The CDC Admitted That HIV Can’t Be Transmitted If You’re Undetectable

[gaymer77]

The Source

Nearly half of all HIV-positive people in the U.S. have undetectable viral loads.
by Dan Avery

The Centers for Disease Control has finally admitted what activists and medical experts have been saying for years: People whose HIV loads are undetectable can’t transmit the virus.

It might seem like a given, but as HIV Plus reports, its the first time the august body has made the claim.

In a memo released Wednesday, National Gay Men’s HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, the CDC stated that “when [antiretroviral treatment] results in viral suppression, defined as less than 200 copies/ml or undetectable levels, it prevents sexual HIV transmission.”

“Across three different studies, including thousands of couples and many thousand acts of sex without a condom or pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP),” it continues, “no HIV transmissions to an HIV-negative partner were observed when the HIV-positive person was virally suppressed. This means that people who take ART daily as prescribed and achieve and maintain an undetectable viral load have effectively no risk of sexually transmitting the virus to an HIV-negative partner.”

Nearly half of all people with HIV in the U.S. are undetectable, thanks to receiving proper treatment with anti-viral medication.

Bruce Richman, executive director of UequalsU.org and the Prevention Access Campaign, tells HIVPlus the statement can’t be overestimated. “The CDC’s new and unequivocal language is a result of [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’] unprecedented review of transmission risk messaging across departments which will be rolling out core messaging in the coming weeks and months.”

On a less upbeat note, the memo also pointed out that gay and bisexual men are disproportionately affected by the virus, with more than 26,000 being diagnosed with HIV in 2015 alone. That’s two-thirds of all new cases in the U.S.

And Republican threats to the Affordable Care Act; Planned Parenthood; and funding for HIV awareness, treatment and education make our gains even more precarious.

“If Congress repeals the ACA without simultaneously replacing it with programs that ensure comprehensive health coverage for the same if not more individuals… people with HIV and others would lose access to the care and treatment that they rely on to remain healthy,” says Carl Schmid of the AIDS Institute. “People with HIV, who depend on a daily drug regimen, cannot risk losing access to their health coverage, not even for a single day.”

I don't care how much flack I get for saying this when I say this but I don't care who says you can't get HIV from someone who's undetectable. I still would never knowingly have any kind of sex with a person who is HIV+. Not with condoms. Not on PReP. Never. If I happen to have sex with someone who is HIV+ without him telling me is one thing but to knowingly do it nope.

[ohwell]

I don't care how much flack I get for saying this when I say this but I don't care who says you can't get HIV from someone who's undetectable. I still would never knowingly have any kind of sex with a person who is HIV+. Not with condoms. Not on PReP. Never. If I happen to have sex with someone who is HIV+ without him telling me is one thing but to knowingly do it nope.

The chance is extremely small, but that's also under the implication that someone who has become undetectable is still taking their meds at the correct dosage and frequency. It's like birth control pills essentially. There's a very small chance to get pregnant while on them to the point that you shouldn't really consider it, but the human factor involved in that you need to take the pills is where there is a problem. Someone could easily have been tested to be undetectable while on their meds, but not taken them and still claim to be such.

[Xandrigity]

While suppression medication can keep the load to a non transmitable level circumstances may change and suppression can be reversed. What if someone stops taking their suppressionmedication?. It’s a gamble most aren’t willing to take.

[Underverse]

I don't care how much flack I get for saying this when I say this but I don't care who says you can't get HIV from someone who's undetectable. I still would never knowingly have any kind of sex with a person who is HIV+. Not with condoms. Not on PReP. Never. If I happen to have sex with someone who is HIV+ without him telling me is one thing but to knowingly do it nope.

Yeah I'm with you on this. Until a cure is developed it's just not worth the risk.

[Deleted]

We all have to die some day.

[Underverse]

Well that is your choice, and I wouldn't risk it either. However if the science says otherwise, then that is people's personal choice.

Ultimately it's a numbers game. 1 in 1 billion would probably be infected, so it's below the limit of detection for studies like this. But that chance is still there.

[Skalm]

Yeah I'm with you on this. Until a cure is developed it's just not worth the risk.

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

[breadisfunny]

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

what murder?

[Frogguh]

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

Edginess aside, commitment to a long-term monogamous relationship with a trusted partner is not evil. Secular values don't seem to include self-control, however.

[Total Crica]

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

They don't think it's evil. They just know that THEY would be killed if THEY wound up with a virus if they agreed to "that" cure.

[gaymer77]

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

That's not a CURE, that's extinction of people with a disease. Something along the lines of what Hitler was trying to do with the handicap & developmentally disabled.

[Total Crica]

Edginess aside, commitment to a long-term monogamous relationship with a trusted partner is not evil. Secular values don't seem to include self-control, however.

Trust? Haha. As if that prevented cheating.

[Gorechubz]

Well there is already a cure for HIV (and any other virus for that matter)...people just think it is evil.

If a dog has rabies, you don't keep it around and let it play with your kids...

What the hell is wrong with you?

[Total Crica]

What the hell is wrong with you?

They don't have HIV. If they did, they wouldn't have suggested that "cure". =P

[Dundebuns]

For people in a monogamous relationship where once person is HIV+ it is definitely a good thing that the CDC finally admitted it (It's been concluded from studies for a lot longer that taking medication and being undetectable has yet to have a case of transmission.) It's also good for people who work in certain industries, like tattoo'ing for example, and for health care professionals.

[Gorechubz]

For people in a monogamous relationship where once person is HIV+ it is definitely a good thing that the CDC finally admitted it (It's been concluded from studies for a lot longer that taking medication and being undetectable has yet to have a case of transmission.) It's also good for people who work in certain industries, like tattoo'ing for example, and for health care professionals.

Yeah this is something I've suspected for a long time. It's a lot harder to pass HIV than people think, especially for those on medications that control it. It's good to see some validation on it.

I still think condoms should always be used by the person who has HIV. I mean, what happens if they know they have it, think it's in suppression but then infect someone else? Can that person take legal action against them?

That's why we get tested every 6 months. Been going on 7 years now and every six months, like clockwork, we check everything.

[oxymoronic]

The chance is extremely small, but that's also under the implication that someone who has become undetectable is still taking their meds at the correct dosage and frequency. It's like birth control pills essentially. There's a very small chance to get pregnant while on them to the point that you shouldn't really consider it, but the human factor involved in that you need to take the pills is where there is a problem. Someone could easily have been tested to be undetectable while on their meds, but not taken them and still claim to be such.

rational way of thinking... with that said i still wouldnt have sex with any known HIV person except maybe if it was my wife and she received it through a life saving blood transfusion. no need to play with fire then cry when burned.

[Skalm]

That's not a CURE, that's extinction of people with a disease. Something along the lines of what Hitler was trying to do with the handicap & developmentally disabled.

It's not extinction...you might want to look up what that word means. Maybe you mean eradication? It would eradicate the virus. It would not cause humans to go extinct. Unless you are classifying a person with a disease as not a human, but some other sort of species all its own?

Do you think that if an animal has a dangerous/deadly virus, that can be spread to other animals/humans, it would just be left alone, giving it the opportunity to spread said virus? It is ok to kill off animals/plants with bad genetics and/or diseases (to prevent it from being passed), but when it comes to people it is all of a sudden evil? That's somewhat hypocritical.

In the past, if someone had a disease/genetic defect. They died. They did not get the opportunity to spread that to future generations. With the advent of healthcare, many diseases/genetic defects that would have resulted in a persons death, are now made manageable to the point where people can live with them. Which also allows them to pass these defects on. Which increases the occurrences of these defects.

[Gorechubz]

It's not extinction...you might want to look up what that word means. Maybe you mean eradication? It would eradicate the virus. It would not cause humans to go extinct. Unless you are classifying a person with a disease as not a human, but some other sort of species all its own?

He was referring to the group

Do you think that if an animal has a dangerous/deadly virus, that can be spread to other animals/humans, it would just be left alone, giving it the opportunity to spread said virus? It is ok to kill off animals/plants with bad genetics and/or diseases (to prevent it from being passed), but when it comes to people it is all of a sudden evil? That's somewhat hypocritical.

We don't kill off animals and plants with "bad genetics" or "diseases". Like humans, our animal companions and domesticated livestock are treated by vets when they contract something.

In the past, if someone had a disease/genetic defect. They died. They did not get the opportunity to spread that to future generations. With the advent of healthcare, many diseases/genetic defects that would have resulted in a persons death, are not made manageable to the point where people can live with them. Which also allows them to pass these defects on. Which increases the occurrences of these defects.

Genetic defects range from the completely mild to the extremely debilitating, but we don't kill people for it, and it's not important if in the past that was okay (depends on the society). It is not okay to purposely execute people because they have a manageable condition.

You need some help.

[spanishninja]

He was referring to the group



We don't kill off animals and plants with "bad genetics" or "diseases". Like humans, our animal companions and domesticated livestock are treated by vets when they contract something.



Genetic defects range from the completely mild to the extremely debilitating, but we don't kill people for it, and it's not important if in the past that was okay (depends on the society). It is not okay to purposely execute people because they have a manageable condition.

You need some help.

genetic defects are not the same as infectious diseases, obviously. you can't get down's syndrome from having sex with a person with down's syndrome. back to infectious diseases, even in the modern world, we still do quarantine infectious people from others. I'm not advocating executing people either, but it's also not a good idea to just do nothing.