Write a Comment
4 Comments
John, have you let POZ know? I've worked with them-- they're very open to feedback. I was also disappointed in the way this article didn't highlight the best parts of the study. The press release editorial is highly politicized and doesn't reflect the study's substance. It's ridiculously alarmist given the fraction close to zero mathematical risk reported in the study. Even the study Q&A defines safe generally as "low risk". These results are beyond extremely low, they are negligible.
Michael, do not despair. Knowledge is power. Poz is bias lately, I stopped reading publications here. Visit the QA of published study and get an insight on how impossible is transmission taking into account the theorical upper risks when viral load undetectable. Quote "In the results, the upper 95% confidence limit ... of a couple having condomless sex with undetectable viral load is less than 0.3%. In other words, it takes more than 333 years of a sexual partnership for one transmission" ..
ZERO new infections that genetic analysis tied to the suppressed partner. Despite this, we continue to beat the dead horse that risk can not be ruled out, even though the actual risk is lower than from someone who recently tested neg, and the number of transmissions is ZERO. How many more decades do we need before we acknowledge that all positive people are not a health hazard? How long until call this pedantic advice what it is-impractical, inconsistent and marginalizing?
Christopher
Too late for me. I have been branded by the gay world and by myself as POZ - unless I can find someone else POZ that offers a genuine mutual attraction, a love life, as it has been since 1997, is pretty well over. And each year I just get older... just reality, folks.
July 19, 2016