Are you asking this in light of mutations in case you want to bareback with me?
Right I get that part, but assuming the Haart regimen his partner is on is not what his virus is resistant to I would assume his meds would act as pep for the virus meaning super infection couldn't occur.
[/quote
Different strains can be resistant to different drugs. For example 3DCR is resistant to three of the four types of antivirals
Are you asking this in light of mutations in case you want to bareback with me?
I've gotten a lot of conflicting info about super-infection. The HIV pharmacist at the practice I go to says she sees it all the time--especially in partners who are both poz. I read Dr. Gallant and docs on thebody say they think it is very, very rare for people who've been poz for several years. They say it usually happens with people newly infected. So, I remain confused as usual..lol.
I've gotten a lot of conflicting info about super-infection. The HIV pharmacist at the practice I go to says she sees it all the time--especially in partners who are both poz. I read Dr. Gallant and docs on thebody say they think it is very, very rare for people who've been poz for several years. They say it usually happens with people newly infected. So, I remain confused as usual..lol.
So, let's say 2 guys are getting it on unprotected with 2 different strains of HIV and both are undetectable and on HAART. Superinfection would seem to be impossible right? I know with an undetectable viral load infection is less likely and I would conjecture that the HAART regimen they are on would work like PEP and destroy any incoming virus?\
Just curious if that makes sense or not.
\
Don't know exactly, but personally I just don't buy any of this super duper squared infection stuff. My wife and I have been on two different regimens and also on the same regimen, different times of course, and I don't like condoms... and I don't like to pull out. Nothings come of it so far, she's been undetectable during our whole relationship. Both of our Cd4's have been 1000+, hers the whole time, while I steadily climbed from a count of 103..
We've been together for 4 years now and have had lots of nasty fi.. um sex.
Hold on back this up. You're a man...and she's not a man? And you had sex? Can you start from the beginning? I'm totally lost.
Hold on back this up. You're a man...and she's not a man? And you had sex? Can you start from the beginning? I'm totally lost.
MArco is going to be upset about that rainbow being black and white. ;D
Mary please -- you can find conflicting information on how to tie shoes too. Who are you going to believe, the pharmacist or Gallant? Come on.
I would trust Dr. Gallant. I don't even like the HIV pharmacist. She is so condescending. She is also the one who told me when I first came to the office that she was totally sure I was HIV neg and had gotten a false/positive. When it came back poz again, she changed her story and acted like she didn't say that.
She still says she has couples who develop their partner's resistance to meds after not having them before. Is this different from super-infection? I am from KY you know.
Ted, if she changed her story about something you knew to be true, then why are you thinking she's telling you the truth about these alleged couples? Sounds to me like she's full of the poopie-stuff.
I was just reading a question to a doc on thebody. Here is the Q&A.in that scenario, neither partner was on meds at all (much less off meds sufficiently to cause resistance mutations to occur) so I don't see why they would even worry about superinfection. More than likely one partner was infected and passed it along to the other partner, so both would have the same virus with identical mutations (if any).
Yeah I was just asking so that hopefully I can put my fears of reinfecting another pozzie aside should I decide to do the deed without a parachute. Of course me having sex at this point is purely theoretical as well.just like the straights with UD VL can have sex and get pregnant without passing along any virus, the same "should" hold true for gays. I mean how can an UD VL be passed on (ie reinfection)? ???
Of course me having sex at this point is purely theoretical as well.don't give up hope! ;D
Yeah I was just asking so that hopefully I can put my fears of reinfecting another pozzie aside should I decide to do the deed without a parachute. Of course me having sex at this point is purely theoretical as well.
So basically you're just wasting our time here.
Typical, a doctor trying to avoid a lawsuit.
They seem to do a lot of that over at tehbodeh.
No I have a particular Philadelphian squarely in my sights. I'm just now crushing up the roofies to get them into powder form and put them in the mail.
I just read that cooinfection with HIV-2 is more common in Latin America than previously thought:
http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/cienciaesaude/ultimas-noticias/estado/2010/09/02/pesquisa-confirma-infeccao-pelo-hiv-2-em-15-casos-no-brasil.jhtm
Many drugs which are fine for HIV1, aren't effective when HIV2 is involved.
HIV-2 is rare in Europe, but the German singer had it, which made the transmission easier to trace and confirm. Had she had HIV-1, it might have been more difficult to say that it was she who infected her ex-partner.
well trey my doc told me not to have sex with another poz she said I could get in bad trouble I left it at that,i get the picture. Made the wrong mistake once :)
well trey my doc told me not to have sex with another poz she said I could get in bad trouble I left it at that,i get the picture. Made the wrong mistake once :)
yes I guess ur right I am gonna have a talk with her
other than her sayin that she really is good
I don't follow the logic of HAART which is effective against HIV1 would not be effective against HIV2 unless perhaps HIV2 has some sort of resistance to one class or a couple of classes of drugs? Can you link something that backs up that statement?
In vitro (laboratory) studies suggest that nucleoside analogs are active against HIV-2, though not as active as against HIV-1. Protease inhibitors should be active against HIV-2. However, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) are not active against HIV-2.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/hiv2.htm
My partner is also afraid of superinfection so he won't let me cum in him. All I have to say is...If reinfection was real, there's no way I wouldn't have it. I demand all my tops to either cum in my ass or my mouth. I don't have sex for the good feeling. I endure it for the creamy ending.
"Why does it have to be 2 Guys bare backing???"if doesn't have to be. ;) that was just a side chat in the bigger conversation. Of course though, with cases of HIV in America being around 60% m2m, when Americans talk about HIV, you're going to hear alot about 2 guys having sex ;D
but something is bad wrong if you are exchanging brain matter between partners!.
Is what she said: "no unprotected sex with another HIV+" ?Like I said, Our doctor told us, and even took the time put it in writing I might add, that it was a risk and we should carefully consider before unprotected sex whether were really willing to take that risk. His advice was if it happened, it would require med changes and further reduce the number of treatment options. Rubbers still suck, but what do you do? We have 2 friends that have resistant strains of virus. Not all meds work depending on your resistance, so it is possible to add additional mutations to whatever mutations your strain of virus already has. This is why you hear of pos. people that sero-shop their partners.
That sounds like advice a doctor might give.
His advice was if it happened, it would require med changes and further reduce the number of treatment options.
Our doctor told us, and even took the time put it in writing I might add, that it was a risk and we should carefully consider before unprotected sex whether were really willing to take that risk. His advice was if it happened, it would require med changes and further reduce the number of treatment options. Rubbers still suck, but what do you do? We have 2 friends that have resistant strains of virus. Not all meds work depending on your resistance, so it is possible to add additional mutations to whatever mutations your strain of virus already has. This is why you hear of pos. people that sero-shop their partners.the issue lies in that partners have to actually have enough virus to transmit. Of course, just like with oral sex, the risk is not 0%; however, when both partners are UD to whatever strain of HIV with it's resistance that they have, then the transmission from one currently-treated UD partner to another currently-treated UD partner is virtually nil.
Of course, just like with oral sex, the risk is not 0%
While I totally agree with the gist of our post, I wish people would stop saying "Oral sex" as though it was one act, with one set of circumstances. Insertive versus receptive fellatio, insertive versus receptive cunnilingus, reflect an ongoing issue with transmission that bleeds freely into the superinfection issue.
Worth repeating again and again and again and again.... this is one of the main problems we have in the Am I forum, this idiotic generalisation of what constitutes a risk. And even when things like "receptive oral" are specified, people still don't get it because they think "I received a blowjob" when it actually means receiving the other person's genitals into your mouth. Why can't we just say "getting your dick sucked is no risk"? Why does it have to be couched in pseudo-scientific language? Call a fucking spade a fucking (or sucking) spade already and cut out the damned ambiguity. Fuck me. It pisses me off no end.
[/rant]
just like the straights with UD VL can have sex and get pregnant without passing along any virus, the same "should" hold true for gays. I mean how can an UD VL be passed on (ie reinfection)? ???
don't give up hope! ;D
Hope is a delightful thing! Actually the best chance of a positive mother not passing HIV onto their newborn is if the mother is on meds, thus reducing the viral load in the bloodstream. There is a second level of protection in that the placenta is somewhat of a barrier itself. Most newborns that get infected usually acquire HIV from breastmilk. I haven't yet met a man with a placenta up his ass. something to give thought about.
we still get lonely at times and yes we will part this earth alone.. thats why Jesus is sooo amazing- when no one else is around and even ur loved ones can hurt ur feelings sometimes- Jesus is Always there and would Never hurt you... i pray that the Spirit of the Lord overwhelms you and overcomes you and takes away any bad feelings and any lies from the devil and replaces them with peace and comfort and joy.. Your never alone when you have Jesus- God bless you.
posting in the quote box again. ???
[/quote]O.k. Where is MissPhilicia? I do think he has been abducted by an alien being who has stolen his sign in pass word.
Most newborns that get infected usually acquire HIV from breastmilk. I haven't yet met a man with a placenta up his ass. something to give thought about.Most HIV infection of newborns (which technically is very off-topic to the subject of superinfection) comes through the actual birth process or through breastfeeding. sadly the placenta really doesn't help protect babies too much during either of those events
Actually the best chance of a positive mother not passing HIV onto their newborn is if the mother is on meds, thus reducing the viral load in the bloodstream.more information that having an UD viral load reduces the chance of the virus being spread ;)
Most HIV infection of newborns (which technically is very off-topic to the subject of superinfection) comes through the actual birth process or through breastfeeding. sadly the placenta really doesn't help protect babies too much during either of those events
"HIV can cross the placenta during pregnancy, infect the baby during the birth process, and unlike most other STDs, can infect the baby through breastfeeding."
http://www.cdc.gov/std/pregnancy/STDFact-Pregnancy.htm
"Mothers with higher viral loads are more likely to infect their babies. However, no viral load is low enough to be "safe." Infection can occur any time during pregnancy, but usually happens just before or during delivery. The baby is more likely to be infected if the delivery takes a long time. During delivery, the newborn is exposed to the mother's blood. Drinking breast milk from an infected woman can also infect babies
It's certainly not something I worry about and my poz partner and I never use condoms. With each other, anyway. ;)
The placenta does give some protection which is not equivelient to no protection.you obviously misunderstood me. I think we're actually saying the same things. Perhaps if I had worded it so that it meant that the HIV+ male with an UD VL did not pass along the virus to his offspring, you would have understand better what I mean about the straight couples not spreading the virus. I mainly replied because your sexist, and vaguely homophobic, comment of men not having a placenta up their ass kinda got under my skin. ;)
When the blood does cross the placentafortunately I did show a CDC link that states the opposite of what you wrote. Since the most I know about birthing and placenta has been with puppies (5 litters of cocker spaniels over the years), where the moms have totally grossed me out by eating the placenta :o, I will be happy to read through your links when you provide them. I didn't really think that I needed to know much about birthing, being 48 and gay, and since we were discussing superinfection in this thread; but I do read a lot of non-fiction so I'll be happy to read your links too and see why you're "disagreeing", not with me, but with information from the CDC and UNAIDS that I quoted.
We are now sero discordant from mutations caused by treatment breaks. Even if sex were possible anymore, which it isn't thanks to my husbands horrendous prostate cancer surgery, we were warned at our ID clinic NOT to take the risk of unprotected sex with each other as the risk to my husband acquiring new mutations was a real possibility. They have even gone so far as to test him for new mutations just to be sure he hasn't caught any new resistances.Technically you are not sero-discordant as you both are positive ;) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serodiscordant); however your strains are discordant due to mutations.
"We do know that adherence to treatments may impact and provide protection against the possibility of re-infection occurring (e.g. it may be less likely to occur if both HIV positive partners are currently on treatments with a low or undetectable viral load)."so someone at your ID clinic told you the exact opposite of the NAPWA literature "HIV Tests and Treatments" from aug 2009. I could understand the poz-on-poz sex warning if we were seeing this superinfection phenomomen amongst UD VL pozzies, but so far that is not the case. there's been a lot of poz-on-poz sex in the last 30 yrs ;D and if superinfection was happening to pozzies with UD VL, a whole lot of us here would be dealing with the issue and finding that our meds were failing. That just isn't happening.
And on a side note since I am throwing rocks at your windows, you may not know/ remember the circumstance, but thank you for the time you were so nice to my husband.without emoticons, printed words sometimes are hard to interpret, but since you said "throwing rocks at my windows", should I take it that your comment was sarcastic? I have actually wondered if you were related to another member here, so perhaps I do remember speaking with him. ;)
Ann likes to swing?? :o
Ann is off the hook.
so do you believe in "superinfection"? since you said "throwing rocks at my windows", should I take it that your comment was sarcastic?.Quote
I just feel like when I argue with someone that it is like throwing rocks. Sorry. don't mean anything bad, just trying to get the story straight.Quotewithout emoticons, printed words sometimes are hard to interpret, b I have actually wondered if you were related to another member here, so perhaps I do remember speaking with him. ;)Quote
Not a member any more, but you were very nice to him at the time.
QuoteI came across a 99 Texas report httpQuote
TOO OLD! 1999???
Perinatal transmission accounts for 91% of all AIDS cases among children in the United States. Antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy can reduce the transmission rate to 2% or less. The transmission rate is 25% without treatment."
"Prenatally (in utero): Some babies acquire HIV because the virus crossed the placenta during pregnancy -- this doesn't happen very often, but it can. During pregnancy, the mother's blood supply is connected to the fetal blood supply via the umbilical cord and placenta. The mother and the baby do not share the same blood supply, but sometimes HIV in the mother's blood is able to cross the placenta and infect the baby. The following conditions can increase the risk of transmission during gestation:
This was enough to say it all.
Technically you are not sero-discordant as you both are positive ;) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serodiscordant); however your strains are discordant due to mutations.
Why do people make forum posts that are literally three times the length of my 21.5" iMac screen? I mean honestly, nobody is going to read that. tl;dr x 10
Why do people make forum posts that are literally three times the length of my 21.5" iMac screen? I mean honestly, nobody is going to read that. tl;dr x 10hey, it's not my fault that without tons of research noted that someone will nitpick a post to tiny little shreds to find the little ittiest-bittiest bitch to fuss about. Lord knows, there are some mighty bitchy people here that just love to come out of the woodword to nitpick things other people post, so I say it's better to post long and super scientific than give those people one iota with which to fault me. Anyway just earlier JK was fussing about gawkers misconstruing all of our posts here. I laid out a lot of evidence there so no unfortunate passerby would misconstrue anything I posted.
tl;dri read about 5 books a week, so anyone that uses an excuse of it's too long so I didn't read it, sounds like either someone that's illiterate or a whiner to me. I would never, in a million yrs, say that someone's post, book, or article was so long that I just didn't bother to read it - and then have the temerity to try to comment on it.
You spent a lot of time on your last post. I hope you didn't have to cancel any dates to do all that.nope, it took about 30 mins of research to throw that together. Although I haven't needed that info before, now that I'm working with my ASO, their health fair booths, and the state AIDS task force (and now probably need to know more than just the "gay" statistics) maybe that info will come in handy. ;D
TOO OLD! 1999???i mentioned that because I'm sure that it is because of that study and studies similar to that which led to the new Texas law of which you spoke. They usually don't make up health laws out of the clear blue. In Texas there was obviously a problem with a lack of prenatal care leading to more infected babies (as the '99 study showed) which led to that newer law. How sad that it took a decade to make the changes.
If you don't want to hold a legitimate conversation, with appropriate references, then I suggest moving back along to one of your endless personal posts about dildoes or Brazilian boys or your frankly off-topic weirdo posts about Jesus
I would never, in a million yrs, say that someone's post, book, or article was so long that I just didn't bother to read it - and then have the temerity to try to comment on it.
shit! half of my previous post was clearly marked to be links about hiv infections in newborns and not necessary to this topic anyway, so that means you could have have skipped the half that didn't pertain.
I'm sure in comparison to the Palmetto dilettantes you are accustomed to I'm a horribly exotic creature.Hardly. :D after 25 yrs amongst the Buckeyes and visiting around in all those nearby Yankee states, people in SC are actually much more exotic right now. Besides, quite frankly, as Leatherman, there's not much that I haven't already seen or done myself. ;)
I'll be sure to insert copious emoticonsthat'll be the day, says mIkIe the king of emoticons. ROFL :D At least then others would have understood that your Jesus-related post was meant as sarcasm if you had added this --> ::)
nope, it took about 30 mins of research to throw that together. In Texas there was obviously a problem with a lack of prenatal care leading to more infected babies (as the '99 study showed) which led to that newer law. How sad that it took a decade to make the changes.
Just because a study is old doesn't always mean that the data is irrelevant. ;) Oh and thank you for reading my post and the research material that I took the time to find, learn about, and post links for you. :-*
back to the OT, (I am interested in the topic itself)
I ALWAYS use condoms ( a 25 years - 100 % adherence to this policy that had one and only one YET DRAMATIC exception - I've learned my lesson !)
I ALWAYS use condoms because I feared getting the nasty virus and I would hate infecting anyone , and, I am married.
I am 100 % GAY and that is fine with me
I am happily married to the only person I truly care about
unexpectedly she is a SHE (and that does not make me BI - please...)
I have engaged in this unnatural sex inclusive relationship because I could (only with her, though) and she liked it. I did not really liked IT, I like HER (how romantic, isn't it?)
We 've aged. got nice kids, nice house, nice job, nice $$ , what have you.
Love , true love, but ... no sex ... I am quite younger than her. She does not mind not having sex. I DO
I am craving for good ol'(gay) sex. I would consider a semi-exclusive relationship, but, what guy would like to be in a relationship with a married guy (no intention to divorce)
Now that I am no more at risk to get the NASTY ONE and under meds and hopefully soon UD not at risk of spreading, I am always questioning myself
I see people in Gay clubs freely having the kind of sex I like, I get invited to it. I see all these guys having fun BARE
They really enjoy. I just watch or participate with rubber (cuts the pleasure, I must admit)
Sometimes, I feel I would be more 'accepted' if I'd be more 'free' (bare)
Casual sex is my most likely option (I have no free time for dual life - I once had, though, BF + WIFE, could have worked out for me but they HATED each other so much, still do)
Is it OK to engage in casual bare sex now that I pay my dues to what was once the horror of our fate twice-daily ?
I'm lost...
Eric
... earned sufficient decency points to start fucking anonymous tricks bare?