Quote: (09-23-2018 03:11 PM)spydersuit Wrote:
Quote: (09-23-2018 01:02 PM)VincentVinturi Wrote:
If I understand correctly, the transmission rate is effectively 0% when viral load is under control through drugs, which means that OP CANNOT transmit HIV to any of his sex partners. PERIOD. And further, it seems that this statistic has been substantiated through a large amount of sample data.
Under those conditions, having sex with somebody if you are HIV positive would not put them in any danger whatsoever of getting HIV.
OP - are there any rare circumstances which would temporarily make the possibility non-zero? Say, coinfection with something that facilitates HIV transmission, a cut, anal, etc.? Or does it essentially hinge on the viral load (or lack thereof)?
In short, if you have a deadly disease but there's absolutely NO possibility of you transmitting it, then you're not putting anybody at risk and your decision to disclose that status becomes an issue of your personal choice. Disclosure only becomes a moral and legal issue if you have a non-zero chance of negatively affecting somebody's life through your actions without their voluntary agreement.
@OP, assuming my understanding is correct, I think that probably no amount of explaining the logic and figures and impossibility of contracting it from you will dispel the negative, knee-jerk connotations of the word HIV.
That is bullshit. I am a doctor in this field. There is no such thing as 0 HIV transmission risk. Maybe "low" risk, maybe.
^^ This should be pinned to the top of the thread, in bold.