thoughts?

>>8702909
Would I what?

>>8702912
have unprotected sex with somebody who wasn't your same HIV status if the infected person was undetectable

There is a difference between no risk at all and an insignificantly marginal risk.

Since there is no reason to believe that the risk is somehow completely 100% gone, this belongs in the trash as it is most likely just bugchasing propaganda.

>>8702931
what about having sex with a condom, would you do that with a person of the opposite status? What about oral with a condom? What's the most you would do

>>8702909
>There is now a clear scientific AND LEGAL consensus
FTFY

https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/rhoades-v-iowa

>>8702916
No, but I insist on condoms for everyone I have sex with. There's things other than HIV out there.

>>8702909
>THERE'S ONLY ONE STD LET'S FUCK WITHOUT A CONDOM
Are you stupid.

>>8702931
There is a nonzero chance that you'll be fatally hit by an asteroid today. Is saying it won't happen asteroid propaganda?

>>8703047
I did not know about that, thank you for sharing it. But condoms were used in that case. Have there been any decisions made to address sex without condoms without potential for exposure?

>>8703052
true story
good for you

>>8703068
You asked me a question and I gave you an answer, what's your issue?

>>8703062
i smell a NASA shill

>>8703062
there's a nonzero chance your mom will be plowed harder then every corn field in Iowa come april

>>8702909
The idiots itt aside, if I was dating a guy like that I'd probably still make him wear condoms unless we'd been dating for years and I watched him take his meds.

The issue is not whether or not undetectable people can transmit. That is settled. It's whether or not you trust your sexual partner actually is detectable. You should never trust that unless you see it with your own eyes.

>>8703070
I didn't mean that sarcastically, I meant it literally. It's true, there are lots of other horrible illnesses that can be contracted, and I think it's great you use condoms to protect yourself and others. No sarcasm or snark.

>>8703130
That's all fair. But I don't think seeing your partner take their meds or length of dating should be a good gauge. Maybe ask to see several bloodwork results from over several months to show they are consistently testing undetectable and STD free. Science > faith.

>>8702909

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Undetectable does not mean cured, and I've yet to see the 100% proof that an undetectable viral load means it is untransmissible. So my answer is no.

>>8703200
Do you have sex with condoms?

>>8703160
Well watching them adhere to their regiment is how they get those test results, so....

File: Barack-Obama-laughing.jpg (52KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 620x350px

>>8703202

I've never had sex at all. I've got abstinence on my side.

>>8703200
There is always some chance your partner is lying, and there is no 100% effect transmission prevention strategy by your standard.

Why would you even have sex if you'll settle for nothing but literally 100%? There's even a nonzero risk a fucking blood transfusion can give you HIV still.

>>8703064
Not afaik but I only found out about that case by accident.

Condoms split. It shouldn't be acceptable to lie about having highly transmissible HIV just because I'm using a condom, so why should it here?

>>8703225
so, you're abstinent?

File: 1460815181522.jpg (105KB, 673x960px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 673x960px

>>8702916
>>8702909
Depends on the person but I'd say in 90% of the cases, no.

>>8704100
i agree. would you have sex with somebody with a condom if they weren't the same status as you?>

>>8704144
Depends on the person, if it's someone really really really special that did something stupid or got cheated in the past I would consider it, but most people would not fall on the really really really special category.

It's true that after a few years of treatment there's a smaller chance of you catching HIV from someone taking the meds than a guy you THINK that doesn't has HIV and isn't taking them.

>>8703225

>There's even a nonzero risk a fucking blood transfusion can give you HIV still.

A blood transfusion is life-saving when the intended result is achieved, and if the infused blood were infected with HIV instead, it still extended the recipient's life. A lack of sex can't kill though.

>>8703392

I'm guessing you meant me (>>8703200 and >>8703209). I am.

>>8703062
The PARTNER study that the image is citing (well not citing technically lol) actually gave 11 year estimates for transmission at their upper confidence limits as being a 17.9% chance of transmitting hiv.
Technically yes they didn't have any unexplained transmissions during the study itself but within error it is still potentially large.

Also only around 50-60% of people on antiretrovirals are consistently undetectable viral loads. Most people miss medications and such all the time

>>8703207
Right, but the virus mutates and the meds fail. That's why one needs to get regular lab results showing they're undetectable, showing the meds are still working..

>>8703308
yup.

>>8704213
>Most people miss medications and such all the time
do they?

>>8704213
I didn't ask about somebody who was on antivirals. I'm asking about those who *are indeed* undetectable.

Can you cite the study?

>>8704213
...wait, is it this
http://i-base.info/qa-on-the-partner-study/

File: homosexmonogamy.jpg (141KB, 434x872px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 434x872px

>>8705559
http://www.catie.ca/en/catienews/2014-04-10/insight-hiv-transmission-risk-when-viral-load-undetectable-and-no-condom-used
>Upper confidence limits were also calculated for a couple’s 10-year risk of HIV transmission when the HIV-positive partner has an undetectable viral load:
>Receptive vaginal sex (with or without ejaculation) – 11.7%
>Insertive vaginal sex – 11.4%
>Receptive anal sex (with or without ejaculation) – 17.9%
>Insertive anal sex – 12.8%

>>8704989
Yes
Can't remember what study this pic is from though, but there are many like it
http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Abstract/2001/07270/Overview_of_the_effectiveness_of_triple.6.aspx
>The overall estimated percentage of patients with plasma HIV RNA ≤ 400 copies/ml at 24 weeks was 64% [95% confidence interval (CI), 60 to 67%]. The percentages of patients with plasma HIV RNA ≤ 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks by drug class were: PI triple, 46% (95% CI, 41 to 52%); NNRTI triple, 51% (95% CI, 43 to 59%); triple NUC, 45% (95% CI, 36 to 54%).

So yeah, only around 50%ish are undetectable.

File: nope.jpg (167KB, 1024x1169px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1024x1169px

>>8702909
Someone with hiv would be due to have herpes and hpv. Am I gonna get some vaccines for those?