Sero-shunning
OPEN WIDE / Science shows sero-sorting doesn't work
Bill Coleman / Vancouver / Thursday, January 12, 2012
Share |

The most important scientific breakthrough of 2011, according to the journal Science, was a study called HPTN 052, which found that having an undetectable viral load reduces the risk of an HIV-positive person transmitting the virus by 96 percent.

Does this mean that gay guys should start having more sex with poz guys with undetectable viral loads because they’ll no longer seem so scary?

Are negative guys actually scarier to play with because 2.5 percent of them may be poz but not know it? A newly poz guy can be 20 to 25 times more likely to pass on HIV.

So who do you choose when you want to get fucked and have two guys in front of you? Both are hot: one is poz with an undetectable viral load, and the other thinks he’s negative but actually just got infected.

If you choose the negative guy and he’s actually positive and fucks you raw, you could have a 1 in 10 chance of getting infected, compared to the 1 in 38,000 chance with the poz guy with the undetectable viral load.

So where does that leave us? Should we, as a community, switch to seeking out poz guys with undetectable viral loads and shun the supposedly “negative” guys?

The science suggests there may be a good case for this. But do we really want to just shift — rather than challenge — the HIV stigma to the guys now considered most likely to infect us?

Many negative guys already fear and stigmatize poz guys. But that fear comes from prejudice, not science. It’s a prejudice that’s unlikely to change easily. It will take more than science and facts to help reduce the stigma against being HIV-positive.

That stigma is even reinforced by a lot of safer-sex campaigns and organizations that tell us we are at higher risk if we have sex with poz guys. Surveys will ask, “Do you have sex with poz guys?” then tell us we’re more at risk if we do.

To me this is a form of institutional stigmatization. It is not true that having sex with poz guys with undetectable viral loads is riskier than having sex with randomly chosen guys who think they are negative. The institutional response should be, “Know your partner’s viral load not his HIV status!”

Granted, the 96 percent reduced transmission figure comes from a study with heterosexuals, but other studies show that the risk of transmitting HIV through anal sex is the same for heterosexuals and gay guys.

It’s also worth noting that viral loads can fluctuate. If a guy gets his viral load tested for five years and it is always undetectable (under 40), then it likely will be undetectable when you have sex with him, too. But even if it, by chance, registers 100 at that moment, or even 500, many experts say he will still not pass on HIV.

Either way, you will likely never find a long-time positive guy with a viral load as high as a newly infected guy whose viral load can be 1 to 10 million.

No matter what you decide to do, and who you choose to have sex with, nothing is ever risk-free.

The question is: do we want to stigmatize and shun anyone based on assumptions?

Is it just a question of stigmatizing the “correct” (ie statistically riskier) guy? Or should we drop the HIV stigma altogether, since science shows we can no longer reliably know who to stigmatize?

Open Wide appears monthly in Xtra.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Bursting the bubble
Thank you Bill Coleman for bursting the bubble on HIV shunning and sero-sorting that is alive and well and thriving in Canada.The we's and they's,the blame and shame, the finger pointing, the backs turned, friendships ended,lovers lost,smaller dance cards.Bill,you were right in 1988 at the 1st annual BC Conference on HIV/AIDS on playing safe and wearing a rubber and still having fun and practicing safer sex. Those of us living with HIV since 1985, not dying with it, nor infecting others got this message in the mid 80's- not to pass on the virus. Unfortunately,what we got instead was blamed for spreading HIV,became the source of many's a whisper gossip smear campaign "oh don't play with so and so he's poz",any notion of HIV confidentiality went out the window as self-righteous HIV neg men and women believed we dirty men were the ones others would catch HIV from. It hasn't helped that the Supreme Court of Canada has criminalized HIV transmission in Canada either but in many ways that protects those of us living with HIV,that we do disclose, that we do practice safer sex, that we are not scary people,we are still healthy living with HIV 30 years later. This article should take the wind out of the sails of those holier than thou gay men who still believe the mantra HIV neg UB2. I will proudly sign my name as someone very healthy and alive living with HIV and not ashamed that I am still here 30 years later working, surviving, and thriving and never infected another with HIV. I have done 25 years of national HIV board work in Canada to improve the lives of persons living with HIV.I'm sure I speak for many who are too afraid to out their HIV status but the court of public opinions already has many of our real names, and thank you for writing this long overdue article. You were there for our gay community in 1987 and you are here for us now in 2012 being factual,caring,accepting. Thank you from the bottom of my heart Bill Coleman! Barney Hickey RN MSN Va
Barney Hickey, Vancouver BC
01/12/12 8:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Did You Read the Study?
"If you choose the negative guy and he’s actually positive and fucks you raw, you could have a 1 in 10 chance of getting infected, compared to the 1 in 38,000 chance with the poz guy with the undetectable viral load." In the HPTN 052 Study...something like 95% of the HIV positive participatns reported consistent condom use. Also, the participants were given free access to condoms throughout the study. This is not a study about fucking RAW. Also, majority of participants were straight. Not gay. Is there anything different between women and men? Anal sex versus vaginal sex? Negligent reporting about this study all around and in many publications. Still good news though! It means that low viral load plus consistent condom use equals a reduction in transmission.
Jay, Ottawa Ontario
01/13/12 7:18 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
What this study tells us...
...is to practice safe sex 100% of the time. Sheesh.
roseverbena, Seattle WA
01/25/12 2:05 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.