Undetectable

[toolman1966]

On 6/25/2022 at 4:47 PM, Mcv69 said:

Being undetectable means you can not pass on HIV all the studies have been proven, so why do guys still freak out about having sex with Poz men, of course reading some posts on this forum would freak anyone out about what men choose to do, but how can we really convince people to trust the Science and to start treating undetectable guys just like guys who are using PrEP? I guess this forum for me is conflicting on one hand I read all the great stuff about healthily medicated Poz men and on the other hand I read some really wild stories about Stealthing unmediated high viral load etc. Is it all a fantasy or does that world really exist? 

Undebatable, only when the person continues taking their daily meds.  If someone stops taking their meds for a variable length of time, they can transmit the virus.  Trusting one to be honest about their status is still a factor, unless the second person is on meds too.

Its more than a fantasy.  I know people who are willing to accept poz loads with knowledge of being infected.  Along time acquaintance, who dropped PrEP to become HIV positive.  We were both active together '90s, and I moved away for a new job, but we kept in touch.  When I informed him, I was coming for a visit( family in the area).  He told about his new status and was stealthing neg guys and sharing his "gift" with chasers.  Since it was 6 weeks before my trip, he wanted me to drop PrEP, so he could convert me as well.  With years of risky behavior, testing positive some day is a possibility.  Nothing is 100%.  My current doctor is enrolling patients into test trials for injectables.  Older sexually active men are needed for part of the testing.  Thinking strongly about being part of it.

 

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, toolman1966 said:

Undebatable, only when the person continues taking their daily meds.  If someone stops taking their meds for a variable length of time, they can transmit the virus. 

Except - drum roll - that would mean the person is NOT undetectable. No one who stops taking his meds for any measurable length of time (say, a week or two, more) and who has not already begun taking them again cannot honestly say he's undetectable, because there's a good chance his viral load is already rising into detectable territory.

Now, detectable does not necessarily mean "likely to infect" - HIV doesn't always infect after sex, as we know - but words have meaning.

Someone claiming to be undetectable but who is off meds is either grossly misinformed or lying.

[1hornyjohn]

19 hours ago, bluedragon said:

Interesting. This concerns me a bit as I'm on event-based PreP too. Sometimes I get anxious about whether I've taken today's tablet or not. I switched on to event-based during the pandemic, probably should switch back but sourcing PreP has been an issue lately. If you don't mind me asking, did you often have issues with correct adherence?

I seem to have had a problem with event based PreP. I got pozzed!

Take your doctor's advice on what's best for you

[analluv27]

On 7/10/2022 at 9:28 AM, onlyraw said:

Well I think there are a lot of different reasons 

A LOT of guys still don’t know that Undetectable =Untransmitable (or U=U) I don’t think there was a very big/effective campaign around it

i think most of the press around it was in the Poz press  - and not the general community- and not that many neg guys read tge Poz press - and it was a long time ago and so it is no longer “news” so no one is going to get excited about the story “now”

PrEP is only getting a big campaign because the Rx companies can make money off it - and the more they get the word out the more customers they will get (and I just heard that the Biden administration is about to pass (has just passed) a regulation that all insurance plans have to cover PrEP

mind you I am not complaining about any of that but no Rx co is going to get new customers out of advertising U=U so who is going to spring for tge a big ad campaign?

and then we are still left with the old original binary definition of “safe sex” which is condoms or die

where as safe sex is now really a multiple choice menu where you can order one, two, or all three from: U=U, PrEP,  condoms depending on your comfort level 

 

I know personally in New York City there was a big campaign to promote  U=U but along came Covid and that became the major concern. Though I'm a little surprised that U=U wasn't a little more prominent last month during the Pride celebration... Oh forgot Roe Vs Wade never mind

[PozTalkAuthor]

I'm undetectable myself, and send all paranoid people to hell. HIV stigma is still present and there are MANY articles mentioning intentional transmissions, they say "the man gave HIV to [high number] of women, he has followed a treatment for years"... So, the message spreading, is "you are under treatment? You are poz? You have unprotected sex? You're a spreader". 

Even if the truth is another, and it's science talking about this. 

Serophobia is like homophobia, one is directly connected to the other and journalists/politicians... never pay for what they write or say. They aren't aware that a word injures more than a sword. 

Knowing this, I have learnt to talk only when asked. I had some regular sex partners who were mostly serophobic. "I get fucked only by people I trust" then when I asked if they knew what Prep was, one of questions was "prep? Are you talking about preppers, who believe the end of the world is imminent?" 

Listening to such ignorance convinced me THEY DO NOT DESERVE to know my real status. If they use "trus,t" as a mean of prevention, if they get pozzed it's NOT my responsibility. 

In my conscience I know I'm harming no one, I have no duty to disclose my status to anyone. 

Then, yes, I have fantasies where HIV is involved. Poz talk and so on; but people I share them with, are aware I'm not causing them any damage. You can fly high with roleplay, I also try to answer ironically to serophobics, those freaks must not feel they're making me uncomfortable. I tend to balance fantasy, reality and information when needed - for the rest, f-off. 

[VersGuyAnon]

There needs to be more discussion and educational messages in the mainstream media. Just looking at the gay community for a start, only a percentage of the community would read/see educational messages/posts in gay media and social media. Many others may not be exposed to the messages that explain U=U. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by VersGuyAnon

[PozTalkAuthor]

10 hours ago, VersGuyAnon said:

There needs to be more discussion and educational messages in the mainstream media. Just looking at the gay community for a start, only a percentage of the community would read/see educational messages/posts in gay media and social media. Many others may not be exposed to the messages that explain U=U. 

True. And I personally feel that UEqualsU message does not properly TRANSMIT -pun intended- to mainstream media, as there are let's call them "lobbies" who want to keep people under control. And sexuality is the best way they have. HIV/AIDS is the best card they have to play, so they've all the interest to keep this harmful storytelling alive. 

I feel angry and uncomfortable hearing such ignorance when IF WANTED, information is available. I have a close friend who fights against HIV stigma since she was 13. It was 1993 and she already knew everything she had to. Despite she's totally blind and at that time Internet and electronic books were not available as they are now. But she wanted to fight her own fears, she wanted to know, to understand why people feared HIV so much, while I meet fully sighted people, gay and straight, even doctors, who know nothing. 

It was ME, to explain my dentist what UEqualsU meant. WTF! 

[leatherpunk16]

There is a current commercial in the US that advertises a medicine for getting one to undetectable and keeping them there. I want to know why it always includes the notion that one can't get HIV through sex. There are other methods of transmission. Does the medicine not work for preventing transmission through needles or breast milk? Must it always be about sexual contact?

[garsento]

7 hours ago, leatherpunk16 said:

There is a current commercial in the US that advertises a medicine for getting one to undetectable and keeping them there. I want to know why it always includes the notion that one can't get HIV through sex. There are other methods of transmission. Does the medicine not work for preventing transmission through needles or breast milk? Must it always be about sexual contact?

My understanding is that it would work at preventing HIV transmission, and I think PrEP has been at least studied for IV drug users. In the case of breast milk, if the woman providing the milk was not undetectable through treatment than rather than put the baby on PrEP I suspect medical practice would simply keep the mother from providing the infant with breast milk.

[analluv27]

15 hours ago, garsento said:

My understanding is that it would work at preventing HIV transmission, and I think PrEP has been at least studied for IV drug users. In the case of breast milk, if the woman providing the milk was not undetectable through treatment than rather than put the baby on PrEP I suspect medical practice would simply keep the mother from providing the infant with breast milk.

I just read an UK article stating that if the mother is undetectable and adheres to it should be encouraged to breast feed

 here’s a link for those who are interested.

of course be wary of opening unknown links

[think before following links] https://www.aidsmap.com/news/apr-2019/breastfeeding-undetectable-viral-load-some-insights-current-uk-situation

[BootmanLA]

On 8/13/2022 at 1:44 PM, leatherpunk16 said:

There is a current commercial in the US that advertises a medicine for getting one to undetectable and keeping them there. I want to know why it always includes the notion that one can't get HIV through sex. There are other methods of transmission. Does the medicine not work for preventing transmission through needles or breast milk? Must it always be about sexual contact?

Pharmaceutical advertisements, even more than most ads, are directed at target markets. Ads directed at pregnant women expecting to be nursing children, if they exist, are likely to be seen accompanying different programming (if on TV) or in different magazines (if in print) than ones directed at people who might transmit it sexually. So if nothing else, the fact you're seeing ads that reference sexual transmission may be due to the companies accurately predicting how to reach people like you or me.

While I realize drug addiction spans social classes and other demographic groups, needle sharing is more often a transmission channel among those who can't afford their own needles, which is usually an indicator of lack of resources. Such people may not be reachable at all via a targeted television ad, and in terms of treatment, they're more likely to get whatever HIV treatment they're on via a public assistance program (which will likely be making the medicine choice for them - those patients are unlikely to ask their health care provider for a treatment medication by name brand). Thus the pharmaceutical company wouldn't want to expend a lot of resources marketing to that demographic - they're better off direct-pitching the medical providers.

[VersGuyAnon]

On 6/25/2022 at 10:47 PM, Mcv69 said:

Being undetectable means you can not pass on HIV all the studies have been proven, so why do guys still freak out about having sex with Poz men, of course reading some posts on this forum would freak anyone out about what men choose to do, but how can we really convince people to trust the Science and to start treating undetectable guys just like guys who are using PrEP? I guess this forum for me is conflicting on one hand I read all the great stuff about healthily medicated Poz men and on the other hand I read some really wild stories about Stealthing unmediated high viral load etc. Is it all a fantasy or does that world really exist? 

I do wonder if many people are so suspicious about anything they're told by authorities these days that they just don't believe that U=U.

It's easy to bash government (irrespective of the country), but in these days of social media and mass media obsession, it could be a very unfortunate consequence. That's in spite of the fact a lot of the time the U=U message is actually coming from other sources, rather than government. I'm not sure, but the thought just occurred to me.   

[garsento]

2 hours ago, VersGuyAnon said:

I do wonder if many people are so suspicious about anything they're told by authorities these days that they just don't believe that U=U.

It's easy to bash government (irrespective of the country), but in these days of social media and mass media obsession, it could be a very unfortunate consequence. That's in spite of the fact a lot of the time the U=U message is actually coming from other sources, rather than government. I'm not sure, but the thought just occurred to me.   

I think this could be it.

I also suspect that a bigger problem may well be the sheer thoroughness with which the 1980s/1990s lesson of HIV infection leading to death was instilled. Amending things to a recognition that undetectability and non-transmissibility are entirely achievable may be too much for some people.

[ellentonboy]

What I find concerning is that Quest Labs posts across your lab results HIV detected.

Then your actual viral load is less than 20, and your doctor tell you that you're undetectable.   Even the infectious disease specialist thinks it's confusing.....so what gives?  His explanation is that the labs are now so finite it can detect even the slightest trace of the virus.  However other patients who use Lab Corp don't have the "HIV detected" on their results. It's upsetting when you open the app and you see that message.  Ugh....

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

What I find concerning is that Quest Labs posts across your lab results HIV detected.

Then your actual viral load is less than 20, and your doctor tell you that you're undetectable.   Even the infectious disease specialist thinks it's confusing.....so what gives?  His explanation is that the labs are now so finite it can detect even the slightest trace of the virus.  However other patients who use Lab Corp don't have the "HIV detected" on their results. It's upsetting when you open the app and you see that message.  Ugh....

That may be true for Quest Labs (I'm not familiar with their reporting). But LabCorp, which handles my testing, did (formerly) list "reactive" under the HIV testing, accompanied by the "<20" qualifier. They may have changed that reporting style for that reason. Hard to say.