Viruses tend to evolve over time to be more benign - as we've seen with another retrovirus (RNA virus), covid.

A pathogen's ability to cause a disease is NOT related to the symptoms it produces. What tends to happen with airbone infections is that weaker strains (with weaker symptoms) are more likely to spread successfuly because they don't affect people's routine. Stronger strains are more likely to make people too ill to actually go out and infect others. Having weaker symptoms is a key to keep the virus circulating, this does not always mean it is more or less harmful.

Take HIV as an example, it basically has no symptom at all. You can live a whole decade completely unaware before getting ill from what HIV has done to your immune system in the past years. HIV is a model of efficiency and there is no evolutional basis for it to become less dangerous or to develop symptoms.

.

Surely HIV has done it a little? surely it's less malign by now, than it was in the 80s and 90s when killing everyone?

This has nothing to do with the virus itself but rather with the drugs used to treat it. There always were reasons to finance new drugs, but prejudice had a big impact on this, both politically and culturally. It took a lot of time for effective drugs to be developed. The first ones did the job but also had enormous side effects so there were lots of people who just prefered to not take them as they'd feel less sick not taking anything...

.

If that's true: Why wouldn't people monitor viral & T or CD4 levels, dial up meds whenever they start to go wrong, but dial back (giving the body & the person a break) if they clearly go the right way?

This question I don't fully understand... If you're referring to drugs that are administrated on a six-monthy basis, for instance, there are lots of factors that impose a burden, like it being too expensive or requiring drug levels that could be harmful to our bodies. It being a possibility or not is up to technological advancement and finnancial investment of course. Currently there are trials taking place for PrEP drugs that are administered on a monthly basis or three-monthly basis.

I was on it as a post infection treatment and I unfortunately learned the hard way about one of the common side effect. Over long term use, it can do irreversible damage to your GI system. As I often put it, it broke my pooper. Even now, many years after not having taken it anymore, and I still have issues with frequent diarrhea. Granted, my issues now are no longer to the extent that they were, and are also no longer at a point of sudden incontinence, but I pay the price to this very day for that decision. That said though, GI system aside, it kept me alive and otherwise healthy for many years, and considering some of the side effects of some of the alternative treatment options at the time, a broken pooper is but a small price to pay.

That's because with HIV, there is more profit to be made in treating the illness over time than there is in curing or preventing the disease from spreading. For example, my meds alone cost over $3,000 per month. It all comes at a staggering $42,500 per year to keep me alive. This is why.

Every 4-6 months.

In Canada, each province has its own public healthcare system and its own program to subsidize drug costs.

HIV treatment can be 100% covered or partially covered by the government, depending on the province. Provinces that do not offer full coverage to everyone usually ask for a patient contribution that is based on income. Also, if the person has supplemental health insurance (generally provided through employment benefits), some provinces may ask the private insurance company to pay for the treatment costs first, if they don't, then the government pays for it.

We also have public sexual health clinics and mental health clinics. PrEP is fully covered by some provinces and I believe PEP is covered almost everywhere.

@nickys1177:

this is like saying are all straight men polygamous? do not ever generalize things and put them in box

Polygamy is a choice, in other words; homosexuality isn't.

@icezkewl:

https://www.preventionaccess.org/consensus

RISK OF SEXUAL TRANSMISSION OF HIV FROM A PERSON LIVING WITH HIV WHO HAS AN UNDETECTABLE VIRAL LOAD..

There is now evidence-based confirmation that the risk of HIV transmission from a person living with HIV (PLHIV), who is on Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) and has achieved an undetectable viral load in their blood for at least 6 months is negligible to non-existent. (Negligible is defined as: so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.) While HIV is not always transmitted even with a detectable viral load, when the partner with HIV has an undetectable viral load this both protects their own health and prevents new HIV infections._However, the majority of PLHIV, medical providers and those potentially at risk of acquiring HIV are not aware of the extent to which successful treatment prevents HIV transmission.[ii] Much of the messaging about HIV transmission risk is based on outdated research and is influenced by agency or funding restraints and politics which perpetuate sex-negativity, HIV-related stigma and discrimination.

The consensus statement below, addressing HIV transmission risk from PLHIV who have an undetectable viral load, is endorsed by principal investigators from each of the leading studies that examined this issue. It is important that PLHIV, their intimate partners and their healthcare providers have accurate information about risks of sexual transmission of HIV from those successfully on ART.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that many PLHIV may not be in a position to reach an undetectable status because of factors limiting treatment access (e.g., inadequate health systems, poverty, racism, denial, stigma, discrimination, and criminalization), pre-existing ART treatment resulting in resistance or ART toxicities. Some may choose not to be treated or may not be ready to start treatment.

Understanding that successful ART prevents transmission can help reduce HIV-related stigma and encourage PLHIV to initiate and adhere to a successful treatment regimen._

To talk about "safe" vs. "unsafe" is an oversimplification.  Risk has to be measured along a continuous scale.  For example:

Jumping out of a second-floor window might be less risky than jumping out of a tenth-floor window.  Does that mean jumping out of the second-floor window is "safe?"

Driving 100 km/hr on an icy road might be less risky than driving 200 km/hr on that road.  Does that mean driving 100 km/hr on ice is "safe?"

There is risk of disease transmission in unprotected oral sex–even without ejaculation.  It's less than the risk of disease transmission from unprotected anal sex with ejaculation.  That doesn't make unprotected oral sex "safe."

@ethernet5:

There is an attitude that I think is growing not just amongst young but middle aged guys that by being on PREP that you are shielded from the worst STI and everything else is something that is fixable - which is increasingly not true - and they just go BB without a care in the world. PREP is a good thing but its abuse like this going BB and forgetting about all the other STIs is a public health crisis waiting to happen. I don't have a lot of sex but I am being propositioned for BB from PREP guys more often that say safe only but offer BB to you ( you're special oK). You're my special 9th guy today… This lax attitude is already causing guys problems. HIV strains not covered by PREP causing infection and herpes which you can't get rid of. Just sad.

Agreed. I only have sex every 4-5 months and when I do the PREP guys offer BB on the apps. One guy offered BB and told about the guys he has sex with and they also have BB sex all over the place too. He says he loves and - cum up your butt feels good - but when all 5 of your mates fuck you I don't really want to dip my dick in your well. Your mates could have given you something that can't be removed or will take a long time to clear up!

Even with 3 month testing there are those lapse periods or time between infection and testing that your spreading that around with randoms and people in your fuck circle. Be on PREP and BB away with a closed exclusive group or please use a damn condom sigh

BB fucks and PREP use usually go hand in hand and I find a lot of guys like this don't know their status (overall) between tests and more middle class guys/ well to do are getting in on the action. More education needed here I think… and less random fucking.

Oops!  😊  Major typo/Freudian slip.

Men can get infected with HIV from fucking women.  Therefore a Top can get AIDS from fucking a man.

@MrMazda:

I started getting regular tests when I was only 16. By the time I was 22, I stopped getting tested to see whether or not I am HIV+, because well… Once ONE HIV test comes back positive, you can't revert back to not having it... So it's kinda pointless to keep testing to determine if you have HIV in the first place, when you already know that you do.

you should still get tested coz assuming you have it you need to take meds

is it lack of funds or lack of research skills or what that scientist cant seem to find the cure? its just a virus. ebola has a cure already. its not like cancer that it is really impossible to find cure.

virus cant seem to survive in saliva plus the exposure to air killed the virus