Support NeoGAF

[Glitchesarecool]

I suspect this would have gone over better had there also been additional provisions to help with HIV testing. Nothing like that indicated in the article.

It's a proven scientific fact. The medications have advanced a lot since the 80's to the point where you just take one pill a day to suppress the virus to undetectable levels. Side effects from the medications are also not as bad as they used to be even 10 years ago. Magic Johnson has been living with HIV for at least 26 years.

It's medication you have to take for the rest of your life. In this current healthcare nightmare of America I'm sure a lot of people would rightly be worried about affording that treatment. You don't get over it like a cold.

 

[royalan]

It's medication you have to take for the rest of your life. In this current healthcare nightmare of America I'm sure a lot of people would rightly be worried about affording that treatment.

Everyone understands this. That's not what's being discussed.

 

[Earthbound64]

If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?

No, it's not 0%.
We just have some people in here intentionally mixing/obscuring terms, and repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Look for key words such as:
"essentially"
"effectively"
"virtually"
etc.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

I suspect this would have gone over better had there also been additional provisions to help with HIV testing. Nothing like that indicated in the article.



It's medication you have to take for the rest of your life. In this current healthcare nightmare of America I'm sure a lot of people would rightly be worried about affording that treatment.

I understand and empathize with the sentiment that many who are reluctant about this legislation may increase risk of transmission, thus leading to an increase in medical expenditures. However, I assure you that the purpose of this is to make it easier for at-risk groups to test and treat themselves accordingly based on their condition, which, would lead to lessened risks of transmission because people are actively pursuing treatment rather than forgoing it altogether due to the stigma associated with HIV.

 

[Majora]

It's a proven scientific fact. The medications have advanced a lot since the 80's to the point where you just take one pill a day to suppress the virus to undetectable levels. Side effects from the medications are also not as bad as they used to be even 10 years ago. Magic Johnson has been living with HIV for at least 26 years.

Side effects aren't just not as bad as they used to be,they're basically non-existent with the modern drugs. Modern life with HIV is basically taking one tablet before bed each night and going for a blood test every six months, not that you'd know it from this thread.

As for why people are trying to 'push an agenda' about life with HIV in 2017 being pretty mundane, maybe it's because you have people on the first page of the damn thread coming out with shit like how it ruins your life. Tell that to the people who take one pill a day with no side effects and see what response you get to telling them the disease is life destroying. You need a counterpoint to all the people out there who still believe the drugs are terrible and your life expectancy is severely reduced. Neither is true anymore.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Seriously. All of this.

This thread seems to be a case study of how fake news spreads and is so effective (even though, to be clear, the news itself is indeed real in this case. It's the reactions to that news and how it's processed that concerns me). Facts don't matter. Science doesn't matter. Only feelings and perceptions. All else is irrelevant.

Knowingly exposing someone to HIV is STILL. ILLEGAL. in California. It's just a misdemeanor instead of a felony. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. There was no reason it should have ever been singled out like that to begin with. This is just finally correcting that wrong.

As for the idea of making things "fair" by just making everything a felony, that's insane. No evidence bares out that such a move would be helpful at all. All it does is make people less likely to get tested at all, which in turn makes it less likely they're getting treatment, which in turn means they're at GREATER risk of infecting others (because the treatment for HIV not only helps those infected but if taken properly reduces the rate of transmission to zero), not less. Such laws result in the problems they're trying to tackle becoming WORSE, not better. The desire for such a change is not rooted in any sort of logic, evidence, or science, but vengeance. Just pure vengeance, that doesn't care if it makes the problem it's tackling worse or not. It just wants to lash out regardless.

It might be tempting to do that at first. It might feel right. But that doesn't actually make it right. Particularly not when nothing other than those feelings of vengeance, that is, no science, evidence, or anything backs it up at all. But it's so sad and frustrating that those feelings are so strong and prevalent nonetheless. No wonder stuff like fake news has such an easy time spreading. No one really cares about facts or research or whatever. Just feelings, and confirming those feelings. That's all.

Just glad that most people here aren't in charge of making the laws I guess. If that happens even in a typically progressive site like NeoGAF, that's pretty strong evidence that representative democracy trumps true democracy. Too hard for most people to put their initial feelings and instincts and hunches aside and look at just the facts.

Either way, California did the right thing with this move, and that's what matters, regardless of how upset it may make people.

Rape leaves lasting psychological scars to the victim. It violates their trust and their body and associates these negative feelings with what is supposed to be intimacy. As such, we treat it as a felony.

Similarly, exposing others to STDs through deception violates their trust and their body, exposes them to medical conditions and expenses, possibly chronic, and associates negativity with intimacy. It should be a felony, not a misdemeanor.

We used to stigmatize rape victims as being "unpure," and still struggle with blaming the victim as a society.

People are stigmatized for having STDs, too.

However, knowingly exposing others to STDs you have through deception should absolutely be treated as severely as taking advantage of an intoxicated or otherwise vulnerable person and raping them.

 

[Earthbound64]

Posters in this thread are not in favor of protecting those that intentially withhold information when asked.

You haven't read all of plagiarize's posts, have you?

No, we're making it seem like he is somehow ok with people not telling other people that they have been diagnosed with HIV. Because that's what he's doing.

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

Bolding added for emphasis.

 

[Yeoman]

WHO'S FUCKING SAYING THIS? WHO?

Of course there's a fucking chance! No duh.

Who?

We can treat HIV. Being undetectable means it is impossible for you to infect someone.

If you are being treated you aren't infectious. So what right does the other person have to know?

smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.

smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.

this.

it's so sad to see people talk about HIV in 2017 like it's fucking 1985

It's a proven scientific fact. The medications have advanced a lot since the 80's to the point where you just take one pill a day to suppress the virus to undetectable levels.

Who indeed.

Like someone else in this thread claimed HIV was easier to deal with than Asthma!
Again I don't quite understand what the agenda is.

 

[Cilla]

I'm sorry but whether it is undectable or not I would want to know before I made a decision to sleep with somebody. Which I wouldn't. The chance isn't exactly 0% and even if it won't kill you you still have to be medicated for the rest of your life. That's not worth it to me personally.

 

[skullmuffins]

No, it's not 0%.
We just have some people in here intentionally mixing/obscuring terms, and repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Look for key words such as:
"essentially"
"effectively"
"virtually"
etc.

In all the studies done, there has never been a recorded instance of HIV transmission from someone with undetectable viral load. Scientists say "effectively zero" because they're being responsible, but it may very well be zero. Why are you so adamant that there is still a chance?

 

[Earthbound64]

there is still a chance

Exactly.
So don't dismiss people who want to know.

 

[skullmuffins]

Exactly.
So don't dismiss people who want to know.

what? you didn't even bother addressing the question.

 

[XenodudeX]

Just goes to show how some people don't give a damn about anyone else primarily because it doesn't effect them. They just want these disgusting disease vectors to stay far away, and if they step out of line, lock em up and throw away the key.

 

[Y2Kev]

Well, having read the posts back and forth, it seems to me to be a moral imperative to disclose HIV positive status to a partner before sex. It would also be, to me, a moral imperative to disclose any other infections.

I don't think it should be a unique crime to not disclose HIV, but it seems like this law change rectifies that.

I think I see the argument that if you can't transmit it, you shouldn't have to disclose it (and stigmatize it, obviously), but just personally I feel like I'd want that information. Maybe because of the stigma or maybe just something deeper emotionally.

I don't know a lot about ART but I remember hearing that the cocktail or drugs is somewhat taxing on the body. Is that true? Are there side effects? This is a secondary discussion, of course.

 

[Frodo]

Virally suppressed HIV+ people can not transmit the virus.


With that being said, because statistics and because science, you won't hear anyone saying there is zero chance the sun will not rise tomorrow, because for all we know, statistically there is a chance a more advanced alien civilization might explode it just for the laughs. But the chance is there so it is not zero.

 

[Earthbound64]

what? you didn't even bother addressing the question.

Someone asked:
"Is it really 0%?"

I answered:
"No, it's not 0%."

You asked:
"Why are you so adamant that there is still a chance?"

I'm adamant because I'm answering the question that was asked, and the answer I gave is correct.

it seems to me to be a moral imperative to disclose HIV positive status to a partner before sex.

Agreed completely.
But we have people in here arguing that not only isn't it a moral imperative, but they actively wouldn't do it.

 

[skullmuffins]

Someone asked:
"Is it really 0%?"

I answered:
"No, it's not 0%."

You asked:
"Why are you so adamant that there is still a chance?"

I'm adamant because I'm answering the question that was asked, and the answer I gave it correct.

In all the studies done, there has never been a recorded instance of HIV transmission from someone with undetectable viral load.

But you keep insisting that you know, for a fact, that there is still a risk of transmission despite it never having been documented to happen.

At most, there might be a very minuscule chance of it happening and we just haven't seen it yet. Or it could be impossible. There is not, for sure, "still a chance".

 

[matt05891]

I'm fine with it not being felony and treated as a misdemeanor but I will always want(expect!) to be told. I don't care if you're none transmittable that's my decision to make to be exposed to even the smallest possibility of risk. To argue otherwise is to be negating the other persons well being.

 

[royalan]

Agreed completely.
But we have people in here arguing that not only isn't it a moral imperative, but they actively wouldn't do it.

Who?

 

[Frodo]

Agreed completely.
But we have people in here arguing that not only isn't it a moral imperative, but they actively wouldn't do it.

I believe the best thing to do is to disclose your status. With that being said, I wouldn't blink an eye if I'm having sex with someone and I'm using a condom, and I didn't ask their status before hand, if later I find out they are HIV+ and undetectable. Because that is technically safer than having sex with someone that does not know their status.

 

[Earthbound64]

Who?

--->

Posters in this thread are not in favor of protecting those that intentially withhold information when asked.

You haven't read all of plagiarize's posts, have you?

No, we're making it seem like he is somehow ok with people not telling other people that they have been diagnosed with HIV. Because that's what he's doing.

I'm only okay with it in cases where I believe that there is zero risk of transmitting the disease. But you know that already.

Bolding added for emphasis.

 

[Yeoman]

I think I see the argument that if you can't transmit it, you shouldn't have to disclose it (and stigmatize it, obviously), but just personally I feel like I'd want that information. Maybe because of the stigma or maybe just something deeper emotionally.

The problem is this pulls the whole thing into an argument about "feels".
The general public health has to come before the risk of hurting people's feeling and worrying about making them feel stigmatised.

I don't know a lot about ART but I remember hearing that the cocktail or drugs is somewhat taxing on the body. Is that true? Are there side effects? This is a secondary discussion, of course.

You're absolutely right about how dangerous they can be.
The UK organisation NAM is funded by the British government and the National Health Service uses them as the second point of contact for people seeking additional information about side effects.
Here's what they have to say:

Common Side Effects (1/10 to 1/100):

• Diarrhoea
• Feeling or being sick
• Headaches
• Mood and sleep problems - (Depression, anxiety, feeling spaced out).
• Rashes
• Sexual Problems
• Tiredness

Long Term Side Effects:
Kidneys

However, most anti-HIV drugs can cause some damage to the kidneys, so your routine HIV care will involve regular tests to check on the health of your kidneys.

Metabolic Changes

Specifically, anti-HIV drugs can cause abnormal levels of lipids – blood fats, or cholesterol and triglycerides – and also blood sugar.

Heart Disease

Large studies of people taking protease inhibitors have shown that they have a slight, but nevertheless significant, increase in their risk of heart disease. Some (but not all) studies have also suggested that abacavir (Ziagen, also in the combination pills Kivexa and Triumeq) might increase the risk of heart disease, particularly for people who already have risk factors for heart problems.

Liver Problems

Having a healthy liver is important for people with HIV as most anti-HIV drugs are processed by the liver. Some people have experienced liver problems when taking HIV treatment. In many cases, they had other risk factors, such as also having hepatitis B or C, having an opportunistic infection or being treated with other medicines that can harm the liver.

Peripheral neuropathy

Nerve damage (neuropathy) can be caused by HIV. It can also be caused by some anti-HIV drugs, and by some treatments for opportunistic infections: some antibiotics, TB drugs, and therapies for Kaposi’s sarcoma.

The nerves which can be damaged by anti-HIV drugs are in the limbs (and very rarely, male genitals), so this side-effect is called peripheral neuropathy.

Bone Loss

There is also a link between the anti-HIV drug tenofovir disoproxil (Viread, also in the combination pills Truvada, Atripla, Stribild andEviplera) and bone problems. The newer formulation of the drug, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), included in Genvoya, Odefsey, andDescovy fixed-dose combinations, is as effective against HIV and is less likely to cause bone loss. Some research has suggested there is also a possible link between bone loss and protease inhibitors.

More detailed breakdown of HIV drugs and their side effects:
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-treatment-combinations-and-their-side-effects/page/1283821/

But of course, it's just one pill! It's even easier to treat than Asthma!

I'll keep saying it - there is some sort of weird agenda to normalise HIV in this thread and I find it deeply disturbing.

Once more: Have HIV? Tell the person, if they still want to be with you they will. Otherwise tough shit.

 

[Earthbound64]

there is some sort of weird agenda to normalise HIV in this thread and I find it deeply disturbing.

Once more: Have HIV? Tell the person, if they still want to be with you they will. Otherwise tough shit.

Exactly.

 

[pixelation]

Everyone understands this. That's not what's being discussed.

It could potentially be a consequence of not disclosing ones HIV status, something a lot of people on this thread are scarily in favor of... why?

No, it's not 0%.
We just have some people in here intentionally mixing/obscuring terms, and repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Look for key words such as:
"essentially"
"effectively"
"virtually"
etc.

You tell 'em man, they can't link you to a study with a big fat zero... so they'll use the words you posted to obscure the truth.

You haven't read all of plagiarize's posts, have you?




Bolding added for emphasis.

Yup, that plagiarize dude is scary.

Who?





Who indeed.

Like someone else in this thread claimed HIV was easier to deal with than Asthma!
Again I don't quite understand what the agenda is.

They are afraid of rejection i suppose, few people would have sex with an HIV+ person and they know that. Regardless of their viral low or how miniscule the chance or "practically non existant" it is of getting infected, the risk is just not worth it hence why they are in favor of not saying shit. In order to get some.

 

[Syriel]

Would you be ok if someone gave you Chlamydia/Gonorrhea/Hepatitis/Syphilis without your knowledge?

No. And no one should be OK with that. Not even sure why that would be a question, as the answer is obvious.

And yes, people aren't perfect, but if someone is taking their meds properly they pose effectively zero risk. You're safer having sex with someone poz and on meds than someone who tested negative 2 months ago and has had several sexual encounters since then. But no-one is going to hound the negative person to disclose their recent sexual history since testing negative are they? They're neg so they're 'safe' and don't have to disclose shit.

ART can fail. Someone can be taking their meds properly and still pose a risk.

There is a reason why journal publications are very specific with their wording on these things.

Lol exactly. So many loud and wrong people in this topic, when this bill is progress. I'm here for it. We need to help these people, not send them to jail and pretend it's not a real issue. Especially when chances are greater that you'll contract it with someone who tells you they're "clean" than someone who doesn't. Nevermind the fact that many people who do, don't even know.

Someone who claims they are not infected, and passes along any STD should be liable for the full cost of treatment. Being purposefully negligent in other situations can still be deemed criminal negligence. Why should it be different when it comes to someone's health?

smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.

Except when it happened. It's extremely rare, but you can't say it never happened when there is a record of it happening, unless you choose to selectively ignore some published studies.

you don't "get away with it". it's still illegal, they're just treating it now like every single other infectious disease.

A misdemeanor is nothing. If you stole the cost of treatment from someone it would be felony theft. There's also the matter of if you believe in rape by coercion.

We've seen in this very thread that posters have claimed that they wouldn't disclose because then their partners would decline to have sex with them. Lying about status just to get someone into bed when you know they are hesitant is coercion.

If it's undetectable, what is the transmission rate? Is it really 0%?

It is extremely low, assuming that there is no ART failure, which does happen. Part of the issue with this thread is that there are posters who are adamant about the "no chance" stance, based solely on high level messaging. No one is backing up what they say with studies from actual medical journals. For example, one oft quoted study talks about tracking ~58,000 sex acts, thought that is across less than 900 couples, which works out to less than one sex act per week. It's also a matter of a small sample size, which has an impact on the CI of the study.

Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine based on HPTN 052 has nearly 10x person year followup (compared to the study linked above) and is more specific about detailing risks, including possible failure of the ART regimen:

In the other four cases, partner infection occurred after ART failed in the index participant.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1600693

This this study, there were eight cases of transmission. Four were discounted as they happened too early for ART to be effective. The other four happened after ART should have been in effect and the virus should have been suppressed.

Simply taking meds properly does not guarantee that a person will be virally suppressed. For the vast majority of the population this is true, but it is not a fact across 100% of the population.

This is why the argument of "I'm taking meds, so I can't infect anyone" that has been put forth in this thread should not be taken as an absolute.

Pretty much, yes. You just don't see the researchers saying it is absolutely zero because they are doing a good job presenting the data. As always, people are hung up on that 0.001% margin of error. I mean, what do the researchers know anyway.

Hence you see the term undetectable. If you are adhering, you are undetectable.

From the same HPTN 052 study linked above:

Previous studies have reported the transmission of HIV-1 by only one participant in whom the infection was stably suppressed during receipt of ART. However, we did not document any such transmission events in this study.

No cases were detected in this study, but one case of transmission from a partner that was suppressed was documented in a prior study.

Extremely unlikely, but not impossible as some posters in this thread are arguing.

Again, the qualifier is undetectable. You seem to be lumping all people with HIV when even medical professionals make distinctions.

Distinctions have been the main point of contention. The arguments have been against those claiming that it is "impossible" and that there is "no chance."

No one is going to disagree that transmission is extremely unlikely.

But if someone if going to argue that transmission is "impossible" despite the fact that the sample sizes in the available studies are low relative to the population at large, and that there has been a documented case, then they're arguing against the current evidence.

Unless, that is, you do treat other not-technically zero chances the same? Like the chance of accidental pregnancy even when using multiple forms of contraception? The chance if dying each time you get into a car? A plane? The chance of the Yellowstone supervolcano errupting on any given day?

Yes, why wouldn't you evaluate risk on a case-by-case basis? Simply ignoring risk is silly. That said, when you are informed you can make an informed decision about whether or not to take a risk and if it is worth it to you.

Anyone who's not willing to be open and upfront about their sexual history with a partner is not doing the right thing.

No one has any problem (moral or legal) with the concept of folks going into things with eyes wide open. That is a choice that is made by two (or more) consenting adults and there's not much more to be said about that.

Because I have though about that. And doing so makes this whole thing bizarre, because why ARE we do fixated on those people who clearly are trying to do the right thing by protecting others regardless of if they tell them or not? Why is so much of the discussion focused on them, of all people! It's just bizarre.

Why are there so many posts laser focused on supposed selfishness of the person spreading HIV? Get over it. That's not what most people are talking about.

The reason you've seen a focus on that point in this thread is because of prior posters who have claimed that they have the right to deceive their partners about their status and deliberately withhold information, denying the other person the right to make an informed decision.

 

[the_darkness]

It's a bit upsetting to see some people say that even if the chance of transmission is actually nil, they would still feel like it's "something I would want to know" before sleeping with someone.

Would you say the same about someone being a post-op tansexual? Biracial? A Trump voter?

 

[Yeoman]

They are afraid of rejection i suppose, few people would have sex with an HIV+ person and they know that. Regardless of their viral low or how miniscule the chance or "practically non existant" it is of getting infected, the risk is just not worth it hence why they are in favor of not saying shit. In order to get some.

Yep. I personally wouldn't have sexual relations with someone that knew that they had HIV and I suspect 90% of the population feels the same way.

Life is tough but that doesn't mean you get to fuck around with someone else's just because you don't like your sexual advances getting regularly shunned.

 

[royalan]

The problem is this pulls the whole thing into an argument about "feels".
The general public health has to come before the risk of hurting people's feeling and worrying about making them feel stigmatised.


You're absolutely right about how dangerous they can be.
The UK organisation NAM is funded by the British government and the National Health Service uses them as the second point of contact for people seeking additional information about side effects.
Here's what they have to say:

Common Side Effects (1/10 to 1/100):

• Diarrhoea
• Feeling or being sick
• Headaches
• Mood and sleep problems - (Depression, anxiety, feeling spaced out).
• Rashes
• Sexual Problems
• Tiredness

Long Term Side Effects:
Kidneys

Metabolic Changes

Heart Disease

Liver Problems

Peripheral neuropathy


Bone Loss


More detailed breakdown of HIV drugs and their side effects:
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-treatment-combinations-and-their-side-effects/page/1283821/

But of course, it's just one pill! It's even easier to treat than Asthma!

I'll keep saying it - there is some sort of weird agenda to normalise HIV in this thread and I find it deeply disturbing.

Once more: Have HIV? Tell the person, if they still want to be with you they will. Otherwise tough shit.

Have you ever bothered to look at the list of potential side effects of...well, MOST prescription medications?

I mean, this isn't hard.

Nobody in this thread is trying to "normalize" HIV. That's your coloring, and that's what I find disturbing here. The idea that you and others are trying to push that people with HIV can't live a healthy, long and relatively normal life. And that you shouldn't fear to the point that you keep yourself from making smarter decisions.

The reason you've seen a focus on that point in this thread is because of prior posters who have claimed that they have the right to deceive their partners about their status and deliberately withhold information, denying the other person the right to make an informed decision.

No, you're talking about ONE poster. One. The majority of posters in this thread are arguing about the harm criminalizing HIV does to the fight against it. And you're using this one poster to brush aside every argument being made in this thread.

 

[Kebiinu]

A lot of y'all are actually in FAVOR of the bill, but feelings are making you think it's a bad thing. Lol. Read the actual bill in place.

 

[Yeoman]

The idea that you and others are trying to push that people with HIV can't live a healthy, long and relatively normal life. And that you shouldn't fear to the point that you keep yourself from making smarter decisions.

No matter how much you want it to be true - you cannot live a normal healthy life if you have HIV.
Having HIV means regular and extensive tests in addition to taking anything from a single combined pill to an assortment of drugs.
Each with their own side effects.
This must be done for the rest of your life, failure to do so can have grave consequence.

There is absolutely nothing normal about this and you don't have a single right in this universe to inflict that on anyone.

I don't get why this is hard?
If you have HIV then tell the other person.
It's up to them whether they want to pursue things or not, IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION.
The fact that 90% of people would not should not factor into you informing them.

 

[pixelation]

No matter how much you want it to be true - you cannot live a normal healthy life if you have HIV.
Having HIV means regular and extensive tests in addition to taking anything from a single combined pill to an assortment of drugs.
Each with their own side effects.
This must be done for the rest of your life, failure to do so can have grave consequence.

There is absolutely nothing normal about this and you don't have a single right in this universe to inflict that on anyone.

I don't get why this is hard?
If you have HIV then tell the other person.
It's up to them whether they want to pursue things or not.
The fact that 90% of people would not should not factor into you informing them.

Agreed, i am a boxer and if i were to become HIV+ that'd be the end of my boxing career. Not to mention the other side effects that were mentioned a couple posts back. You don't get to decide about another persons health and what risks they should take or not, and how it changes their lifes or doesn't. Disclose your HIV+ status, don't be a selfish prick.

 

[royalan]

No matter how much you want it to be true - you cannot live a normal healthy life if you have HIV.
Having HIV means regular and extensive tests in addition to taking anything from a single combined pill to an assortment of drugs.
Each with their own side effects.
This must be done for the rest of your life, failure to do so can have grave consequence.

There is absolutely nothing normal about this and you don't have a single right in this universe to inflict that on anyone.

I don't get why this is hard?
If you have HIV then tell the other person.
It's up to them whether they want to pursue things or not.
The fact that 90% of people would not should not factor into you informing them.

You're trying to school the wrong person. There is not a single thing you can teach me about this. I've worked in HIV prevention and treatment in the state of PA. I have friends with HIV. I associate with HIV+ people on a near daily basis.

Are there complications to living with HIV? Absolutely. The same is true of almost every chronic condition. But go and ask the average person who is living with HIV, taking their meds as prescribed, seeing their doctor, that they can't live productive and full lives, and see what reaction you get.

I am not, nor have I ever said, that you shouldn't disclose your status to your sexual partners. So once again you can miss me with this. What I am arguing, and what the point of this damn thread is, is the effectiveness of criminalizing HIV to the level of felony. Once again, the law wasn't effective at combating the spread of HIV, and in fact was harmful by furthering the stigma associated with the disease, discouraging people to get tested and know their status. This is the near universal consensus of HIV advocates. THAT is what this thread is about, and what MOST people in the thread are discussing, so it is not helpful at all to keep using the opinion of ONE poster to discount every point being made, and approaching every poster who has told you they have experience with HIV activism and education as though we need some sort of "HIV for Dummies" primer from you.

 

[Yeoman]

Which is the crux of the whole situation isn't it?
It is a chronic condition and if someone knowingly infected someone else with it then they should feel the full weight of the law.

 

[royalan]

Which is the crux of the whole situation isn't it?
It is a chronic condition and if someone knowingly infected someone else with it then they should feel the full weight of the law.

It is STILL illegal.

Has making it MORE illegal helped curtail the spread of the disease? No. Has it encouraged people to act more responsibly? No. Has it done ANYTHING helpful in the fight against HIV? All signs point to No.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

Which is the crux of the whole situation isn't it?
It is a chronic condition and if someone knowingly infected someone else with it then they should feel the full weight of the law.

Yes, no one is arguing against this. The law still allows you to punish those with malicious intent or irresponsible obvliousness. With the latest change, people that are undetectable and take the necessary precautions such as taking their prescribed medication, practicing safe sex, and continually testing for STDs will no longer be punished in court.

If you have not read The Atlantic article I posted, then it would behoove you to. It’s a very illuminating read on what these types of laws result in: the targeted de juré oppression and ostracization of LGBTQIA+ groups.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...disclose-that-to-every-sexual-partner/265736/

 

[Earthbound64]

Which is the crux of the whole situation isn't it?

Not the whole situation, no.

Before that is the issue of communicating that you have HIV to begin with.

 

[plagiarize]

In all the studies done, there has never been a recorded instance of HIV transmission from someone with undetectable viral load. Scientists say "effectively zero" because they're being responsible, but it may very well be zero. Why are you so adamant that there is still a chance?

Because he did a maths degree. So he is eminently qualified to understand why a scientist will never say zero chance instead of effectively zero.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

It's a bit upsetting to see some people say that even if the chance of transmission is actually nil, they would still feel like it's "something I would want to know" before sleeping with someone.

Would you say the same about someone being a post-op tansexual? Biracial? A Trump voter?

I, for one, would never willingly offer my glorious bussy to be used by a Trump supporter. But that’s just me. It’s neither here nor there though, considering people like that aren’t even on the same wavelength of communities I socialize with.

 

[Earthbound64]

I, for one, would never willingly offer my glorious bussy to be used by a Trump supporter.

But there's 0 chance of them transmitting their Trump support to you, so they can just not tell you, right?

 

[Ri'Orius]

effectively = zero?... since when?

Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive person was virally suppressed.

no HIV transmissions

many thousand acts of sex

no HIV transmissions

no HIV transmissions

How are you failing to understand this? When they say "no HIV transmissions were observed," that means that the number of people who got infected across those three studies and thousands of acts was... zero. 0. Goose-egg, nada, none.

Zero. That's the magic word, right?

 

[Violet_0]

what's with this study?

Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine based on HPTN 052 has nearly 10x person year followup (compared to the study linked above) and is more specific about detailing risks, including possible failure of the ART regimen:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1600693

This this study, there were eight cases of transmission. Four were discounted as they happened too early for ART to be effective. The other four happened after ART should have been in effect and the virus should have been suppressed.

Simply taking meds properly does not guarantee that a person will be virally suppressed. For the vast majority of the population this is true, but it is not a fact across 100% of the population.

This is why the argument of "I'm taking meds, so I can't infect anyone" that has been put forth in this thread should not be taken as an absolute.

that was a quality post, btw

 

[Earthbound64]

I missed this earlier, but:

The reason you've seen a focus on that point in this thread is because of prior posters who have claimed that they have the right to deceive their partners about their status and deliberately withhold information, denying the other person the right to make an informed decision.

No, you're talking about ONE poster. One. The majority of posters in this thread are arguing about the harm criminalizing HIV does to the fight against it. And you're using this one poster to brush aside every argument being made in this thread.

That one poster has more posts in this thread than anyone - accounting for over 10% of the posts in this thread. It's difficult to post in a thread when one person is pushing the direction of the conversation so much - and doing so in terrible ways. Hence why there has been so much pushback against that poster.

If we could clear that particular hurdle, perhaps a better discussion could be had in here. But as is, they keep throwing in their same comments again and again, leading the thread right back into a circle.

 

[mantidor]

How about USE A CONDOM if you’re not sure. If someone I didn’t know I offered me a needle they ‘promised was clean’ I sure as hell wouldn’t trust them.

Spoiler

No I don’t use needles.

YES thank you...

This "oh it's not that serious of a disease now" attitude running in gay communities (and this thread for that matter) is fucking shameful, and the reason HIV seroconversions have risen in later years. Stop it.

 

[blackflag]

smh at the ignorance in this thread. if you're undetectable, you're not exposing anyone. studies have proven this again and again.

Then if you are undetectable how would this law even affect you? You wouldn’t be willingly spreading it.

 

[Lois_Lane]

It's a bit upsetting to see some people say that even if the chance of transmission is actually nil, they would still feel like it's "something I would want to know" before sleeping with someone.

Would you say the same about someone being a post-op tansexual? Biracial? A Trump voter?

I can't catch gender dysphoria. How is this a worthwhile analogy?

 

[royalan]

YES thank you...

This "oh it's not that serious of a disease now" attitude running in gay communities (and this thread for that matter) is fucking shameful, and the reason HIV seroconversions have risen in later years. Stop it.

Saying that HIV is manageable is not at all the same as saying that it's not serious. Nobody, not even plagiarize, is saying that.

 

[Poor GRIMES]

But there's 0 chance of them transmitting their Trump support to you, so they can just not tell you, right?

I’m in favor of someone honestly disclosing their status to you if the topic is brought up. I don’t see any reasonable justification for not relaying that information if pressed, privacy to medical history is something that I feel is not a reasonable enough excuse for me to not be completely in the know about whom I’m sleeping with. There’s only one poster really in support of that position, as far as I know.

https://www.poz.com/basics/hiv-basics/disclosure

 

[MUnited83]

Then if you are undetectable how would this law even affect you? You wouldn’t be willingly spreading it.

Willingly spreading it /=/ knowingly exposing

 

[Earthbound64]

Saying that HIV is manageable is not at all the same as saying that it's not serious. Nobody, not even plagiarize, is saying that.

No, but he did say:

HIV when treated properly is not communicable or life impacting.

I'm in favor of someone honestly disclosing their status to you if the topic is brought up. I don't see any reasonable justification for not relaying that information if pressed, privacy to medical history is something that I feel is not a reasonable enough excuse for me to not be completely in the know about whom I'm sleeping with. There's only one poster really in support of that position, as far as I know.

And if we could all agree on that, then this topic would be much shorter than it is.
But, that particular poster has been a significant factor in how this topic has gone.

 

[pixelation]

How are you failing to understand this? When they say "no HIV transmissions were observed," that means that the number of people who got infected across those three studies and thousands of acts was... zero. 0. Goose-egg, nada, none.

Zero. That's the magic word, right?

Until i see a full fat ZERO, there is still a miniscule chance of transmission. A chance i am not willing to take.