Dr. HHH or Dr. Hook?

[susaniri]

I have noticed a new doc on the doc forum. I have also noticed Dr. Hook's responses are much more conservative. I am sure he knows what he is doing, but seems he leave open ended responses...even telling a female to use protection if her boyfriend wants to go down on her to avoid HIV. I think people want to know from a doctors experience what the chances are as opposed to just what a risk factor in general is? Seems form his perespective if there is a risk AT ALL, even if .001% then well, you MIGHT be HIV+, need a test, and use protection from now on...not bad advice in general, but still... Does that make sense??

[cybercondriac]

Well said xhost.
It's too bad that the majority of people that come to this forum are the worried anxiety-ridden individuals. Any sexually active individual, whether in a commited relationship or not. will undoubtedly learn more than they ever knew about HIV transmission and may think twice or be more careful next time they get involed in a situation that they may regret later on.
Everyone that contributes here that has helped someone feel a little less worried and a little more informed deserves kudos.

[Xhost]

I am not here very often, but I must chime in and second something that dumbo has said. Many, many times I have stopped to read a thread and have been consistently impressed with Guiltandworry's knowledge and ability to communicate clearly and effectively. It is refreshing, and is a great help to the many scared and desperate posters that this site sees on a daily basis.

Having said that, I am also glad that others decide to contribute their time and attention to this forum as well. Among those, P'aWho, dumbo, regularjoey, chris, long and, last but not least, Teak (and everyone else my typing fingers are too tired to list). I know, that may be a controversial statement, but I do find that Teak, in many cases, knows from whence he speaks. While I do not agree with Teak on everything (specifically, after reading through the HIV surveillance data, I do not see the explosion of HIV in the heterosexual population that he seems to feel is happening, thus I find the risks he associates with vaginal sex to be a bit overblown), it is natural that not everyone will agree with one another on any given topic. It is also, unfortunately, natural that such disagreements will occasionally devolve into (especially on the Internet, where there are few personal consequences for such behavior) into bitter flame wars.

The truth is, the margin of disagreement between the protagonists, especially in this case, is really fairly small. Yet, passions run high and the result is a sometimes less than ideal exchange between us. Were it not so, but that seems to be human nature. Perhaps a better way to look at it all is that the disagreements stem from a passion to help and to inform. In this case, everyone who participates regularly does so not for monetary benefit, but, from what I can see, a genuine desire to help. And that's a good thing. So, I choose to see the good, and the good is nothing more or less than the people who decide to come here and help others. And that's not only a good thing, it's a noble thing.

So, for all the posters who have come here scared and confused, and have left a little bit wiser and with a bit more peace of mind, I say thank you, to you all. You deserve more than a simple thank you, but sometimes that's enough.

[dumbo]

I highly highly doubt they do it for the money and I am pretty sure they do not get the full$15.  I would put money on that.

[longone]

True but hey, $15 bucks of 4 min. work, I'll take it.  Also remember each post no matter how low risk is a big deal to the poster. This is all about emotions not logic I think the Dr's understand that.

[dumbo]

Actually, after reading more of Dr. Hook's posts, I think he is not ultra conservative at all.  I really like him.  He is of the same views of Dr. HHH but the writing styles are obviously different.  I wonder though, how long Dr. Hook will be able to keep his calm sensitive tone with all of the same ridiculous questions yet to come?  Dr. H was the same way back when but he is certainly much more abrupt now.  I don't blame him really.  I am still in awe at how he manages to maintain his sanity with all of the repetitive and low/zero risk quesitons he answers.

[naive_one]

The bottome line is giving and receiving oral has a risk associated to it. Even if it 1/10000. Would any one want to be that "ONE". So please be safe and protect yourself while having oral sex. Best wishes.

[dumbo]

I mean it.  If I didn't think it was true I would say so.  However, it is cler you are able to clearly explain things to people so they understand.  It is also very apparent that your words are not copied/pasted into your replies.  keep up the good work.

Misteryos: I think Dr. Hook has somewhat more conservative replies.  Not overly so but it seems that while he is confident in what he says, there is a tone of cya...which is ok.  I still think his advice is very similar to Dr.HHH  but those thoughts are conveyed in different manners.

What a treat it is to have to hiv transmission "EXPERTS" here on this website.  I hope people realize this before jumping on bandwagons.

[misteryos]

I'm starting to realize how carefully people on this site read the responses from the respective doctors. I don't think Dr. Hook's advice is overly conservative at all -- in fact, if you go to one of his most recent responses, he actually tells someone who had unprotected vaginal sex with a prostitute that testing he didn't believe testing would be required because of that specific incident, likely because he's looking at things from a risk-assessment point of view. The cunnilingus thing that was mentioned before? He probably meant there's a theoretical, low-to-zero risk associated with it. He said it's possible, but unlikely -- Dr. HHH says that all the time. The only thing Dr. Hook left out was the meteorite analogy that HHH uses.

The fact of the matter is, IMO, the two doctors will be dispensing essentially the exact same advice using slightly different wording. I don't think people should look too deeply into it (not like I'm one to talk, because I used to do exactly the same thing). I've seen Dr. Hook use the six-week rule in a couple of responses. They will probably agree on 95-99% of the cases on this board. Just try not to read too much into each and every tiny difference between them.

[guiltnworry]

Thank you for the kind and true words dumbo.  

[dumbo]

guiltnworry has the excellent comments.  Teak simply copies and pastes, and / or gives generic answers anyone can spew (i.e use a condom....).  Guiltnworry can actually explain to people the mechanics of how things work.  Teak cannot.  How do I know this?  It is obvious when he copies and pastes because the spelling and grammar clean right up.  There's  nothing like stealing copyrighted material and not quoting the source.

This way his posts can stay up because he knows otherwise, by quoting the source, the post will not be removed, people will think he actually knows what he is talking about, and nobody will run to the original author to tattle on him....just like teak does to others.

[Teak]

If condoms are used consistently and correctly, the negative partner will stay negative.

Consistently= from start to finish
Correctly=condom is not expired, condom has not be exposed to high temps and direct sunlight, condom has been properly stored (not in a wallet for years.) Use a properly sized condom. Plenty of water base lube.

That is all it takes to be safe and stay negative.

[susaniri]

Think of Magic Johnson..I know, but hang with me...he has had HIV for almost 20 years and has remained married. His wife and him never have sex? Sure, they do, just like other couples where one is HIV positve. How? condoms. I have also heard that many couples only use condoms for vaginal or anal sex and never for oral...and never have had HIV spread between them. It's all about the odds. First, what are the odds the condom breaks, and then odds of getting HIV at that exact time? Low.

[guiltnworry]

You are right.  Condoms are not 100% effective as they can break, get holes in them, be expired, whatever the case may be.  When experts say that condoms are effective, it means that when used correctly (not doubled up, not using inappropriate lube), and when they don't break, condoms are 100% effective at preventing HIV.  HIV cannot penetrate latex.  Condoms do break occassionally and this is unfortunate, but unless you are going to practice abstinence, condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and still have sex.  In serodiscordant couples, the HIV negative partner will not get HIV if the condoms are used correctly every time and don't break.  The negative partner could get it if the condom broke or if they decided to engage in unprotected anal intercourse.  

[theworriedman]

"All it takes is the use of condoms, correctly and consistently and do not share works with anyone. It's as simple as that. There is no reason not to enjoy sex. Just protect yourself"

Many Dr. say that condoms is effective. However, it does not guarantee that you will not catch HIV. condom is not 100% perfect. Now my question is:

For an example, if one partner is +HIV, and other is neg HIV. They practice safe sex, in which condom is used in every act. Now, can the neg HIV partner get it?

[susaniri]

Sometimes it takes something simple as you have stated. Guiltnworry..do you follow every post that Teaks make? I wish you guys would stop this. You both have good comments, agree to disagree and let the posters figure out who is right. I would hate for both of you to be banned from these forums..my 5 cents.

[guiltnworry]

So insightful Teak, I think 500 other people have already said it.

[Teak]

All it takes is the use of condoms, correctly and consistently and do not share works with anyone. It's as simple as that. There is no reason not to enjoy sex. Just protect yourself.

[guiltnworry]

Guys, if you look hard enough on the internet, you will find things to support any scenario for transmitting HIV that you can dream up.  I am certainly not saying don't research and educate yourselves, but don't take every little article at face value.

Chris, the article you posted was discussed in another thread.  No one can guarantee that oral sex was the only risky behavior the study participants participated in.  Based on human behaviors and population studies, it is highly unlikely that people would only participate in oral sex.  Dr. Bob and Dr. HHH have both said that oral sex carries little to no risk and that there have been no documented cases and only one case investigated by the CDC.  Anyone can publish studies and say that their particpants didn't lie, but the truth is, no one really knows.  If HIV was transmitted orally, many more people would have HIV.  

I guess my point is that people can spin up tons and tons of scenarios about how they could possibly get HIV.  Few of them are legitimate, no matter how many articles you find and take bits and pieces of to support your idea.  Unprotected anal sex and IV drug use remain the most risky behaviors for transmitting HIV in the United States.  Unprotected heterosexual sex is risky as well, but usually only if one partner has a history of MSM or IV drug use.  If people keep thinking that they can get HIV from every single little thing, no one is going to leave their house.

[susaniri]

interesting discussion here. What about in my case where I tasted semen and then stopped. No significant amount was in my mouth at all. I also had a vert small open sore in mouth...not gushing with blood. How much actually needs to get in there? This discussion proves that there is still some major education gaps with HIV...this medhelp forum proves that.

[longone]

Yes you are correct. Who knows,nobody but simple logic says as you say 1000th of new case would be reported each day. We would have no doubt about oral if it were eazy to get either giving or getting.

[worried scik]

I'm sure most if not all of the case reports you saw were for the receptive partner which has risk since the person is exposed to infectious seminal fluid.  As you know, there have been no case reports for the insertive partner.  If oral sex was in fact risky, don't you think that the number of new cases of HIV reported each day would multiply 100 to 1000 fold given the frequeny of unprotected blowjobs!

[stressed25]

I think you might be overthinking it right enough! saliva inhibits hiv for the partner performing oral sex, ie if you are going down on a woman that is positive, your saliva will provide some protection. but if you are receiving a blow job from someone with HIV, saliva is irrelevant. The only possible way you could be infected is if the person who was positive had blood gushing out of their mouth and you had a big wound on your penis; believe me if that was the case I'm sure neither of you would persist in the act!

I honestly believe you can't contract HIV from getting a blowjob

[longone]

sorry as of yesterday I cleaned my file out and alot of refrences. Trying to put it behind me. I know it was in the Journal of Dermatological Science. Two Doctors from Dartmouth wrote a paper on ARS. In that they stated as I said ,"most newly reported cases were from oral. It was just one sentence that jumped out at me. A brief except is on google but I had to go to the university library to find it. I really should not bring it up without a link.

Bottom line for me is this: Just take a flashlight,look down your throat, what do you see? I see a lot of vains and mucus membrane that is all I need to realize oral could be a risk.

[cybercondriac]

OK, Maybe I'm really overthinking this scenario but what if you have oral with an HIV+ person, but you don't know it, and they have dry mouth, which can be a side effect of HIV. This would mean they don't produce enough saliva. Since saliva kills the virus, wouldn't this mean the risk goes up?