A Couple Questions

[r99732]

Hey forum experts, I was hoping you guys could weigh in on a couple things.  My first question is regarding blood to blood contact.  From what I understand, transmission from blood to blood contact requires a significant amount of blood to be DIRECTLY (e.g. via needle) introduced to an open, profusely bleeding wound.  That is, if I rubbed a dime sized amount of HIV infected blood onto a centimeter cut the chances of transmission would be slim to none.  I posed a similar question (which concerned my specific situation) to Doctor Hook, who graciously informed me that this is the case.  My concern is that other sites, particularly the body.com, describe such an exposure as a risk.  My rationale thought is also telling me that it would be, at the very least, a theoretical risk.  Similarly, I have noticed that both the doctors and members of this site seem to downplay risks more than other sites.  For example, many in this forum declare Oral Sex is ZERO risk, while others say it is unlikely but still possible (especially for the receiving partner).  So, could the forum experts (teak, lizzie etc.) please weigh in and explain the discrepancies?  I am certainly not here to assign right and wrong, I simply want a better understanding of things and different points of view.  Thanks for your time.

[joggen]

Move on.

[r99732]

Move on from what?  I posed a legitimate question.  It is undeniable that the doctors on this site, as well as many posters, are far less conservative in their advice than those on the body.com.  I presented an opportunity for those in this forum to explain the discrepancies in their comments to those on another leading, respected HIV forum.  I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

[Teak]

Move on.

[joggen]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
    * After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
    * Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
    * Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.

[r99732]

That message is unwarranted.  My post was not regarding my specific situation.  In fact, I mentioned oral sex for the FIRST TIME in this post.  The blood to blood contact was simply another example to illustrate that those on this site are less conservative in their advice than elsewhere.  Again, I did not question anyone's advice regarding my specific situation, nor would I do so.  You could have answered this post with something like, "The reason for the discrepancy is that we feel it unnecessary to talk about THEORETICAL risks, especially if there has never been a convincing documented case.  Those on the body.com might feel the need to divulge every possibility, no matter how remote."  Does such a response have anything to do with my specific situation? NO.  I understand that you guys have to deal with anxiety driven people far too often and that it can be very frustrating.  I will also concede that I have been extremely anxious about a virtually no risk situation.  I just feel my more recent question broached something different and it would have been nice to have simply gotten a short answer.  In fact, it might have even been easier than all the threats.  With that said, the last thing I want to do is irritate people who do so much good for others on this forum.  I understand that it is not required for you all to help those in need and it is very gracious that you do.  Joggen, I especially appreciated your well-researched, informative and uplifting piece on expecting a negative result.  For that reason, I won't pursue this matter further.  Be well.  

[joggen]

"You could have answered this post with something like, "The reason for the discrepancy is that we feel it unnecessary to talk about THEORETICAL risks, especially if there has never been a convincing documented case.  Those on the body.com might feel the need to divulge every possibility, no matter how remote." "

Well, that is essentially correct. This forum deals with the REAL risks (epidemiological evidence) rather than theoretical risks.

We try not to debate other sites on this forum which is one of the reasons why I didn't answer your question. And when it's late and I have 5 other posts to answer, I just don't have time to get into discussions anyway, especially when a risk assessment was already given in the professional forum. General discussions/debates are not this forum's purpose and are usually counterproductive for all parties.

Thanks for the thanks on my journal, I appreciate it.

[r99732]

That makes perfect sense.  Unfortunately my anxiety sometimes gets the best of me.  Take care and thanks for the response.