Write a Comment
8 Comments
Strongly concur with robmur. He said it best. This is ridiculous. I can already see more sensitive tests wrongly robbing people of identification as "undetectable". All while only splitting hairs over ridiculous questions about treatment durability, "inflammation" or other issues we should be stepping over in favor of a cure. Like injectables, this is another "development" that isn't progress, isn't really wanted and few really need. We need a cure, not refinments of treatment.
Editor’s note: POZ has received comments about the statement that a new, more sensitive viral load test has implications for HIV treatment and prevention. For most people on effective treatment, having a viral load below 50 using current standard tests indicates well-controlled HIV. The development of the new test shows how technology evolves over time, and a more sensitive test is useful for clinical trials of new therapies and for cure research. In terms of prevention, research has shown that HIV transmission does not occur below 200 copies. So, as the Prevention Access Campaign says, “199 or below, good to go!”
Like much funded HIV research (but unlike COVID research), this is utterly pointless. This is the crazy environment of HIV research where end goals are totally irrelevant, timelines towards progress are measured in “decades” ???? (see Sharon Lewin’s discussion of when a cure will be available) and leading HIV activists (or should I say influencers) couldn’t care less about ending this epidemic. Ending this only happens with two tools: a vaccine and a cure. Stop funding nonsense HIV research.
U=U is confusing. It hasn't really caught up, unlike PrEP stigma which has gone down significantly.
So we now have more sensitive tests to measure undetectable viral load. Article subhead suggests implications for treatment and prevention but in fact doesn't offer any. More important, studies to date that documented U=U and HIV nonprogression used the older tests with the higher marker of undetectability. So what, exactly, is the point of this news (good as it is in terms of technical test refinement) except to potentially terrorize PLWHA about things like adherence?
This is interesting but I doubt it has any practical value in real life beyond cure research. After all, 1 copy or 20 or 50 or 100 copies are still under the 200 copy threshold used to establish the reality of U=U. Yes, low level viremia is known to cause trouble for some of us, but, here again, not at levels this low.
This is overall a great thing. The one drawback I see is that it will unfortunately confuse the U=U message for the general public and stigma will increase.
Pozsince2018
Today is June 6th 2023 my clinic has implemented this new test and after 5 years of being undetectable my world was crushed and was told I was no longer that. With that came immediate anxiety and depression something I never wanted to feel again, this is not what the hiv community needs this only open up more doors for us to be stigmatized and prosecuted here in NC if you undetectable for at least 6months you dnt have to disclose status if you use protection. As of today I’ve lost that right Smh
June 7, 2023