MrBrownJay1:
well, they can still get married and have a wonderful life together (they will just have to be very careful)...

They can what?..... lemme hear you say get married or make pin.

Dshocker:
They can what?..... lemme hear you say get married or make pin.

lol, you are funny bro, but let me ask:" why do men like you want to marry women?!"

MrBrownJay1:


just because the virus is so low in the system, that it cant be detected, DOES NOT mean the virus isnt there.

Dear, since you still insisting you're correct, let me enlighten you. HIV is a just a type of virus out of over a million other viruses roaming around. It particularly attacks a type of immune system cells (white blood cells) known as T Cells, by invading, and making copies of its virioin, thereby killing the cells off in the process, while multiplying rapidly to attach other uninfected cells. The less T cells a person has, the more prone such person is, to illnesses and diseases that would easily have been managed if he/she was negative. Such a person will also be prone to malignancies (cancers), because these particular cells also make sure those cancerous overgrowths are managed. Without such T cells to keep them in check, these malignancies tend to sprout up and become deadly. Basically, that's it. There's no sugar or salt to it.

How ARVs work is, the disrupt the process the virions take in order to attack a T cell. If any of the virion's cell attacking process is disrupted, the virion cannot do anything, and will essentially perish. The HIV virus can not exist without living a cell (it attacked) The arv drugs work by protecting those un infected t cells from being attacked, and also essentially locking out those other infected ones from being able to multiply. Essentially the virus within those cells die. So basically that's the theory of being undetectable (on a blood level). It basically means there are no active viruses in the person's blood stream, which technically means if that person goes and have a hiv prick test, he/she will show up as being negative. This is a fact, madam.

The problem however is the elusivity of the virus. Some will eventually attach themselves to cellular places where the ARVs can't reach. The brain, semen, breastmilk and especially the bone marrow et cetera. Current ARV drugs can't reach there and hence, the need to maintain a regular adherence with drugs. Because once those virions notice the barriers for infections are open (which means, when the person assumes he's cured and no longer taking his or her drugs seriously, or even at all) the virus bounces back with more ferocity and becomes resistant to the regular drugs that were formally being used. And this is extra serious wahala.

This is why, when a person suspects being exposed, he or she is advised to go to the hospital immediately before 72 hours and the person will be administered with PEP, in other to rid his/her blood from any presently forming viruses. After 4 days, it it theorized that the HIV virus would have gained a foothold deep in the bone marrow, which is absolutely impossible to eradicate unless vía stem cell therapy, which is expensive and risky but works.

Two people have been cured so far with this method, and another one is currently being monitored.

Use Google and stop embarrassing Nigerians.

Have a good day but if you challenge me again, I'll finish you off with my final blow. Peace.

MrBrownJay1:


lol, you are funny bro, but let me ask:" why do men like you want to marry women?!"

I swear i don't think I love any woman,no matter how beautiful she is....I have very strong pending issues that i need to solve,not women

Dshocker:


I swear i don't think I love any woman,no matter how beautiful she is....I have very strong pending issues that i need to solve,not women

fair enough... hopefully someday your life issues will be resolved and you can finally focus on having a good woman in your life, to share great moments with.

NoContract:

Dear, since you still insisting you're correct, let me enlighten you. HIV is a just a type of virus out of over a million other viruses roaming around. It particularly attacks a type of immune system cells (white blood cells) known as T Cells, by invading, and making copies of its virioin, thereby killing the cells off in the process, while multiplying rapidly to attach other uninfected cells. The less T cells a person has, the more prone such person is, to illnesses and diseases that would easily have been managed if he/she was negative. Such a person will also be prone to malignancies (cancers), because these particular cells also make sure those cancerous overgrowths are managed. Without such T cells to keep them in check, these malignancies tend to sprout up and become deadly. Basically, that's it. There's no sugar or salt to it.

How ARVs work is, the disrupt the process the virions take in order to attack a T cell. If any of the virion's cell attacking process is disrupted, the virion cannot do anything, and will essentially perish. The HIV virus can not exist without living a cell (it attacked) The arv drugs work by protecting those un infected t cells from being attacked, and also essentially locking out those other infected ones from being able to multiply. Essentially the virus within those cells die. So basically that's the theory of being undetectable (on a blood level). It basically means there are no active viruses in the person's blood stream, which technically means if that person goes and have a hiv prick test, he/she will show up as being negative. This is a fact, madam.

The problem however is the elusivity of the virus. Some will eventually attach themselves to cellular places where the ARVs can't reach. The brain, semen, breastmilk and especially the bone marrow et cetera. Current ARV drugs can't reach there and hence, the need to maintain a regular adherence with drugs. Because once those virions notice the barriers for infections are open (which means, when the person assumes he's cured and no longer taking his or her drugs seriously, or even at all) the virus bounces back with more ferocity and becomes resistant to the regular drugs that were formally being used. And this is extra serious wahala.

This is why, when a person suspects being exposed, he or she is advised to go to the hospital immediately before 72 hours and the person will be administered with PEP, in other to rid his/her blood from any presently forming viruses. After 4 days, it it theorized that the HIV virus would have gained a foothold deep in the bone marrow, which is absolutely impossible to eradicate unless vía stem cell therapy, which is expensive and risky but works.

Two people have been cured so far with this method, and another one is currently being monitored.

Use Google and stop embarrassing Nigerians.

Have a good day but if you challenge me again, I'll finish you off with my final blow. Peace.

ARRANT SMOKESCREEN GIBBERISH RUBBISH!!!!!

you can try to smoke screen the issue with the above gibberish nonsense, but the questions i asked you still stand:

- can a person on ARVs go to a blood bank and give blood transfusion (since you believe they are virus free)?!
- are you saying that it is safe for drug users to share needles with a person on ARVs?!
- are you saying it is safe for anyone to be in direct blood contact with someone on ARVs?
- how can a nursing mother on ARVs infect a child through breastfeeding, if "supposedly" she is virus free (as you claim)?!
- if PrEP was so safe then why dont they give it to EVERYBODY then?! that would be the end of AIDS isnt it?!

and lets not forget:
I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK (OUT OF ALL YOUR ABOVE BS LINK) THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

MrBrownJay1:


ARRANT SMOKESCREEN GIBBERISH RUBBISH!!!!!

I knew your ego will make you gullibly fall for my final request.

- Can a person on ARVs go to a blood bank and give blood transfusion (since you believe they are virus free)?!

—No. Because while technically there are no viruses present (only) in the bloodstream, there are copies hidden in places where the ARVs can't reach, lying dormant and waiting to strike if one misses his or her drugs. I explained this in the previous post, and if you were smart enough you'd easily theorize the reason it wouldn't make sense to accept such blood is because you can't always trust with certainty that a non monitored person (educated or not) would adhere to his or her drugs, every day all the time. There are a lot of other external factors that can make that happen. There are also a myriad of biological/scientific reasons why it's just safe to avoid such blood in its entirety (that I can't explain here unless you want me to write a textbook, since you can't research on your own)


- Are you saying that it is safe for drug users to share needles with a person on ARVs?!

–Honestly are you listening to yourself? Why, in the first instance would anyone (safe or not) in their right senses, want to share needles with anyone? Your ignorance happens to stem from the moral assumption that the majority of infections were via sharing of needles. This was true during the early days of the epidemic, and not now. Infact the highest percentage of infected folks happened to be sexually. Not that I am dismissing the possibility of needles sharing though. And again, if undetectable, a HIV positive person poses no risk whatsoever to whoever uses his or her needles or sharp objects. Undetectable is the word. This is a fact.

- Are you saying it is safe for anyone to be in direct blood contact with someone on ARVs?

–This is utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone be in direct blood contact with others to start with? The chances of these acts you're emphasizing on to happen is slim to none, and usually accidental. And again, undetectability is the key. A (confirmed) undetectable status is safe, either in the case of any accidental sharp object or direct contact. There is no (or not enough) virus in the blood to trigger an infection. Please grab a biology book and stop being genuinely stupid.

-How can a nursing mother on ARVs infect a child through breastfeeding, if "supposedly" she is virus free (as you claim)?!

–Read the above. I can't help you anymore. You're deliberately trying to prove a point that doesn't make sense.

- if PrEP was so safe then why dont they give it to EVERYBODY then?! that would be the end of AIDS isnt it?!

–It's actually not free. Also don't forget that this is a third world country, and other issues. But it works. And has proven so over the years.

and lets not forget:
I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK (OUT OF ALL YOUR ABOVE BS LINK) THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

You keep screaming about blood transfusion. You self, when was the last time you donated blood, you sit on your high comfy horse acting like the superior moralista the world needs. Abeg Park well and be honest for once. No one goes around sharing needles anyhow. Be open minded and use google. I don't have time for idiocy anymore. I'd recommend you read this book And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic by Randy Shilts

I have e copies if you would be so humble to ask.

Play safe.

NoContract:

—No. Because while technically there are no viruses present (only) in the bloodstream, there are copies hidden in places where the ARVs can't reach, lying dormant and waiting to strike if one misses his or her drugs. I explained this in the previous post, and if you were smart enough you'd easily theorize the reason it wouldn't make sense to accept such blood is because you can't always trust with certainty that a non monitored person (educated or not) would adhere to his or her drugs, every day all the time. There are a lot of other external factors that can make that happen. There are also a myriad of biological/scientific reasons why it's just safe to avoid such blood in its entirety (that I can't explain here unless you want me to write a textbook, since you can't research on your own)

so you just prove my point (by copying what i wrote earlier) that people on ARVs aint 100% safe, as i have stated all along!

–Honestly are you listening to yourself? Why, in the first instance would anyone (safe or not) in their right senses, want to share needles with anyone? Your ignorance happens to stem from the moral assumption that the majority of infections were via sharing of needles. This was true during the early days of the epidemic, and not now. Infact the highest percentage of infected folks happened to be sexually. Not that I am dismissing the possibility of needles sharing though.

it is a well known fact that many people get HIV infected via sharing of needles (drug users, diabetics, doctors, dentists etc)... and with the current HEROIN/FENTANYL epidemic in the US, i can assure you that the number of HIV infection will greatly rise. just because the majority of people who get infected is via sexual contact DOES NOT therefore mean that we should disregard other means by which the virus spreads.

but hey, I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

And again, if undetectable, a HIV positive person poses no risk whatsoever to whoever uses his or her needles or sharp objects. Undetectable is the word. This is a fact.

LIES!!!!! LIES!!!!! LIES!!!!! LIES!!!! LIES!!!!! LIES!!!!
...and here ladies and gentlemen is the reason why the virus keeps on spreading and growing, when you have DEMONS writing rubbish online that will have people get wrong informations and foolishly follow them and get infected!
undetectable means that the amount of HIV in their system is so little that they can live a normal life, BUT the virus is always there, and if you are in direct contact with that blood, YOU WILL GET INFECTED!!!!!
PLEASE PEOPLE BEWARE AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!! PLS PEOPLE BEWARE AND EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!!

again...I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

–This is utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone be in direct blood contact with others to start with?

many people get infected through direct blood contact (needles, sharp object, bleeding on an open wound, menstrual blood etc etc etc)... the list is too long, and most importantly IRRELEVANT (it does happen quite often and therefore that all that matter). the fact that you would ask such above question shows us all that you are truly clueless about the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
EDUCATE YOURSELF SO I DONT HAVE TO DO IT FOR YOU!!!!!

The chances of these acts you're emphasizing on to happen is slim to none, and usually accidental.

ARRANT IRRELEVANT NONSENSE !!!!!
whether slim to none OR fat to none is IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand!

btw...
- next time you go to the dentist, see if he injects you with a throwaway needle OR a reusable one (and if it is safely cleaned or not)?!
- when these deluded women go to quack doctors to have abortion, see if they have any idea if the tools they use are safe?!
- when foolish women go to backdoor quack docs to have butt injection to look sexy, do you think they check if the needles they use are safe?!
- next time an acquaintance has an accident and bleeding profusely, see if you will safely avoid getting blood contact.
EDUCATE YOURSELF SO I DONT HAVE TO DO IT FOR YOU!!!!!

And again, undetectability is the key. A (confirmed) undetectable status is safe, either in the case of any accidental sharp object or direct contact. There is no (or not enough) virus in the blood to trigger an infection. Please grab a biology book and stop being genuinely stupid.

ARRANT NONSENSE!!!!!!
if that was indeed the case then such person on ARVs could give blood in blood banks, duh!
if that was indeed the case then all your BS links wouldnt ALWAYS solely talk about sexual partner, and never ever simply say:"people on ARVs are 100%". point! because any smart person KNOWS that apart from sexual contact, there are many ways that people get infected, and all these others ways aint 100% safe for people on ARVs. FACT!

why you ae tyin your hardest to avoid the question? cant you read?! here again I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

–It's actually not free. Also don't forget that this is a third world country, and other issues. But it works. And has proven so over the years.

its also very dangerous, very damaging to the health (and immune system) if taken everyday... and not even people in the real world take it. instead what we have is PEP, that can be taken within 72hs of being in contact with infected blood or sex with infected person, rape cases etc etc

You keep screaming about blood transfusion. You self, when was the last time you donated blood, you sit on your high comfy horse acting like the superior moralista the world needs. Abeg Park well and be honest for once. No one goes around sharing needles anyhow. Be open minded and use google. I don't have time for idiocy anymore. I'd recommend you read this book And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic by Randy Shilts

where is the link...show us the link....stop trying to smokescreen the issue by writing RUBBSIH ONLINE!!!!!! again....

I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

MrBrownJay1:


so you just prove my point (by copying what i wrote earlier) that people on ARVs aint 100% safe, as i have stated all along!

it is a well known fact that many people get HIV infected via sharing of needles (drug users, diabetics, doctors, dentists etc)... and with the current HEROIN/FENTANYL epidemic in the US, i can assure you that the number of HIV infection will greatly rise. just because the majority of people who get infected is via sexual contact DOES NOT therefore mean that we should disregard other means by which the virus spreads.

but hey, I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

It is not safe to share needles with people, either on ARVs or HIV negative people. You're throwing a lot of unreasonable red herring and strawman fallacies around. It's quite funny you skipped the PreP part, because you knew it was true and you were spewing a horseload of BS.

Nobody is out there sprinkling and spraying blood all around for people to get infected by direct contact. You're just whipping up unnecesarry mass hysteria and paranoia. I never denied that there are other ways that the virus infects people, I only said the majority of infections-note, MAJORITY-is sexual. Again, I did not dismiss the fact that there are other ways of catching the virus. Below is the inception of our argument, which you have confirmed again and again.

MrBrownJay1:

NoContract post=77028064:


Yes. He can go raw with his wife. As long as she is on drugs, she can't infect anyone. Positive people are not the one spreading the virus. It's usually naive people who don't know their status. Because there's no way someone would know his status and not get treatment, unless he wishes to die.

Go get tested folks.

i beg to differ, although taking ARVs reduces considerably the chances for an infected person to infect his/her partner, there is still about a 5% chance to get infected.... and as little as it may be, people should be careful!

It's also interesting how you've also shut your argument over the breast milk issue. You don't know what you are talking about.

Let me rephrase again:

NoContract:


-So you just prove my point (by copying what i wrote earlier) that people on ARVs aint 100% safe, as i have stated all along!

Honestly are you listening to yourself? Why, in the first instance would anyone (safe or not) in their right senses, want to share needles with anyone? Your ignorance happens to stem from the moral assumption that the majority of infections were via sharing of needles. This was true during the early days of the epidemic, and not now. Infact the highest percentage of infected folks happened to be sexually. Not that I am dismissing the possibility of needles sharing though. And again, if undetectable, a HIV positive person poses no risk whatsoever to whoever uses his or her needles or sharp objects. Undetectable is the word. This is a fact.

-Are you saying it is safe for anyone to be in direct blood contact with someone on ARVs?

This is utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone be in direct blood contact with others to start with? The chances of these acts you're emphasizing on to happen is slim to none, and usually accidental. And again, undetectability is the key. A (confirmed) undetectable status is safe, either in the case of any accidental sharp object or direct contact. There is no (or not enough) virus in the blood to trigger an infection. Please grab a biology book and stop being genuinely stupid.

Undetectable means that the level of HIV in a person's blood is so low that PCR RNA tests are unable to detect any, or less than 50 copies per ml.

The US CDC has recently determined after reviewing multiple studies that HIV-positive people in antiretroviral treatment who are undetectable are unable to pass the virus on sexually.

The results probably apply generally to IV drug users as well, but we don't know for sure — not empirically.

It's very difficult to study populations of IV drug users in compliant antiretroviral treatment. People don't tend to stay in stable treatment long enough to be able to be studied. Pools of available study subjects are quite small.

It's reasonable to think that the risk may be a little higher with syringes than sex, but probably not a lot higher, and possibly not significantly higher.

Certainly, we know that the transmission rate at least drops dramatically with effective treatment to undetectable.

You're just looking for unnecessary cheap attention. There are thousands of sero-discordant couples worldwide, and trust me, the virus is not the easiest thing to catch, unless one is just shamelessly careless. Also no one is going about sharing needles.

Stop the fear mongering. You don't know what you are talking about. Modifying your posts with glossy colours and bold caps will not help you with your misinformation. End of discussion.

NoContract:


It is not safe to share needles with people, either on ARVs or HIV negative people. You're throwing a lot of unreasonable red herring and strawman fallacies around.

bwaaaaaaah! all the above garbage and NOT a single link to back up your lies and rubbish about U=U ?!?!?!?

ok let me repeat AGAIN what i have been saying all along, which now you are repeating like a broken donkey (trying to foolishly be right):

MrBrownJay1:
i beg to differ, although taking ARVs reduces considerably the chances for an infected person to infect his/her partner, there is still about a 5% chance to get infected.... and as little as it may be, people should be careful!

MrBrownJay1:

let me educate you on the subject so you dont get fooled by the "Undetectable Equals Untransmittable" BS...
C) even if someone has undetectable viral load, it only means that SEXUAL transmission is impossible (AKA during SEX), but if you share needles OR have direct blood contact with them, a person with undetectable viral load can still infect you. FACT!

I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE LINK THAT SAYS THAT ITS 100% SAFE TO SHARE NEEDLES AND/OR TO HAVE DIRECT BLOOD CONTACT, WITH PEOPLE ON ARVs.

you "now" confirmed what i have been saying all along (aka the above) by writing the following:

NoContract:
It is not safe to share needles with people, either on ARVs or HIV negative people.

but a few days ago, your reply to my above statement on sharing needles and direct blood contact was...

NoContract:
And again, if undetectable, a HIV positive person poses no risk whatsoever to whoever uses his or her needles or sharp objects. Undetectable is the word. This is a fact.

NoContract:
And again, undetectability is the key. A (confirmed) undetectable status is safe, either in the case of any accidental sharp object or direct contact. There is no (or not enough) virus in the blood to trigger an infection. Please grab a biology book and stop being genuinely stupid.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!
... and now here is where you foolishly start to LIE LIE LIE even more:

you say:

NoContract: I never denied that there are other ways that the virus infects people, I only said the majority of infections-note, MAJORITY-is sexual. Again, I did not dismiss the fact that there are other ways of catching the virus.

but here is what you wrote when i 1st challenged your rubbish U=U nonsense:

NoContract:
This is a lie. Undectectable means not being able to transfer copies of the virus. Virus that is no longer in the blood. What, then, is there to be transmitted?

NoContract: Again, science has shown that as long as adherence is constant, there is no risk whatsoever.

so now, you confirm exactly my INITIAL point that being on ARVs may be safe for sexual partners but certainly NOT for other form of infection, such as drug users, direct blood contact and nursing mothers (aka U=U is BS).

i am glad i was able to EDUCATE you on the subject!

CASE DISMISSED!

[img]https://media1./images/6bc35254ccca5776b42f34d9ed95d76f/tenor.gif[/img]

MrBrownJay1:


bro, as much as i understand that it wouldnt be easy, they can still be happy together, for the rest of their natural lives... if that is indeed the reason why they wanted to get married at the 1st place.

in today HIV+ world, she can take ARV's and live a "seemingly" normal life.... and the day they want to have children, she can get inseminated with his sperm (or do it homemade with a syringe) and possibly have healthy kids. et voila!

but i also fully understand that, if the man wants to leave and forget about this lady, he has all the rights to do so.

So the husband should never do it raw abi?
Where d joy?
He will keep eating food without salt and maggi?