Answers Appreciated

[ndfcts]

Good Morning

Thank you for the service that you provide.

I Had my 1st penetration experience in probably two years.  Typically my experiences have always only been receptive oral and according to your archives, I think I understand that there is practically no risk or very little, correct?

Wednesday, August 6th met someone over the internet and invited them over.  One thing led to another and there was about 30 - 60 seconds of unprotected insertive rectal sex where I was the giver.  Once I realized that penetration had actually taken place I withdrew.  Unfortunately other than what they stated on their profile on the website (HIV negative), I really don't know their status because I had no plans of things going that far.  

I did test for STD's three days later and all results returned in my favor (negative).  At 23 days I did an oral swab test for HIV and again in my favor (negative).  Last week I began to experience symptoms burning eyes, sneezing, runny nose, congestion, coughing.  I figured it was just allergies or a cold and I've read through the archives; to my understanding it is flu symptoms that are related to HIV, correct?  Out of anxiety I did go test again at the 31 day mark.  The oral swab test came back negative but the line was very faint so they requested to retest doing the ***** test w/ blood.  This was also negative and the line was bolder.  

According to the archives at 31 days, 90% of individuals test positive at this point.  However, I get confused when some say insertive rectal experiences are 1 out 100 and other times it seems to say 1 out of 1,000 or even 10,000.

1.  Am I correct that the symptoms I explained are not related to HIV?
2.  While I really don't want to be tested again, should I be overly concerned and have additional  testing?
3.  What are the actual statistics?
4.  I've read something about PEP?  Is that something I should have considered?
5.  Should I be concerned about the test with the faded line for a negative result?

[Edward W Hook, MD]

I would agree. Little to be gained from further testing  EWH

[Edward W Hook, MD]

I will correct it.  Thanks for being understanding.  Take care.  EWH

[Edward W Hook, MD]

You're not being a nusiance and I owe you an apologiy.  You are correct, 85-90 is the correct figure.  Its been a rather bizarre day and this is just one more element.  My apologies and thank you for pointing it out to me.  I did  not mean to mislead you and apologize for my error.  Your case is nto different and I was in error earlier in this post.  

To avoid further confusion, I have deleted portions of this thread in which I was suggesting incorrect figures.

EWH

[ndfcts]

Thank you Dr.

So I take it that based on the fact that I tested negative at both 3 and 4 weeks, and was the insertive partner of a less than 60 second rectal/anal sex experience, the odds are in my favor to not need further testing?  Thank you for your time with this thread.

[Edward W Hook, MD]

Let's work through your questions.  

1.  You are correct that the chances of your symptoms being related to HIV are vanishingly low.  If your partner was HIV infected (and he was probably not, most people tell the truth), your chances of infection are less than 1 in 100, and with a negative test at 4 weeks, are actually far lower than that.  At this time (4 weeks) 85-90% of all persons who are going to test positive will have positive tests.  
2.  You can find differing estimates at different sites.  There is also likely to be some difference in risk as to whether you were the insertive or receptive partner with risks being higher for the receptive partners.
3. Your probability of infection is now in the range of being less than 1 in about 50,000 (I got to this by saying that there is a 1% chance your partner was positive, a 1 in 100 chance of getting HIV if he was infected, and that 85-90% of tests would be positive by now).
4.  No, I would not recommend PEP at this time. PEP is recommended for persons with known exposure within 72 hours of exposure. For persons in your situation, PEP would be far more likely to cause side effects that to be of any benefit.
5.  NO.

Hope this helps.  You have very, very little to be worried about.  Stay safe.  EWH

[ndfcts]

First, let me say thank you for being so gracious.  For the record, I see where you corrected the misquote in your response for #3 above but I think you may have missed it just above that where you also used that same statistic in your response in #1.  I only mention it in case you want to change that one as well.  I assure you that you owe me no apology.  I'm most thankful for your time and energy.  Please have a blessed evening.