Instagram
Instagram
HIV

HIV: New Study Reveals HIV Can Stay For Years In Testes

Note : Please take note that nothing in the study states anything about transmission risks. A4A still support what the CDC and the CATIE announced a few months ago that undetectable = untransmittable. 
In Health news, researchers have discovered that HIV can make a home in the testicles and remain protected from the body’s immune system for years.

The research was published in Scientific American and conducted by McGill University clinician and researcher Jean-Pierre Routy. Routy and his team examined 100 testicular tissue samples and the data collected show that once HIV finds its way to the testes, it gets the same protection from the immune system as sperm.

What this means is that HIV that has found itself in the testicles could evade antiretroviral treatment, staying present in the body even if the person has been considered undetectable.

A fourth of the samples Routy examined were HIV positive, and he and his team found they all had lingering viral DNA in at least one testicle, even though they were all on treatment and were considered undetectable.

The researchers suggest more research be made as to how the virus finds its way to the testicles; a tough challenge as samples are hard to come by. For the study, Routy and his team had approached transgender women undergoing bottom surgery and who had willingly given their testes to research.

How do you guys feel in this latest development on the study of HIV? For those among you living with the virus, is this a particularly disheartening development? We’d like to hear your thoughts so feel free to share them in the comments below.

Note : Please take note that nothing in the study states anything about transmission risks. A4A still support what the CDC and the CATIE announced a few months ago that undetectable = untransmittable. Please read this article about transmission!

 


There are 68 comments

Add yours
  1. Gregg

    People have been spreading this false rumor that if a guy is hiv+, but undetectable, he can not give hiv to anyone else. As this article shows, that is totally false. Once you have hiv, it can be spread to sexual partners, irregardless, if it is undetectable or not.

    • Bruce

      That is not a ‘false rumor’, unless you think what the CDC, NIH, UNAIDS, and countless other organizations are lying and hence putting people at risk regarding being undetectable = untransmittable. The rumor is actually in this piece of news, which has not and can’t point to any study where an undetectable person has transmitted the virus to anyone (because it doesn’t exist). Here they are concluding that a hypothesis (HIV in testicles mean it can be transmitted) is a fact, when it is not. Your comment is cruel and completely out of sync with 10+ yrs worth of data on the subject.

      • Seer Clearly

        Irregardless IS a word (check the dictionary) but using big words to build fake reputation for smarts and trustworthiness in order to promote a false point is the domain of internet trolls

      • Grammar King

        Merriam Webster Dictionary: Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead. First use around 1795. Probably a combo of irrespective and regardless.

    • JD

      It is no rumor. It’s absolutely true. People who take HIV treatment and become undetectable are effectively at ZERO risk of transmitting HIV through sex, period. CDC says it, NIH says it. Check out Prevention Access Campaign for a giant list of everyone from HIV researchers to goverments around the world that are starting to publicize this huge advance in our understanding of HIV. Bits of HIV can be found in many “reservoirs” in the body but as long as people are taking effective treatment, it is out of harm’s way – both for their health and risk of passing it to others.

    • Bob

      If by “people” you mean the cdc, and by “false rumor” you mean “conclusion of decades of research”, then yes.

      This is an incredibly irresponsible article which was itself culled from a source that does not specialize in infectious disease. This is incredibly irresponsible reporting by adam4adam.

        • Bob

          No one is disputing that the virus finds harbor on the testicles. The point of contention is whether or not this virus puts people at risk. This site chooses to speculate that it does. DECADES of observation of serodiscordant couples, thousands of documented sex acts and the public positions of every major public health organization otherwise.

          Adam4Adam is not a medical professional, and the journal cited is not a scientific journal. This site has absolutely zero right to further marginalize people with HIV, particularly when there is no question that it has certainly caused more hiv infections in any given week than the sum total of all undetectables since the advent of combination therapy. This is reprehensible, irresponsible and just plain wrong.

          • Dave

            Bob, nothing in the article or study talks about risks of infections. I added a note at the beginning of the post that reads like this : Note : Please take note that nothing in the study states anything about transmission risks. A4A still believes what the CDC and the CATIE announced a few months ago that undetectable = untransmittable. 

        • Antonio Alvarez

          DAVE, you are LYING despite of your NOTE that you added in the former version of your article which I screen shoot in my cell phone you said:

          “Unfortunately, this means that there’s still a possibility for the virus to still be transmitted and put people at risk”

          That is a hughe statement full of stigma, discrimination, and LIES, because the only thing that the study you mention says is that HIV is present in the testes, which is a reservoir, as it it the brain, the heart and many other parts of the body. Reservoirs are NOT paths of transmission unless you are a canibal! It has already been published that the RNA that is present in semen in the first year of treatment can not cause a transmission, because you need the whole HIV to do that, not particles of it.

          U=U is sound and solid Science based on 18 years of studies that started to be published in 2.000 up until today, and is now considered a Scientific Consensus backed by CDC, NIH, UNAIDS and 550 others in 70 countries.

          Your negligent interpretation of a one research published that never was putting U=U into question, has been followed by dozens of comments of uneducated readers that now put U=U into question, and that is thank to your “sentence” that you deleted in this second version.

          Yo can do better than that, you owe us a full new article apologising for this one which you should simply DELETE, and explain that you were wrong, that you apologise, and you support the Science behind U=U despite this piece of research that only refers to reservoirs where HIV hides.

          That would be the least you should do after what you just did. Otherwise you DO NOT REPRESENT the Gay community, because you are criminalising 20% of them which is the prevalence of HIV in big cities like Amsterdam, Barcelona or London.

          ACT SOON, We deserve better from you.

          • JJ

            >> you owe us a full new article apologising for this one which you should simply DELETE, and explain that you were wrong, that you apologise, and you support the Science behind U=U despite this piece of research that only refers to reservoirs where HIV hides.<<

            He doesn't owe you shit. What a bunch of whining babies, if someone posts something that is a different opinion then you cry and scream.
            You're just looking for an excuse to be a whore and fuck anyone, anywhere. Be honest.
            Gay men can be such babies.

  2. Bigprick69ga

    Interesting. Obviously, HIV positive males should consider vasectomy to leave virus isolated. It will be interesting to see if the testicular/sperm viral load is sufficient for transmission of the virus. I suspect this will be another reason to promote pREP

    • Seer Clearly

      A vasectomy won’t isolate the virus from the body. So discontinuing treatment can allow it to travel to the rest of the body. However, while a vasectory will prevent sperm from leaving the testes, there is no evidence that HIV can be passed to another person by someone who is on treatment, whether they have a vasectomy or not. It’s important not to conflate transmission with infection.

  3. ArmyDad65

    More studies need to be done. HIV lays dormant with immunotherapy. Stop the drugs and it resurfaces. All this means is they’ve located where the virus lays dormant. Studies need to be done on the sperm.

  4. Marcus

    This isn’t “particularly disheartening” as we already knew the virus takes refuge in numerous immunoprivileged parts of the body. No one expected the path to a cure to be straightforward.

    Further, this study doesn’t change the existing fact that undetectable viral loads have been correlated with ZERO transmissions. You do your members a disservice in once again, seeking to reignite the lie that undetectables transmit. The CDC and every major health organization on earth is on board with this consensus, there is no f&*%ing reason why Adam4adam should feel a need to speculate on heretofore unseen transmissions.

  5. anonimatovato

    I think people that are sexually active should assume everybody is ‘at risk’ and should use condoms and prep as much as possible, because you just never know. And yes, even those low risk blowjobs, but most won’t put a rubber on it anyways.

  6. P Thomas

    This really is NOT all that surprising.

    At least 2 prior studies have documented that undetectable in SERUM is not necessarily undetectable in SEMEN. In fact, when studying 2 semen samples from study participants taken on the same day (ah, to be young again, and ‘bate 2-3x/d–& all in the name of science…but I digress), in a significant number of subjects who were +/U, the first semen sample was also undetectable, but the specimen a few hours later was + for HIV by PCR. And we have known that the testis and brain were largely protected environments for HIV (& a lot of other pathogens). What has NOT been demonstrated, however, is whether HIV in semen of +/U men represented infectious virus, or just noninfective viral particles that react to PCR, but are incapable of infecting a seronegative person. More research is clearly needed.

    BOTTOM LINE (apologies for the unintentional pun):
    (1) know your status, and get tested REGULARLY if you are sexually active (and yes, even bottoms who just lie there are considered sexually active);
    (2) since it may take as long as 90 days to show detectable antibody to HIV AND Syph, a negative test in March can be positive in May, without having engaged in sex between the 2 testing dates. The man was early in the phase of primary infection in March, loaded with, and spewing, HIV and syphilis before antibodies develop. By May, antibodies to these STI’s had developed. SO DO NOT BELIEVE THE MYTH THAT A SINGLE NEGATIVE TEST MEANS YOU ARE “SAFE”. The truth, distressingly, is exactly the opposite.
    (3) If you are sexually active & have access to it, use PrEP, either daily, or (especially if sexual activity is rare) intermittently, using the European Protocol (2 Truvada pills 2-12 hours before anticipated playtime, then one at 24 & 48 hrs after potential exposure; if you got stood up, and no potential exposure occurs, no need for the follow-up 2 pills);
    (4) being on PrEP, or +/U, is not an excuse to NOT use a condom–every partner, every time. Because, as this report highlights UNDETECTABLE IN SERUM IS NOT THE SAME AS UNDETECTABLE IN SEMEN! And there are MANY more STIs besides HIV. And while you may eventually be detected and treated within the next 2 rounds of quarterly testing, in the meantime, you are unintentionally exposing every other partner you have during that time. And Tops: you are NOT protected unless wrapped! UTIs, syphilis, GC, HPV, and a few other nasties can be passed from bottom-to-top, with the bottom not even knowing he is infected/infectious.
    (5) STEALTHING IS ASSAULT. If you and your partner agree on condom use, and then you deliberately damage or remove or never use a condom, you may have exposed your partner to HIV, even if you are +/U, and a bunch of other things that you may not know you are carrying around. Not only is this detestably poor form, and an absolute trust-killer; it may expose you to civil and criminal penalties (feel free to chime in here, all you attorneys).
    All that aside,v sexual karma is a beatch. The bottom you rawdawged may have infected YOU with something he didn’t even know he had. PBIAMF! Rubber protects both ways, both partners.

    THE LAST WORD:
    Wrap that Rascal, topmen, whether you are HIV +/U on a 3 drug regimen, or negative on PrEP; bottom men, stay aware, make sure your partner uses a condom if that was your agreement, and insist on seeing the condom after it’s all over (but the clean-up). If it is broken, or somehow empty, then take immediate action to protect yourself, not just from HIV, but from exposure to the other STIs out there.

    Sorry if this sounds like a long sermon, but as a physician in the “Family”, I hear and see a lot of nonsensical, dangerous stuff in our communities.

    (SIGN ME: “Anonymous Doc in the South”)

    • JD

      Ok Doc, but undetectable by blood tests DOES mean effectively zero risk of transmission. There’s been hundreds of thousands of sex acts worldwide between couples IN research studies, where one person has HIV and the other doesn’t, with NO TRANSMISSION.

      • Bob

        I’d be curious what your credentials actually are. What sort of “doctor” looks at three studies with zero transmissions, the statement of the CDC and millions of couples with no known transmissions, and still concludes there is “some risk”?! Unless you’re also warning your patients about the dangers of sexually transmitted Ebola, this isn’t truth, it’s HIV scaremongering and is conduct unbecoming of a medical
        professional.

  7. John

    I personally think that even in the name of research there are people that have their own agenda and this is perfect example. How perfect is the timing that when some good comes out of research there is someone right behind the good with the bad news. Why has this study never been talked about before but babam there it is in the lime light. I think it’s bullshit and as Maude used to say , “God’s gonna get you for that one”

  8. Bob

    “Unfortunately, this means that there’s still a possibility for the virus to still be transmitted and put people at risk”.

    LOL. No. That’s not what it means. Let’s be clear here, the number of transmissions linked to undetectable persons is ZERO. Zip. Zilch. Nada. That’s as true now as it was six months ago. It will remain true until a transmission actually happens. To be clear, that’s less than the number of transmissions caused by all these fools whose profile reads “Clean as of October 2014”, and even less than people on PrEP.

    With hundreds of many thousands of sexual acts spread across several major studies, any attempt to distort this conclusion is simply hysteria. Continuing to grasp at straws and suggest that there must be some risk-simply because there may be existing virion-ignores the fact that most of the virus is not competent of replication, and the fact that 20 years of research have shown no transmissions.

    OMG, Dr. Adam4Adam has absolutely no business practicing Internet Medicine.

      • Bruce

        The problem with ‘demonstrating what this study says’ is that you’re reaching a conclusion that HIV can indeed be transmitted because it can be found in the testicles. HIV can still be found in semen, for instance, but it doesn’t mean it can be transmitted since it is either at very low quantities or it is not replication competent in people who are undetectable. Science and data strongly support that when someone is undetectable, he/she cannot transmit, and this new study does not prove otherwise. Unfortunately, this only serves to perpetuate fear and stigma.

      • Patrick

        Except that the study itself in no way supports the irresponsible spin you are putting on it. I don’t care what editorializing about the study you read in Scientific American. I challenge you to go directly to Dr. Routy’s paper and quote the words that say that this makes transmission possible. You can’t, because it says no such thing. Dr. Routy would be horrified to learn that his work was being so grossly misrepresented.

        You should be ashamed of yourselves for spreading this misinformation when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

      • Bob

        But you’re not demonstrating it. A “demonstration” would require you to prove that a transmission has happened. This hasn’t been done. What you’re doing is SPECULATING that the virus is competent of replication, based simply on the fact that it exists. This is fallacious reasoning. You are then using that speculation to contradict the conclusion of basically every reputable health organization on earth and 20 years of research, at significant detriment to people with hiv.

    • TiredOfIt

      …and DENIAL isn’t just a river in Egypt, either. DOCUMENTED FACT: HIV-1 remains active in the brain, optic nerve and eyes long after it is controlled in the blood stream. The testes are immunoprivileged…what the hell makes you think that’s tops aren’t shooting poz loads? Oh…that Kaiser study…100% bought and paid for by…who else? GILEAD, makers if the liver and kidney destroying Truvada.

      Lemming.

      • Bob

        I mean, literally no one is talking about “The Kaiser Study”, as that addressed PrEP and we’re talking about Treatment as Prevention (“TaSP”). The several studies in question supporting TaSP are not paid for by any drug company and are considerably more established and better supported what you’re talking a about.

        Disagree? Then name a single
        Documented transmission from
        A person with an undetectable VL. Until that time, stop spinning speculation as fact.

      • Seer Clearly

        I’m puzzled why you would engage in Whataboutism (changing the subject to make some point – any point – so you can feel self-righteous) with respect to this life and death issue? As Bob pointed out, we’re talking about TaSP not PrEP, and there is every possible bit of evidence that “poz loads” are not being shot by people on PrEP.

        By the way if you’re worried about Truvada, there is a newer drug that has far less side effects that will be approved shortly for use in PrEP.

    • Peter

      Did you actually read the article? Truvada/PreP has nothing to do with this. PreP is meant to protect you (and it does protect you) from HIV regardless of others’ viral load (if HIV+), so this article changes nothing on that front. Now, if you just wanted to spin the news in order to make some morality-driven statement about ‘rampant anal sex’, then you delivered in spades.

  9. Bryen

    Yea it’s definitely a set back.  For me one of my worst fears when I was diagnosed was that I would transmit it to someone else.  I post my status in  my profile on dating/hookup apps because 1: Best to be upfront with disclosure and 2: the only way to educate people and end the still unspoken social stingma is to talk about it, and 3: the number of basic questions that I get asked weekly tells me that younger generations and a majority of the general population still lack knowledge when it comes to HIV in terms of prevention and safety, transmission, and new prevention options.
          I am very open now to everyone about my status- platonic friends, family, and a few co-workers. I do this knowing that if maybe I was not so open about it, some guys might get to know me first before they move on to the next guy (or I might even get a hookup ). Being out about my status wasn’t always easy for me.  I was repeatedly told “You’re hot! Too bad your positive.”  Or the polite way around it after their was initially physical attraction, “You’re not my type.” or “I think we are best as friends.”   Once I did start dating, both guys were negative and educated. However it still affected the relationship, but it was more about my thoughts rather than their concerns. 
      The social stigma along with my fear of transmission,  although I very always been undetectable, prevented me from enjoying sex and for 8 years I couldn’t even get off with another guy. It affected my relationship so badly we broke up. He thought I wasn’t attracted to him.
         Then the studies started coming out stating that if you were undetectable, then it was next to impossible to transmit.  I dealt with my issues, and it still can be an issue in my crazy mind, but I was able to relax enough to enjoy sex again.   A small part of the overall reasons for that is, especially in my local region, is the stigma and dating discrimination is still very present.
         And now this.  Immediately my thoughts have returned.  At this point I don’t know how much it will affect my mindset…  I will need time to process the new information.  I would like to say I’m confident and secure enough in education that it won’t.   As many negative responses as I had to being positive/undetectable in the dating world, I have had twice if not three times as many positive experiences.  It’s just that you remember the negative responses so much more.
         Hopefully further tests will give us more answers to this new development.  It’s impact on the positive community will remain to be seen.

    • JD

      Bryen, this study has no bearing on the reality that undetectable status means effectively NO risk of HIV. Think about it – all the guys in those studies had testicles! And when undetectable, no cases of HIV transmission.

    • Peter

      Bryen, first of all: these are not ‘new developments’. We’ve known for years that testis, semen, the urinary tract, etc harbor hiv’s genetic material even when undetectable. However, it has been proven that it does not produce infection since it is at very low levels and/or it is incomplete virus and hence replication ‘incompetent’. (search for NIH’s Dr. Dieffenbach’s statement on this specific matter) You’ve come too far to let these NON peer reviewed, NON medical journal findings distress you in any way. Evidence is ALL on the side of U=U. Don’t let anyone put you down and dare to fight back! Cheers!

  10. R

    My question is whether volumetrically, the risk exceeds the assay cutoff. Another question is, did hormone therapy affect this result, considering the source of the samples? Another question is, were these people faithfully taking ARV therapy? And of course, a small sample size from a limited population may show a certain result, but can it pass the statistical validity test? Does Cowper’s fluid, which provides a huge portion of ejaculate, contain sufficient ARV metabolites to overcome the viral presence in the sperm?
    After all, the in-vivo studies of serodiscordant couples having regular bareback sex showed no transfer of the virus to the uninfected partner. The reservoir theory had long been held, although it was thought the langerhans cells in the kidneys were the site, as the langergans cells in the foreskin seemed susceptible to infection. So we have discovered a circumstance which obviously has existed, but it still cannot explain away the actual, empirical results of live studies over the last few years. I will say this snippet of alarmist haste will potentially stigmatize those who adhered to their regimen and suppressed their infection to undetectable levels, with the resultant RNA damage to the few virus remaining, which inhibited the viability of the few which might have reproduced.
    We need more study, to clarify, unless, of course, these people wanted to create drama (as with the false “super aids” panic a few years ago). Quick release of results of such small-sample exercises gas never been considered valid, except when dealing with stigmatized groups.

  11. iLoveBeingNegative

    Ha! And people give me crap for being Oral Only. I KNEW all this “Prep” stuff was too good to be true.
    There’s no way someone is going to take a “Magic pill” and then head to the bathhouse every weekend and stay healthy.

    And I always felt that a lot of guys lie about being on prep anyways.
    Thank you oral only! 🙂 No anal for me

    • Seer Clearly

      This study does not in any way change the fact that “U=U.” There are many reasons not to have anal sex (and many, many more FOR having it – like full self-realization and fearless intimacy) but the risk of transmission from someone who is on meds is NOT a reason to avoid it. The studies that have shown this are among the best ever done.

      • ILOVEBEINGNEGATIVE

        Oh really? How do we know that the “undetectable” partner isnt passing HIV to the neg person, and that hiv is just hiding dormant in his testicles, as it is the poz person?
        Is it worth it for 10 minutes of fun? no thanks

        • Bob

          You’re a f$&@ing idiot. We “know” because in 20 years of documented observation and several major studies, there’s not been a single transmission. We know because none of the cells obtained from the samples in question have been shown to be competent of replication. It’s absolutely insane to suggest that just because we can’t say there’s no risk then there must be some
          risk. Such a philosophy would literally reduce us to a world of agoraphobics.

  12. #UequalsU

    This is nonsense. DNA and RNA are particles of HIV. The whole virus is required to transmit HIV.

    This is shameful that Adam4Adam is promoting HIV stigma. You will be hearing from the #UequalsU community with the facts.

  13. Bruce

    This is very disheartening to see this enduring myth continue. It’s especially sad reading Bryen’s comment, and knowing there are many other men with HIV like him that are now depressed and anxious because of this harmful article. Fact: A person with HIV on ART with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV through sex (Undetectable = Untrasmittable U=U), even if there are HIV particles in his semen. Particles cannot infect people; only the whole virus can.

    If semen were an issue, the CDC and NIH would mention it in their recent fact sheets on Viral Suppression. They would never release information and put millions of people at risk if they were not certain that there is effectively no risk of transmission from someone with an undetectable viral load and that HIV particles in semen is not an issue. In fact, Carl Dieffenbach the Director of the Division of AIDS at NIH spoke out in these two articles to debunk the myth about semen:

    http://www.imstilljosh.com/hiv-in-semen-poses-no-threat-researchers-prove-stigma-uequalsu/
    https://www.hivplusmag.com/sex-dating/2017/10/23/putting-fear-semen-bed

    Maybe HIV in semen keeps coming up again because researchers need reasons to justify their research and create news. Unfortunately, as you can see from Bryen’s comments, their news is hurting people.

    Overwhelming research that proves U=U is here http://www.uequalsu.org including the CDC, NIH, NYC Department of Health, Avert, The Lancet and many other sources.

    Please retract this harmful article, A4A, and educate about the great news of U=U which is fact and backed by science. Thanks for your consideration.

  14. Real1

    and now what? does the A4A community will still contribute the spread of the disease? stop posting about prep, truvada and crap like that and be aware of the high risk we all put ourselves into while having sex.

  15. Peter

    We’ve known hiv particles inhabitate semen, the urinary tract, tests, for years now (see link below).
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2816356/
    Therefore, this is not a ‘new’ development. The problem with the article is that it falsely assumes that this means hiv+u folks can still spread the virus. Time and time again, we’ve seen zero transmissions from hiv+u people to hiv- partners (HPTN 052, PARTNER, and Opposites Attract data is out there for those who dare to read and look at the scientific data). Last but no least, this is what Dr. Dieffenbach from the NIH (Direction of the AIDS division) said regarding hiv in bodily fluids, including semen (you can search online a lot more from him and Dr. Fauci on the matter):
    “We have known for decades that HIV genetic material exists in bodily fluids of those living with HIV who are virally suppressed. On its own, HIV genetic material, RNA or DNA, is not infectious. It is not ‘whole virus,’ which is needed for HIV to infect a living cell.”

    • Seer Clearly

      Just don’t get off your meds because of any of this “information.” The vasectomy does not reduce the risk of transmission from a poz person on meds because it’s already at zero. However, getting off the meds could make you get AIDS. And, the virus can be spread from someone with an active infection by precum.

  16. Lamar

    Still gotta put a glove it, folks, whatever it means, this “new finding.” Which means, you have to be responsible for yourselves, which also means, you can have a part in eliminating hiv/aids, but that’s too responsible, isn’t it? Need a magic-bullet for everything, damn, find some self-discipline!

    • Seer Clearly

      This article and resulting conversation is and should be about TaSP – Treatment as Prevention. The risk of HIV transmission by someone on treatment is zero. There are other reasons to wear a rubber, but if you’re poz and on treatment, it won’t reduce a risk that is zero.

      Any further discussion about “self-discipline” in this light is just an attempt at self-righteous shaming and reveals more about those who do the shaming than those who have bareback sex while undetectable.

    • Bob

      No one is contesting condom usage. Condoms remain best practice for *everyone*, including people with hiv.

      However, condoms or not, it’s not exactly a secret that presumptions of infectiousness are used to disadvantage people with an undetectable viral load in both social and public spheres. This isn’t about promoting any specific sexual practice. This really is about getting people to treat hiv+ people with the normalcy and respect that decades of observation suggest and human decency demands.

  17. JJ

    Oh please, don’t give me that “get educated” bullshit. Guys lie all the time about being on prep.
    Next time someone tells you they’re on prep, ask to see their prescription. Watch, half of them won’t have it.

    I’ve had a few guys tell me they’re neg when they’re positive for years too. Guys lie all the time to hook up.
    Nope, don’t believe all these guys who say they’re undetectable are actually on it.
    Just have safe sex. I’ve never met a guy worth going to the dr for anyways.

    • Bob

      What’s your actual point?! No one is telling you to trust anyone’s word on their status. That rule needs to applied for EVERYONE though, not just guys who acknowledge being undetectable.

      If someone’s going to lie, they’re sure as hell not going to do so by acknowledging a less privileged status like undetectable.

    • Antonio Alvarez

      You sound so ridiculous with your words… it is obvious you neither can read what was stated here.

      BASICS:

      1) HIV is NOT a death sentence and does not change your life span.
      2) HIV is not contagious, and can only be sexually transmitted when the person affected is not on treatment, and therefore has a detectable viral load.
      3) There is ready and available treatment that is effective controlling HIV viral load and has nearly any side effects.
      4) People living with HIV can do a normal life, even have complete condomless sex with their partners, or have children, with no risk of transmission to their kids or their partner, as long as they keep their viral load undetectable with ARV treatment.
      5) Rejection and stigma can only come from IGNORANCE towards HIV in 2017.
      6) For people that can’t access treatment or an undetectable viral load, there are also alternatives such as condoms or PrEP when they are in a relationship.

      HIV PREVENTION METHODS AVAILABLE: (There are 3 possible ways)

      When you are HIV negative:
      a) Use always a condom (Reduces 80% the transmission risk)(1)
      b) Take PrEP (Tenofovir) on daily basis (Reduces 99% the transmission risk)(2)

      When you are HIV positive:
      c) Take ARV treatment on daily basis to keep your viral load at undetectable levels.
      (Reduces 100% the transmission risk)(3)

      Sources:
      (1) Studies VAX004 y EXPLORE about condoms efficacy
      (2) CDC, Estudio Kayser Permanente, Estudio PROUD
      (3) CDC & UNAIDS. Prevention Access Campaign.

      And Yes: Don’t protect your self based on your partner methods, use your method.
      GET EDUCATED & GET TESTED, the vast majority of new HIV cases come from people Undiagnosed like YOU. People living with HIV on effective treatment CAN’T TRANSMIT HIV.

  18. Antonio

    DAVE, despite of your NOTE that you added in the former version of your article which I screen shoot in my cell phone you said:

    “Unfortunately, this means that there’s still a possibility for the virus to still be transmitted and put people at risk”

    That is a hughe MISTAKE as astatement, because the only thing that the study you mention says is that HIV is present in the testes, which is a reservoir, as it it the brain, the heart and many other parts of the body.

    Reservoirs are NOT paths of transmission unless you are a canibal! It has already been published that the RNA that is present in semen in the first year of treatment can not cause a transmission, because you need the whole HIV to do that, not particles of it.

    U=U is sound and solid Science based on 18 years of studies that started to be published in 2.000 up until today, and is now considered a Scientific Consensus backed by CDC, NIH, UNAIDS and 550 others in 70 countries.

    Your interpretation of a one research published that never was putting U=U into question, has been followed by dozens of comments of uneducated readers that now put U=U into question, and that is thank to your “sentence” that you deleted in this second version.

    In my view you can do better than that, you owe us a full new article apologising for this big MISTAKE which you should simply DELETE, and explain that you were wrong, that you apologise, and you support the Science behind U=U despite this piece of research that only refers to reservoirs where HIV hides.

    That would be the least you should do after what you just did. Otherwise you ARE NOT REPRESENTING the Gay community, because you are criminalising 20% of them which is the prevalence of HIV in big cities like Amsterdam, Barcelona or London.

    ACT SOON, We deserve better from you.

  19. Bambam29406

    When I have unprotected sex with someone I let them know that I am undetectable but still stress the use of a condom. I don’t say I am not going to give it to them. I say there is a very small risk but a risk is still a risk. To me undetectable means that the tests being used cannot go below a certain threshold so until they find a 100% proof test to say otherwise, I still treat it as there is a possibility. Now if the person is willing to have bareback with be after that then so be it but I let it be known. I don’t want to be the reason someone pops positive on an idea that undetectable means untranmittable.

  20. Aron

    Here’s the thing of how I see it. If people who were taking their meds regularly weren’t at risk of further infecting others, then the viral number of new infections would have dropped & have continued to drop since the cocktail treatments initially began. HIV is a slick virus among the other choice words I could use for this engineered bug, but that’s another story.

    Regardless of treatment there’s still virus in the body & in the blood. Transmission is still possible but it’s very low compared to those without treatment & a higher viral load in the blood. I don’t care what the CDC, WHO, NIH etc say. We’re living it & seeing new infections everyday with or without prep. It’s just kept on the low, until it can’t be ignored anymore because of corporate financial interest….


Post a new comment

Like us to stay in touch with latests posts!