Could I please have your opinion on my test result ?

[danibelg]

Hello,
I am a 39 hetrosexual male.
I had an HIV test 6 weeks after having unprotected vaginal sex with a woman.
My test was negative!!! Can I be 100% reassured? Normally, how long does it take for the anibodies to be detected? Thank you in advance for your responce.
Danibelg

[mike_no]

I see, I got it wrong, my bad !
unprotected vaginal is risk.

[Popcornguy]

No, I was talking about unprotected Vaginal sex, I know oral sex opposes almost no risk.

[mike_no]

Also, testing is not warranted for such incidences

[mike_no]

Get your facts right and take your time to analyze rationally, for any risk to be associated with oral sex;

1. One needs to have a bleeding wound in the mouth / severely compromised oral condition that is bleeding all the time and that has to come in contact with the infectious fluid

2. Consumption of semen is not a risk for HIV, since the gastric acid present in the stomach inhibits the virus

Hence, receiving oral is no risk with out any shadow of doubt (No documented case) and giving also is practically no risk but a theoretical risk (possible only in certain prevailing criterion which is almost impossible)

[Popcornguy]

No **** its a risk, and no doubt anyone exposed in that way should be tested. But the point is, 1 in 2000 is .05 percent chance.....realistically its a really small risk. But because so many people are stupid, yes, still many people will get HIV that way.  And certainly the more times you do it, the more of chance your likely to pick it up. Maybe its "high risk" activity compared to other sexual activity, but in its own right, it dont seem like high risk,

[mike_no]

Exactly thats my point, one should get tested if suspected a risk however kissing, oral (giving/receiving) etc is not a risk and that has been proved through the recent studies.

[Brian123]

"Hence, HIV is no guessing work."

Love that comment.


And true,....no matter the risk.....it is still  a "risk", despite the "probability".
After all,....who really wants to play the probability game with their life/health?

Certainly not me.

B.

[mike_no]

Soap Opera ...huh !

[mike_no]

In India, majority of HIV transmission is due to heterosexual events and the HIV subtype C accounts for 84% of HIV strains in India. India has 3.8 million people infected with HIV.

*The HIV subtype C is observed predominantly in the affected heterosexual community and subtype B in the homosexual community.

Hence, HIV is no guessing work.

[Popcornguy]

Lol. There is just never no agreement in this forum. Dr. HHH who seems to be the main HIV expert says that any 1 risk for a man who has vaginal sex with a HIV positive female is 1 in 2000. I do not understand how you can call that high risk activity. I aint bashing anyone who said it was high risk activity either cause you all know more than me, but going by what Dr. HHH said, I dont get where this high risk comes from. Of course 1 in 2000 or not, its not a chance im willing to take.  So I dont know really what to believe anymore.

[regularjoey]

I looked up aquaculture, that stuff looks really cool!  I'm not a big lobster fan, but it does go well with beer...

[regularjoey]

Fish is cool, I love fish, especially "Finding Nemo".

HIV is a huge subject.  I'm an expert in some areas, less so in others.  I must admit that there are some things about HIV I know almost nothing about - even though I probably should...

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

Feed to meat ratio, fish can not be beat.....  HANDS DOWN

Funny thing is, I don't even like to eat fish.

Really what I am in to is crustacean aquaculture. Crawfish to be exact.

So I guess then you would be considered an "expert" in your field. Like, you have a dAgee or somt'n like tat.

Ahh such is life.

take care, the hobby is calling me.

[regularjoey]

Oh yes, that is what I get paid for.  I wouldn't be saying that I've been studying HIV if all I did was browse the internet for 10 years!  No, it's a full-time hobby for me.

I don't even know what aquaculture is.  I didn't know fish had any culture!

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

Sorry, not clear.

I was wondering if the study of HIV was related to you occupation. I can't imagine studdying HIV for a hobby activity.

But hey, if folks knew my hobby, they would think that is a pretty weird one too..

Aquaculture if you want to know.

[regularjoey]

Is what why?  Sorry, I don't get it.

I was always fascinated with viruses in general, especially HIV.  There are so many secrets still, we are just scratching the surface...

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

So is this why u studied HIV for the last 10 yrs, as u stated?

I mean for me I had a crash course like probably like most people here, learning in panic mode of not in hystirical mode.

[regularjoey]

I try not to insult people here, unless they are really being stubborn and wacko.  I definitely did not insult Serge!  He said he was from another country, he did not understand what I said, so I guessed that it was a language barrier.  And as I said, I am not a native English-speaker either, so according to you, I insulted myself too...

As per your question - as I said numerous times, including this thread, everybody should get a routine HIV test.  HIV is not a disease to guess about or to play the odds with.  BUT - testing after specific individual exposures is IMPRACTICAL, unless they are of the highest risk type.  It is much more practical to test once a year.  This way we wouldn't have these endless discussions of anxiety, window periods, false positives etc etc.  I don't object to people getting tested because they are nervous and anxious - I just don't recommend it.

As far as what my interests are - I'm primarily interested in HIV cell entry.  It's a broad subject, encompassing pathogenesis, epidemiology, treatment, transmission, immune response, vaccines etc. etc.  I feel comfortable talking about any of the above subjects, because I know them all pretty well.  

[Teak]

If you use a condom consistently and correctly condoms are safe with anal or vaginal sex.

[Marksconcerned]

I know that teliing particular cases doesn't has cientific validate. But the all cases that i heard, the only case when i a man heterosexual become infected was this: He have a anal intercourse with a CSW. He uses condom, but simply don't work. He thinks that the condom break, because the female take off the condom of him, so he doesn't see if condom are ok. And this CSW works in a street, and them made sex in a car, only anal sex. I think if you ALWAYS use condom condom properly and avoid anal heterosexual sex, you are pretty safe. One more time, i'm not a doctor. Just a gay who reads a lot about the matter and know much people who are addicted in pay sex, and them just doesn't have HIV (they always get tested) - a strong evident that condom 99.999% works.

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

As for me...  condom please, or manogomy, or selabacy...  but that is the only way for me. Aint willing to throw the dice. I wear a seat belt, not because of the law....

[freak_2007]

So, you said you have been studying HIV for 10 years. May I ask what your speciality is? e.g. transmisssion, epidemiology, treatment etc. I totally understand if you don't want to divulge your details on an internet forum. but i am still curious.
cheers

[freak_2007]

Dude, so according to your own words, it is paractically impossible to predict when a hetero guy could be infected right? Given so many parameters that govern the whole process, which one would you place your bet on? Doctors don't use odds, only epidemiologists do.Every doctor i have met, told me first up, to test after my exposure.Those who mentioned the odds also mentioned its a russian roulette, that one bullet could be the first one. Not one said i had a minimal risk and i shouldn't test. so, do you think it is safe to assume, especially if someone has doubt for whatever reason, that no one could ever get infected the first time? or is it prudent to assume that there is every bit of a chance for someone to get infected the first time?

Please refrain from making insulting comments like the one you made to Serge about his english. As far as i can see, his/her english is perfectly fine. You always say that the other person is not understanding you even though u made it clear, but quite a few people including me seem to not get what you are trying to say. So, where do you think the problem is? please keep the debate rational, scientific and non-denegrating.
thank you

[regularjoey]

OK, I didn't have time earlier, but I do have a minute now, since you are clearly not satisfied with my short answer:

There are many many factors influencing HIV transmission:  viral load, viral genetics, host genetics, presence of STDs, mucosal integrity, circumcision, duration of intercourse, abrasion of intercourse etc etc.  There are many more that I'm forgetting right now and many that we don't know about.  I mean recently a study came saying that washing your member afterwards increases the risk!  When women use spermicidal cream that increases the risk - as we learned the hard way!  It is the combination of those factors that determines whether someone gets infected or not, no one factor alone is enough.  Therefore, doctors usually just use the overall odds to estimate the risk - it is virtually impossible to predict or explain why 136 exposures were fine, but the 137th resulted in transmission.

On a more microscopic scale, the trick is that HIV infects only certain types of cells, which are generally not very abundant at the site where the HIV is deposited.  How do you know when the virus just happens to "bump" into a cell that it needs?  You don't!  If you're lucky, they will not meet, but if you're not they just might.  There is no way to predict when it happens.  Here is an analogy - many celebrities live close to where I live, so I bump into them in the street every now and again.  Can I predict when will I bump into the next one?  No!  I can only estimate my odds.  If I approached this scientifically I could calculate that, for example, for every 50 trips I take to the liquor store I meet one celebrity.  It's really random!

I hope this helps a little.