Unprotected Sex OK for Some with HIV?

Wonder if Boobyl is trying to contract HIV so he can belong to a group that can't revoke his membership.

yeah sure...the risk has always been low for hetersexual males but that doesn't mean you shouldn't cover up. I'm sure there are some testimonials out there to verify that.

Wow, talk about missing the message...how about reading the entire article??

"the Swiss consensus statement on the effect of treatment on transmission was misinterpreted by some to mean that treatment should replace condoms as a prevention strategy. Others believe that the statement vindicates the practice of condomless sex between non-monogamous partners of different or unknown status"

"'We never thought of it as a statement that was to be delivered worldwide,' Professor Vernazza told the meeting, but rather 'it was meant only to be delivered to Swiss physicians to help them discuss sexual risk-taking with their patients and their steady partners.'

Another problem, noted Professor Vernazza, was that the title of the statement – Les personnes séropositives ne souffrant d’aucune autre MST et suivant un traitment antirétroviral efficace ne transmettent pas le VIH par voie sexuelle (HIV-positive people with no other STIs and on effective antiretroviral therapy do not transmit HIV sexually) – 'was misleading and I apologise for that. We wouldn’t do that again.'"

"the motivation for the statement was primarily political. He said that since it was possible for the Swiss state to prosecute HIV-positive people who had unprotected sex with consenting, fully informed HIV-negative partners under HIV exposure laws, this statement could be used in court to show that if an individual was on successful treatment they could not possibly expose – or transmit – HIV."

"He also noted that the Swiss assumption that transmission was not possible below a certain viral load threshold was more of a belief than a fact (and one that was recently rejected by Australasian experts)."

"That was not necessarily the view of Dr Catherine Hankins, UNAIDS’ Associate Director of Strategic Information and Chief Scientific Officer who noted that 'we have to be very careful about what we are saying and to whom it applies, because it can have unintended, negative consequences.'

She illustrated this by providing the example of a group of HIV-positive Geneva sex workers who believed the Swiss statement meant they did not have to use condoms, and thus could earn more money by having condomless sex."

Also, as any scientist knows...one study alone *never* yields all the correct answers, but I wouldn't expect a homosexual-obsessed troll like Bobby-boy to understand that...

Have fun trying to backpedal, once again, on being one of sad, ole scat's buddies Bobby-boy...lol... The meltdown continues! :)

Dick: The Swiss researchers surveyed prior studies and found no evidence of transmission under the conditions mentioned. A single "testimonial" would invalidate their results. If you locate one, I am sure the researchers would want to know!

"You are clearly just a troll who doesn't even believe your own writings and are just trying to stir up a bit of shit."

Really, honestly, this is just an unbelievable statement from Bobby-boy. He's just another troll that can't take the heat when the facts of what he's said in the past are pointed out to him in context...wow! It's really a textbook case in projection...over & over & over again...simply amazing...

Here's the video of the entire session (2 hours!):

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast…

There are some interesting tidbits of STD information scattered throughout (e.g. mention of 40 documented cases of transmission of HIV through oral sex).

What I found most interesting:

The Swiss guys say the main reason for their belief is the lack of transmission, in practice, from people on ARVs. They actually made a very conservative conservative statement based on the lack of evidence of transmission from those on ARVs. In particular they additionally also looked at viral load in semen and other biological factors to establish their qualifiers.

However, watching the video we definitely get the feeling they have stronger personal feelings. They imply that even the presence of other STIs might not be enough to allow transmission when on ARVs. Although this presence could cause "viral blips" it is not clear if the concentrations would be high enough to allow transmission (mentioned later that 369 copies/mL has been the minimum observed reading in the case of a transmission).

They also say their review of the lack of transmission in practice included anal sex. However, here the biology factors are less clear so they didn't want to make an official statement.

It was a very interesting session. People even spoke of the "reward" side of risk versus reward here. Not just big thing like couple being able to have children, but more pedestrian concerns such as pleasure.

There was also talk of the positive effects of the statement (as well as potential negative effects as pointed out in the original post):

It would encourage people to get tested and treatment and adhere to medicine. It would reduce stigma to those with the disease. One example mentioned (extrapolate a bit beyond the statement) was that in high risk populations (e.g. gays (listen up parody and MisterGay: this means you!) results indicated that unprotected sex with a known HIV+ person meeting all the criteria, would be even safer than a person of unknown status who might have a recent infection.

Probably the most poignant moment, however, was when an African stood up and, correctly, pointed out that all the qualifiers in the Swiss statement, unfortunately, ruled out so many with AIDs. Most have no access to proper medicine, or viral load testing, or are co-infected with other STDs. Hopefully a big outcome of the statement could be that the qualifiers come closer to reality for the vast, vast majority with HIV.

Oh, funniest moment was right at the end, when the speaker implied that it was very easy for the old people researching HIV to be very conservative and hedge their bets or stall for more time for more evidence. Especially when they when they were all getting so old themselves that their personal possibilities for sex were getting more limited. Let's not be "AIDS cardinals" he said.

This guy really is a one-hit-wonder...keep playing that same note ("gay, gay, gay" and HIV is no big deal - don't worry about it!) Bobby-boy...maybe it won't sound so sour someday...