Advertisement
<< Back To Article
Does Undetectable Mean Uninfectious? The Challenge of Explaining HIV Study Results

Write a Comment

I have read and agree to the terms and conditions in the Posting Rules*

12 Comments

John07

Iv showed the non-detectable equals non-infectious articals to partners. Iv been undetectable sense i first got on meds. Never been over 50 parts per. So i am happy to find this artical. It brings new life to me and hope for a healthy relationship all through I im asked the same quistion. And cant seam to give a good logical answer can you answer this for me? (But if its in your body. How can it not be transmitted?) Please help me with this. Thanks. John07

November 10, 2017

nvhorseman

So what is the usefulness of this information? This information I would mostly use in a social-sexual context. So one meets a prospect and suggests coffee. You meet, you tell them all about yourself leaving out your status until the end. 99/100 people you meet will not hook up with you. Your own worries also are in the equation. Do I want to chance contracting an STD/new virus strain of a serious nature i.e., Hepatitis, Syphillis, Tuberculosis, from someone who is lying about their sero-status?

April 2, 2017 Nevada

VanGuy

I want to know how the probability of being infected by someone that doesn't know their status relates to the 4% risk of being infected by someone that's undetectable. If nearly 100% of new infections are now coming from those who "didn't know" they had it then shouldn't it be a crime not to disclose that you don't test regularly?

September 3, 2016 Vancouver Canada

Loriel

Thanks for the article 'Does Undetectable Mean Uninfectious'. There is one thing which bothers me a lot! In 'ancient times', people talked a lot about the gay disease. Slowly it was understood that even hetero's (...) could be contaminated by HIV. Now the same this happens: these studies talk about 'infecting a partner'. As if the virus cares a damn whether the one you're enjoying sex is your partner or let's say your neighbour. The old stupid Christian moral?

September 2, 2016 France

Victor

I think it's fair to respond to the prior question. Why do you think you have a "right to know" someone's medical history if you are in no danger? Go ahead, please try to justify that one without sounding like a high-tech bigot!!

August 14, 2016 San Antonio, TX

Arana

What I cannot discern from the article is: while "undetectable" = "uninfectious," does this mean that someone who is positive need no longer disclose to his would-be partner (pre-sex) that he is HIV+, but has an undetectable viral load? In other words, is this a green light for non-disclosure? I can see where it is a relief, but there is still the matter of choice. Maybe I'll say yes, but no anal penetration. Your right to not disclose your status vs. mine to know.Which?

August 9, 2016

NoahsHIV

I have been having a hard time digesting this information. I think my former job in research has me asking more questions, probing for more specific data. This article is the first one I've read that has acknowledged the deeply imbedded fears that many LTS have experienced while living with HIV. I have always had a fear of transmitting HIV to someone, it is likely a contributor to my 8 years of being single. Thank you for this informative article and for helping ease my mind on this topic.

August 5, 2016 Nashville, TN

banksy

One problem with "undetectable" is the beginning of treatment failure. In real life, it may take till the next viral load test to learn a persons viral load has spiked and treatment failure or resistance is occurring. In real life, people who are failing are not removed from a sample right away. So someone who was undetectable at one point now may have a relatively high viral load for a period. Then there are other infections like the common herpes.

July 31, 2016 NYC

Advertisement

Hot topics