“Negative On Prep” Liars.

[SirBillybob]

It all requires revision anyway because detectable HIviremia below a newly established but higher threshold is deemed to be untransmittable. The new threshold is way above the limit of quantification. It is at the magnitude of 5 million viral particles within the average adult.

In fact, a structured treatment break from highly active antiretroviral therapy may sustain viral load control, to a point, without risking drug resistance. Transmission equivalency potential between somebody U on ART and technically carefully monitored but not U and not on ART, both less potential than somebody unaware of a problematic viremia uptick, changes the picture.

At a consent level the legality is centered in some jurisdictions on ‘reasonable’ probability of transmission. These are reasons for supplementation of simplistic labels by open inquiry between sexual partners. Even if an ad admin tried to vet providers along these lines it would be too complex. The status menu is designed to open up 1:1 information exchange, not guarantee accuracy of info. 

Edited August 27, 2023 by SirBillybob

[DWnyc]

The law usually also points to deliberate misrepresentation of status following a known diagnosis.

That is a separate issue from transmit-ability with or without U+ status.

Again we come back to the same issue: clients need to do what they feel is best for themselves and not rely on statments on a website or spoken by a provider-  but they should make best efforts to educate themselves on risk and prevention in their situation. 

[SirBillybob]

5 hours ago, DWnyc said:

The law usually also points to deliberate misrepresentation of status following a known diagnosis.

That is a separate issue from transmit-ability with or without U+ status.

Again we come back to the same issue: clients need to do what they feel is best for themselves and not rely on statments on a website or spoken by a provider-  but they should make best efforts to educate themselves on risk and prevention in their situation. 

I think that the first two paragraphs’ content is not entirely separate in application. [Just one sample piece relevant to the integration of the legal and clinical is appended.]

This is all evolving, and being aware of the factors under consideration is as important as the more elusive consensus possibility. It stands to reason that any court case would involve a deep dive into a lot of variables.

Interestingly, Hepatitis B infection, for example, is a reportable communicable disease yet does not seem to be subject to the same standards, though transmittable without intercourse, and can yield acute presentation that comes with extreme morbidity or worse. 

That said, what a provider or client should not assume is that he is above the law, at point of conventionally accepted infection transmission risk activity, itself a moving target, simply because there are developing arguments that mitigate the implications of non-disclosure as conceptualized when viral control was less advanced. 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cons/hiv-vih/pdf/Consultation_paper_Survey_Questions_HIV_Non_Disclosure_Consultation_EN.pdf

Edited August 28, 2023 by SirBillybob

[SouthOfTheBorder]

in context of hiring providers & hookups of any sort - do not believe a word they say or write.  
prepare for the worst and then make your choices accordingly.
if someone is naive enough to take a providers word (or anyone) regarding sexual health/practices, then there’s really not much to say.  that same person likely makes many bad choices based on faulty information

as far as knowing specific providers aren’t being truthful - chalk it up to experience. no surprises there 
 

 

[Toomuch4u]

Glad to see some of you aren’t too naive, but be careful….they are still out there and posting….Rentmen and Rentmasseur really needs to take that off there.