Maybe the vagina plugs its ears and pretends it isnt there

Undetectable means that there's so few copies of the virus active within the person's body that an HIV test can no longer detect it. There needs to be a massive amount of copies of the virus for it to actually be transmissible, and the number of copies within folks who are undetectable is so low that transmission can't occur.

They still have HIV though because HIV hides within reservoirs within the body (essentially hibernating immune system cells), and this is the last bastion of cure research is to figure out how to safely get these hiding HIV cells to activate so that HIV medication can affect them without damaging healthy cells. It's why people have to take HIV medication for their entire lives at the moment, because if they stop the medication even though they're undetectable, the HIV in the reservoirs activate and the virus rebounds.



That's true for PEP, yes, but not for PrEP. PrEP is a daily medication that people take, so it's viewed as essentially like birth-control for HIV, and so people are taking it before they're even sexually active independent of the HIV status of future partners (including knowledge of their status).

There's been very large studies, namely the PARTNER Study where the "undetectable = untransmissible" message has come from. They've had initial findings and additional studies are still on-going. However:

http://i-base.info/htb/30108

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jul 30 2017 01:08am

PrEP seems like an unfair safety tax. How much is it by month?

I'll get back to you on the study, it's midnight and I'm not in the right state of mind to be reading studies.

I'm not understanding what you mean by "PrEP seems like an unfair safety tax". The cost varies, as it can be $8,000 - $14,000 per year. A major reason why the cost is pretty high though is because there's currently only 1 FDA approved drug that's used for PrEP, which is Truvada. An FDA approved generic version has only been approved as recently as 1 month ago, but the availability of it is going to take quite some time. In the meantime, PrEP is often times covered by insurance and for folks who don't have insurance there are patient-assistance programs through the manufacturer, Gilead.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jul 30 2017 01:07am

That's exactly what I mean. Instead of making people pay $800+ a month, we could keep the law about forcing people to admit when they have a dangerous, incurable disease.

The law doesn't accomplish what it hopes to do though, and the issue with the law being a substitute for things like PrEP is that a significant % of people living with HIV aren't even aware that they have HIV. You'll read various statistics online about the exact %, but most sources note that roughly 1 in 7 people are living with HIV and don't know it. PrEP is meant to prevent HIV in all situations, including situations where you either don't know the other person's HIV status and/or the other person doesn't know their own.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Jul 30 2017 01:11am

If Cali passes a law that makes not telling a partner that you are HIV positive, thereby knowingly bringing harm to another, only a misdemeanor, I can see that setting a dangerous precedent.

PrEP is not 100% effective, and the 1 in 7 statistic, seems a tad unreal to me.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 30 2017 01:19am

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I am saying it's no substitute for a law that, at the very least, prevents 1 in 7 people from spreading their disease to partners unwilling to take that risk. $800 monthly is a prohibitively large cost. Maybe in time when it's less expensive we could re-evaluate the law, but even then I just don't see how the benefits would really ever outweigh the loss.
/e
last response from me tonight I'll get bcak to it sometime Sunday/Monday

This post was edited by BardOfXiix on Jul 30 2017 01:20am

Unreal in what way?



How does the law "prevent 1 in 7 people from spreading their disease to partners unwilling to take that risk"? This law doesn't do anything to prevent anything from the 1 in 7 folks. The 1 in 7 people are unaware that they have HIV and have never received a positive HIV test.

So if I live in a townhouse and shoot a .22 at the wall, and it goes through and kills or injures someone.... I should only be charged with a misdemeanor because I was unaware that there was someone at home in the next townhouse?

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 30 2017 01:26am