Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Swingers Chat |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't matter if they're undetectable or not, it can be still passed on "Again, no evidence that it can. Stating that as fact doesn't make it one however much you might wish it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't matter if they're undetectable or not, it can be still passed on
Again, no evidence that it can. Stating that as fact doesn't make it one however much you might wish it."Exactly, no evidence so I'd suggest to stop barebacking!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't matter if they're undetectable or not, it can be still passed on
Again, no evidence that it can. Stating that as fact doesn't make it one however much you might wish it.
Exactly, no evidence so I'd suggest to stop barebacking!!"Given that transmission rates are higher amongst monogamous, safe, couples than amongst undetectable barebackers are you going celibate as well then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Which meet and how does the person know you were bare? " Sorry, that was a quote from the previous thread, which may not have been clear from my post. Someone was hoping I passed on HIV to someone else because it would make me feel bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't matter if they're undetectable or not, it can be still passed on
Again, no evidence that it can. Stating that as fact doesn't make it one however much you might wish it."There is loads and loads of evidence that it CAN. Otherwise the UK wouldn't have missed out the almost epidemic proportions of infection due to its early campaign of condom usage in the 80s. However, its not a given. But I'd rather not be the test case on Fab. No-one would voluntarily use condoms if there was no need, but it can't be denied that wearing them does cut down on the spread of STIs and unwanted pregnancies. And just for a bit of levity, I provide an excellent and relevant quote from Bill Hicks: “I dunno how much AIDS scares y'all, but I got a theory: the day they come out with a cure for AIDS, a guaranteed one-shot cure, on that day there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a question, if you. Have unprotected sex with someone else who is (knowingly or not) HIV positive OP could that affect your HIV status? I've read there are different strains which means that you should still practice safe sex even between two positive people as it can affect your meds?? " I was wondering along those lines as well. Also, how are your levels monitored? I.e.what happens if your virus levels increase, but you aren't aware. For instance, your body becomes used to your medication and the efficiency of the med slips, as happens with many pain meds or SSRIs. These are genuine questions, not a dig. Also, on the other thread one poster mentioned Ebola as a reason for safe sex. Ebola and HIV are not in the same category, at all. Condoms will not stop transmission of Ebola during the early symptomatic phase when you are most likely to pass it on because the virus is also present in sweat and saliva. HIV is not. Condoms would only aid in male survivors not passing it on in their semen during the initial 7 weeks after recovery, however the virus leaves survivors in such a debilitated state that they couldn't engage in sex. It takes months to recover from Ebola, and then there are still life long consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a question, if you. Have unprotected sex with someone else who is (knowingly or not) HIV positive OP could that affect your HIV status? I've read there are different strains which means that you should still practice safe sex even between two positive people as it can affect your meds?? " There are different strains, yes. The original strain (Wild Type) is the most transmissible and the most destructive to the immune system. Thankfully it's also the one that responds best to treatment! Type 2 is a variant that basically came out of a resistance to initial medications. As such some meds don't work particularly well on it, but in mutating to beat the meds it became far less virulent and basically a much weaker virus for it. If two people with the same type transmitted it to one another it would possibly cause a bounce in their viral load, just from having more in them, but it would drop again within a day. If two people with different types transmitted to each other then it would depend on their viral loads and med adherence (i.e. do they take them when they should and never miss a turn). If your adherence is good (don't miss more than a couple of pills a month) then you'd be fine, because there's enough ART in your system to mop up whatever's coming in. If your adherence is poor you're probably not undetectable anyway, and it does mean you're fighting two virus rather than one now, so could cause problems. The reality is though that that is still just theoretical. It's certainly discussed when you contract HIV, but having discussed it at great length with my doctor (who is a researcher in HIV and has actually been there since the beginning - she helped set up one of the first studies looking at a vaccine in 1991) it's never actually be observed to happen. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a question, if you. Have unprotected sex with someone else who is (knowingly or not) HIV positive OP could that affect your HIV status? I've read there are different strains which means that you should still practice safe sex even between two positive people as it can affect your meds?? I was wondering along those lines as well. Also, how are your levels monitored? I.e.what happens if your virus levels increase, but you aren't aware. For instance, your body becomes used to your medication and the efficiency of the med slips, as happens with many pain meds or SSRIs. These are genuine questions, not a dig. Also, on the other thread one poster mentioned Ebola as a reason for safe sex. Ebola and HIV are not in the same category, at all. Condoms will not stop transmission of Ebola during the early symptomatic phase when you are most likely to pass it on because the virus is also present in sweat and saliva. HIV is not. Condoms would only aid in male survivors not passing it on in their semen during the initial 7 weeks after recovery, however the virus leaves survivors in such a debilitated state that they couldn't engage in sex. It takes months to recover from Ebola, and then there are still life long consequences. " Sorry, I should correct that. Ebola is transmissable via sweat and saliva, HIV isn't. Sorry, I git interrupted and my train of thought didn't get back on track properly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doesn't matter if they're undetectable or not, it can be still passed on
Again, no evidence that it can. Stating that as fact doesn't make it one however much you might wish it.
There is loads and loads of evidence that it CAN. Otherwise the UK wouldn't have missed out the almost epidemic proportions of infection due to its early campaign of condom usage in the 80s. However, its not a given. But I'd rather not be the test case on Fab.
No-one would voluntarily use condoms if there was no need, but it can't be denied that wearing them does cut down on the spread of STIs and unwanted pregnancies.
And just for a bit of levity, I provide an excellent and relevant quote from Bill Hicks:
“I dunno how much AIDS scares y'all, but I got a theory: the day they come out with a cure for AIDS, a guaranteed one-shot cure, on that day there's gonna be fucking in the streets, man.”"If there's loads of evidence that an undetectable person can pass on HIV, then by all means send it to me, I'd love to read about it. I have seen a total of two "confirmed cases" both of which turned out not to be - in one the index patient wasn't undetectable and in the other it later transpired that the negative partner who contracted HIV actually got it from someone else, as the HIV strain didn't match their positive partner. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have a question, if you. Have unprotected sex with someone else who is (knowingly or not) HIV positive OP could that affect your HIV status? I've read there are different strains which means that you should still practice safe sex even between two positive people as it can affect your meds?? I was wondering along those lines as well. Also, how are your levels monitored? I.e.what happens if your virus levels increase, but you aren't aware. For instance, your body becomes used to your medication and the efficiency of the med slips, as happens with many pain meds or SSRIs. These are genuine questions, not a dig. " No worries, I don't take it as a dig 
I have blood tests every 6 months. They do a lot of tests before starting you on treatment to determine if you might have problems with the meds and if they start you on something that might not be perfect they see you more often until they're sure you are "settling" with them. There are certainly people who don't get on with their meds and change a few times to find what works best, but once you've reached undetectable levels, as long as you keep taking the meds, you can't develop a resistance.
Think of it like HIV being some fish in your bath and the meds as water. The plug doesn't work perfectly so a bit of water seeps out each day, but as long as you keep putting enough water in, then the fish are happy as they're completely under water; if the level gets too low (because you forget to add more water) then the fish die/jumpout/turn into monsters. :P | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not blaming, nor judging, but even at an undetectable level there still isn't a 100% guarantee you won't pass on HIV. As blood levels are tested, not secretion levels, and the levels can be higher in secretions then they are in blood. As I said, I'm not looking to judge, I'm genuinely curious. Google only has so much information, unless I can be bothered to read the whole study, which I can't right now!" No worries; Google isn't perfect alas and few people would really want to read all the studies even when you do find them. :P If you look at Table 1 here: http://i-base.info/htb/24904 You'll see the number of transmissions recorded in by far the most comprehensive study to date. There's a column called "Linked Transmissions" which is the number of times HIV has been passed on - it's zeros all the way down. As with any sample-based testing there is a confidence interval associated with the data. This data set is based on about 40,000 sex acts without condoms, which obviously isn't every sex act ever. If we could measure every sex act ever then the confidence interval would be zero as well and so we would have as close to proof as possible that an undetectable level means you can't pass it on. When people talk about the "small but not zero" risk, they're taking the upper bound on possibilities which will always be greater than zero. On the point of "undetectable" being different for blood and secretions, that's mainly a hang over from old tests now. Up until about 2005 "undetectable" was defined as a Viral Load of less than 400, which was perfectly possible without medication and certainly happened immediately after seroconversion, so people weren't truly "undetectable". Tests can now measure down to 20 and people don't get classed as "Undetectable" unless they are on medication, to avoid the ambiguity of a naturally low count vs a HAART suppressed count. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not blaming, nor judging, but even at an undetectable level there still isn't a 100% guarantee you won't pass on HIV. As blood levels are tested, not secretion levels, and the levels can be higher in secretions then they are in blood. As I said, I'm not looking to judge, I'm genuinely curious. Google only has so much information, unless I can be bothered to read the whole study, which I can't right now! No worries; Google isn't perfect alas and few people would really want to read all the studies even when you do find them. :P If you look at Table 1 here: http://i-base.info/htb/24904 You'll see the number of transmissions recorded in by far the most comprehensive study to date. There's a column called "Linked Transmissions" which is the number of times HIV has been passed on - it's zeros all the way down. As with any sample-based testing there is a confidence interval associated with the data. This data set is based on about 40,000 sex acts without condoms, which obviously isn't every sex act ever. If we could measure every sex act ever then the confidence interval would be zero as well and so we would have as close to proof as possible that an undetectable level means you can't pass it on. When people talk about the "small but not zero" risk, they're taking the upper bound on possibilities which will always be greater than zero. On the point of "undetectable" being different for blood and secretions, that's mainly a hang over from old tests now. Up until about 2005 "undetectable" was defined as a Viral Load of less than 400, which was perfectly possible without medication and certainly happened immediately after seroconversion, so people weren't truly "undetectable". Tests can now measure down to 20 and people don't get classed as "Undetectable" unless they are on medication, to avoid the ambiguity of a naturally low count vs a HAART suppressed count." ive read both threads and as its you that has undetected HIV im sure you have done much research and very interesting it is too. the original thread was why do bareback sex. so my question to you isnt about you spreading HIV as your research is detailed and a personal choice but at same stage you contracted HIV potentially through unprotected sex and are aware of the other sti's does this not make you want to practice safe sex all the more so u dont get a further sti? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not blaming, nor judging, but even at an undetectable level there still isn't a 100% guarantee you won't pass on HIV. As blood levels are tested, not secretion levels, and the levels can be higher in secretions then they are in blood. As I said, I'm not looking to judge, I'm genuinely curious. Google only has so much information, unless I can be bothered to read the whole study, which I can't right now! No worries; Google isn't perfect alas and few people would really want to read all the studies even when you do find them. :P If you look at Table 1 here: http://i-base.info/htb/24904 You'll see the number of transmissions recorded in by far the most comprehensive study to date. There's a column called "Linked Transmissions" which is the number of times HIV has been passed on - it's zeros all the way down. As with any sample-based testing there is a confidence interval associated with the data. This data set is based on about 40,000 sex acts without condoms, which obviously isn't every sex act ever. If we could measure every sex act ever then the confidence interval would be zero as well and so we would have as close to proof as possible that an undetectable level means you can't pass it on. When people talk about the "small but not zero" risk, they're taking the upper bound on possibilities which will always be greater than zero. On the point of "undetectable" being different for blood and secretions, that's mainly a hang over from old tests now. Up until about 2005 "undetectable" was defined as a Viral Load of less than 400, which was perfectly possible without medication and certainly happened immediately after seroconversion, so people weren't truly "undetectable". Tests can now measure down to 20 and people don't get classed as "Undetectable" unless they are on medication, to avoid the ambiguity of a naturally low count vs a HAART suppressed count. ive read both threads and as its you that has undetected HIV im sure you have done much research and very interesting it is too. the original thread was why do bareback sex. so my question to you isnt about you spreading HIV as your research is detailed and a personal choice but at same stage you contracted HIV potentially through unprotected sex and are aware of the other sti's does this not make you want to practice safe sex all the more so u dont get a further sti?" The number of people I have unprotected sex with is very limited. It's almost exclusively my boyfriend, and those I do hook up with i get to know a bit first. I've found that most people will lie about whether they bareback at all so actually it's the ones who admit they do and take on other mitigation strategies like knowing how many partners the other person has had recently, when they last got tested, what they know of STIs, that sort of thing that has a larger bearing on whether you will contract anything from them. Also, lifestyle choices. I don't smoke, drink, or do any drugs. It baffles me how many people do drugs and think that's fine; I would never meet someone who does. Very few STIs cause real problems if you get checked and treated quickly. The biggest issue in the spread of STIs is that people don't get tested because they think they are fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm sorry but I am still in complete shock that anyone who had contracted HIV would then have unprotected sex with anyone other than their partner . I just can't understand . My original post was about why the hell anyone would bare back a bareback loving cum slut . I am still none the wiser . Can no one see how shocking this is ??? !! What if the said cum slut had met Soneone with HIV and that person had given it to them ? They got tested or not who knows but takes long enough for HIV results to come back anyway . I'm just in total shock and I am not narrow minded but I can simply not understand how mental this all is " I'm with you on this one, if that makes me narrow minded so be it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardon my ignorance, but what is undetectable HIV?" You can google and get a better explanation, but it is essentially (and very simply) where there is a very low HIV count in the blood stream, making it 'undetectable' and nearly impossible to pass onto another partner. It's not ignorance, you asked the question, making you curious, not ignorant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If I was going to meet someone off the internet for sex I would believe him if he told me that his HIV was undetectable and he was fully compliant with his medication to the same extent that I would believe him if he told me that he had just had the all clear from the GUM clinic 15 minutes ago, he had had a vasectomy, he was a virgin or he was, in fact, the Queen of Sheba. If it was a life partner then Id review the latest research, speak to the relevant health professionals and then make an informed decision, but for the sake of a NSA shag....nah. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they lie about bareback how do you know they won't lie about number of sexual partners? Also,your post suggests that because you don't drink or smoke it's ok to bareback. I didn't know the three Were related lol I have played bare in the past so am not preaching etc, just a couple of points that caught my eye. " I don't play bare now. I've had relationships in the past where I did, and I've been young and given no thought to it but I don't do it now. Simple. In the event I find either a relationship or a very good friend who has built my trust then I am sure I will again. But I don't do it on casual meets. Off the internet, in the pub, in the supermarket, doesn't matter where I met the guy. If it's casual, it's protected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I say to the OP, thank you. Your posts have been very informative and given me a much better understanding both of the condition but if management and study of it now. I thank you for taking the time to educate and inform. Particularly in the face of potential judgement for having done so. And thank you for being honest here and on your profile. That takes courage and is highly commendable. More should be that honest. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If I was going to meet someone off the internet for sex I would believe him if he told me that his HIV was undetectable and he was fully compliant with his medication to the same extent that I would believe him if he told me that he had just had the all clear from the GUM clinic 15 minutes ago, he had had a vasectomy, he was a virgin or he was, in fact, the Queen of Sheba. If it was a life partner then Id review the latest research, speak to the relevant health professionals and then make an informed decision, but for the sake of a NSA shag....nah. " Exactly this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Firstly undetectable is not the same as negative. The important thing to remember is that undetectable patients still have HIV in their system. They use a technique called PCR to ascertain viral loads which is relatively sensitive but like all diagnostic tests is not perfect and I would not stake my life on it for sure. Secondly even on HAART your viral load will climb. The drug regime may need revision as the virus stops responding to it as well. Unless people present with an opportunistic infection they may not know that this has happened. Between tests this increase in viral load may mean you are able to transmit the virus. Again, not a risk I would take. Thirdly there is a relative lack of large scale studies testing the transmissibility of HIV in undetectable people as studies would require large numbers of negative people willing to partake in sexual intercourse with those with undetectable HIV. You'd have much difficulty getting such a study part an ethics committee anyway. Sure you can test bodily fluids to see whether virions are present but again, just because a fallible scientific test says they're absent doesn't mean they are. " Your third part is flatly contradicted by the PARTNER STUDY which is exactly what you're claiming doesn't and couldn't exist. It has, to date, recorded over 40,000 events of unprotected sex between partners where one is HIV undetectable and the other is negative, and no transmissions have occured. I fail to understand why people keep ignoring this. Is it because it goes against their innate fear, and they just can't get past that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can I say to the OP, thank you. Your posts have been very informative and given me a much better understanding both of the condition but if management and study of it now. I thank you for taking the time to educate and inform. Particularly in the face of potential judgement for having done so. And thank you for being honest here and on your profile. That takes courage and is highly commendable. More should be that honest. " Thank you, I appreciate that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I fail to understand why people keep ignoring this. Is it because it goes against their innate fear, and they just can't get past that?" Most probably, yes. Though it will vary from person to person. Firstly, you're forgetting that many of us grew up with the aids scare of the 80s and are ingrained with a certain understanding of the condition. Secondly, many are very cautious because to be honest science and medicine have gotten it wrong, fundamentally and drastically wrong, on many occasions across many conditions. Its not necessarily personally disregarding what you're saying it doubting your credibility. What you've done is given people a tool that allows them to make a truly informed choice on this matter. The choice, however, remains theirs too make as they see fits their lives, circumstances, and beliefs. That, sir, is a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
