Book for Non-HIV Straight partner

[hayyou]

My serious Girlfriend was looking for a book on dealing with my new found HIV-poz status.  She is hoping for something about our situation.  "What to expect when you are dating someone with HIV, for the straight couple" type.  Any suggestions would be helpful.

[Ann]

Hay, the best resource I've ever found was this forum.

Welcome.

[hotpuppy]

I don't know that your sexual orientation really matters.  HIV doesn't care if their is pussy, dick, ass, or whatever involved.  It's not very picky.

[Inchlingblue]

One of the poz.com bloggers is straight and is married to a (beautiful inside and out) woman, Gwenn Barringer,  who is negative. They were featured in an article on CNN (link below) and they do speaking engagements that help break down barriers and stereotypes and promote safer sex. He also wrote a book called My Pet Virus although it's more of a memoir, so while it does discuss their life together it's not only about that.

You can also email him or send him a message via his blog, he might have some suggestions. I think, from what I know about Gwenn, that she would be happy to talk to your girlfriend if your girlfriend wanted to talk to her, ask her questions, etc.

LINKS:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/30/hiv.aids.couples.relationships/

http://blogs.poz.com/shawn/

http://www.mypetvirus.com/

http://www.shawnandgwenn.com/

http://deckersdaily.tumblr.com/

http://www.amazon.com/My-Pet-Virus-Story-Without/dp/1585425257/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278187293&sr=8-3

Gwenn's blog:

http://alattestyle.tumblr.com/

[Boze]

I don't know that your sexual orientation really matters.  HIV doesn't care if their is pussy, dick, ass, or whatever involved.  It's not very picky.

That's not entirely true. Or more precisely, that's entirely false

"The risk of HIV transmission during anal intercourse may be around 18 times greater than during vaginal intercourse, according to the results of a meta-analysis published online ahead of print in the International Journal of Epidemiology. " new from 5 days ago: http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/7843C8C5-FBC4-4602-8B51-2F9A769717E4.asp

On the actual topic at hand, I'd recommend looking at Amazon - there are quite a few books on this:

http://www.amazon.com/100-Questions-Answers-About-AIDS/dp/0763750425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278196636&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/HIV-Essentials-2010-Paul-Sax/dp/0763777099/ref=pd_sim_b_2

http://www.amazon.com/First-Year-Essential-Guide-Diagnosed/dp/1600940137/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Also good source is

John Hopkins HIV site: http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/

These forums are a very good source of information - but keep in mind that answers are provided by HIV+ individuals and not doctors.

One last thing - you may want to read up on the Swiss Statement as it applies to heterosexual monogamous couples. It was the biggest revelation for myself since I found out my status and learned everything I could about the disease.

[Ann]

Boze,

It's not only gay men who have anal intercourse, so as usual, you're completely wrong to haul hotpuppy over the coals for saying that it's not a gay/straight issue. Get with the program before you open your keyboard.

[Boze]

Boze,

It's not only gay men who have anal intercourse, so as usual, you're completely wrong to haul hotpuppy over the coals for saying that it's not a gay/straight issue. Get with the program before you open your keyboard.

I corrected him on the statement whether HIV cares if "pussy, dick, ass, or whatever involved". It most certainly does. Who the orifice belongs to is not the point - but the actual act matters.

My initial impulse would be to agree with you that information should not matter based on the sex of the couple. However, when I thought about it, I remembered the Swiss Statement - which applies specifically to hetero couples. But it may be an exception.

[Ann]

I corrected him on the statement whether HIV cares if "pussy, dick, ass, or whatever involved". It most certainly does. Who the orifice belongs to is not the point - but the actual act matters.

Whatever. If you really believed that, you would not have included the part about sexual orientation when you quoted him.

[phildinftlaudy]

My serious Girlfriend was looking for a book on dealing with my new found HIV-poz status.  She is hoping for something about our situation.  "What to expect when you are dating someone with HIV, for the straight couple" type.  Any suggestions would be helpful.

Also Boze, I think the intent of the OP was that his girlfriend wants info in regards to how to cope/deal with/what to expect if a person is HIV - and is dating someone positive.  In this case, the expectations and advice for a neg who is dating a positive would not differ in foundation across straight, gay, bi, etc -- thus I think that hotpuppy was correct in saying it doesn't matter in terms of dick, pussy, ass --- because the question asked was regarding "what should an HIV negative person expect when dating an HIV positive person" --- I think his girlfriend is looking for support and understanding of the disease in regards to their situation.

[Boze]

Whatever. If you really believed that, you would not have included the part about sexual orientation when you quoted him.

Well, if you want to get nitpicky - I just quoted his post and didn't bother further editing it for the sake of Political Correctness.

The whole 'disease X is colorblind' or "HIV doesn't care if you are straight or gay" may sound good as bumper sticker (they're very popular in the US as a form of political self-expression) but often run counter to scientific reality.

Also Boze, I think the intent of the OP was that his girlfriend wants info in regards to how to cope/deal with/what to expect if a person is HIV - and is dating someone positive.  In this case, the expectations and advice for a neg who is dating a positive would not differ in foundation across straight, gay, bi, etc -- thus I think that hotpuppy was correct in saying it doesn't matter in terms of dick, pussy, ass --- because the question asked was regarding "what should an HIV negative person expect when dating an HIV positive person" --- I think his girlfriend is looking for support and understanding of the disease in regards to their situation.

Yes - if we are talking about emotional aspects, I fully agree. However, a couple of issues come to mind that are different:

1) People on HAART who are UD can have condom-less vaginal intercourse without taking undue risks
2) Options on having children - sperm washing or natural way

These are the only two issues I can think of - otherwise I agree.

[nixsmail]

1) People on HAART who are UD can have condom-less vaginal intercourse without taking undue risks

What is your source for this since that's not what i'm led to believe. just because it's undetectable in the blood doesn't mean that it's undetectable period. if i were a woman i wouldn't let you near me if that's what you wanted to do.

[Boze]

What is your source for this since that's not what i'm led to believe. just because it's undetectable in the blood doesn't mean that it's undetectable period. if i were a woman i wouldn't let you near me if that's what you wanted to do.

Sure thing. The error you are making is confusing 'doesn't mean' with 'it's not impossible'. In other words - if you are UD in the blood, it's **not impossible** for you to have a VL in sperm. But it's highly unlikely.

So far there have not been a single recorded case of a person who has been UD for 6 months (ie not someone just starting therapy) infecting another via vaginal sex. And we have millions of people on therapy.

Here are the links:
1) http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/q_a/patient/hiv_transmission_and_prevention/swiss_statement_on_hiv_transmission.html?contentInstanceId=435487

2) http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/C144FC4F-2707-4D1F-87DE-68B35D4EA1D0.asp

In their discussion, however, they point out that “under our
assumptions, the effectiveness of treatment in reducing the risk of
HIV transmission per sexual act was about the same as has been
reported for condoms. Although we agree that effective antiretroviral
treatment which leads to undetectable viral load is likely to have a
substantial effect on reducing infectiousness, our analyses suggest
that it should not replace condoms.”

3) http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/q_a/patient/hiv_transmission_and_prevention/ud_v_condom.html?contentInstanceId=512450&siteId=7151

4) http://papamamanbebe.net/a8238-les-personnes-seropositives-ne-souffrant-d-a.html#photo7153

[Inchlingblue]

Sure thing. The error you are making is confusing 'doesn't mean' with 'it's not impossible'. In other words - if you are UD in the blood, it's **not impossible** for you to have a VL in sperm. But it's highly unlikely.

Semen May Harbor HIV Despite Effective HAART: Another Piece in the Puzzle

LINK:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010569

HIV sporadically detectable in semen of men with undetectable plasma viral loads

LINK:

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/C6491E0E-B323-480A-975B-7DFC4966539F.asp

HIV in Semen Despite Undetectable in Blood: "residual risk of transmission is still possible during unprotected intercourse"

LINK:  http://www.natap.org/2009/CROI/croi_157.htm

Math and semen analyses cast doubt on Swiss HIV stance

LINK:  http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v14/n9/full/nm0908-896a.html

[Boze]

Inch,

I think your links agree with my statement - that it's *possible* but not *likely* to have HIV RNA in semen while being UD in blood. 3% is still pretty unlikely.

To me the most recent study where out of 103 serodiscordant couples on HAART only one person transmitted (and that person was only starting HAART as far as I remember) is more relevant. Ie if there are millions on HAART, I'd like to know how many have actually transmitted.

To my mind (as per Dr. Gallant posting in a forum), sex with someone on HAART who is UD is preferable to sex with a person with normal VL with a condom.

[Inchlingblue]

To my mind (as per Dr. Gallant posting in a forum), sex with someone on HAART who is UD is preferable to sex with a person with normal VL with a condom.

It's about condom breakage or incorrect use. If the condom is used properly and remains intact throughout intercourse, then I think they're no difference between the two.

The thing is these figures from the Swiss study would apply to a very small fraction of people: i.e. those who know their partner's status and know for sure that their partner is undetectable and is regularly taking effective HAART. IOW, there must be absolute 100% trust among the people involved; also trust insofar as not sleeping around with others which could raise the chances of contracting an STD, which in turn could raise the chances of HIV being transmitted.

For people who are out there having sex with people who they don't know or know very little the only protection is still the condom.

I got HIV because my partner was sleeping around without condoms. I had no idea this was happening. Even within a relationship the best protection is still a condom as opposed to trust.

Also, I think that last link in my previous post (from Nature) questioned the math on the Swiss study but it's only available with a subsciption.

[hotpuppy]

I'm calling a HIJACK and reminding folks that fighting over sexual orientation vs. HIV is not constructive to the original posters question. 

To clarify my original comment: sexual orientation is irrelevant in having a relationship with serodiscordant partners.  Love is universal and the necessary precautions to prevent transmission are common among all sexual orientations. 

I simply wanted to expand the OP's horizon a bit so that they would be open to what works for couples who are of a different sexual orientation.

Let's get back to helping the OP and if you want to fight over the side thread open a thread in "living with" or somewhere else appropriate. 

[Boze]

The thing is these figures from the Swiss study would apply to a very small fraction of people: i.e. those who know their partner's status and know for sure that their partner is undetectable and is regularly taking effective HAART.

We don't know the details, but chances are that the OP may be in such situation. Hence I think he should be aware of the state of science on the matter.

I got HIV because my partner was sleeping around without condoms. I had no idea this was happening. Even within a relationship the best protection is still a condom as opposed to trust.

Also, I think that last link in my previous post (from Nature) questioned the math on the Swiss study but it's only available with a subsciption.

I'm very sorry to hear about your case - it's truly heart-breaking. I can see how you would be apprehensive about trusting people after going through this. But everybody has different circumstances and should probably decide for themselves the risk they want to take - after being educated as to what the actual risk is.

I'm calling a HIJACK and reminding folks that fighting over sexual orientation vs. HIV is not constructive to the original posters question. 

To clarify my original comment: sexual orientation is irrelevant in having a relationship with serodiscordant partners.  Love is universal and the necessary precautions to prevent transmission are common among all sexual orientations. 

I simply wanted to expand the OP's horizon a bit so that they would be open to what works for couples who are of a different sexual orientation.

Let's get back to helping the OP and if you want to fight over the side thread open a thread in "living with" or somewhere else appropriate. 

Yes, I apologize if you understood my comment to be antagonistic. I only wanted to highlight that there is scientific difference for the transmission mechanism. You are totally right that emotional aspects are the same. I hope that OP would benefit from hearing both our views since they are not in opposition

[Inchlingblue]

But everybody has different circumstances and should probably decide for themselves the risk they want to take - after being educated as to what the actual risk is.
 

Yes, and you presenting a one-sided view of the Swiss study is not exactly educational. Why not present both sides and let them make up their own mind? The Swiss study is not definitive and has been questioned as to its accuracy by respected researchers, links above and below.

The Swiss conclusions have now been questioned by the results of a study by Australian scientists published in the Lancet [4]. Using a model-based analysis, they estimated the cumulative risk of HIV transmission from effectively treated HIV-infected patients (HIV RNA <10 copies per mL) over a prolonged period. They concluded that in a population of 10,000 serodiscordant partners over a 10-year period the expected number of seroconversions occurring if the partners had unprotected sex would correspond to a fourfold increase in incidence when compared with incidence under current rates of condom use.

LINK:  http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=18993


*Boze, I'm not sure if you have much experience with internet forums but you have a tendency to hijack threads. The OP came on here asking for advice on books for his HIV-negative girlfriend. Hotpuppy's comments about HIV not being picky were, in the context of the thread's subject, clearly not referring to how HIV is transmitted. You went on a diatribe about anal sex v. vaginal sex only to be reminded by Ann that plenty of heterosexuals partake of anal sex. I don't want to continue with a play by play but I just want to illustrate that your misreading here has resulted in yet another needless hijack.

To hayyou: I apologize for the hijack, I hope at least some of the info here has been helpful, I urge you guys to contact Shawn and Gwenn. She has remained negative because they use condoms regularly.

[Boze]

1) I wouldn't call providing link to a study a diatribe. Furthermore - this is not an army bootcamp where everybody says 'sir yes sir' as a form of response. Point here is to discuss things.

2) Hijacking a thread would entail talking about some unrelated subject. I believe that I provided relevant information to the OP. Someone else actually didn't know about that and I was glad to provide further links on the matter. This is all assuming that  Swiss statement applies specifically to monog. hetero couples - as I understood OP to be.

3) I will not get into the argument of what forms of protection people should use - that's for them to decide. I can only provide information I garnered myself on the matter. To me this was a huge revelation - and I feel compelled to let others know about it.
When I was told that I am HIV+ I thought I had a few years to live. Then I thought that I'd have to use condoms for the rest of my life. Both of these were wrong assumptions, which others not educated about HIV may also share.

[tommy246]

Gosh im lost has anyone managed to answer the op question yet.

[hayyou]

Being the OP, I would say that all of the given in response to my original question is helpful, though some was slightly off topic.  The link to Shawn and Gwen seems to be the most relevant.
Hotpuppy, The only reason that sexual orientation matters is in the point of view, and also the fact that a straight girl in a straight relationship doesn't have to deal with the stereotypes that a gay man in a gay relationship would, so the stresses and anxieties would be different.
Inchlingblue, thank you for the links, that was exactly what I (she) was looking for.
Boze, thank you for the links, that is more along the lines of what I was looking for.  Also, you are correct in assuming that she wants children.
Phildinftlaudy, yes, you got the point right on the mark.

[hotpuppy]

Yes, I apologize if you understood my comment to be antagonistic. I only wanted to highlight that there is scientific difference for the transmission mechanism. You are totally right that emotional aspects are the same. I hope that OP would benefit from hearing both our views since they are not in opposition

Um, I disagree.  The scientific mechanism of infection is that HIV gains accesss to cells with CCR4 or CCRX5 receptors without being damaged sufficiently to prevent bonding and injection of the viral core.  Now, how it gains access to these cells is subordinate to the point I was trying to make.  Judging the sexual activity is not relevant to the OP.

What is relevant is that there are thousands of posts made by gay men in serodiscordant relationships who have successfully kept the negative partner negative.  What works for them in terms of dealing with HIV is something that the OP might benefit from.  It's inspiring to see other couples succeed and I wanted to point out that they should look at the gay successes too.  There may not be as many straight successes to benchmark from and so looking across the aisle might be beneficial in ascertaining the best practices that they want to adopt into their relationship.

So, in the context of the above comment.  Sexual orientation is irrelevant to HIV transmission protection.  There are different risk profiles for specific sexual acts, but that is not relevant to this thread.

[hotpuppy]

Being the OP, I would say that all of the given in response to my original question is helpful, though some was slightly off topic.  The link to Shawn and Gwen seems to be the most relevant.
Hotpuppy, The only reason that sexual orientation matters is in the point of view, and also the fact that a straight girl in a straight relationship doesn't have to deal with the stereotypes that a gay man in a gay relationship would, so the stresses and anxieties would be different.
Inchlingblue, thank you for the links, that was exactly what I (she) was looking for.
Boze, thank you for the links, that is more along the lines of what I was looking for.  Also, you are correct in assuming that she wants children.
Phildinftlaudy, yes, you got the point right on the mark.

The swiss study is pretty relevant to having children.  I would recommend that you both become familiar with it and then work closely with your doctor while conceiving.  He or she may be able to come up with some additional ways of shaving the odds.

I think the straight world is likely to be more viro-phobic (new word).  In the gay community there is alot of virophobic behavior as it is.  The gay world understands HIV intimately.  Many many straight people think of HIV as a "gay disease" (which you know it is not) and think of it inaccurately with poor information.  It doesn't make it right, I just think you can benchmark off the successful gay couples who have dealt with the dragons in your path that will stress your relationship.  You and your partner have enough on your plate and it's wonderful that you are both committed to making it work.  You will have many stressful challenges that confront your committment and most of them will be things that other serodiscordant couples have faced.  It's up to you to reinvent the wheel or learn from the experiences of others.

[hayyou]

Also, I realized that I forgot to thank everyone who responded.

[hayyou]

What is relevant is that there are thousands of posts made by gay men in serodiscordant relationships who have successfully kept the negative partner negative.  What works for them in terms of dealing with HIV is something that the OP might benefit from.  It's inspiring to see other couples succeed and I wanted to point out that they should look at the gay successes too.  There may not be as many straight successes to benchmark from and so looking across the aisle might be beneficial in ascertaining the best practices that they want to adopt into their relationship.

Hotpuppy, That is more supportive of a comment than your first one, so, thank you.

The gay world understands HIV intimately.  Many many straight people think of HIV as a "gay disease" (which you know it is not) and think of it inaccurately with poor information.

Not to bring up religion, but thank the 'church' for that one.

You and your partner have enough on your plate and it's wonderful that you are both committed to making it work.  You will have many stressful challenges that confront your committment and most of them will be things that other serodiscordant couples have faced.  It's up to you to reinvent the wheel or learn from the experiences of others.

Hotpuppy, again, thank you.  We will try to do both, because not all wheels fit all cars.

[StickingAround]

One of the poz.com bloggers is straight and is married to a (beautiful inside and out) woman, Gwenn Barringer,  who is negative. They were featured in an article on CNN (link below) and they do speaking engagements that help break down barriers and stereotypes and promote safer sex. He also wrote a book called My Pet Virus although it's more of a memoir, so while it does discuss their life together it's not only about that.

You can also email him or send him a message via his blog, he might have some suggestions. I think, from what I know about Gwenn, that she would be happy to talk to your girlfriend if your girlfriend wanted to talk to her, ask her questions, etc.

LINKS:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/30/hiv.aids.couples.relationships/

http://blogs.poz.com/shawn/

http://www.mypetvirus.com/

http://www.shawnandgwenn.com/

http://deckersdaily.tumblr.com/

http://www.amazon.com/My-Pet-Virus-Story-Without/dp/1585425257/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278187293&sr=8-3

Gwenn's blog:

http://alattestyle.tumblr.com/

That's super-helpful.  Thank you!

[StickingAround]

Boze, thank you so much for your responses.  I've never even heard of the "Swiss Statement" nor have I heard of HAART.  These are exactly some of the things I would like to hear more about so that I can do my own research about them and learn the pros and cons written about each.  As to HotPuppy's latest statements, he has a point that as a couple there will be some cross over with emotional regard to coping and how to help my positive partner.  We will still have many other issues to deal with as a straight couple such as how to conceive, how the legal standing of marriage may change what he's eligible for as far as programs go or whether to have a wedding without the certificate so that the family's aren't aware that it isn't legal and he can still qualify for programs, etc.  Most of my family isn't aware of his status because I'm pretty sure they would pressure me to leave him and I don't want to do that.  And being that my family is a traditional Southern God-fearing family, they are really putting the pressure on getting married since I'm "living in sin and I know it" according to my Grandmother because I'm living with him now.  That, in my family, is already a big thing to deal with.

[hotpuppy]

Sticking:
  The Swiss Study is a well done study that followed approximately 900 heterosexual couples where one partner was HIV+ and the other was not.  As a precondition, they required the + partner to have been undetectable for 6 months.  They encouraged the couples to have unprotected sex to foster a child.  In all of the cases where the above conditions were met there were no seroconversions.  As I recall the study was released around January of 2009.

   Boze is correct in that this study did not focus on gay sex and that there are risk differences between anal and vaginal intercourse.  However, there are some things in common and so it suggests that a stable undetectable viral load lowers the risk for the negative partner.  

  Now, before anyone calls a hijack on me.... I think that there are some obvious parallells between heterosexual and homosexual sex involving serodiscordant partners.  In both instances one partner has a risk of contracting HIV and the other partner has to cope with the fear of giving it to someone they love.

  The most obvious, and controversial observation that I can see is that barebacking is en vogue again among large numbers of HIV negative gay men.  Yet infection rates haven't skyrocketed.  Yes, they are not declining, but they certainly aren't where they should be for the behavior that is occurring.  Serosorting (choosing one's partners on the basis of their belief about their status) is one possible answer.  But it doesn't completely explain it.  The only certainty in HIV status is that you are positive.  A negative status is as of a certain date and presumes no further exposures or risks.  It is negative after a few negative tests and no further exposures or risks.  However, most adults are somewhat sexually active and there is a small amount of risk introduced with each unprotected sexual contact.  Therefore, the only way to know for sure that you are negative is to have zero risk which isn't practical for an active sex life.  Yes, it's splitting hairs.... but some risk even if it is small isn't the same as no risk... and what I'm doing here is partially debunking serosorting as a method of risk reduction in unprotected sexual intercourse for HIV negative individuals.

  So allowing that serosorting does have some risk reduction benefit, but isn't the holy grail, there is still an unexplained delta (difference) between infection rates and behavior patterns.  Barebacking is the white elephant in the gay community that nobody wants to admit to but everyone sees.  Follow along a bit more and I'll connect this back.  So if we have imperfect behavior with higher risk sex (barebacking) it's the only obvious reason for so many conversions.  Yet, the conversion rate doesn't match the risk data.

The risk data that I'm looking at here is that a top has approximately a 1% chance of infection when screwing an poz bottom and a neg bottom has a 13% risk when being screwed by a poz top.  This suggests that all the bottoms would be poz very quickly and that it would take around 5 years for the exclusive tops (if you can find them) to convert on the basis of casual hookups with unique partners, assuming again that they are all poz.

My point here is that there is still a gap in the number of albeit higher conversions and the risk rate that is probably out there.  

One logical explanation, is that individuals with an undetectable viral load are less infectious.  This is essentially what the Swiss study concluded in it's study of serodiscordant heterosexual couples engaged in reproductive sex.  It would certainly make sense from just a simple odds making perspective.  If there are fewer copies of the virus then you have fewer opportunities to find the entry into the negative partner.  That's my conclusion and while it isn't perfect, it certainly makes sense to me.  It explains the observations I've personally made about gay sexual practices, it accounts for the increased conversion demographics and it synchs with the swiss study by suggesting that an undetectable viral load reduces the infectiousness of the positive individual.  It's possible that below a certain viral load the ability to pass the infection drops substantially.  A sort of statistical cliff if you will.  

So yes, I think there are things in common between gay and heterosexual acts with regards to the risk posed by unprotected (intentional or accidental i.e. broken condom) sexual acts.  If you like conspiracy theory it would also explain the push to put people on meds who are at higher levels of CD4.  From an epidemiology perspective it's cheaper to treat the current victims then it is to create new ones through a lack of treatment.  While this hasn't come up publicly I bet it does come up.  It came up in the discussions at a City of Houston sponsored meeting last May.  Which is disturbing but produces a net benefit to HIV + individuals, so I don't see any present issue with it.  Just remember, everything is policitical all the time and there is strength in numbers.

[hayyou]

Hotpuppy, thank you for that information.  Stickingaround and I will have to do some more research on the Swiss statement.

[hotpuppy]

You're welcome.  I went and chased down the link... http://www.shcs.ch/

This is a cornucopia of data.  It appears that what is really going on is that they are studying all of the poz patients in Switzerland.  The Europeans have been much farther along on the concept that healthcare isn't a privelage.  The study is actually an analysis of the cohort which is a group of individuals.


The data is a tad hard to understand.... lots and lots of graphs.. but here is one on gay vs straight.


http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=50131

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/116104.php
Quote:
Assuming that each year, each couple has 100 unprotected sexual encounters, the cumulative probability of transmission is:

0.22% for female-to-male transmission,
0.43% for male-to-female transmission, 
4.3% for male-to-male transmission.
For example, in a population of 10,000 partnerships initially discordant for HIV, after ten years the expected number of HIV infections would be 215 from female-to-male transmissions, 425 from male-to-female transmissions, and 3,524 from male-to-male transmission. This new population would indicate an incidence rate four times current rates, when condoms are encouraged.
 ....

The authors conclude that the statement was misleading and provide their own description: Our analyses suggest that the risk of HIV transmission in heterosexual partnerships in the presence of effective treatment is low but non-zero and that the transmission risk in male homosexual partnerships is high over repeated exposures. If the claim of non-infectiousness in effectively treated patients was widely accepted, and condom use subsequently declined, then there is the potential for substantial increases in HIV incidence."

So there you have it.... still haven't found the actual study.
Swiss Federal Commission for HIV/AIDS (SFCHA) is misused, a study released on July 25, 2008 in The Lancet


Found it:
http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?searchTerm=Swiss+Federal+Commission+for+HIV%2FAIDS+&fieldName=ArticleTitleAbstractKeywords&journalFromWhichSearchStarted=

Btw, it is copyrighted material so if you gain access to it please respect the copyright and do not post here. It is illegal and unethical to break copyright.  This should be available at your local library at no charge.

Here is the "free" preview and citation:
1. Articles: Relation between HIV viral load and infectiousness: a model-based analysis
Preview | Summary |Full Text |PDF
 
Our analyses suggest that the risk of HIV transmission in heterosexual partnerships in the presence of effective treatment is low but non-zero and that the transmission risk in male homosexual partnerships is high over repeated exposures. If the claim of non-infectiousness in effectively treated patients was widely accepted, and condom use subsequently declined, then there is the potential for substantial increases in HIV incidence.  Dr David P Wilson PhD, Matthew G Law PhD, Prof Andrew E Grulich PhD, Prof David A Cooper MD, Prof John M Kaldor PhD  July 26, 2008
 The Lancet,
Vol. 372 No. 9635 pp 314-320  42 

Here is a summary of the article:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61115-0/fulltext