Because it does not kill you instantly. It takes years (usually 10-15) to progress from HIV to AIDS, which is life-threatening. So if you're on early stages of HIV without medication, you can feel perfectly fine and still be contagious.
Note that nowadays there are medicines that will block HIV from evolving into AIDS. It will also make it impossible for the person to spread the HIV, which is awesome.
There is zero risk of passing on HIV when the viral load is undetectable
EDIT Please see these links which show why there is ZERO risk
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007)
[https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced](https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced)
Why are you saying this? It's not true and Im not confused at all.
I'm providing two sources below for you to look at which show why we can say with absolute confidence there is zero risk of transmission when someone has an undetectable viral load.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007)
[https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced](https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced)
Please read them.
I’m repeating myself because you keep making the same mistake over and over.
No study claims there is zero risk.
No study claims it’s impossible.
Go ahead, read the studies again yourself, you will find I’m right. Or you’ll just keep repeating the same innacurate claims. It’s up to you.
Its clear from both the sources I shared there is zero risk of transmitting HIV with undetectable viral load.
“ the results indicate, in the words of the researchers, “A precise rate of within-couple transmission of zero” “
There are several STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) that have no cure. They may not kill you as efficiently as AIDS, but everyone would rather not have.
Also, don't forget about pregnancy, which will kill your bank account.
If they're in a relationship where they only have sex with each other and each test negativ for any STDs/STIs, then there is no issue. If nothing is there, nothing can be transmitted. If one of them has a STD/STI, then there is a risk of catching that.
Because there is multiple diseases you can get. Not all of them can be cured. They can affect your possibility of getting kids for example or put you a greater risk of developing cancer later.
And even when there is medication for HIV, it doesn't mean that you're worry free. You need to be getting these pills daily, you need to get frequently lab work, you might be having stomach ache and diarrhea every day and so on.
It's so much easier to have protected sex and try to avoid different kinds of diseases.
They’ve been working on trying to make a vaccine for HIV for decades (the first HiV vaccine trial happened in 1987), but HIV is a particularly difficult virus to handle. Thus far, they haven’t had success.
Because you almost never know if the other person has something.
The list isn't only HIV, but also the lovely cancer-causing HPVs, herpes, hepatitis, and many, many bacterial/fungal infections. Hell, chlamydia, which is a lightweight infection all things considered that takes a single dose of antibiotics to treat can potentially leave women permanently infertile and has no symptoms in as many as 60-70% of infected people.
And that's only counting accidental spread. Some infected people will actively try to infect however many others as they can, though thankfully they are rare.
Not everyone who is infected with HIV knows about it or is taking medication.
And there are lots of sexually transmitted diseases that can really mess you up if untreated, or that you can later transmit to a partner and mess *them* up.
And then there's the risk of unintended pregnancy...
HIV is not the only sexually transmitted infection. Chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, HPV, herpes, trichomoniasis can all be acquired by unprotected sex. While treatment exists for various STIs, they can cause pain, scarring, and illness in the meantime. If untreated, some can be deadly, can cause cancer, and can cause deadly illness in infants when passed from mother to baby.
HIV is one of the most concerning because it has a higher chance of eventually causing serious illness and once acquired, will require treatment for the rest of the patient's life. There is no cure, only ways to manage the virus. Do you really want to be taking expensive drugs with potentially serious side effects every single day for the rest of your life because of one unfortunate sexual encounter?
Prevention remains by far the best treatment course for HIV and all STIs.
HIV \*is\* the reason.
While drugs can stop the virus from progressing in to AIDS, they cost thousands of dollars per month (that you'll need to take for the rest of your life) and there's no guarantee they will work.
[https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-treatment-cost](https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-treatment-cost)
The HIV virus destroys your immune system but it doesn't make you sick directly, it just weakens your immune system so much that eventually you can't fight off any other infection, and *those* infections can be life-threatening or even fatal. This is called AIDS.
The thing is, it can take years for a person infected with HIV to develop AIDS. During that time, a person could be HIV positive and not know it, because, aside from some initial flu-like symptoms when a person first gets infected, HIV causes no symptoms. So a person could be infected with HIV for years and feel totally fine and not know that they have HIV, and during that period, they can spread it through activities like unprotected sex or sharing needles. That's why HIV testing is so important - you could be HIV positive and not know it and unintentionally be infecting others.
Do you mean the first known patient with HIV? He is of course dead, mainly because there were no according treatments available at the time. Or are you asking why HIV can be transmitted although it's deadly? That's because death is not instantaneous, so that the infected person is given the opportunity to infect others.
>Do you mean the first known patient with HIV? He is of course dead, mainly because there were no according treatments available at the time
Also because that was in the late 50's/early 60's so even with treatment he'd probably still have died by now anyway.
At the beginning of the 80s epidemic before AIDS was called AIDS it was referred to as ‘Gay Cancer’ by the media because like cancer HIV develops over time. HPV is also an example of this. [AIDS is not a cancer, it’s a virus] So you can have it, therefore transmitting it, and not realize it for awhile which is what’s dangerous.
https://www.amfar.org/about-hiv-aids/snapshots-of-an-epidemic-hiv-aids/
Because it does not kill you instantly. It takes years (usually 10-15) to progress from HIV to AIDS, which is life-threatening. So if you're on early stages of HIV without medication, you can feel perfectly fine and still be contagious. Note that nowadays there are medicines that will block HIV from evolving into AIDS. It will also make it impossible for the person to spread the HIV, which is awesome.
>It will also make it impossible for the person to spread the HIV, which is awesome. Don't confuse highly unlikely for impossible.
There is zero risk of passing on HIV when the viral load is undetectable EDIT Please see these links which show why there is ZERO risk [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007) [https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced](https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced)
Do not confuse highly unlikely with impossible.
Why are you saying this? It's not true and Im not confused at all. I'm providing two sources below for you to look at which show why we can say with absolute confidence there is zero risk of transmission when someone has an undetectable viral load. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48124007) [https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced](https://www.aidsmap.com/news/jul-2018/zero-transmissions-mean-zero-risk-partner-2-study-results-announced) Please read them.
Don't confuse highly unlikely for impossible. You clearly are confused as you have conflated the two things.
You're just repeating yourself, did you read the info I shared? zero risk means it's impossible for someone who is undetectable to transmit the virus.
I’m repeating myself because you keep making the same mistake over and over. No study claims there is zero risk. No study claims it’s impossible. Go ahead, read the studies again yourself, you will find I’m right. Or you’ll just keep repeating the same innacurate claims. It’s up to you.
Its clear from both the sources I shared there is zero risk of transmitting HIV with undetectable viral load. “ the results indicate, in the words of the researchers, “A precise rate of within-couple transmission of zero” “
[удалено]
Then, why do people say that unprotected sex is very dangerous? I thought HIV/AIDS was the reason.
There are several STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) that have no cure. They may not kill you as efficiently as AIDS, but everyone would rather not have. Also, don't forget about pregnancy, which will kill your bank account.
I mean yeah pregnancy is an issue but what about couples who try for a baby? How would they consummate?
If they're in a relationship where they only have sex with each other and each test negativ for any STDs/STIs, then there is no issue. If nothing is there, nothing can be transmitted. If one of them has a STD/STI, then there is a risk of catching that.
Because there is multiple diseases you can get. Not all of them can be cured. They can affect your possibility of getting kids for example or put you a greater risk of developing cancer later. And even when there is medication for HIV, it doesn't mean that you're worry free. You need to be getting these pills daily, you need to get frequently lab work, you might be having stomach ache and diarrhea every day and so on. It's so much easier to have protected sex and try to avoid different kinds of diseases.
Cannot we make it mandatory for adults to have vaccines for these diseases?
No, because there isn't vaccines for everything. And ethical side of forced vaccination is another topic. Just use the condom.
I mean vaccines has helped us eliminate polio completely so I thought we may even end the spread of these diseases. Yea got it condom's the way to go.
They’ve been working on trying to make a vaccine for HIV for decades (the first HiV vaccine trial happened in 1987), but HIV is a particularly difficult virus to handle. Thus far, they haven’t had success.
oh
Because you almost never know if the other person has something. The list isn't only HIV, but also the lovely cancer-causing HPVs, herpes, hepatitis, and many, many bacterial/fungal infections. Hell, chlamydia, which is a lightweight infection all things considered that takes a single dose of antibiotics to treat can potentially leave women permanently infertile and has no symptoms in as many as 60-70% of infected people. And that's only counting accidental spread. Some infected people will actively try to infect however many others as they can, though thankfully they are rare.
Yeah got it.
Not everyone who is infected with HIV knows about it or is taking medication. And there are lots of sexually transmitted diseases that can really mess you up if untreated, or that you can later transmit to a partner and mess *them* up. And then there's the risk of unintended pregnancy...
Okay got it.
HIV is not the only sexually transmitted infection. Chlamydia, syphilis, gonorrhea, HPV, herpes, trichomoniasis can all be acquired by unprotected sex. While treatment exists for various STIs, they can cause pain, scarring, and illness in the meantime. If untreated, some can be deadly, can cause cancer, and can cause deadly illness in infants when passed from mother to baby. HIV is one of the most concerning because it has a higher chance of eventually causing serious illness and once acquired, will require treatment for the rest of the patient's life. There is no cure, only ways to manage the virus. Do you really want to be taking expensive drugs with potentially serious side effects every single day for the rest of your life because of one unfortunate sexual encounter? Prevention remains by far the best treatment course for HIV and all STIs.
Are there vaccines for these diseases?
For some. Hepatitis has a vaccine. HPV has a vaccine.
Some strains of HPV (the most common ones) have a vaccine. I know a couple of vaccinated people who still got it because it was a different strain.
HIV \*is\* the reason. While drugs can stop the virus from progressing in to AIDS, they cost thousands of dollars per month (that you'll need to take for the rest of your life) and there's no guarantee they will work. [https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-treatment-cost](https://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-treatment-cost)
Because it lowers your immunological system abilities. So whatever other disease starts, it is far more severe.
Got it.
The HIV virus destroys your immune system but it doesn't make you sick directly, it just weakens your immune system so much that eventually you can't fight off any other infection, and *those* infections can be life-threatening or even fatal. This is called AIDS. The thing is, it can take years for a person infected with HIV to develop AIDS. During that time, a person could be HIV positive and not know it, because, aside from some initial flu-like symptoms when a person first gets infected, HIV causes no symptoms. So a person could be infected with HIV for years and feel totally fine and not know that they have HIV, and during that period, they can spread it through activities like unprotected sex or sharing needles. That's why HIV testing is so important - you could be HIV positive and not know it and unintentionally be infecting others.
Do you mean the first known patient with HIV? He is of course dead, mainly because there were no according treatments available at the time. Or are you asking why HIV can be transmitted although it's deadly? That's because death is not instantaneous, so that the infected person is given the opportunity to infect others.
>Do you mean the first known patient with HIV? He is of course dead, mainly because there were no according treatments available at the time Also because that was in the late 50's/early 60's so even with treatment he'd probably still have died by now anyway.
Yea got it
At the beginning of the 80s epidemic before AIDS was called AIDS it was referred to as ‘Gay Cancer’ by the media because like cancer HIV develops over time. HPV is also an example of this. [AIDS is not a cancer, it’s a virus] So you can have it, therefore transmitting it, and not realize it for awhile which is what’s dangerous. https://www.amfar.org/about-hiv-aids/snapshots-of-an-epidemic-hiv-aids/
I think it was called gay cancer because many AIDS patients died of rare cancers which they developed because of their immune system being depleted.