Watersports and HIV question
-
If someone has an undetectable viral load, is pissing safe? As in swallowing and pissing inside the ass?
-
long story short, NO.
with HIV, any kind of penetration is out of the question.long version, viral load means "in blood" not "in semen/urine"
the genital system is one of the "sanctuary places" where the immune system doesn't work (otherwise it would make reproduction impossible)
that's why people contract HIV by sex but not by coughing on one another or kissing one another. -
I know this is kind of a late reply, but the short answer is NO…. Regardless of the viral load, piss is NEVER an issue. With an undetectable viral load, it's practically impossible to infect someone, even through unprotected anal sex.
-
Yep, I know that, was just wondering about piss. Thanks for the info.
-
Piss is sterile coming out of the body. However, virii can pass from blood to urine. If someone tests negative for HIV, good chance they're clean. Remember, HIV can take 3 months before detection using older systems. Modern tests can get an accurate reading within 24-48 hours after contact. That's why I don't understand why there is still a ban on gays giving blood. The blood banks are screaming for donors, but cut almost half of their supply with the ban. A bigger surprise is that the gay community are the ones that voluntarily said yes to the ban. The facts have changed dramatically; gays have the lowest percentage of the population who are infected. This number continues to decrease. To fully answer the question, watersports is safe as long as it doesn't into the bloodstream by any means. Skin is an excellent barrier.
-
Piss is sterile coming out of the body. However, virii can pass from blood to urine.
Can you provide documentation that this is also the case with HIV? This would be the first that I've ever heard of the potential for the presence of HIV in urine. Also, this begs the question, if urine is sterile, how can it be contaminated with a virus? Wouldn't this mean that it's not sterile? I just don't understand how there can be such an obvious contradiction. As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely NO evidence that proves that this is possible with HIV. By the same token, there is also no evidence that suggests or otherwise proves that HIV is or is not present within ejaculative fluid or pre-cum either… That being said, there is newer documentation that has been made available that seems to suggest (in theory anyway) that with a suppressed viral load, the only place in which to really find the virus within the human body is within the bone marrow. This is why there are a few bizarre and odd-ball cases where claims have been made that HIV treatment medications have been able to remove the virus from the system if administered early enough. Sadly though, there aren't exactly many people jumping at the chance to experiment with this alleged cure theory for obvious ethical reasons.
If someone tests negative for HIV, good chance they're clean.
I would beg to differ on this point. Given the reality of the approximately 2 week window (with some tests that can take up to 3 months, or in VERY rare cases, up to 6 months), it is quite possible that someone who sleeps around on a regular basis can test "clean", and then contract HIV the day after the blood was drawn. These are reasons why I say that HIV testing alone is not necessarily all that it's cracked up to be. There are other variables in the equation to take into account, such as whether or not the person is a complete tramp and sleeps around on the daily.
Remember, HIV can take 3 months before detection using older systems. Modern tests can get an accurate reading within 24-48 hours after contact.
Actually, there's a slight flaw to that statement. By any government approved tests for the masses, the point of seroconversion must occur before the test will yield any result. The immune system must get overwhelmed with the virus as to begin creating the anti-body and protein necessary. This process generally occurs within about 2 weeks. Perhaps with more sophisticated testing it may be possible to come to a determination about whether or not the virus is present, however any of the tests that are available to the masses do not actually detect the actual virus itself… They only detect the "by-products" for lack of a better term. This is largely due to the fact that Public Health (both in Canada & the USA) use the MEIA & Western Blot for their testing methods, which yield a "non-reactive" result if this process has not yet occurred. If there are such tests that can verify this within 24 - 48 hours, this begs the obvious question of why are these tests not the standard norm, instead of the current system that is used in the masses?
The facts have changed dramatically; gays have the lowest percentage of the population who are infected. This number continues to decrease.
Actually, this statement is a little misleading. As far back as 2003, the number of heterosexual women with HIV on a GLOBAL scale exceeded that of gay men. That being said however, within North America, the proportions are actually quite different than looking at stats as a whole on a global scale. According to the CDC, within North America, the number of gay men infected with HIV is still substantially higher than that of any other group.
-
TL;DR: Pissing inside the rectum or swallowing urine is not a safe sex practice.
Piss is sterile coming out of the body. However, virii can pass from blood to urine.
Urine is not sterile. HIV antibodies are detectable in urine and it is entirely probable the HIV is trasmissible by urine - admittedly lower risk than by blood-blood exposure, but still unsafe.
with a suppressed viral load, the only place in which to really find the virus within the human body is within the bone marrow. This is why there are a few bizarre and odd-ball cases where claims have been made that HIV treatment medications have been able to remove the virus from the system if administered early enough. Sadly though, there aren't exactly many people jumping at the chance to experiment with this alleged cure theory for obvious ethical reasons.
In the majority of these cases the virus reemerged and the "cured" peoples' viral loads went back up. And there are very, very, very few cases (single digits) of this cure even having support. Experimental treatments are not uncommon, they're just often unsuccessful and unheard of as a result.
If someone tests negative for HIV, good chance they're clean.
annoying buzzer sound
No. The window period of HIV is well established and 5% of positive people will still test negative after 3 months of being infected. With new testing methods we've reduced this to about 6 weeks. That means you can spend 6 weeks positive and infectious without showing up as positive on a test. HIV tests tell you that 3 months ago, you definitely (read: most probably) didn't have the virus. They do not tell you about the present moment, and as soon as you have sex after that day three months before the test, the test becomes irrelevant anyway.
Remember, HIV can take 3 months before detection using older systems. Modern tests can get an accurate reading within 24-48 hours after contact.
Modern tests give you a RESULT in 20 minutes. They do not indicate that 48 hours ago you were virus free.
The facts have changed dramatically; gays have the lowest percentage of the population who are infected. This number continues to decrease.
Actually, this statement is a little misleading. As far back as 2003, the number of heterosexual women with HIV on a GLOBAL scale exceeded that of gay men. That being said however, within North America, the proportions are actually quite different than looking at stats as a whole on a global scale. According to the CDC, within North America, the number of gay men infected with HIV is still substantially higher than that of any other group.
What Mazda said. Globally, 70% of HIV positive people are heterosexual. In developed countries, men who have sex with men still have the highest seropositivity index and often the highest rates of transmission, but not always the highest rate of increase of rate of transmission (the integral).
-
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.
-
Lots more information, it seems.
-
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.
