.
> We can't really tell you how widespread
> that particular strategy is, because
> with so many gay and lesbian people,
> it's difficult to know what everyone is
> choosing to do.
> But getting tested is certainly
> important. However, we would stress the
> importance of not using negative test
> results as a reason to start putting
> yourself at risk.
> If you and a partner decide to get
> tested together and both have negative
> HIV results, for instance, that's great
> news. But because it can take up to
> three months before HIV infection shows
> up on an HIV test, the test results you
> are getting are always three months
> out-of-date. There really is no way to
> know for sure what someone's HIV status
> is at the moment you may have sex with
> them.
If this three month rule were the case then why
is the testing of blood donations so effective?
Look here:
http://www.google.com/search?
q=%22how+long+can+blood+be+stored%22
It seems that testing is extremely
reliable--which accounts for so few cases of HIV
via blood transfusions.
There is some risk of infection from any
encounter even if both partners turn out
negative. However, you are more likely to die in
an automobile accident driving to an encounter
than you are to die from HIV from a
just-tested-negative individual.
Again, its not RISK FREE! But many other things
in life are far more risky
> That's why we encourage people to
> always assume it's possible that the
> person they are with might have been
> exposed to HIV either within the last
> three months (and before it could show
> up on a test) or at any time after they
> were tested. So if you always play
> safe, then you are taking
> responsibility yourself for your own
> body, and not relying on sometimes
> outdate test results to keep you
> healthy.
Always "playing it safe" is far more risky than
sex with a just tested negative person. There is
only safer sex--not risk free sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment