Seems very wrong.
We know this unambiguously. If it’s not in your body fluids you can’t transmit it.
We don’t require folks produce a transcript of every VD they ever had to every prospective partner. If the science says not transmissible, that properly takes the matter out of the sphere of public safety and into that of personal trust. (I agree with you that it would seem polite for someone to disclose that.)
Do you have a source for this, please?
That’s extremely risky if true. Who’s changing these laws?! Unless it’s fully cured, it should always be listed in someone’s medical history. Crazy! Someone might lie, get married, and after a few months they “forget”, Congratulations, you just destroyed someone else’s life or even your kids.
And then one night your partner slips off the condom … then what
But for as many medical trials as we've tried, you will not end up with HIV.
If your partner is HIV+, you also are likely on prep. If not, you're probably looking at a course of HIV medication within 48 hours.
So you are looking at a fair number of ways to mitigate, but the actual medical safety is a lower than expected risk.
(The dangerous chance is if you're having sex with someone who doesn't know their positive status, and you don't take other protective measures.)
If you stop taking your medicine, you stop being undetectable, you start being able to transmit it, and you start having a legal responsibility to tell potential partners about it.
However, in this particular treatment, it was via bone marrow donation, so it literally did change the DNA / body.
> For almost six years they’ve tested his blood and other tissues and found no signs of the virus.
Afaict, the researchers themselves don’t know for sure why this has happened.