The thing that worries me about antiretroviral drugs is that they mess with mechanisms that are innate to the reproduction of cells.
Their effects can, e.g., be clearly seen in changes to the bone marrow, which IIRC has some of the fastest-reproducing cells in the human body.
We don't have long-term data yet on what this does to users of this drug.
My wife has to take such drugs as she has HIV, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up shaving a few years off her life expectancy. She's fine now, but who can predict the cumulative effects? Of course, since without the drugs her life expectancy would be drastically lower, she obviously takes them, and they are a godsend.
But I'm kinda waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What I'm saying is: it's great that we have this option, and it should be used where it makes sense. However don't think that this medication frees you from worry in the same way vaccinations typically do. The tradeoff is much different.
Possible, but apparently more a theoretical risk. Certainly small compared to other birth risks.
Until a few years ago, C-section was recommended, but the current wisdom is that vaginal birth poses no greater risk for the baby.
Same with breastfeeding. Until a few years doctors would call CPS if a HIV+ woman admitted to breastfeeding her child. Now, our doctors encouraged my HIV+ wife to breastfeed.
OTOH she was the second (or third?) HIV+ woman in our city who dared to.
Not a professional, but my wife has HIV (and I don't), so I have a personal interest in the subject.
> How many people taking retrovirals have undetectable levels of HIV?
According to my wife's doctor, most of them. And if that changes, they attempt to adjust treatment to return to that state.
BTW, undetectable appears to mean 20 copies of viral DNA per ml of blood.
> Are those people using condoms?
Well, we were, for many years. But we wanted children, and so after her doctor actually encouraged us we conceived them the old-fashioned way. I really, really enjoyed sex without a condom after so many years, I must say.
Now we have all the children we want, and we ought to go back to condoms, but I find myself wondering about the risk vs. reward. I suppose we'll go back to condoms, but I yearn to forgo them -- it's just less intimate. I wonder how other couples feel.
Their effects can, e.g., be clearly seen in changes to the bone marrow, which IIRC has some of the fastest-reproducing cells in the human body.
We don't have long-term data yet on what this does to users of this drug.
My wife has to take such drugs as she has HIV, and I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up shaving a few years off her life expectancy. She's fine now, but who can predict the cumulative effects? Of course, since without the drugs her life expectancy would be drastically lower, she obviously takes them, and they are a godsend.
But I'm kinda waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What I'm saying is: it's great that we have this option, and it should be used where it makes sense. However don't think that this medication frees you from worry in the same way vaccinations typically do. The tradeoff is much different.