Advice: What does "undetectable" mean?

[Want my 1st cock]

Last night topped my first ever guy, and did it raw. Amazing, I'm hooked and need more. However I have a question. He said he wanted to show me his test results. To be honest I really didn't care. He showed me where it said "undetectable" on his results. I have no idea what this means. Does it mean he once tested poz but is now undetectable or does it mean he is neg? I am just curious. It really would not have mattered and I plan on going back for seconds but being new to the scene I am learning. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hotload84

[cam1972]

It means he has tested positive in the past, is now on meds that have put his viral load at around -20 copies per ml, or "undetectable". Means that he still has HIV, just that it is suppressed. Does not mean that it can't be transmitted to you. Chances are less likely, but still possible.

[Want my 1st cock]

Thanks for the info. I figured as much.

[cam1972]

You are most welcome!

[fuckyouraw777]

I wonder, obviously don't have the research, but I'd suspect topping a "real" undetectable (i.e someone who has suppressed HIV whether by meds or it's just natural) with no other STIs is actually safer than topping "unknowns". I'd be willing to concede that undetectable in blood doesn't mean undetectable in ass secretions but it's sort of incongruent to argue that undetectable blood means undetectable ass secretions or whatever. Besides, why can't they test those as well?

[BreedingBear]

Been fucking undetectable guys for the past few years - probably 4 or 5 a week - and still neg... seems pretty safe to me... tested neg again about three weeks ago...

[bb502]

So how about being fucked by undetectable guys? Is it safer than taking anonymous loads?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Hotload84

[cam1972]

I'm no doctor, but I think it would be safer with undetectables. But that is pure opinion.

[Hotload84]

So how about being fucked by undetectable guys? Is it safer than taking anonymous loads?

This is one of those questions that makes me wish I were more adept at higher mathematics. I vaguely can imagine this question is not so much a matter of medical opinion, but more based on probability outcomes. To devise a formula that would take into consideration all the variables that go into calculating the likelihood of an given individual being pozzed in two separate scenarios, one where one top is poz, but undetectable, and the other occasion where the sero-status of the top is unknown, is far beyond what I can imagine, particularly without really thinking about it. We need a mathematician who is accustomed to working in medical probability outcomes. Any out there?

[HungLatinDom]

It's not too hard to figure out, just basic algebra should give a decent model.

[Hotload84]

It's not too hard to figure out, just basic algebra should give a decent model.

I agree, HungLatinDom, the question could be expressed by algebra, but I don't really have much sense of what variables are at issue, nor do I have much sense of how to express those variables in algebra. I imagine one must take into consideration the different specific type of strain the tops are or may be carrying, the specific health of the two individuals, and find some way of expressing the likelihood of sero-conversion, which would also entail a consideration of how adept the bottom is at taking cock up his ass.

It surely would be interesting to see how a mathematician would construct the formula.

[HungLatinDom]

I did my thesis on math bio. One thing you understand fast is that you could add a lot of detail in a model, but that does not means it is going to add a lot of accuracy to your results, even if it can make your work MUCH more difficult. So, you need to reach a compromise between accuracy and detail. I do not think that most of the variables you are quoting would change the outcome too much, except of course, the frequency of taking raw dick.

So, you could say, the probability of getting pozzed is roughly equal to:

p=vlf*pf

which would be: vl factor (between 1 and 0, close to 1 when VL is way high, close to zero when you are undetectable), pf= poz factor: the frequency of poz guys in sexually active MSM population. This would be a statistical statement, not valid for individuals, but right for populations. Further detail can be added to the definition of those terms, so you can add more variables, but in the end it boils to that.

[Hotload84]

Ah. Thanks. Interesting. I'll think about it.