Aa
Got drunk, have ARS symptoms, I think, and am worried...
Hi guys,
Not to go too far into overdone territory, but I got trashed in Prague at a bachelor party and the next thing I know a female sexworker was giving me oral sex. I never have done anything like this, don´t condone prostitution and generally can´t believe this happened to me. Especially, as I had just come down with jock itch and was chafed, scratched and planning to see a dermatologist the next day.
The jock itch thing hits me every year. What I´m worried about is the following...
1) Thankfully, when I remember there was a condom.
2) Unfortunately, I was chafed up and to my horror I had a deep scratch on one side of my testicles that was probably there before that night. Other little scratches. I don´t remember much, but I believe her salive did get in contact with these areas.
3) I´m 99 percent sure there was no vaginal sex.
Now it is three weeks later and I´m quite worried. I have had the following...
1) The runs, although this came and went. In Central Europe this doesn´t mean much
2) Red spots-rash that look a bit like the Google pic (not so many though) under each armpit, starting on about day 8
3) a sore throat that has demanded antibiotics to tackle, starting on about day 20
4) Slightly enlarged nodes on one side of my neck.
5) General tiredness until the antibiotics hit me (an injection)
About 15 days out I did a general blood test for veneral diseases. Nothing came up. I didn´t take the HIV test, as it was too early. I´m about 23 days out now, and quite worried. I´ve refrained from sex with my partner, although I haven´t said anything yet. Frankly, I´m so shocked about the whole situation that... Well, I´m shocked, feel guilty, have the nerves. Etc.
So, can anyone give me an idea what the risk is. I haven´t had a high fever, and the rash looks to be disappear. The doc said it´s probably just from sweating, although he seemed a bit surprised when i said it doesn´t itch, hurt, etc. On the one hand, it looks like eight or nine zits, although in a strange place. On the other hand, it looks terrifying.
Radman
Not to go too far into overdone territory, but I got trashed in Prague at a bachelor party and the next thing I know a female sexworker was giving me oral sex. I never have done anything like this, don´t condone prostitution and generally can´t believe this happened to me. Especially, as I had just come down with jock itch and was chafed, scratched and planning to see a dermatologist the next day.
The jock itch thing hits me every year. What I´m worried about is the following...
1) Thankfully, when I remember there was a condom.
2) Unfortunately, I was chafed up and to my horror I had a deep scratch on one side of my testicles that was probably there before that night. Other little scratches. I don´t remember much, but I believe her salive did get in contact with these areas.
3) I´m 99 percent sure there was no vaginal sex.
Now it is three weeks later and I´m quite worried. I have had the following...
1) The runs, although this came and went. In Central Europe this doesn´t mean much
2) Red spots-rash that look a bit like the Google pic (not so many though) under each armpit, starting on about day 8
3) a sore throat that has demanded antibiotics to tackle, starting on about day 20
4) Slightly enlarged nodes on one side of my neck.
5) General tiredness until the antibiotics hit me (an injection)
About 15 days out I did a general blood test for veneral diseases. Nothing came up. I didn´t take the HIV test, as it was too early. I´m about 23 days out now, and quite worried. I´ve refrained from sex with my partner, although I haven´t said anything yet. Frankly, I´m so shocked about the whole situation that... Well, I´m shocked, feel guilty, have the nerves. Etc.
So, can anyone give me an idea what the risk is. I haven´t had a high fever, and the rash looks to be disappear. The doc said it´s probably just from sweating, although he seemed a bit surprised when i said it doesn´t itch, hurt, etc. On the one hand, it looks like eight or nine zits, although in a strange place. On the other hand, it looks terrifying.
Radman
Well, I guess it's documented then, but it's so ridiculously low it's beyond negligible
But how about those reported case? Surely you will tell me reported cases are not reliable, but then what qualifies for an actual documented case? Do you really think that documented cases can cover for everything here? Or do you really think that rare case(theoritical risk) can never really happen?
Is kissing a theoretical or documented risk then? Since there was one documented or reported case of infection from kissing, happened that both have bleeding in mouth and one has a sky high viral load too. Surely it is extremely rare too as there's only 1 case in 25 years?
Theoretical risk is for getting oral.
Giving oral is a documented risk.
But as we have discussed ad nauseum here extremely low risk, many people find this level of risk acceptable.
Giving oral is a documented risk.
But as we have discussed ad nauseum here extremely low risk, many people find this level of risk acceptable.
Typo! The last sentence in my comment should read
You know that people win lotttery. You just know that it's NOT going to be you )))
Sorry
You know that people win lotttery. You just know that it's NOT going to be you )))
Sorry
Here is the definition of theoritical risk before you use it again.
When scientists describe the risk of transmitting an infectious disease, like HIV, the term “theoretical risk” is often used. Very simple, “theoretical risk” means that passing an infection from one person to another is possible, even though there may not yet be any actual documented cases. “Theoretical risk” is not the same as likelihood. In other words, stating that HIV infection is “theoretically possible” does not necessarily mean it is likely to happen –only that it might. Documented risk, on the other hand, is used to describe transmission that has actually occurred, been investigated, and documented in the scientific literature.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/Facts/oralsex.pdf
When scientists describe the risk of transmitting an infectious disease, like HIV, the term “theoretical risk” is often used. Very simple, “theoretical risk” means that passing an infection from one person to another is possible, even though there may not yet be any actual documented cases. “Theoretical risk” is not the same as likelihood. In other words, stating that HIV infection is “theoretically possible” does not necessarily mean it is likely to happen –only that it might. Documented risk, on the other hand, is used to describe transmission that has actually occurred, been investigated, and documented in the scientific literature.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/Facts/oralsex.pdf
I agree with you. I still think rare case does happen(theoritical risk), although very rarely. So rare that if it does really happen, poeple might think they lie or something and refuse to read much into it. However since it is so rare and almost never happen, that means the expert are almost always right about too.
Don't forget, Dr.HHH is always coming from the public health perspective.
From the public health point, the rare exceptions can be ignored, yes.
But he never says "no risk", because it's irresponsible, it gives people a false sense of security.
Even if it's lottery-winning odds, it's still not zero. You know that people win lotttery. You just know that it's going to be you ))))
From the public health point, the rare exceptions can be ignored, yes.
But he never says "no risk", because it's irresponsible, it gives people a false sense of security.
Even if it's lottery-winning odds, it's still not zero. You know that people win lotttery. You just know that it's going to be you ))))
Doctors will never say anything with "absolute" certainty because there is no such thing and they are not allowed to do so.
FYI.....if you haven't seen it, here's what Dr. HHH says about the risk:
"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."
He's basically saying it doesn't happen.
"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."
He's basically saying it doesn't happen.
Give it up. Teak is correct. The CDC relies on the lies told to it by infected people. Even if it were true, so what? A handful (literally) of people "claim" to have got it by some type of oral. That risk does not even register on the radar.
Serodiscordant couples and studies are the ones I would tend to believe much more than the above.
I know one thing for sure, you need to take what Dr. Bob says in proper context. He tells everyone to test for the simple reason that it will relieve their obvious anxiety. he knows full well the "real" risks. Why not ask him if he has unprotected oral with his male partner? Maybe that will clear things up for you.
Serodiscordant couples and studies are the ones I would tend to believe much more than the above.
I know one thing for sure, you need to take what Dr. Bob says in proper context. He tells everyone to test for the simple reason that it will relieve their obvious anxiety. he knows full well the "real" risks. Why not ask him if he has unprotected oral with his male partner? Maybe that will clear things up for you.
How can you claim to have had the worse experience of anyone in here? You had oral sex. You had no risk. I don't think anyone who has mouth issues bad enough to pass along hiv is going to be giving oral or kissing anyone. Come on man, get a grip.
Okay, but again that's a very small study and not a well-controlled study. And there were other studies that Radman is mentioning that did find a few transmissions...
By the way, the link is old, from 2001. Do you know why the data hasn't been published yet? I'd like to see that paper.
By the way, the link is old, from 2001. Do you know why the data hasn't been published yet? I'd like to see that paper.
I beg your pardon. You should do more research.
http://www.ucsf.edu/pressrel/2001/08/081401.html
http://www.ucsf.edu/pressrel/2001/08/081401.html
Well, it is sloppy, there is no data there. Why else do you think it would be in such an inferior journal??? Aidsmeds people are the only ones that keep bringing it up every day.
There were a few (not many) different studies on oral sex with different results. Some found a few transmissions, some didn't find any. Clearly the risk is very low.
The "California study" is still not published, to my knowledge. If there are any other published studies, give me a reference, I would be happy to take a look!
There were a few (not many) different studies on oral sex with different results. Some found a few transmissions, some didn't find any. Clearly the risk is very low.
The "California study" is still not published, to my knowledge. If there are any other published studies, give me a reference, I would be happy to take a look!
The only one that thinks it's sloppy is you. Why don't you mention the California Study? Why don't you mention the studies of serocouples? All of them have been done in the US.
No studies that I am aware of indicate that there is any risk with INSERTIVE oral which is what you had. And it makes sense, because saliva is really not very infectious when it comes to HIV.
The only evidence out there is for transmission through receptive oral, through exposure to semen.
I am confident you have nothing to worry about.
The only evidence out there is for transmission through receptive oral, through exposure to semen.
I am confident you have nothing to worry about.
The Spanish study everyone is going crazy about on these forums is really a pretty sloppy study, nobody puts too much weight into it. I suggest you go and actually read it yourselves, you can do it.
And no, there were not 19 000 instances of fellatio there. If I remember correctly on 3 000 or so instances of receptive fellatio with ejaculation. So yes, the 1 in 10 000 risk still stands.
And yes, the viral load of the subjects was not monitored at all, but likely it was low.
The whole paper is only one page long! There is hardly any data there at all. It's garbage, if you ask me.
But it does reinforce the notion that oral sex is extremely low risk.
And no, there were not 19 000 instances of fellatio there. If I remember correctly on 3 000 or so instances of receptive fellatio with ejaculation. So yes, the 1 in 10 000 risk still stands.
And yes, the viral load of the subjects was not monitored at all, but likely it was low.
The whole paper is only one page long! There is hardly any data there at all. It's garbage, if you ask me.
But it does reinforce the notion that oral sex is extremely low risk.
You are right and it is an article that is 6 years old. The one person that is documented to be infected by a bite had severe trama and lots of blood involved. There are more bites that have not caused HIV. Saliva is not infectious, neither are tears or sweat.
Those document studies you have pointed out, surely they only means those couple who are under medication control of some sorts or with lower viral load, and that surely does not include those couple with sky high viral load right? Seems to me that from time to time I would hear a rare case of someone who got infected through giving oral, so do you agree oral sex is still possible(giving oral) although very low chance?
This is not the study, but it refers to part of what I read.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1422582.stm
Um, I´m a bit new around here, but it might help to tone down the panic factor.
There seems to be a risk, unless the bbc and the doctors and everyone got it wrong. I have no idea how much of a risk, which is why i was wondering if someone knows about saliva to open cut-scratch risk. Apparently, some people in the U.S. have been infected by a bite. As this was an active sex worker, I have no idea what her mouth condition was, but I probably was not the only guy she serviced in this way. This would mean possible abrasions, possible, but I doubt much blood, although who can say. So...
Is the general consensus still no risk... I´m talking about spit on a cut-chafed areas of the testicles.
Radkon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1422582.stm
Um, I´m a bit new around here, but it might help to tone down the panic factor.
There seems to be a risk, unless the bbc and the doctors and everyone got it wrong. I have no idea how much of a risk, which is why i was wondering if someone knows about saliva to open cut-scratch risk. Apparently, some people in the U.S. have been infected by a bite. As this was an active sex worker, I have no idea what her mouth condition was, but I probably was not the only guy she serviced in this way. This would mean possible abrasions, possible, but I doubt much blood, although who can say. So...
Is the general consensus still no risk... I´m talking about spit on a cut-chafed areas of the testicles.
Radkon
That is something I've learned Teak, Now I know HIV doesn't have symptoms, and googling and searching online diagnosing myself, got me worse, I thought 10000% Idid contracted the virus, I don't care what virus it was, all I know is that i'm HIV negative, and I suffered so much, I prayed to God everyday, I am grateful to be negative, I am more careful now, and I will not take the chance again to put myself in that risk.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
