Got drunk, have ARS symptoms, I think, and am worried...

[radman]

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

[MelvinG1]

You know, sometimes God test you to see how far you'll go, to see how strong you are. I had a worst experience than anybody else in here. I had two exposure through oral sex, and I got sick a couple of weeks later with all the ARS symptoms, including FEVER!! I cried everyday, and I prayed to God, (still do), I took a 103 day HIV antibodies 1 and 2, and I Thank GOD I was negative. Mind you, I had all the HIV symptoms, you can't rely on symptoms, there is no such thing as a late seroconvert, according to all the HIV specialist, that USED to happen back then where technology wasn't as advance as today. Give you an example Australia has a HIV test that you don't have to wait longer than 6 weeks to detect your hiv antibodies, and I was wondering how come the USA doesn't have that, because we have to wait bet 6-8 weeks and up to 3 months. Please don't rely on symptoms, pray to God, have confident in yourself, and learn from your mistakes.

[regularjoey]

if you just got a blowjob, you were at no risk for HIV

[magiclight]

congradulation , hope you all the best .
plz culd give odds here in my situation , and if ineed to retest :HELLO ALL , IS ANY NEED FOR RETESTING ? ,  I CAN TREAT THE OTHERS WORRIES BUT I USUALLY COULDNOT DEAL WITH MINE ,HERE MY STORY AS IT HAPPEND.
IAM RESIDENT DOCTOR , I STUDIED MEDICINE AND I KNOW ALOT ABOUT HIV . RECENTLY BEFORE 15 DAYS I HAD SEX WITH LADY I DONNOT KNOW HER SITUATION IS SHE HIV NEGATIVE OR POSATUVE ?.(1) I WORRIED ABOUT AKISS ABOUT, HUUMM 2MINUTES, THERE IS NO TONGUE TO TONGUE KISS  - HER TONHUE ON MY LIPS , I FEEL SOME WETNESS ON MY LIPS FROM THE SALIVA ( WHAT ABOUT THE RISK HERE) ? (2)THEN I HAD PROTECTED VAGINAL INTERCOURES ABOUT 2 MINUTES TILL FINISHED, LADY ON TOP, SHE TOOK THE CONDOM OUT MY PEINS BUT AFTER IT LOST ERCTION BUT I FEEL IT IN SIDE THE CONDOM. I TESTED THE CONDOM WITH WATER NO WOSSE THAT IN THE SAME DAY AND 2 DAYS AFTER BEFORE PUT IT IN THE BASKET  ,?
WHAT ABOUT THE RISK HERE ?
(3) ALSO I FINGERED HER IN HER ***** BUT I WAS WEARING GLOVES ? WAT ABOUT RISK ?
(4) I SUCKED HER BOTH NIPLEES FOR SECONDS- IS THAT RISKY?  
I TESTED BLOOD IN 10 , 17 , 25 DAYS ,IT CAME NEGATIVE . I ASKED THE LADY ABOUT HERE SITUATION REGARDING HIV , SHE SAID SHE IS NEGATIVE & NO NEED FOR TESTING , BUT I INSISTED , I TESTED HER AFTER 18 DAYS , SHE IS NEGATIVE .
Any need for testing again .


THANX FOR YOUR REPLIES & COMMENTS.  

[radman]

Thanks Melvin,

It´s the saliva to open wound risk I´m worried about regularjoey. Turns out in London they are having more cases tha seem to be oral sex specific, even insertive...

P

[MelvinG1]

Let me tell you I was very concern because I had bleeding gums, and I got sick with all the ARS symptoms, reason why I cried, I felt guilty, imagined having fever, muscle ache, diarrhea, and all the other symptoms you can imagine about HIV, you'll die, but you're not a doctor, don't diagnose yourself. I've learned my lesson its been almost 4 months from my exposure, I haven't had any sex, because the day I will, it will be protected with my partner someone I know and trust!!!

[MelvinG1]

No need for testing, you had protected vaginal intercourse sex. You know you did the right thing, always use protection regardless if your partner or not. We have to learn how to love ourselves, nobody loves your body more than you do. Nobody will care about you, more than yourself. Kissing doesn't carry a major unless she had bleeding gums or sores and you are both bleeding and kissing each other. I don't think this was the case, there was never a case of HIV through kissing. Just remember, ANAL, VAGINAL, AND ORAL SEX does carry risk for hiv and other STD's, that is why we have to take care of ourselves, use PROTECTION. ANAL AND VAGINAL does carry a higher risk than ORAL but there is always a chance, just please use protection all the time, because you don't want to suffer for 3 months without knowing your HIV status, its not worth it.

[magiclight]

thanx for you reply . I tried to be carefulin the event .
Do I need to test the lady again in 15 weeks . injust to be more sure of her situation ( she insisted that she has nothing to worry and said I am more obssessed and we did nothing serious if she had any thing , but I insisted as mention above ).
Regards

[magiclight]

Thanx again , That is wat my friends say to me , that I had no sreious events or exposure , with the protection , and the lady insisted she is negative and the test profe that . all my friends and the members recommond to forget tesing and just move on .

[MelvinG1]

just forget about the testing, learn from your experiences, protect yourself all the way 100%! you'll be fine!!! enjoy life, be safe!!!

[MelvinG1]

I think You just need to relax, go for a walk, go out with your friends, do some kind of activity to keep your mind off this situation, at least you tested her and you know she's hiv negative, you're negative, your risk is nonexistent, you don't have HIV, don't worry about it. Imagine my situation I was sick with all the HIV symptoms without having the opportunity to test either both guys. I thank God for the opportunity he has given me, reason why I have chosesn to help the worried wells, because I was in that situation, I was willing to kill myself, its not worth it. In your case, I'll be relax drinking some wine, get a tan, enjoy life that is beautiful and just remember, don't trust nobody, always protect yourself and you'll never have to worry about your HIV status, the only way we can stop this epidemic is by protecting yourself and others from spreading the diseases.

[regularjoey]

Where did you get that, about London having cases of oral transmission?  I never heard anything like that.

Saliva is not considered infectious, it is rare to isolate any infectious virrus at all from saliva.
You have nothing to worry about.

[MelvinG1]

Nobody said anything about london having cases of oral transmission through saliva. You need to re-read what I wrote again. We are here to educate each other, not question. All the Information I know, I got it from HIV Specialist and from thebody.com Dr. Bob, Dr. Steve they're wonderful doctors, they also helped me through my window period. The only way you can get HIV through kissing is if both partners have bleeding gums and sores around the mouth, where the virus can enter, HIV is not easy to get according to the Dr Bob and Dr Steve. I don't speak from the clouds, I speak what I was told from HIV specialist and information from the CDC website. I've tried to learn as much as I can, because I lived a horrible experience I thought I was HIV poz 110% percent, I got tested 103 days after my exposure and I was negative, I thank God for this opportunity, now Is my chance to educated the worried wells.

[mike_no]

Saliva doesn't contains HIV, you can't get infected in the manner you have mentioned.

HIV is not your problem.

[MelvinG1]

You guys need to read more about HIV and speak to professional hiv specialist, saliva does carry HIV, not as much to infect another person through kissing. Nobody has mentioned saliva as a way to transmitt HIV, I said bleeding gums and sores in both partners while kissing does carry a risk for hiv to enter the body through the cuts and blood. Yes, there is risk for oral sex too, if you have bleeding gums or any cuts in your mouth, and the guy cums in your mouth or precum. The study shows 3% of ppl who got HIV through oral sex. PPL SEX has to be safe, there are HIGH Risk and LOW risk, but don't think you can't get it because of low risk. There is a chance for anything, just use a condom for anal, vaginal and even flavored condoms for oral sex, protect yourself, love yourself, because HIV doesn't respect, age, color, race or anybody. You are the on in control, and you are the one that needs to protect yourself.

[mike_no]

I think, you need to read a little more before you point out loop holes, Saliva contains sugar proteins which eliminates the HIV.

2. Practically, Kissing and oral sex can't get you the virus because one needs to have a severely messed up oral condition, little cuts and sore won't be instrumental in the transmission of the virus, one needs to have a fresh gapping wound and it then has to come in contact with infected fluid (off course not sputum / saliva) but semen or blood.

3. Write qualitative and not quantitative, why are you giving me the "GYAN" ( all the knowledge) ?

[mike_no]

NO TESTING WARRANTED, NO RISK FOR HIV

[Teak]

Saliva is not infectious. It does not have enough hiv to cause an infection. Saliva has a number of enzymes to counter act hiv.

[MelvinG1]

Nobody mention contracting HIV through saliva, even though saliva does contain HIV but NOT enough to be transmitted through kissing. You are really messed up dude, you don't have to have really messed up mouth to contract HIV. HIV doesn't care if your mouth is a lil messed up or a lot, any lil cut, bleeding gums, that comes in contact with HIV positive blood, semen or precum regardless if your bleeding a bit or not, anything that comes in contact with HIV you will contract the virus. Oral sex is Low risk, but the risk is still there and possible, so don't go around telling ppl oral sex is no risk, because you're lying to them. Oral SEX is LOW Risk, and YOU CAN in FACT shown scientifically is possible to contract the virus. The percentage is low, but still possible. Get your facts straight.

[Jaguar83]

This person, MelvinG1, needs to stop posting.

[mike_no]

You are referring to old information, according to the latest research :

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13_e.html

[mike_no]

1. "Nobody mention contracting HIV through saliva, even though saliva does contain HIV but NOT enough to be transmitted through kissing."

I hope you'd take your time to clear the misconception that you have, please read the link.

2. "You are really messed up dude, you don't have to have really messed up mouth to contract HIV. HIV doesn't care if your mouth is a lil messed up or a lot, any lil cut, bleeding gums, that comes in contact with HIV positive blood, semen or precum regardless if your bleeding a bit or not, anything that comes in contact with HIV you will contract the virus"

Yes, you are correct and that why I'm here and talking to you, secondly, your comments just clarified that you're highly knowledge deficient.

3. "Oral sex is Low risk, but the risk is still there and possible, so don't go around telling ppl oral sex is no risk, because you're lying to them. Oral SEX is LOW Risk,"

Receiving oral is no risk for sure and giving oral certainly requires a few conditions which is practically impossible hence NO RISK and no testing warranted, I'm talking logic and not lying but you definitely seem to talk from your ***.

4."and YOU CAN in FACT shown scientifically is possible to contract the virus. The percentage is low, but still possible. Get your facts straight."

Assumption is the mother of all fuc.k ups, I just said how practically it's impossible, why don't you practice what you preach cuz you're the one who needs to awfully get his facts straight.

[MelvinG1]

I don't know where you live, and what world you are living. If you visit the CDC website, there is a percentage of ppl who got infected through oral sex. I read an article that 8 out of 108 got HIV through oral sex, so even though is not as risky as anal or drug injecting, the risk is still there and you can contract the virus. YES, is a FACT you can contract HIV through oral sex. Receiving oral sex, there has never been a document saying someone got HIV. In the other hand, when you go down on a man, you sucked his penis, you are in a risk low, but is there. You put yourself at a higher risk if you have bleeding gums, brushed your teeth and u have cuts or sores in your mouth, you get in contact with precum, semen or blood, there is no doubt you're risk is from low to high because you are been expose to the HIV virus. Just visit the CDC and thebody.com website, you'll read the new updated articles and stories of these ppl contracting HIV through giving oral sex.

[regularjoey]

There has never been a documented HIV transmission from a mouth to a penis.
Thus a risk is considered theoretical or negligible, which is basically zero.
So there is no reason to scare people with things that don't happen.

[MelvinG1]

Just go to the CDC, and thebody.com there are a low percentage of ppl showing HIV positive expose through oral sex, even though is low risk, these ppl got infected. I'm not speaking from my a**, just getting the facts, better knowing is a low risk than telling people lies saying is not risk. Everything is life has a risk, weather low or high. Don't go around preaching like you know it know, like your some kind of HIV specialist, treating ppl at your office, some kind of scientific who got all the facts. The CDC is a goverment related website, they don't lie or make up stories, HIV Is an epidemic we have been dealing for years, and yet they haven't found a cure for this virus, the only way to stop is by protecting yourself, using a condom because life is not guarantee 100% perfect, there are ups and downs, and sex is something very serious not only for HIV but for other STD'S.

[regularjoey]

For giving head, not getting head!

[Teak]

There has not been a documented verifiable case that anyone was or has been infected by oral sex. All the latest studies shows in serocouples that have protected vaginal and anal sex and no protection for oral swallowing semen or not any of the negative persons turned positive.  They have all been having unprotected oral sex with a positive partner for years.

[MelvinG1]

Like I said, when your mouth has bleeding gums, sores or anything cuts in your mouth, and someone cums in your mouth, semen precum or blood gets in contact, you're not going to tell me that you won't get HIV????????

[MelvinG1]

Like I said, everyone has different opinions, you learned from those who went to school, did their studies, practices medicines, treat HIV positive ppl, you learn from reading articles, the news, you learn from reading, you don't just learn from experiences and from what your eyes percieves. Like I said, everyone has different scenarios for their HIV exposure, wether is low or high, the facts is that you're not 100% safe all the time, its not guaranteed. Oral sex does carry a low risk exposure for HIV, its said by the CDC, thebody.com and other HIV specialist I've spoken to. It clearly says, if you have any cuts, bleeding gums, sores etc, avoid oral sex, because fluids such as semen or precum or blood can come in contact and you can be expose to HIV. These are scientific facts, not just bs coming from your brain and your suposably knowledge and power. I prefer to be safe, know the truth, and protect myself.

[MelvinG1]

I respect, everyones opinions, but I go by the facts I was told by HIV specialist, i've read many articles on the CDC website and TheBody.com, which they have great HIV specialist, and they will tell you the truth, everyone has a different scenario for their exposure, some are High and others are LOW risk, but the facts is there, nobody is safe from contracting HIV if having unprotected sex. Its not worth taking the chance. HIV doesn't respect, religion, age, color, or anybody, if you are expose to the virus you'll face the consequences, there is no cure, and the only way is to protect yourself is by using a condom.

[mike_no]

Well, Teak just answered what I was about to tell you.

I talk logic and not read out like you're doing, I don't profess to be an expert but I do know my stuffs unlike yourself simply "Ctrl-V & Ctrl -C".

One needs to understand the difference between theoretic and practical risk for that you'd have to use your brain.

[OrionQuest]

What Teak is saying is that there may be isolated reports here and there.  While these must be taken into consideration, it is his and several doctors' opinions that that anectodtal evidence is far outweighted by other studies involving lots of people and lots of serodiscordant couples.  While I will not agree with the wording oral sex= no risk I will go out on a limb to say getting head - no risk unless the giver has lots of gross blood in his/her mouth (and you'd know...).  Giving head - ludicrously low risk so as not to worry about it but still possible.

But as melvin said, to be safe use a rubber.

[Teak]

Listen, it's not going to happen that way. I don't care if it's semen, blood or anything else. If you want HIV share works with an infected IV drug user that is positive or have unprotected anal or vaginal sex with one. Then it is no guarantee that you will contract it on the first time. HIV is hard to transmit in the first place let alone be exposed to an inhabital space where there is saliva that has enzymes that protects the mouth from HIV infection.

[Teak]

Do you go to see an ID doctor every three months? I do. They all will tell you that oral sex is not a risk. Semen or not. We have doctors and researchers there that have been there since the beginning of HIV. Now if you want to believe that is the way in which HIV is transmitted fine. But don't try to tell others that when it is not fact.

[MelvinG1]

I don't know if you remember when I posted my concerns, I thought I contracted HIV through oral sex, I had all the ARS symptoms, but in thebody.com the HIV specialist told me that my risk was low, and to take an HIV test at three months, It turned out to be negative. He did tell me there is a low risk, that ppl have contracted HIV through oral sex, but the percentage is LOW. I've learned my lesson, and I've been doing research not googling but on the CDC website and thebody.com on oral sex and HIV and STD's transmission and according to them, there is a minimum risk, and the possibilities are there, is a FACT! I'm not a doctor, I can't say it's true, but these are government regulated websites that reports to the government and these studies are not going to be false. The best sex is safe!!!!

[Teak]

You cannot take the word of someone that says, " I only have done oral sex." That is not verifiable. What we do know are people that are in serocouple relationships and have been for years where they have protected vaginal and anal sex and unprotected oral and none of the negative persons have become positive. Now that is verifiable.

[mike_no]

He's not referring to some one that he knows but the infamous Spanish study. LOL !

[mike_no]

Melvin, Dr Bob also recommends testing out till 6 months, did you get your 6 months negative ?

[mike_no]

It's great that you've taken time to go through these websites, why don't you read about the recent studies which has a lot of information like the spain study, you need to understand that it's not always correct what you read, a little application of brain can make a lot of difference, I have been saying this time and again there are certain conditions for one to acquire HIV from oral and those conditions are very very unlikely to happen. you are acting like a parrot, just say what is heard without even analyzing it practically.

CDC even says one should test out to 6 months but we never talk about it since we know for a fact that one with compromised immune system are the ones who are supposed to be tested out till 6 months,would you test out to 6 months to be safe, know the truth, and protect yourself? Even Dr. Bob recommends testing out till 6 months for a conclusive some times

This is where logic comes in to the picture, lets see if you can answer this question

[MelvinG1]

YOu can't speak for these ppl, they don't count for the entire population in the world teak. Lets be real, not everyone contracts HIV through oral sex, because oral sex is low risk, and the percatage is very very low. Most is through anal, vaginal and drug related issues exposure, that I do agree. But, I do agree with that the CDC and TheBody.com states about oral sex, you can't rely on a small percentage of ppl you know, we are talking worldwide population, risk exposure and consequences. Lets be REAL!!!! These studies are not false, and trying to scare anyone, is a warning for those who think oral sex is 100% safe, IS NOT!

[mike_no]

Melvin,

Please don't impose your own fears on the others here, you were scared because you thought that you had acquired the virus through oral, never a risk !

[jddkdd]

You haven't cited a single scientific study that DOES NOT rely on patient reports that proves your point.  Patient reports are fallible because they rely on people's memories and other reasons for stating that they only had an oral sex risk.  If such a study exists, which documents scientifically that someone contracted HIV through oral sex, I would like to see that study.  Isn't it also strange that only gay men seem to report infection through oral sex?  What about women, who wouldn't have as much reason to deny having intercourse if they did indeed have it?  Funny how there are  no reports of women seroconverting after oral sex.  

The studies that Teak cites are documented and scientific and DO NOT rely on patient reports.  they look at test results of people who have only been having unprotected oral sex. How can it be that in those studies transmission can not be demonstrated?  One study looked at 19,000 instances of oral sex.  I think Dr. bob and the CDC say that the risk is 1 in 10,000..  By their standards, there should have been around 2 seroconversions in that group, if not more.  huh......guess how many there were?  NONE.  Dude get a grip.  It's good that you have set a boundary for yourself, but don't do scaring people with your unscientifically founded theories that you spouting and doing nothing but repeating CDC and Dr. Bob.  Even Dr. has said that oral sex is safe sex.  Dr. Bob recently said the risk negligible as well.  If you are into governments, look at the Canadian position on it which also says neglibile.  If I were going to believe a government I would believe the canadians over the US any day of the week!


And please don't say that just because the CDC says so that it has to be true.  I hope you are not so naive that you believe everything the government tells you.

[mike_no]

I had a doubt and that's clarified, you have no clue what HIV is, I'm sleepy and going to hit the bed.

Aus has the III & IV gen (duo test) as their normal HIV testing

Thats even available in India and if that's available in India it's definitely available in the US

That is why I'm trying to tell you, use your brain, buddy !

No one needs a 6 months test.

[MelvinG1]

Not everyone develops HIV antibodies at the same time, I better be safe and retest after 3 months if recommended depending on my exposure. I'm not a doctor, I'm not an HIV specialist, I've read many cases from thebody.com from here and the CDC website which shares information. I truly couldn't believe that someone will seroconvert after 6 months, I thought that is half of a year too long to wait. I don't understand why the USA doesn't have better HIV screening test. DR. Bob once said that in Australia they have a better high tech screening for HIV, you don't have to wait longer than 6 weeks, while in the USA they say Up to 6 months, I was wondering why? I thought we were good when it came to technology and medicine.  

[Teak]

The CDC is not going from studies; they are going from surveys of peer information. Which cannot be verified as that is the only risk those people has had. So go read about real studies, not peer information. Do you know how long it was before the CDC said condoms were effective in preventing HIV? Their main stance in the beginning was abstinence only.

[mike_no]

Mel, a risk is a risk be it ORAL (As per your Dr. Bob) anal or vaginal, can you please tell me whats the difference ?

So why double standards when it comes to testing, oral -3 months and anal 6- months, strange  ..LOL !

Look, get a life be real and talk logic, get out of the scripted world, think rationally.

[MelvinG1]

He didn't recommend me to test after 6 months. I do believe he does follow alot of things they say in the CDC website, which he did claim himself found to be rather to be safe than to be wrong. He also says depending on your scenario and exposure he rules out an HIV screening test, majority 3 months i've seen. I didn't understand why he will say oral sex 3 months but anal sex 6 months, if you are expose to HIV, regarless if oral or anal, you will show positive by 3 months from my understanding. An HIV specialist told me, he never heard of anyone who seroconvert after three months, he read something about been documented, but has never treated someone who took longer than 3 months to seroconvert. I think the CDC overexagerates sometimes, I'm not saying I don't believe what they report to the government, but sometimes they go off the limit and make it sound really big and a desaster.

[MelvinG1]

Like I said, i'm not a doctor, i'm not an HIV specialist, i'm not a scientist, I don't work with the government, I am just a regular person. Everything I Know, I was told by HIV specialist, The CDC website, Thebody.com and Dr. Bob who is an HIV specialist, and my HIV counselor here in NYC told me the same information. Now, why will they make up something so horrible about oral sex transmission? If something is been reported is because is a fact, its possible, it can happen not as often as having anal or vaginal sex or maybe injecting a needle with someone who is HIV positive, but the possiblities are there, even though the chances are very low.

[MelvinG1]

About Testing to 6 months, I don't know why doctors and people still recommend that. That is something I have always questioned, reasons why I asked an HIV specialist I know here in NYC, and he told me that neither he or any other HIV specialist he knows, has heard of anyone been positive after a 3 month negative hiv test. So then I was like, so why doctors say to test up to three months, saying you can have a false negative at 3 months, he told me that was false. A 3 month test is conclusive, and if you have any other doubts, to test at 6 months, it will be negative.

[mike_no]

Plain and simple, Covering up their as*

Theoretically possible but practically impossible and to support that there are recent studies conducted on the same.

[mike_no]

About testing to 6 months, you know what  ?

During the initial HIV tests that was the testing window and today you have the IV gen tests but that window is still in the picture, why ?

CYA mentality !

I'm sure you don't have cancer and in the last stage of it for a 6 months test cuz they are the one who'd need a 6 months test.

You never really required a test at the first place, if you thought about it logically.

[mike_no]

Your major problem was guilt, keep in mind, 12 week's conclusive, you don't need a 6 month's test

[mike_no]

...and yes you didn't even have a risk to begin with

[MelvinG1]

I did required testing, because I had four years without testing, and I needed to clearmy mind. Plus I was having what I thought was Ars symptoms, I thank GOD I was negative. I suffered so much, and I will never be involved in unprotected sex in my life.

[MelvinG1]

Perhaps was guilt, perhaps it wasn't, I don't choose to have fever, diarrhea, muscle ache, stiff neck, sore throat, achy body, headache, stuffy nose, postnasal drip, lack of appetite, loss weight, white tongue, dry mouth,  I didn't chose to get sick a couple of weeks after my oral "nonexistant" risk. I thought I did contracted the HIV virus, the thing is that I didn't, I thank God everyday, and I will never put myself in such situation again. I had all the HIV symptoms, I don't know why, some ppl get symptoms others don't, I was told you can't rely on symptoms, I've learned my lesson, I will never put myself now low risk or high risk, I prefer to know the facts, and protect myself.

[Teak]

You did not have all the HIV symptoms, because HIV has no specific symptoms.

[mike_no]

LOL !

I recently had some mysterious infection all over my body, on my penis head and today I discovered blisters on my lips, I also have a 80 days negative, so I know for sure it's not HIV perhaps I got herpes from some one.

it happens, thats why none can guess HIV with the help of symptoms

[MelvinG1]

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.

[radman]

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

[kimoz]

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?

[Teak]

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.

[regularjoey]

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.

[regularjoey]

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.

[Teak]

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.  

[regularjoey]

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!

[Teak]

I beg your pardon. You should do more research.

http://www.ucsf.edu/pressrel/2001/08/081401.html

[regularjoey]

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.

[farfromperfect]

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.  

[dumbo]

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.

[Teak]

Knock it off, you've cut and pasted that in about evey thread. Geesh.

[jddkdd]

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.

[jddkdd]

yeah, but some people don''t seem to get the message about the non-risk.

[dumbo]

Doctors will never say anything with "absolute" certainty because there is no such thing and they are not allowed to do so.

[regularjoey]

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 ))))

[kimoz]

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.

[Teak]

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

[regularjoey]

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

[regularjoey]

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.

[kimoz]

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?

[kimoz]

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?

[regularjoey]

Well, I guess it's documented then, but it's so ridiculously low it's beyond negligible