Undetectable = Untransmittable

There aint half been some clever bastards.
Post science, nature, technology and all geek stuff here.
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16560
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Scooter »

The research demonstrating this has been coming out for a few years now, but is beginning to get picked up in media outside of scientific circles. This is huge.
STUDY: 16,899 Condomless Sex Acts, Zero HIV Transmissions in Mixed-Status Couples

Treatment as prevention — also known as TasP — is once again proven to be an effective strategy.

A new study, Opposites Attract, found zero cases of HIV transmission within male couples in which one partner is HIV-negative and the other is HIV-positive and "undetectable" — meaning antiretroviral treatment has suppressed the virus in the body, reports AIDS Map.

The study tracked 358 same-sex couples from Brazil, Thailand, and Australia over the span of four years and 16,899 reported acts of condomless anal sex. It further corroborated the findings of the previous PARTNER study, which also showed no HIV transmissions in mixed-status relationships where the virus is suppressed.

At the beginning of the study, 77.9 percent of HIV-positive partners were undetectable. That number rose to 98 percent by the study's end, after treatment was made available. In total, 0.9 percent of condomless sex acts occured when a partner had a detectable viral load.

In addition, 32.1 percent of HIV-negative partners had taken PrEP — pre-exposure prophylaxis, a the daily dosage of a drug to prevent HIV — by the end of the study, usually as a precaution with sexual partners outside the relationship. Three men did contract HIV during the course of the study, but genetic tests showed that the source was not the primary partner.

The findings were presented Tuesday at the Ninth International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science in Paris by lead researcher Andrew Grulich.

“We think this is a really exciting result and adds to a body of research that HIV is not passed on in the context of undetectable viral load, even with high rates of sexually transmitted infections,” said Grulich, of the University of New South Wales in Australia, according to Poz.
American immunologist and head of the US National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases Dr Anthony Fauci had this to say at IAS2017 about the effectiveness of an undetectable viral load to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV:
Scientists never like to use the word “Never” of a possible risk. But I think in this case we can say that the risk of transmission from an HIV-positive person who takes treatment and has an undetectable viral load may be so low as to be unmeasurable, and that’s equivalent to saying they are uninfectious. It’s an unusual situation when the overwhelming evidence base in science allows us to be confident that what we are saying is fact.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Bicycle Bill »

It doesn't matter if the transmission rate is 0.000%, 100%, or anywhere in between.  I still ain't gonna play 'hide the sausage' with another guy.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18368
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by BoSoxGal »

24% of new HIV cases in 2015 were from heterosexual contact.


But since you have that Hawaiian disease, you've got nothing to fear. :nana
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by RayThom »

BoSoxGal wrote:24% of new HIV cases in 2015 were from heterosexual contact.
But since you have that Hawaiian disease, you've got nothing to fear.
“God won't give you any more than you can handle.” 1 Corinthians

AMEN!
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

Burning Petard
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Burning Petard »

What does 'undetectable' mean? If the researchers are unwilling to put 'zero' on that side of the equation, how can they put zero on the other side?

This really looks to me as another case of mass media journalists taking a scientist's work to mean more than the researcher is willing to say; which is ok, I guess. But when 'further study is needed' comes up with another contradictory result, the same media will then claim the first story just shows how science cannot be trusted.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16560
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Scooter »

What does 'undetectable' mean?
In the studies cited, the terminology used was actually "virally suppressed", which was defined as less than 200 copies of virus per mL of blood. But standard HIV viral load testing can measure virus as low as 40 or 50 copies per mL, So if anything, the risk of transmission under real world conditions would actually be LOWER than in any of the studies.

(By comparison, a typical untreated HIV+ person might have a viral load of anywhere from 50,000 to the low millions. So you can see that the viral suppression we are talking about here is virtually complete.)
If the researchers are unwilling to put 'zero' on that side of the equation, how can they put zero on the other side?
Because the science shows that at such low levels of virus as to be unmeasurable, or almost so, transmission cannot occur. Why would this be unbelievable? It has been demonstrated for any number of pathogens what the thresholds are for an infection to take hold. For some it is only a few, for others it is in the hundreds of thousands. For HIV, it has now been determined that the number is something greater than 200 copies per mL.
This really looks to me as another case of mass media journalists taking a scientist's work to mean more than the researcher is willing to say
If anything, reporting on these findings has shown a propensity to attempt the opposite, i.e. to play up the potential risks of transmission. Which is why Dr. Fauci's statement is so important i.e. that the caution inherent in scientific language should not be used to assert risks that don't actually exist.
But when 'further study is needed' comes up with another contradictory result, the same media will then claim the first story just shows how science cannot be trusted.
You might ask yourself why you carry such skepticism of these particular results, now validated by several studies, and whether it has anything to do with your attitudes about those who carry this particular virus that makes you unwilling to accept that they pose no risk to you.

Oh, and Bill, barring someone in prison, or trying to make some money to buy crack, I can't imagine anyone, male or female, who would want to do so with you, so you have nothing to worry about in any case.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Burning Petard
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Burning Petard »

Scooter, I carry no skepticism about the studies. I carry a HUGE bag of skepticism about the mass media and popular science writers' ability to accurately summarize science research. Real science is a continuum of approximations. Popular media demands binary results.

snailgate

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16560
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Scooter »

You are free to google this study or the PARTNER study - a much larger study that included both heterosexual and male couples, and read the original research for yourself. And I would direct you again to what Dr. Fauci, a scientist, not a science writer, had to say about the results. This is fucking REVOLUTIONARY in the fight against this virus; it means that if we can get every HIV+ person on effective treatment and keep them on it, we can eradicate this fucking terrorist from the globe.

The question you should be asking yourself is what has been the hesitation in reporting this? Why isn't it a front page story in every newspaper on the fucking planet?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14012
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote: The question you should be asking yourself is what has been the hesitation in reporting this? Why isn't it a front page story in every newspaper on the fucking planet?
Maybe they don't want to encourage unprotected sex.

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6717
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Long Run »

Are there any stories any more that don't deal with the guy who can't abstain from making our lives laughable/miserable?

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18368
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by BoSoxGal »

Scooter wrote:You are free to google this study or the PARTNER study - a much larger study that included both heterosexual and male couples, and read the original research for yourself. And I would direct you again to what Dr. Fauci, a scientist, not a science writer, had to say about the results. This is fucking REVOLUTIONARY in the fight against this virus; it means that if we can get every HIV+ person on effective treatment and keep them on it, we can eradicate this fucking terrorist from the globe.

The question you should be asking yourself is what has been the hesitation in reporting this? Why isn't it a front page story in every newspaper on the fucking planet?
Didn't the Pussygrabber eliminate millions in funding for HIV treatment in Africa and here in the US? I seem to recall seeing that amongst the many abhorrent executive orders . . .
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16560
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Scooter »

Joe Guy wrote:
Scooter wrote:The question you should be asking yourself is what has been the hesitation in reporting this? Why isn't it a front page story in every newspaper on the fucking planet?
Maybe they don't want to encourage unprotected sex.
But that is precisely the point; you can't call it "unprotected" if treatment as prevention has proven to be completely effective at preventing HIV transmission, certainly more effective than the use of condoms that we call "protected sex".
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5371
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Jarlaxle »

Joe Guy wrote:
Scooter wrote: The question you should be asking yourself is what has been the hesitation in reporting this? Why isn't it a front page story in every newspaper on the fucking planet?
Maybe they don't want to encourage unprotected sex.
That!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16560
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Scooter »

And that makes it ok to downplay scientific facts that will save lives because...
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Burning Petard
Posts: 4088
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Burning Petard »

because money matters more than lives. All are not created equal. black lives matter. blue lives matter. If it bleeds it leads. But as Orwell said in Animal Farm, some are more equal than others.

I welcome any other explanation for Scooter's question.

snailgate

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14012
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote:And that makes it ok to downplay scientific facts that will save lives because...
Unprotected sex can spread more than HIV. Syphilis is making a comeback, especially among gay and bisexual men. There is also HPV, gonorrhea and chlamydia, and more that can be spread by unprotected sex.

I have no doubt that a lot of people would be less careful if they were told they can be protected from HIV without a condom. Snailgate is probably right also. Gay sex isn't a big headline maker nowadays.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16560
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Scooter »

So people need to be fooled into believing they are at risk of transmitting/contracting HIV in order to scare them into using condoms to prevent transmission of other sexually transmitted infections? How about, gee, I don't know, telling people the truth about the risks of HIV and other STIs and allowing them to make their own decisions like adults are supposed to?

Incidence of syphilis and other STIs has been spiking for many years now. Clearly telling people to use condoms to prevent transmission of HIV hasn't been effective at stemming those infections. Perhaps a more direct prevention strategy would do better.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9030
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Joe Guy wrote:Unprotected sex can spread more than HIV. Syphilis is making a comeback, especially among gay and bisexual men. There is also HPV, gonorrhea and chlamydia, and more that can be spread by unprotected sex.

I have no doubt that a lot of people would be less careful if they were told they can be protected from HIV without a condom.
Which is maybe why there should be a return to a time when an unmarried couple engaging in unrestrained sex, consensual or not, was not condoned, encouraged, or even considered 'normal' as it is today.  This idea that if you go out with someone more than three times you are (if a male) entitled to sex or (if a female) are expected to give up the goodies is ridiculous and I'd like to know just who decided that this is "the new normal".

Some of you may recall that, back in 2001, Katie Barefoot from the old 'Cafe d'Arte' board and I got together as part of a FtF (no one else showed up, but that's beside the point).  We hit it off, and over the next several years we would meet and spend time together, whether it was at the RenFaire, taking a sunset sightseeing boat ride, attending MiniCon, going out for dinner (or sharing a pizza at the motel while watching movies on TV), or just going out for a walk.  I don't know if these were 'dates' or not (I do know how *I* felt about it, though), but even so I would have no more considered that she 'owed' me a roll in the hay after a certain number of 'encounters' any more than she would have felt obligated to see that I got my ashes hauled for the same reason.

And what the hell is so wrong with such an archaic, almost quaint idea?  As my dad once told me, "If you keep your pecker in your pants, you will save yourself a whole lot of problems" — and for the most part, he was correct.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 14012
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Joe Guy »

Scooter wrote:So people need to be fooled into believing they are at risk of transmitting/contracting HIV in order to scare them into using condoms to prevent transmission of other sexually transmitted infections? How about, gee, I don't know, telling people the truth about the risks of HIV and other STIs and allowing them to make their own decisions like adults are supposed to?

Incidence of syphilis and other STIs has been spiking for many years now. Clearly telling people to use condoms to prevent transmission of HIV hasn't been effective at stemming those infections. Perhaps a more direct prevention strategy would do better.
It's not my policy. I suggested a possible answer to your question.

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8989
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Undetectable = Untransmittable

Post by Guinevere »

Scooter, this is very good news! One step closer to completely defeating this disease.

But I also agree that the specter of unprotected sex could be part of the reason why it's gotten very little news coverage. If so, that's idiotic.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké

Post Reply