If it was available on the NHS it would be about 10$ a month

An HIV-positive person can achieve undetectable levels after undergoing antiretroviral therapy (ART). A level of a person’s HIV viral load is what causes them to be more or less likely to transmit the disease. An undetectable viral load reduces the likelihood of transmission by 96 percent. Once a person achieves an undetectable status, it is possible to remain at this level provided that the person is compliant with their ART medication.

I agree…. Stigma isn't as bad as it used to be, even back as far as 2009 when I was diagnosed. That being said though, there's still a long way that we need to come with stigma unfortunately. :cry2:

Studiocody.com states this on their model application page: Studio Cody produces bareback porn only. We pair by Serosorting, partners of the same HIV status. We do not test therefore,we prefer that our models are HIV positive at undetectable HIV levels. Models on a steady regiment of Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) will be considered as well. Generally, If you are HIV negative then you must be on PrEP to qualify to be a Studio Cody pornstar.

Problem solved… Now show the nudes !

Since 2001, 24 people have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom (20 in England and Wales, and four in Scotland, which has a different legal system) for giving their sexual partners HIV. However, many more cases have been investigated by the police and some of these investigations may be inappropriate. This highlights the importance of good legal advice at the earliest possible stage of an investigation. The laws used to prosecute criminal HIV transmission developed from existing assault laws – recklessly or intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm in England and Wales and reckless endangerment and reckless or intentional injury in Scotland. The law in Northern Ireland is similar to that in England and Wales but there have been no prosecutions so far. :afr:

Ummmm…. I'm not sure what formulation that they're on (whether it's Atripla, or otherwise separate), but I must forewarn you that Efavirenz should be avoided like the plague. It's more commonly known as Sustiva, and while your friend may not realize it now, but Sustiva is a very evil drug. I have seen first hand the kind of damage that Sustiva (Efavirenz) can do to a person with long-term use. For example, thanks to Sustiva, my ex now suffers from a severe case of peripheral neuropathy. To go along with this, he still frequently suffers from brain farts as I like to call them where he'll mean to say one thing, but will reverse the order of a few words, or otherwise associate the wrong word with something, leaving the person that he's talking to very confused. I would strongly recommend that your friend get off of Sustiva ASAP for their own good. I'm not saying this to be a bitch or anything, but rather out of serious concern because I have seen first hand what Sustiva will do to a person with long-term use. I would be more inclined to recommend the switch to something like Truvada (Tenofovir 300mg / Emtricitabine 200mg) & Isentress (Raltegravir 400mg) as a substitute in the meantime. There are two down sides to this regime, however they're more manageable when paired up with something like Lomotil. The first down side is that Truvada often causes dry mouth and (and I say this from first hand experience of having been on it myself) can make for a rather "shitty" situation, if you catch my drift. The other down side is that Isentress in its standalone formation needs to be taken twice a day, which is statistically proven to be harder to adhere to than a once a day treatment. Once on that regime, I would be inclined to recommend that they get a blood test done known as the HLA-B5701, which tests to see if you will have a rather serious reaction to Abacavir. If this test comes back negative, I would be inclined to recommend at that point making another switch from the Truvada/Isentress combination over to Triumeq. It falls under the same drug class as Isentress, however is formulated differently as to only need to be taken once a day. This would roll them down into one pill once a day. That being said though, I would not recommend just starting the Triumeq blindly as the reaction that the HLA-B5701 tests for is a severe body rash that can blister and become quite painful. To my understanding, it is the most common side effect and is thought on the most part to be the only real known side effect. I have been on this regime now for a while and have noticed no side effects to speak of. Also, on that note, it just so happens that the class of drugs that the Isentress falls into happens to now be regarded as the most powerful class of medications when combatting HIV in the world. It is responsible for me finally breaking the 700 mark in my CD4 count and coming in at an all time high of 1040 as of the last test. Triumeq is a combination drug that mixes Dolutegravir, Abacavir, & Lamivudine, however it is rolled down into one pill. It's similar to a solution such as Atripla (which more or less is Tenofovir & Emtricitabine (or Truvada) and Sustiva (Efavirenz) all rolled into one pill), only it uses the newer medications and is all rolled into one pill that is taken once daily. In all seriousness though, I strongly recommend the discontinuation of Sustiva ASAP for their own good. If they're comfortable staying on the Sustiva for 3 months or so for the HLA-B*5701 test to come back, it may make more sense to make the switch over to Triumeq right off the top. It's proven to be much more effective, without the hassles of the nasty side effects. I know this may sound like I'm out to lunch, but this is something that I happen to have years of first hand experience with. I would not recommend making such a switch if I did not feel so strongly against the use of Sustiva. It's seriously saddening to see what 13 years of Sustiva has done to my ex, and I seriously would not wish that kind of life on anyone. Again, understand that this is my opinion based on the years of experience that I have first hand with these medications. I seriously think that they would be much better off with one of the newer options such as Triumeq because it's easier to manage, without the hassles of the side effects. I know that they're happy enough dealing with the side effects for now, but I can say first hand from my own experience that there WILL come a time where the side effects will eventually become quite depressing, which can cause a number of other issues. What I'm getting at here is why deal with the side effects if there is an alternative that is clinically proven to be more effective that will help them manage, without the side effects? In all seriousness I'm not trying to criticize their decision to stick with it. My only intent is to offer my experience to try to help by providing a better solution that is easier to manage both physically and for long-term mental & physical health. All this being said, Triumeq is rather new, so it's possible that at the time that their doctor put them on the Sustiva option, the option of using Triumeq may not have existed at that time. It only came out within the last about 4 months or so, so I would imagine that this is likely the reason why their doctor hasn't yet recommended it.

I know right, they keep making fun of the Canadians and the Europeans but IMO they just envied the privileges of living there  ::)

Do we have any updated numbers??

Allow me to explain one key thing about when it comes to the risk to the top as compared to the risk of the bottom…. When you're the bottom, you run the risk of the top's cock causing small tears in the lining of your insides from being stretched out and/or too much friction without a sufficient amount of lubrication. Given that the actual wounds in which the infection would enter are on the insides of the bottom and not on the dick of the top, simple physics would dictate that it becomes easier for the bottom to contract than it is from the top..... That being said however, don't kid yourself. If is still possible to contract HIV as a top, especially if more major damage has been done to the insides of the bottom. Also, there is also the fact that when the top cums and pulls out, the exposure to the body parts is removed. For the top, this pretty well severs the connection, however for the bottom who may still have cum inside of them, this increases the risk due to the fact that the residual residue of the sex itself still remains inside the bottom, long after the sex has stopped. That being said however, calculating the risk factors is not exactly all that easy or straight forward either. One of the biggest factors to take into account when it comes to HIV transmission is the viral load of the HIV+ person. Simply put, the viral load is a laboratory marker of just how much, how strong, or how concentrated you will that the actual presence of HIV is within the person's blood stream. As a general rule, the higher the number equates to the higher the risk, however again, this is not an exact science because it also does not take into account the fact that there are people out there who are either a progressive developer or an elite controller. In these cases, the risk is reduced by that factor all unto itself. For those who do not know, a "progressive developer" is somewhat like it sounds. Due to the nature of their particular immune system, it takes substantially longer for the virus to develop within the system, thus triggering the point of seroconversion to appear on a test, and then later on, slows the progression process of the virus down. In most of these cases, medications are not generally needed until long after they would have been for an otherwise "normal" person. An elite controller on the other hand is much more rare of a concept. Simply put, it is someone whose immune system is capable of suppressing the virus of its own accord, thus maintaining an undetectable viral load, without the need for the meds. Now as for yababioi's point about being undetectable, I will make something very clear. In the last 8 years, several studies have been done to try to quantify a risk factor that you can measure when it comes to sex among gay men. The only problem that all of these studies have had in common is that since the release of some of the newer medications around 1996, there hasn't been so much as a single case of HIV transmission noted from an HIV+ partner with an undetectable viral load. This is not to say that it is impossible to occur, because there is no evidence that proves that concretely, however it is very promising. Just think.... In the 8 year period that these studies have been happening, they have not been able to find so much as 1 case where the HIV+ partner is undetectable, even with frequent unprotected sex with ejaculation inside. That alone should speak for itself, especially since the pattern has held true for 8, almost 9 years now. If risk is what you're concerned about, it's important to take all the factors into account. While it is true that generally speaking, there are factors that potentially elevate the risk of transmission from the top to the bottom, but this certainly does not preclude that there is still a risk of transmission from the bottom to the top. Generally speaking, it is not as likely due to the sheer physics of it, but again as I said, establishing potential risk is not necessarily so cut and dry. In some more extreme cases (such as my last ex), when the bottom was playing with an oversized novelty dildo, hurt themselves with it, and were bleeding internally on their insides enough to warrant medical attention prior to getting fucked, the impending risk for the top is substantially elevated as compared to had the internal damage not been done first. This is a big part of why health care professionals will generally not advise that the risk of transmission is not necessarily lower for the top. In other words, it's not an exact science, and potentially, the role you play (top or bottom) can sometimes make absolutely no difference in the risk. All this being said however, in my opinion, if you're worried about the risk of transmission to begin with, you'd actually be better off to find yourself a sexual partner who identifies as being "undetectable", rather than "negative" or "clean". When they're "negative" (or so they claim), the test is only as accurate as up to 3 months before the time that the blood was drawn. If the day after that blood sample was drawn if that person engages in sexual activity, it is very well possible that they may have already seroconverted and become HIV+ by the time the negative test result came in and not even known it. That being said however, if you're playing around with someone who identifies as being "undetectable", sure, they may be HIV+, however you at least know that credible studies have been done that actually scientifically prove that the odds of contracting HIV from an HIV+ partner who has a high viral load (which is often the case when you reach the point of seroconversion) and uses a condom than it is to have unprotected sex to completion without pulling out with someone with an undetectable viral load. Statistically speaking, it is a reasonable claim to say that having unprotected sex with an HIV+ partner who is undetectable is proven to be safer than having sex with a condom with a partner who is HIV+ and has a high viral load. So, yes... I do agree with yababyioi on the point that you Opiam should properly educate and inform yourself of all the facts before making statements that clearly are an embarrassment to yourself. I may not have the fancy paperwork to say that I'm a doctor and I know my shit, but I'll be very clear about 1 thing............ Having been diagnosed with HIV on March 14, 2009 and living with it ever since (6 years and counting now), I can assure you that I know WAY more about HIV and the way that medical care works for people who are HIV+ than far too many doctors in the medical field. In fact, in some cases, I have even been the one to have to explain to the doctor who was taking care of me at the time how to read the test results, what they mean, and what the next most logical step to provide proper care would be. If you're at all unsure of something, I would be more than happy to fill you in. Again, in the 6 years now that I have been living with HIV, I can assure you when I say that education is the only prevention for a lot of the common misconceptions that can lead to stigma, and in my case, criminal persecution of a person, solely because they are HIV+ and far too many people still at this day and age are still afraid of it. I can assure you that it's not 1985 anymore and we've made some advancements in the medical community, some of which I am about to get involved with the further development of, such as the first round of trials in Canadian history of a proposed cure to determine whether or not it is effective. We're actually that close to the point of being able to say we found the cure.... Mark my words when I say within the next 5 - 10 years, it will be available to the masses.

@groovedware: Mind I am on Truvada & Raltegravir, which when I started was still in trials. Raltegravir…. Better known to the "big pharma" as the brand named "Insentress" hehe

If you have a resistance to Prezista and/or Norvir, you may be better off to go with Insentress instead. It's much more effective, and has fewer side effects.

Allow me to shed some light on that…. There has been nothing that scientifically proves that HIV is present in pre-cum. Let's be very clear about that.  :panic: Regardless of whether or not HIV is present in pre-cum, there has never been so much as one documented case of HIV transmission through oral sex alone (and believe me... such things ARE tracked). I will agree that the viral load of the partner who is HIV+ plays a role in the risk assessment. Several accredited studies have now been done specifically to quantify the risk associated with bareback sex among gay men. The troubling problem that they each and every one of the studies has had so far is that not one of them has been able to even reasonably suggest that there has been even one case of HIV transmission from a partner with an undetectable viral load to another individual. Simply put, the lower the viral load, the lower the risk. If not even one case of transmission has happened even with repeated bareback sex when one partner is undetectable, it would certainly stand to reason that the future studies that are under way to test the theory that you cannot transmit the virus if undetectable are likely to be quite promising. I myself have NEVER used a condom since I have been undetectable and can still proudly say that with several years of repeated bareback sex with some partners who are not HIV+, I have NEVER transmitted HIV to another person. Several years of this same result from my own experience can confirm that I too have accomplished the same end result.

As someone who has been living with HIV for nearly 6 years now I can tell you that the chances of getting HIV through something like rimming are negligible at best to begin with assuming that you have no open sores and such. That being said, the risk of contracting HIV from someone who is undetectable in any format has yet to be seen. Thus far there has yet to be even ONE documented case of HIV transmission from a person who is undetectable. Simply put, for many reasons, you have nothing to be afraid of. EDIT: Just a quick side-note…. There is also the whole enzyme in saliva that kinda neutralizes HIV itself, so even your risks for oral contact of any sort are damn near non-existent. If you're interested in knowing more, please either reply here or PM me. I'd be more than happy to give you all the pertinent information.

@MrMazda: In reading the article about the antibodies being traceable within urine, that brings me to one question… Is it just the anti-bodies that can be detected in the urine, or is there also the presence of the virus itself? If it's just the anti-bodies, then there isn't really a risk... If however the virus itself does somehow transfer to the urine, then that's a whole other ball of wax. It's definitely something worth taking a closer look at. Hematuria could be one possible example of HIV in urine. Blood in urine is not always visible if it's just in small amounts. EDIT: Even with the "small amounts" of blood in the urine, when they're only in such levels that you cannot see them and you have an undetectable viral load, it's fairly safe to say that the chances are not very likely.

I'm in agreement with the opinion of others here. No chance of getting HIV through acne and semen. First of all, the bleeding pustule is probably exudating, meaning any fluid is coming out and preventing anything getting in. The moderator is correct. Unless you have an open wound in your mouth, saliva can (no absolute proof) prevent virii from getting into the bloodstream. Again, it's important to know that HIV must get through the mucous membrane and into the blood. That's the only way for it to multiply.

Yes… This also seems to make sense, especially given that there are also other studies that have been done on some of the HIV meds that actually show that in some cases with some people, the HIV meds can actually spark the beginning of a series of heart attacks over time. I know of a couple of people in particular who have this very issue.