“It sounds, from the article, like this guy was non-infectious (yes that is actual science). Which means he could NOT have transmitted HIV even if he wanted to.

Statistically it is actually safer to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive and on ARV therapy because they are non-infectious, than to have unprotected sex with someone who claims to be HIV negative.”

These words are very dangerous and come from someone who obviously has no concept of the potential for transmission. He cites actual science, yet there is no reputable source for his insane claims that a person with an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV. That is FALSE. If a person with HIV has unprotected sex with someone who does not have HIV the person who was HIV negative could become HIV positive. That is actual science that is backed up by numerous (virtually all) reputable medical studies.

Viral load is determined by blood test, which does not necessarily correlate to viral loads that may be in semen or other bodily secretions. Tests that determine viral load may have differing thresholds, so undetectable does not mean nonexistent.

In short, Wayne’s words sound like the kind of crap someone would say if they were trying to convince an unwilling participant into having unprotected sex. Don’t fall for it.

At least not that “the rest of us”, i.e the public who don’t take risks, have to pay for. Exactly who are “the rest of us” though?

Every time you drive a car you know that there is a certain known risk that you could be seriously, possibly critically injured. Every time someone smokes, there is a known risk of lung disease or cancer. Every time some drinks, there is a known risk for liver disease or a myriad of alcholol related problems.

Every time a police officer goes to work, an electrician fixed a circuit, a marine biologist dives, a soldier deploys, a siesmologist studies a volvcano, a truck driver drives, a crane operator operates heavy equipment.. there are known risks.

Who are “the rest of us”?? We all take risks, all of our behavior is risky either professionally or personally, it’s just a matter of degree.

Oh I almost forgot the doctors and nurses that work with infectious patients, if they get sick with something they should definately not be treated, since they knew it was risky to be around sick people.

The guy in the article, I don’t know. I’m not sure what he did or didn’t do. The article is pretty vauge, I didnt see or hear any forensic (HIV RNA) evidence to support the drugging/infection acusations, it may or may not be actrually true. I’m not defending him, I’m just saying if you werent there or on the jury, then you don’t have the facts.

If you go to a party, sex or otherwise, you have to accept the risks for YOUR behavior. That doesn’t excuse someone elses behavior for example if they assult you.

Unfortunately, these cases are usually decided by emotion. Very few people actually understand HIV and how and when it can be transmitted.

It sounds, from the article, like this guy was non-infectious (yes that is actual science). Which means he could NOT have transmitted HIV even if he wanted to.

Statistically it is actually safer to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive and on ARV therapy because they are non-infectious, than to have unprotected sex with someone who claims to be HIV negative.

(think strep throat, you are infectious for 24 hours after starting treatment or for the duration if you arent treated)

The way the laws are written does not recognize this fact, or give any consideration to safe sex, and favor not being tested like 25% of the HIV positive people in the US.

If you don’t know, you can’t be prosecuted, and you can have unprotected sex with whoever you want and say that you are negative. Doesnt matter that you are HIGHLY infectious!! Scott free.

If you do the right thing, and get tested and turn up positive, then its basically illegal for you to have close social contact. Meet someone in a bar and kiss on the cheek, or touch their chest or face, yep, you can be prosecuted and found guilty of trying to infect someone with HIV.

Doesn’t matter if you use condoms 100% of the time. Doesn’t matter if you disclose or not. Doesn’t matter if you are infectious or not.

The laws were written in the 1980′s when everyone was paranoid and ignorant.

Maintaining those same attitudes is wrong. It’s morally objectionable, factually incorrect, and tantamount to hate and fear mongering.

Anyone defending this man needs to seriously examine their moral compass.