why was Gisèle Pelicot not contaminated by the HIV-positive accused despite the absence of a condom?

Under treatment, the viral load is undetectable

However, Gisèle Pelicot was not contaminated by HIV. A miracle? No, replies Florence Thune, director of the Sidaction association, who took the initiative of writing to the journalists covering the trial to provide clarification on this point, and denounce the untruths. “It is a question of whether the HIV-positive accused is under treatment or not. Knowing that an HIV-positive person on treatment has no risk of transmitting HIV even if they have sex without a condom,” she explained, adding that “this should not be a subject of debate or cause media buzz.” “. And continued: “This man is accused of rape and it is for this reason that he is being judged. If he did not follow treatment, then yes there would be a risk of contamination. »

“Presented as walking dangers”

Throughout the debates, it appears that Romain V would have been diagnosed in 2004, and started treatment on that date, well before the alleged facts, in 2019 and 2020, “his viral load could then in fact be undetectable”. “It remains to be seen whether he is telling the truth,” retort the journalists, surprised that “the accused's lawyer did not intervene to clarify this point, and did not produce medical certificates. » It also remains that the mechanism of contamination is far from being known to the general public.

Florence Thune, director of the Sidaction association, was also moved by the media treatment reserved for this accused. “The way this aspect of the trial is being treated disgusts me,” she wrote in a message to journalists. “HIV-positive people are presented as walking dangers without any consideration of what HIV is today,” denounces the director. “This man is accused of rape and it is serious enough without the need to add information that fuels discrimination and ruins years of prevention and the fight against stigmatization of HIV-positive people. » Florence Thune also protests that the circumstances of her contamination are on the agenda for future debates. “But what does this have to do with the alleged facts? » she asks.

Voluntary transmission and criminal prosecution