Barely Detectable

[niomxx]

I know this isn't the most scientific question or the best place to ask, but does anyone know the chances of converting if you get bred by a poz top whose on meds, but has a viral load consistently under 100, but isn't quite undetectable yet?

[Pig Bottom]

I would think it's low.  I recently read that there is only a 3% chance of catching it from an undetectable person, but I think that's high.  

 

Viral loads can be in the millions and you can still feel healthy so 100 is basically nothing. 

[MackyJay]

Not sure but I think BearBandit answered a question like that before.  They have changed the definition of undetectable, I believe, several times over the years.  Think the definition now is under 200 but not sure.  Ought to be others with more info on this?  Come on guys.  LOL

[fillmyholeftl]

Not sure but I think BearBandit answered a question like that before.  They have changed the definition of undetectable, I believe, several times over the years.  Think the definition now is under 200 but not sure.  Ought to be others with more info on this?  Come on guys.  LOL

Undetectable is now classified as under 20 copies/ml.  a few years back it was under 100 copies/ml, then under 50 copies/ml.. As testing gets more sensitive, they change the criteria.  As to the chances of infectiveness,  I think its still practically zero

[MackyJay]

Thanks, fillmy, I thought they had lowered it but wasn't sure and been a long time since I had seen the info.

[bearbandit]

Repeating myself (I'm getting old so I'm allowed!), there's a European study (Partners) into serodiscordant couples where they define undetectable as 200. The few people who've seroconverted on that study have to a (wo)man had risky sex with a third (or fourth or fifth) party.

Someone posted anecdotal evidence on here that the lowest viral load in someone who "successfully" passed HIV on was in the 380's.

 

The current medical point of view in the UK is that it takes a VL of at least 1,000 to be infectious, and the infection risk then is still pretty low.

[MackyJay]

Thanks, Bear, I knew you would get to this sooner or later.   I knew you had answered a similar question before but couldn't find it.  I think when it comes to this type of info, you are probably the most authoritative I have seen about HIV.  Again, thanks.  I can't answer these with a lot of authority myself, as I am still as of last test, NEG.   Don't ask me how as I have, maybe, had a condom used while being fucked like 5 or 6 times at most.  Late starter as well into my 50s before ever having man2man sex, so nowhere near as long as many on here which may explain that somewhat.    Take care and hope you have continued good health.

[niomxx]

Awesomely informative, guys! Thank you!!!

[Guest FinalDL2021]

I am not sure, this is the right place, and is Hypothetical, Yet I will be seeing a regular FB that has been off his meds for almost 3 months, on average, what do you think his VL will be? 

[Guest Porthos]

 From what I've read your viral load will rebound to the level you had when first starting meds, then climb....If he started meds early with a low Vl that level is most likely what it will rebound to in 3 months

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, skylon said:

 From what I've read your viral load will rebound to the level you had when first starting meds, then climb....If he started meds early with a low Vl that level is most likely what it will rebound to in 3 months

And it may not climb much at all if his natural immune system hasn't been severely compromised. As I understand it, after the initial infection, most people's viral load spikes briefly, then the body starts fighting it off, keeping it fairly low on its own. The person's still infectious but not nearly so much as shortly after his own infection. Going off meds, the body may well be able to keep things at that level for years, until the immune system can't keep up any more.