Input needed

Hi,
has anyone read that swishing your mouth after oral sex with say Hydogen Peroxcide would help prevent infection? I have had several oral encounters and am worried. I use condoms for a long time but they just were not doing it so I have retured to oral with out them. I have always tried to be safe. I got my Hep. A/B Vac. and all that. I read where Hyd. P  kills the virus so I thought I might use it after oral sex.
Someone told me  however they thought it would kill the good Bactiria and hurt the sliva from doing its job.  Oh so many complications just to have a little sex

[Teak]

If you have good oral hygiene, then you have nothing to worry about. Your saliva has inhibiting factors against HIV. Peroxide, diluted with water makes a good oral mouthwash. Not necessary, but it

[scareshitless]

oral carries a very low risk of infection but its no 0 risk, there were cases that people got infected that way but all of those infected had oral problems such as gum disease or other form of oral issues. As long as u have a healthy mouth and u did not come in contact with semen or precum then ur risk is very low to nonexistent. no worries here.

[mike_no]

Practically, ORAL SEX = NO RISK

move on !

[Teak]

So far everyone that has claimed to have gotten infected by performing oral has been refuted for the cause of their HIV infection.

[hitofly]

Thanks  I have good oral health . of course after non condom oral one is bound to get some pre cumm in the mouth. I'm not going to panic though. I did use the Hydo. P I hope that will reduce an already very low risk encounter. Thanks again

[scareshitless]

I have read in a medical journal where they have reported oral infection bc of bad oral health, but were not sure if thats the only thing that those infected did. But yes if u have bad oral health and bleeding gums and get in contact with semen, I believe there could be a risk there, but in this case no worries.

[Teak]

It's considered a "Theoretical" risk, which means it can happen, but has never been documented to happen.

[mike_no]

That information is not accurate because it's disputed CDC thinks both the cases acquired HIV due to some other reason...but the exact reason was unfound

[scareshitless]

Here is am article made in 2003 fromthe CDC.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/oralsexqa.htm

[scareshitless]

I would not say that oral sex=no risk that is a wrong statement, its more oral sex=low risk but not no risk

[mike_no]

No that's not a wrong statement, read carefully:

Practically, ORAL SEX = NO RISK

[scareshitless]

have u read the cdc report where i have the link, u need to give people factual response and not give people a false sense of security where they can put themselves in danger, oral sex is far from no risk, its is very  low risk. I have my statement backed f with a cdc research, where is ur backup for "no risk"?

[mike_no]

Also refer to what Teak told you above it's a Theoretic risk, which can happen but never happened till now

There's a difference between theory and practicality

so far in the history of HIV (MILLIONS OF PEOPLE GETTING AFFECTED)only 2 people have been said to acquire the virus through oral sex and that information is still in disputes since concerned agencies/boards are very skeptical about the accuracy of that info and also feel they might have already had HIV due to other reasons which was untold

[scareshitless]

Just read the CDC report here is a few quotes.
1)"The Options Project found that 7.8% (8 of 102) of recently infected men who have sex with men in San Francisco were probably infected through oral sex. Most of these men believed that the risk was minimal or non-existent."

2)Question:
What are the exact ways that HIV was transmitted in this study?

Answer: Nearly half (3 of 8) of these cases reported oral problems, including occasional bleeding gums. Almost all (7 of 8) of these men reported to have had oral contact with pre-semen or semen.
3)Question:
How do you know if the study participants were telling the truth about their sexual history?

Answer: Oral transmission of HIV is very difficult to single out as the only way that HIV is transmitted because few people engage exclusively in oral sex. A number of specific questions were asked by a trained evaluator. The participants

[mike_no]

well, in that case you should go around and suggest people ;

1. to test till 6 months after protected sex
2. testing till 6 months after a kissing incidence
3. most importantly 6 months of testing instead of 6-8 week's conclusive

I'm sure you have back up for that too, righty?

you still need to read a lot about it, I'm not saying that I've read a lot but I know about it cuz I constantly keep talking to a HIV specialist but thats okay, I'm not clarifying any thing to you.

[scareshitless]

just advice people with factual info, i would not advise people to get tested at 6 months, u are wrong for saying oral sex=no risk, not true according to the CDC. I am not criticizing u but dont give people a false sense of security, people need to know facts so they can make their own judgement about risks, and yes oral sex is a very very low risk, but not 0 risk! I will not argue with u on this subject anymore, there is a link that i have posted from the CDC, its up to people to go there and read the infos, and make their own judgement about oral sex.

[mike_no]

just advice people with factual info, i would not advise people to get tested at 6 months, u are wrong for saying oral sex=no risk, not true according to the CDC. I am not criticizing u but dont give people a false sense of security, people need to know facts so they can make their own judgement about risks, and yes oral sex is a very very low risk, but not 0 risk! I will not argue with u on this subject anymore, there is a link that i have posted from the CDC, its up to people to go there and read the infos, and make their own judgement about oral sex

So if I'm wrong saying oral sex = no risk, even you're wrong saying 6 - 8 weeks CONCLUSIVE because at the 6/8 weeks the accuracy of the test is 90 % at the 12th week it's 97 % and at the 6 th month it is 99.9 % accurate, so I would suggest even YOU need to stick to factual information

Even , I'm NOT criticizing you neither taking any offense,If talking sense gives others a false sense of security so be it that way and in that case even you need to stop giving others a false sense of security by saying "8 week's conclusive" cuz thats not, it's only at  92-93 % accuracy at that point of time , (of course theoretically)

Even I won't argue with you on this subject with you cuz I know you are still yet to learn 'how to differentiate practicality and a theory'

Cuz on one hand you're giving notions about 8 week's CONCLUSIVE (not even wht the doc. feels but what you feel) and on the other hand you say you have read the cdc website and oral sex is low risk not no risk.

I think you should read it further to know that CDC says

a.protected sex (using condom)is not 100 % safe - would you warrant testing for such incidences?

b.Kissing is a risk - would you warrant testing ?

c. A test at the 12/13 week's 97 % and at the 6th month is 99.9 % - so would you warrant resting for all above mentioned incidences till 6 months ...holy sht

d. above all where are getting that information from 8 weeks conclusive when CDC says 6 month is ??

So I'd ask you to talk sense and talk facts !

[kimoz]

Giving oral is considered very very low risk, while receiving oral is no risk.

[mike_no]

This information was collated by dobber21, I think you should read it:

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIVSupport/messages/1855.html

[scareshitless]

sorry if u take offense, this is what the CDC has reported, not my own research! Yes i would warrant testing for kissing if both partners have bleeding gums, and a lot of blood was exchange, in which I highly doubt that anyone would kiss with a mouth full of blood. U try to change the subject to testing out at 6 months, if the person wants to do so, then its fine. I would say for myself, 2 months is definitive for me. Again u are not an hiv specialist and can not tell people oral sex=no risk, what factual information do u have to back ur statement up?, it is misleading! Your statement is given people a false sense of security expecially for those who does not know much about hiv trasmission. According to the report, those infected and had oral health problems believed that oral sex is minimal and no risk, therefore they did not protect themselves even when they knew they have oral issues. If u have no oral issues then you should not worry about it, if you do have oral issues then its best to be safe and put a condom on the one eye monster that u will suck. So please do not advise people that oral sex=no risk because it is a wrong statement, not according to me only but to the CDC report.

[mike_no]

Right, Do you even know what are you talking about ?

You say, I'm changing the topic, say whatever but does makes sense, right?
CDC says 99.9 % accuracy at the 6 months, so who are you to suggest other people 8 months conclusive, right- so you should keep that info to your self only and not to suggest others, where are you getting that information from ???

You say "Yes i would warrant testing for kissing if both partners have bleeding gums, and a lot of blood was exchange, in which I highly doubt that anyone would kiss with a mouth full of blood."

So you FEEL that no body would kiss some one with mouthful of blood...how can you FEEL that?

and even if you feel that, yes you're right cuz you're being practical, thats my point, no body with profusely bleeding oral condition would perform oral sex and even if performed need substantial amount of blood to infect the partner , you should also know that saliva contains sugar proteins which eliminates HIV....so risk out of ora; sex is just NOT possible, it's only a risk in the books

thats why I say - practically, oral sex is no risk

Yes, I'm no HIV expert neither you are if you want to go accordance to reports and theories there are many things that you'd have to change , sweets

like I've told you before first thing that has to be changed is to suggest people testing out to 6 months


Well, even I would suggest YOU stop advising people that 8 week's conclusive cuz you are insulting people / boards like Dr. BOB / CDC and generating a false sense of security cuz at the 6th month it's 99.9 % conclusive

[mike_no]

correction : 2nd paragraph 8 months is supposed to be 8 weeks

[hitofly]

WOW you two are going at it. I hope I didn't do something rea stupid. As I said I have been doing unprotected oral a little whle now. I can't beleive they have such a hard time evaluating this risk. I know loads of people mostly Bi sexuals that do NOTHING but ORAL. I think they CDC are following the wrong group to determine oral risk. Bi Sexuals are much more inclined to only do oral sex. heck I could take five people I have know for years to get tested. If they don't have it from oral nobody would. Thanks for your replies.

[mike_no]

I did not wanted to clarify to scareshitless so as to why I say oral sex = no risk cuz there was no point in doing it cuz he won't simply understand it !

For you to understand,

1.swallowing body fluid is not the right mechanism for acquiring HIV

2.one needs to have profusely bleeding cuts and severe ulcers which is always bleeding

3. Infected semen / blood when mixed with saliva the virus becomes inactive since saliva contains certain proyeins which can eliminate the virus

4. Substantil amount of blod is required ~ > 8ounces

5. hence I say practically oral is no risk

Please read the information collated by dobber21 it's real and makes lot of sense

One needs to understand that CDC is very conservative about lot of things.