for the general public. For example, RT more or less jumped to the conclusion that only 37% of Poz guys are undetectable. That's not what the cascade is showing. The New York State numbers are actually pretty good. It shows the outcome from increasing funding for HIV testing from a few years ago. The US national treatment cascade shows a rate of Pozzies who are undetectable is 18%. The one recently released for my city shows 46% retained in care and undetectable. (It also added in deaths at each step, which highlighted how many people are diagnosed at a very late stage of immuno-suppresion. Some died within seven days of diagnosis.) The first number is ALL the people estimated to be Poz There is usually a second number showing what percentage who have actually received a Poz diagnosis (missing in this graphic) The next number shows how many are linked to care. That doesn't mean on meds. It just refers to the percentage who have visited a clinic, had some follow-up blood work done, or seen a doctor -- At Least Once since their diagnosis The Empire State Building in this graphic represents the percentage who are routinely getting blood work done, and seeing a doctor for some form of HIV care (again - they may not have started meds). It's usually referred to as "Retained in Care." Some versions of the treatment cascade show a bar for the percentage of people on meds The final line is the percentage of All people estimated to have HIV, who are on meds, and have achieved an undetectable viral load (usually for a minimum of one year) The Treatment Cascade represents the entire population, and includes the homeless, drug addicts, heterosexuals, immigrants from countries where HIV is endemic, as well as gay & bi men (and other MSM). I think a version showing just gay men would look a bit different. There would still be a big gap between the number estimated to be Poz, and the guys who were tested and knew they were Poz. We know our testing rates are a lot higher than the general population. I suspect the drop offs from there, to undetectable would be less dramatic. The realities of access to routine care, and insurance coverage for antiretrovirals are where the US charts take a big hit. Imagine what a Treatment Cascade of Gay Black men in a Southern state would look like. I worry that some will look at a treatment cascade bar chart, and think that the last number represents the percentage of guys on meds who have achieved an undetectable viral load. I've seen studies that range for 87% to 95% of people on meds achieve an undetectable viral load. The majority of the rest fall between barely detectable (just above 40) to just below 500. Well below the 1,000-1,500 threshold where transmission could occur. Please remember that a Treatment Cascade shows how well a health care system works at testing, retaining people in care, and getting them on treatment. It does not discuss how well drugs work, for guys on treatment.

There really is no universal recommendations on PEP. I've got the PEP guidelines from the UK, Australia, and three Canadian provinces on my hard drive, and all are different, with a variety of recommended drug regimes. Some of them discuss the choice between two and three drug treatments based on the level of risk and exposure. From your post, a three drug PEP does appear to be the best course of action. Doctors would rarely choose Atripla for PEP, because people will often stop taking it due to side effects. It seems clear you must have received it without doctor supervision, perhaps from a Poz guy who is aware of your situation. Self-medication is not a good thing. Not exactly the best way to handle it, but it is the way you chose. Emtricitabine & Tenofovir (same combo as in Truvada) are commonly used in two drug and three drug PEP. Efavirenz is extremely effective at fighting HIV (I took it for several years), but specifically Not recommended for PEP because of its side effect profile. Atripla would certainly work for use a PEP, and it is the drug combo you've got, so let's deal with it. All of these meds have side effects, especially for the first two or three weeks. Which ones are you experiencing? Tired all the time, dizzy, passing a lot of gass (farting), diarrhea, vivid dreams, you can't sleep, depression, hallucinations? What time of day are you taking it? Full, or empty stomach? We might be able to make recommendations to help you through those problems. Tell us all of the other "various reasons" you don't think you can take it for four weeks. You've asked for help. We can't do that almost zero information. While I'm willing to try and help you through the side effects, I'm also going to give you some tough love. Millions of us Poz guys take these antiretrovirals every day of our lives. Millions of us deal with the side effects. Millions of us have had to suck it up, and tough our way through them. You made the choice to take the drugs at the party. You made the choice to take enough that you passed out. Admittedly the Meth may not have been your choice. Considering how high you were, calling what happened Rape may be debatable, because you might have given consent. I can't help but notice that aggressive sex, force and 'rape' are interests listed in your profile. Perhaps you expressed them while high. It would be damn hard to prove you took some drugs voluntarily, and others not. It was a sex party, so it would be impossible to prove rape. Unless the side effects you are experiencing are life threatening, you CAN make it through four weeks of them. Think about this, if you don't feel you have enough balls to tough it out for one month, how the hell are you going to take ARVs every day, for the rest of your life (if you become Poz from stopping the PEP early)? It's ONE TINY LITTLE MONTH, that you are already 1/4 of the way through! Most of the side effects can be dealt with. If you need some motivation to help you the next three weeks, ponder on the challenges you'll face if you become Poz from NOT taking the meds. And I mean the REAL problems us Poz guys face, not the fantasy "HIV is a Gift, and Sets you Free" Bullshit you read around here. It's time to Man Up and deal with the consequences of your choices, and your actions!

I think compliance or PrEP may be a bit of a different case then a lot of meds. In a study where people volunteer to participate, compliance is often low. At this point to get a PrEP prescription guys have to work for it a bit. They do their research, talk to their doctor (possibly even educate and convince the doc), deal with the insurance companies, and depending on where you live, possibly spend some of your hard earned cash. Guys who get PrEP were motivated to get it in the first place. I would hope they'd stay motivated enough to actually take the pills. One thing that was done in the studies, but isn't done for the ordinary guy taking Truvada is monitoring the levels of the drug in the blood. So if a guy is not taking it as directed, his doctor probably cannot detect that. But I suppose other factors, like length between doctor's appointments, and number of refills could help determine adherence. I also think that compliance in the cold light of the day, when logical thought is possible, is a lot more likely then condom compliance, in the heat of the moment when you're ripping each other's clothes off. Even the low 74% effectiveness quoted by subbytch (with poor drug compliance) is better than the 70% effectiveness of condoms reported at CROI 2012.

There were 32 videos, but only five people have talked to the police. There's no time-line on the videos, so some could be from before he knew he was Poz. The guy who filed the charges played with him twice, and probably accounts for two of the video.Johnson was diagnosed less than five months before the alleged transmission occurred. That doesn't bode well for him being undetectable. Based on my experience talking to newly diagnosed, it is highly unlikely he had come to terms with his diagnosis in that time. His Facebook posts show more dumb jock, than well reasoned deep thinker. I can't help but wonder if he was in denial. I dread watching how this will play out in the news as the trial unfolds.

I wonder if, during the trial, phylogenetic analysis will be presented to show a link between the virus of the "victim" who tested positive, and Johnson. What's also a good question is did Johnson have gonorrhea? There seems to be an assumption that the guy who tested Poz MUST have gotten it from Johnson. What unadulterated torqued up BS. Let's make sure people are even more irrational around the subject of HIV.

Bear, I think you need to look at the full sized version of the duck. It says "Dirty is for laundry, not your HIV Status." The Stigma Project is all about fighting the prejudice all us Poz guys face.

It's great that the date went well. Dan Savage sometimes calls disclosure of HIV status a Superpower. It instantly detects Douch Bags. I'm glad he wasn't one. The thing I find most troubling in this post is that the guy asked if Kissing was safe! Is the state of HIV awareness really that low, that someone would ask about kissing? Our HIV education organizations have totally failed us. It seems that along with all the other burdens, it falls on the Pozzies to teach HIV 101, every time we reveal out status. I love the graphics produced by The Stigma Project, but I have sort of scoffed at the ones with info-blurbs about kissing, casual contact, and other ultra ultra basic concepts. Sadly I guess they are needed.

I feel the need to point out a couple of facts: Firstly, a lot of doctors are now VERY reluctant to prescribe antibiotics just because you think you "might have something." Overuse of antibiotics is the primary cause of antibiotic resistant strains for a variety of bugs (not just STIs). Therefore many doctors refuse to give antibiotics until they KNOW you have a bacterial infection. Secondly, some of you seem to think that HIV = a Compromised Immune System. If I recall correctly Pop started meds with a CD4 in the 700 range. That's right in the "normal" range for a Neg guy under a little stress. I'm sure his is higher now. A Neg person under stress will often have a CD4 count as low as 500. Pop's immune system is not compromised. Doctors don't consider someone's immune system compromised, until the CD4 count falls below 200. If a guy has a near normal number of CD4 cells, he has a normal functioning immune system. The job of the CD4 cell is to find infections. They are sometimes described as "hunter" cells. When a problem is located, they send out chemical signals that attracts other kinds of white blood cells -- the "killer" cells which attack the infections. HIV attaches to CD4 cells, and inserts itself into the "machinery" of the cell. This bug turns the "hunter" into a factory for new copies of the virus, destroying the CD4 in the process. When the exhausted CD4 is explodes, it creates inflammation. The irritation attracts new CD4 cells, and the cycle repeats. That's how HIV cripples the immune system -- by reducing the bodies ability to Find the normal bugs we are All exposed to, every day of our lives. But if there are still enough CD4s to do that job, the immune system is functioning as intended. We don't instantly become more susceptible to all other infections, the moment we are exposed to HIV.

Let's see - you had a bump with a hair growing out of it, and you yanked out the hair. That left a hole in the middle. Because it had a hole in the middle, your mind runs further into the "It's a chancre" thoughts. It bled when you pulled out the hair. If you pull out a nearby hair, I'd bet that wouldn't bleed. I think your initial reaction of an infected hair root is the most logical explanation. Put some Polysporin on it, and see if it clears up in a few days. If it persists, defiantly get it checked by a doctor. It's getting to be warmer weather. Our crotches tend to be sweaty places. (Don't get me wrong - that man musk can be great when things get hot and heavy.) If a hair root becomes infected down there, it tends to be a lot worse than other places. I had a very similar worry when I started riding my bike a lot, and got saddle sores (which are just clogged and infected pours). Because you've had one, it kind of means that conditions are ripe for more. Wash your crotch and butt with some anti-bacterial soap every day. Try to let the area "air dry" before getting dressed. Maybe my approach above is too calm. I know you're doing really well, and have come a long way since January. But possibly your reaction is a little resurfacing of the "I've got HIV. Every infection, cough, cold, or the flu is THE BEGGING OF THE END." It's a stupid subconscious thing that creeps into our brain for the first few years after diagnosis. The Syph scare just made it worse. And some of the suggestions here are also feeding that. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's just a thought worth considering.

We've been down this road many a time. New wonder compound X will put an end to the pain and suffering of HIV. Early excessive enthusiasm and optimism end in disappointment. It's ok to be hopeful, just don't get too excited until there is enough data to prove that it works. Jizz, they call it a therapeutic vaccination. It is an actual class of therapy. There are a number of them for different diseases (Hep C for example). This was a Phase II trial with a very small number of people. Phase I trials are "Is it safe, or does it kill you." Phase II trials are "Which dose produces the desired effect." Phase III trials, with a large number of participants are where they figure out "Does it work." Good results from a Phase III trial are the appropriate time to get excited. (I was a participant in Phase II and Phase III trials for one of the ARVs that are still part of my regime.) Let me give you a quick synopsis of this research. They wanted 345 participants, but got only 137. All the patients started with an undetectable viral load (<50). 93 got the vaccination and 43 got the placebo. Only 77 people completed the study (56 from the vaccinated group & 25 from the placebo). You can already see that the number of people is way to small to get excited about. The participants received the vaccination (or placebo), and then continued ARV therapy for 28 weeks. They stopped taking their antiretrovirals. Unsurprisingly their viral loads when up. Similar to undiagnosed people in the chronic phase of an HIV, their viral loads eventually stabilized at their personal "set point." People were taken off the study and restarted their ARVs early, if their CD4 counts dropped by half, or fell below 350 (which accounts for the drop from 137 people starting, to the 77 at the end). At week 48 the median viral load of the placebo group was was 71,800 while for the Vacc-4x group it was 23,100. At week 52 the median for the placebo group was 51,000 and the Vacc-4x group median was 19,500. At week 52 all the participants started taking ARV's again. Yes, there is a statistically significant difference between the median viral loads of the two groups. Yes, there was a statistically significant difference in set points, for the people who's files contained historical viral load tests, from before they started taking antiretrovirals. But the vaccine had a strong effect in only 25% of the people who received it. These results are not something I would get excited about. I don't really consider viral loads moving from undetectable, to the levels shown in this study, a great success. A viral load above 1,500 is considered infectious (some even think it's 1,000). Ask the neg guys (even the one's on PrEP) if they want to play with a guy whose viral load is 19,500 - 23,100. What bbreik linked to appears to be an article in a business magazine, with heavy emphasis on the stock market. Google Translate produces this version of that web page. This is Bionor Pharma’s press release in English. Here is the abstract for the research published in the Lancet article on the Vacc-4x. The Beta Blog had a small piece on it. Vacc-4x rated a single paragraph on AIDS Map, in a report from CROI 2012. I consider AIDS Map one of the best sources for information about HIV research. This trial is considered a proof of concept for ideas that may lead to a "functional cure." A functional cure means you still have HIV hiding someplace in your body, but your system keeps it under control, and not duplicating, without the need of antiretrovirals. That goal is considered achievable at some point in the future. The dream of a "sterilizing cure" where HIV is totally gone, is just that -- A Dream. 33 patients from the the first trial are currently enrolled in the Company’s Phase II Vacc-4x Reboost trial which investigates whether, upon booster immunizations, the viral load can be reduced even further on a second treatment interruption. Hope is a good thing. It helps us move forward, and lets us get on with our lives. Just temper it with a realistic view of the future.

It takes longer than a month for it to become mundane. At first, it is a daily reminder that you have HIV. Eventually it's just a pill you pop, and so uneventful that you can't remember that you took it. I think for most it's a year, to year and a half before it becomes "my special vitamins."