ALL

I have great respect for Dr. HHH Here is a post of his.

Forum-M.D.-HHH
7/18/2007
C3
I never go to the support forum, because I don't have the time or energy to get involved in (or even read) what I expect are mostly emotionally driven discussions. But you can tell them I said that with respect to HIV (and for most STDs), oral sex is basically safe sex. Are there exceptions? Of course, but rare enough to be ignored. People also get hit by lightning. If all vaginal and anal intercourse disappeared and were replaced by oral sex as the only sexual practice, HIV/AIDS would disappear from the world as infected persons aged (and as some died). Almost no new HIV infections would occur, except by injection drug use and similar risks.

This is my only comment on it. I'm not going to get into any further discussion of it, directly on the support forum or any follow-up comments here.


My question is this:
What do alot [teak etc.] base your claim about almost NO risk giving oral. Just curious because this site is very firm that oral is just about no risk including DR.HHH

[joecool21]

i also have great respect for DR.HHH but have no comment on this topic.

[Teak]

What would you like for me to say? Repeat what I always say? No risk, for receptive and very rare, which can never be conclusively documented, for those that give hummers. What's your point?

[longone]

My point is this. I also believe oral is very low risk however by just pronoucing it, its just hot air. You on the other hand seem to be sure of your many statements concerning oral even to the point of recommending testing for it is unwarrented. You also appear to have a trove of sites and references for many subjects. I was simply asking if you or others have sites,studies etc that back your statements. If not, then its just an opinion and we all have those with no facts to back them.  It a discussion that needs some data.

have a good one

[Teak]

You have never seen me mention to test for oral sex. Get your facts straight.

[john_go]

What's your point? Please read the disclamer. The site says that the posts here reflect the personal opinions of the posters. And teak, of course, is one of the most highly respected people here in the forums. He is of course basing his ideas on his extensive knowledge and experience on the matter. And his opinions are highly regarded and respected by many, myself included. If you seem to have problems because you need proof, then you have a problem. Not an HIV problem, but another kind of a problem.

[longone]

"You on the other hand seem to be sure of your many statements concerning oral even to the point of recommending testing for it is unwarrented"

You need to slow down and read. I said as I wrote about you say one needs NOT test, is that correct?  I just thought you might share you resourses on oral with us for the educational value; I guess I was wrong.

As far as the other persons comment  HUH?

[regularjoey]

Oral sex is a documented risk, and it says so on the CDC website as well as on all other reputable websites.
However, the risk is considered extremely low, estimated at 1 per 10 000 exposures.  That's MUCH lower than any other form of penetrative sex, including vaginal intercourse.
For example there were a few small studies involving serodiscordant couples practicing unprotected oral sex and no new infections were registered.  
If you are looking for hard data on this, you will not find it anywhere, so don't bother.  It is pretty much impossible to conduct studies involving people having sex.
I hope this clears it up.

[Teak]

There are hard studies of serodiscordant couples. That have been done for years. So don't say that there hasn't been any hard data on it. Your comments are false.

[regularjoey]

I'm aware of only one published study (the "Spanish" study) and it's a very small study with very little data.

[regularjoey]

And even that study - I wouldn't call it "hard data"
Asking people questions on the questionnaire (i.e."how many times have you received head in the past month?") is not exactly hard data!

[longone]

I agree Reg. With my sex habits I hope it is really small. I have called some of the hotlines and wonder at some of their responses. They really minimize oral as Teak does. I'm not criticizing him or others I simply wanted a few studies. I know about the much touted Spanish study.

Seems to me though, if one is going to expouse a view, one should have something besides an opinion to back it up.

Dr. HHH believes it is almost a no risk and he has years of in the field experience. I guess it's a question that will never be solved although I can't understand why they don't have more recent studies on the subject.
Have a good one

[Teak]

Then you haven't looked for the studies. Hard data is obtained by people would continue to test negative when their partner is positive. That data is obtained by there test results. Not having someone say that oral sex is the only thing that they have done.

[longone]

So can I assume the Spanish study is the basis of your view of risk assosiated with oral sex?

[Teak]

The spanish test, the California test is only two of several that had to do with oral sex.

[frightened:(]

I understand the request for basis for statements and I hope that Teak's relay of the basis of his reasoning is helpful to you and the board.  I for one always wondered why oral sex was consiered "no risk" but just beleived it becuase Teak said it.  Smart to question where information comes from, it further informs you.   People continue to test negative when their partner is positive.  Sounds like good basis for "safe" to me.  

Some people still need to see the "negative" to be satisfied.  It's a feeling of closure from an incident that many pople that post here need to recover from after intentionally putting themselves in situations that were not smart or that they may feel morally shouldn't have been in.  

I want to thank Teak for his help in this community.  He provides insight based on experience and education at no charge to us.  If I could do it personally I would becuase he is appreciated.

[regularjoey]

Longone, the risk IS really small, very close to zero.  Most people choose to accept this level of risk and don't worry about it.  But periodical testing for such people is still recommended, because "low-risk" is not the same as "risk-free".  You should always expect a negative result as long as oral sex is your only risk.

Teak, hard data is when I will invite an HIV-positive man into my office, measure his viral load and then instruct an HIV-negative person to suck him off to completion - I would need to watch to make sure.  This should be completed tens of thousands of times with different people on both ends.  This study will not ever be done, unless Dr.Mengele rises from the dead, so all we can do is give people questionnaires to fill out, that's the best we can do from the ethical standpoint.  By the way, I know a clinician at Aaron Diamond and he has serodiscordant couples who engage in unprotected oral and one of the guys seroconverted recently.  Of course, no one will ever know if he had taken other risks, but such is the nature of HIV research - you never know for sure.

[Teak]

You don't get infect via oral sex, period. Now go argue with Dr. H about it. He's another one in agreement with hundreds of other doctors that you don't get HIV from oral sex.

[longone]

Yep that's about it no one will know. I however if I hasd the cash could get a handle on it. I know five people who are nuts and do oral and nothing else. They are nuts [who am I to say] but seem to have no fear. I have said to them [I wouldn't go with them ever] why don't you get tested I will pay. I say if you guys are NEG no one should worry. Of course they don't take me up on it. These are not freinds just some people I have observed and briefly spoken to about their sex habits.

I will say many years ago when the virus first presented in the U.S. I did talk to a then expert investigating the disease in SFO and he told me way back then that they were very surprised to find almost no transmittion with the guys that only had oral sex. He said they couldn't figure it out.  Heck that was back in the 80's

I'm sure it does happen sometimes though.

[regularjoey]

A word of caution for you: just because someone appears to have convincing arguments does not always mean that they are right.  There are many people for example that appear to have very convincing "scientific" arguments that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but they are wrong and all their "science" is just pseudoscientific B.S., because they lack education and true understanding of the subject.  Teak is no different from them and his argument
"people continue to test negative when their partner is positive" is just that, pseudoscientific B.S.  I know of a study where serodiscordant couples didn't use condoms for ANY sex and continued to test negative.  Does that mean that sex is not risky for HIV?  NO!!!  It's just a way that study was set up.  

So I suggest that if you need information on HIV, choose your sources carefully.  CDC is a good source of info, so is Dr.H, Dr.Gallant, Dr.Bob and many other qualified individuals.  An anonymous HIV+ man on the net is not your best option.

[regularjoey]

The risk is tiny, but it's real, documented.  And if you go to forums for HIV-positive people, you will find hundreds claiming no other risks except oral.  Sure, some of them are wrong, but not everyone.

[regularjoey]

You're nuts.  Dr.H. never said giving oral is zero risk.  He called you "wacko" for a reason.

[Teak]

He didn't call me Wack jerk. You're nuts.

[regularjoey]

HIV infection can be acquired by performing fellatio.  It's not common, a lot less risky than vaginal or anal sex, but not zero.  (The opposite direction is very safe; HIV is almost never acquired by receiving fellatio.)  However, no research has been done to answer your questions in the detail you are seeking.  It makes sense that the risk is higher if there are open sores in the mouth or gum inflammation, and ejaculation in the mouth or swallowing semen might be riskier than spitting it out right away, but no data are available.



The main thing you can do to protect yourself is to know something about your partners.  If you avoid performing fellatio on gay/bi men or guys who inject drugs, you can consider yourself at very low risk.  In that case, I do not suggest HIV testing after any particular exposure; just get tested about once a year.  (You also should be tested for other STDs, especially oral gonorrhea.)  Of course you also could use condoms, but most people aren't keen on condoms for oral sex.



http://www.medhelp.org/forums/STD/messages/2375.html

[johnnyboy12]

Can't we all just get along....You both know what your talking about so lets calm down here!

[regularjoey]

I'm not going to argue with you, I'm tired, it's late, I'm going home.
Just try to not misinform people in the future, refer to that Dr.H. link for info, or to CDC, or anywhere else.
Have a good night.

[Teak]

I'm not like you so you don't have to worry about it.

[longone]

Alway a good post from you Joe enjoy your night,you too teak

[Teak]

Take care longone

[meworried]

Performing oral sex on men is riskier bahaviour for the one performing. Though significantly less than unprotected anal and vaginal sex. Risk of receiving partner is theoritical. but never mentioned "zero". There are cases when BJ performers picked up the infection. University of Rochester's website gives some numbered data on it.

I had an exposure of unprotected oral sex with a CSW in China and was worried for sometime until was declared OK through 3 months AB test. My doctor told me that my risk is "negligible" but not zero since some of the SCW's may have ulcerites in their mouth or bleeding gums. But I agree with Dr HH who consider receiving BJ a zero risk behaviour.