"Why would a gay man who had anal sex with a known HIV positive person be any more at risk than a woman who had anal sex with a known HIV positive person? I find the comment by the doctor to be troubling...."
I don't think he is. He is saying that in the United States and most industrial communities HIV is much more prevelant in the gay community and IDU users. So statisticly your chances of receptical anal intercourse within the gay community carries a much higher risk than a male hetero act.
Symtpoms mean nothing so factoring symptoms into any equasion is pointless. Especially if people started calculating -20% because they have a sore throat.
I don't understand what troubles Ronnie99. I didn't say that receptive anal sex is any less risky for a woman than for a gay man. Receptive anal sex with a known-infected male is the highest of all sexual risk activities for HIV transmission. The gender of the receptive partner doesn't matter. (Presumably Ronnie isn't offended because I just happened to pick a gay male scenario rather than a heterosexual one.)
HHH, MD
That is not what was said. The quote is: "Situation B: High risk, really at risk person, a gay man who has receptive anal sex with a known HIV infected person."
I'll repeat: How is a gay man who receives anal sex from a known HIV positive person any more at risk than a female who receives anal sex from a known HIV positive person, be that person a IV drug user, bisexual, or heterosexual man?
So essentially you are saying that the behavior is the key, not the sexual orientation. I brought it up because the web is worldwide and HIV is a vastly heterosexual disease worldwide.
Yes the fact a person at low risk, who has possible exposure, but has no symptoms does factor into the equation especially if 80 to 90 % of infected people show symptoms....how could it not? Stacked with all of the odds the Dr. has stated AND showing no symptoms does apply especially combined with a 4-6 week negative test.
Anyway, I will not argue with you, you are now an expert since you are in the clear obviously, hence the reason for the more, say, cocky posts. Interesting thing is that when you were worried, you did not listen to the re-assurance on this board (the same stats you now state to others) or the many others you frequented at the time of the worry.
Glad to see you are out of the woods so to speak.
As the Doc says, this is my last post on this thread.
take care.
dumbo, the reason I said symptoms shouldnt be inclued is because the doc has given you, me and everyone a clear way to assess your/our risk. The predictive value will mean little to those with symptoms if they feel that their symptoms lower or debunk their odds. HHH, aidsmeds, Dr. Bob have all stated that symptoms or the lack there of mean nothing in reguards to HIV. Only testing tells the true story.
I've said it before, I'm not an HIV expert but I did stay at a Holliday in last night.....