Jump to content

HIV positive. Undetectable on ART


glennnnn

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Quincy_7 said:

Why would that desire arise in the first place? Are there side effects to HIV meds that outweigh their life preservation?

I don't really know.  The individuals are acquaintances I see from time to time when I go to Houston.  All I know is they say they take a hiatus from their meds "to give their body a break".    I don't know how often or for how long or why?

How many of the HIV meds today are still pill-form versus injections?  If they are injections and are given by doctors it seems it would be harder to simply stop taken them.  Presumably the doctor would be after the patient to get the injections.  I don't really know how they are administered today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

I know undetectable gay men that purposely stop taking their HIV meds from time to time because they want to give their body a break from the meds.  How long does this go on for?  I don't know.  At what point do their HIV virus levels start going up again?  I don't know.   How long does it take them before they are infectious again?  I don't know...

A matter of days. The frightening thing about stopping the meds, is that the virus may develop resistance, then meds which previously worked might not work again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Just mad at the idiots who are given a chance to live a relatively normal life thanks to medical science and they still find a way to try to fuck it up.

In fact the majority of gay men do NOT keep up with their HIV medications 100% of the time.

The research paper I attached, shows that 100% dosage adherence is uncommon in the gay community.

The statistic about Truvada being 99% effective is a distortion by Gilead to give a false sense of security in taking their medication. Efficacy in the general population is FAR lower, because the majority do NOT take their meds 100% of the time. Even with 100% dosage, the statistics still don't add up to 99% efficacy.  Independent studies show a range from 95% to 97%. Unfortunately Gilead is a multi-billion dollar corporation and they do a lot to suppress independent study reports and when you request data on Google, the first few pages are Pharmaceutical sponsored with glowing reviews. It's only when you dig a little further down, that you find the actual data from independent research laboratories that paint a different picture of the risk involved.

Edited by pubic_assistance
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

In fact the majority of gay men do NOT keep up with their HIV medications 100% of the time.

The research paper I attached, shows that 100% dosage adherence is uncommon in the gay community.

The statistic about Truvada being 99% effective is a distortion by Gilead to give a false sense of security in taking their medication. Efficacy in the general population is FAR lower, because the majority do NOT take their meds 100% of the time. Even with 100% dosage, the statistics still don't add up to 99% efficacy.  Independent studies show a range from 95% to 97%. Unfortunately Gilead is a multi-billion dollar corporation and they do a lot to suppress independent study reports and when you request data on Google, the first few pages are Pharmaceutical sponsored with glowing reviews. It's only when you dig a little further down, that you find the actual data from independent research laboratories that paint a different picture of the risk involved.

If what you are saying is true, one would expect to see a surge in HIV cases among gay men. That ain't happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

....The statistic about Truvada being 99% effective is a distortion by Gilead to give a false sense of security in taking their medication...

Well, it's not that misleading. It seems reasonable to me to say "Our medication is 99% effective if you take it the way we instruct you to take it." If typical use is NOT to take the medication as directed, then that's on the person not taking the medication as directed. Of course, it's important to know that efficacy drops off when the medication isn't taken as directed, but a pharma company can't be faulted because the patients don't take their meds the way they're told. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

....a pharma company can't be faulted because the patients don't take their meds

No one is faulting the pharma company for that.

I am merely pointing out that the representation of 99% efficacy is often touted out of context to the results in the general community. It's also exaggerated because every independent study comes up with different numbers ranging from 95% to 97% but not 99%.  Either way it's an efficient drug but should not be relied on solely. Condoms should still be part of your safer sex model, especially if you're very sexually active with multiple partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

In fact the majority of gay men do NOT keep up with their HIV medications 100% of the time.

The research paper I attached, shows that 100% dosage adherence is uncommon in the gay community.

The statistic about Truvada being 99% effective is a distortion by Gilead to give a false sense of security in taking their medication. Efficacy in the general population is FAR lower, because the majority do NOT take their meds 100% of the time. Even with 100% dosage, the statistics still don't add up to 99% efficacy.  Independent studies show a range from 95% to 97%. Unfortunately Gilead is a multi-billion dollar corporation and they do a lot to suppress independent study reports and when you request data on Google, the first few pages are Pharmaceutical sponsored with glowing reviews. It's only when you dig a little further down, that you find the actual data from independent research laboratories that paint a different picture of the risk involved.

100% adherence to ANY daily regimen is rare in the general poulation as well. They've done studies on this. Blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds etc. Every so often someone's routine gets disrupted and they forget to take a pill. It's not generally deliberate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EZEtoGRU said:

I think the moral of the story is to not trust that anyone that is”undetectable” is actually taking their meds as prescribed. 

In fact, some "undetectable" gay men are sloppy about taking their HIV therapy medication and this creates a "viral rebound" effect.  The HIV infection becomes active and infectious again within a few weeks of forgetting to take their meds.

Science article attached below.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046528/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2023 at 8:05 PM, pubic_assistance said:

In fact, some "undetectable" gay men are sloppy about taking their HIV therapy medication and this creates a "viral rebound" effect.  The HIV infection becomes active and infectious again within a few weeks of forgetting to take their meds.

Science article attached below.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7046528/

The "science" article is actually published in the Journal of the International AIDS Society (JIAS). The article doesn't say anything at all about "gay men."

In fact, it doesn't provide ANY defining details about the research sample of 16 (sixteen) people in Belgium who stopped taking their medications. Among them was one woman. 

So it's not only gay men who are stopping or pausing their HIV therapy medications. It's likely that the sample included gay, bisexual, and "straight" men along with the one woman.

Edited by Marc in Calif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 2:35 PM, pubic_assistance said:

Condoms prevent more than just HIV. And people need to worry about more than HIV

Syphilis is spreading in the gay community because of the prevalence of PreP and condom use is no longer standard.

https://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/stdfact-msm-syphilis.htm

The "MSM" in the URL refers to the title of this particular study:

"Syphilis & MSM (Men Who Have Sex With Men) – CDC Fact Sheet"

Once nearly eliminated in the U.S., syphilis is increasing, especially among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). This fact sheet answers general questions about syphilis and MSM.

That's not just the gay community. It includes members of the bisexual community as well, and probably some self-identifying straight men.

In each of your linked studies, the participants were men (gay, bisexual, maybe "straight"), trans women, and women. They were not only "gay men." The conclusions applied to all participants.

Edited by Marc in Calif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PETEPETE

I did engaged in unprotected sex with a provider because he said he was HIV negative and on PrEP, after reading this very informational thread, I am both scared and determined to not do it again, ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PETEPETE said:

I did engaged in unprotected sex with a provider because he said he was HIV negative and on PrEP, after reading this very informational thread, I am both scared and determined to not do it again, ever. 

Well, your risk of getting HIV is extremely low, but you should always at least use condoms when having sex with someone other than your regular, intimate partner, whom you know and trust. Condoms also protect against syphilis, gonorrhea, and other STD's. You didn't say how long ago this happened, but if it's been at least several weeks, I'd get tested for several STD's, including rectal swabs for GC and chlamydia, and blood tests for HIV and syphilis. It might take up to 2+ months for blood tests to turn positive (although, if it's been less time, you can do a blood test for viral levels of HIV in the blood, which will be present sooner). If you haven't been vaccinated for Hepatitis B, also get tested for that, and get vaccinated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PETEPETE
18 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Well, your risk of getting HIV is extremely low, but you should always at least use condoms when having sex with someone other than your regular, intimate partner, whom you know and trust. Condoms also protect against syphilis, gonorrhea, and other STD's. You didn't say how long ago this happened, but if it's been at least several weeks, I'd get tested for several STD's, including rectal swabs for GC and chlamydia, and blood tests for HIV and syphilis. It might take up to 2+ months for blood tests to turn positive (although, if it's been less time, you can do a blood test for viral levels of HIV in the blood, which will be present sooner). If you haven't been vaccinated for Hepatitis B, also get tested for that, and get vaccinated. 

@UnicornI know what you are doing with this post 👆, 'some people will pretend to care just so they can get a better seat to watch you struggle, every helping hand isn't always there to help', I have not done any of these tests, yet I am 100% healthy, I simply know it, but thanks for "caring".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/19/2023 at 4:40 PM, PETEPETE said:

... I have not done any of these tests, yet I am 100% healthy, I simply know it...

Many of the disease mentioned can have a prolonged incubation time with no symptoms. Some can do some serious damage in the meantime, such as Hepatitis B, syphilis, and HIV. No sense playing Russian Roulette when you can get tested at no cost to yourself in many places. If you think you can't carry a disease when you're symptom-free, you're simply factually wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

This is one of the dumbest, most uninformed things I've read on this forum in a long while. 

And if you actually believe this, do you think calling the poster dumb and uninformed is helpful to him? Or to anyone? 
 

I guess my question is what did you hope to accomplish with this post? I feel like its only purpose is to make someone feel bad. Maybe we could educate the poster instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mds1 said:

And if you actually believe this, do you think calling the poster dumb and uninformed is helpful to him? Or to anyone? 
 

I guess my question is what did you hope to accomplish with this post? I feel like its only purpose is to make someone feel bad. Maybe we could educate the poster instead? 

Some people don't want to be educated.  This appears to be one of those people.

We have decades of medical fact to base smart decisions on.  If you just 'feel' you're perfectly healthy without the bloodwork to back it up, I can't deal in that level of foolish.  Those people are the problem and frankly, the ones who continue to spread things like HIV and other STDs.  Always know your status.

The truth can sting.  I'm not going to babytalk a grown adult.  

Edited by BenjaminNicholas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 7:26 PM, BenjaminNicholas said:

What's even more stupid is risking building an immunity to the meds that once worked when you go off your regime.  HIV is an incredibly smart disease.  It fills in the blanks beautifully when given the opportunity.  It's one of many things that continues to make this a very difficult disease to pin down and eradicate.

What @BenjaminNicholas wrote here makes me want to ask a genuine question; hopefully someone knows the accurate information.  Does anyone know (or can someone point me to a layman's explanation from a credible source, and I'll read it) --

-- how does the virus remain in the body, even with medicines coursing through a person, so that it can recur if they stop their meds?  Where and how does it lurk?

-- why precisely is this damn thing so hard to eradicate from the body like so many other viruses that we survive all the time?

Thank you.  Trying to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mds1 said:

And if you actually believe this, do you think calling the poster dumb and uninformed is helpful to him? Or to anyone? 
... 

@BenjaminNicholas did not call the poster dumb. He wrote that what the poster wrote was dumb. There's a huge difference. All people are endowed with talents and weaknesses. As I've remarked to my partner many times, if I had to make my living as a drag queen, we'd be homeless, living in a tent, and having to eat in soup kitchens. I find many drag queens absolutely brilliant at what they do. That doesn't make them scientific geniuses, but quick-witted and talented in other ways. What that poster wrote was certainly not helpful to anyone, and might have confused those who don't know better. I would easily say that what BN wrote was more helpful in clarifying the danger of what that poster wrote. 

Edited by Unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...