Interesting.. Window Period

Me being the worry wart I am, I had a discussion today with an hiv counselor in Austin and was told that the CDC considers a 6 week test conclusive, but they're required to use 3 month as a standard simply because of a CYA attitude.

Don't want this to incite a flame war (I'm glaring at Guilt and Teak), but thought it was interesting that a professional source (who has been an hiv counselor for 23 years) confirmed that.

[Rae1]

Reducing the window period id assume?

[guiltnworry]

Thank you!  It is a miracle, people on this forum are actually beginning to see the light.  Wow, yes they are reducing the window period.  As I have said numerous times on numerous threads, 3 months has no medical relevance and is simply a CYA attitude.  6 week test, conclusive, the HIV counselor, along with Drs. Hook and HHH, and the infectious disease docs at Emory, I think I was CONCLUSIVELY right.  Thank you Rae.

[dumbo]

Do you currently work in an HIV clinic?  

[julez9012]

where did you hear that they are reducing it?

[julez9012]

?

[guiltnworry]

julez- All of the infectious disease docs I know say that the guidelines concerning HIV are being changed, especially as new tests and meds come out.  

Dumbo- No, not currently.  I worked in two different ones in one of the top 10 cities for HIV rates.  Once medical school started, and I moved out of state, I didn't resume my work in Georgia.  Instead, I frequently shadow infectious disease docs who see private patients in Atlanta.

[Ausguy]

The doctor at the clinic I went to told me as long as the exposure was 4-5 weeks ago, it would be conclusive.

[Teak]

I went to the Clinic today, they are not changing it from 3 months.  Until tests are approved by the FDA, it still takes three months to get a conclusive result. No test has been ammended or has any manufacture ask to have their tests ammended to less than three months. If anyone wants to call the University of Cincinnati ID Clinic be by guest. But at this time their is no talk about even lowering the conclusive timeline.

[bigdummy1]

I called the CDC and they said they are not changing their guidelines.  Where did you get this information.  Furthermore, Dr's Hook and Handsfield continue to recommend testing out to 12 weeks for high risk exposures.  Not sure where you get your info from and then even use it to twist the recommendations from the Dr's on Medhelp.

[guiltnworry]

Dr. HHH will tell you, and has told many people, that if they have a test at 6-8 weeks, you can consider it conclusive.  All of the doctors I have encountered will tell you the same thing.  AusGuy's physician, along with Rae1's clinic doctor, all said the same thing.  There was nothing twisted about what I put up.  Dr. HHH literally said, as did Dr. Hook, that 6-8 week tests are conclusive.  Search the archives, you will see this.  I posted excerpts from a few of their responses on another thread.  Of course someone went to the clinic today.  Apparently so did a lot of other people, and that someone is the only person who said they are not changing it from 3 months.  I doubt that this person asked what they actually consider conclusive, as opposed to what they use.  As the user Rae1 said, his clinic said by CDC law they have to say 3 months is conclusive, but they ACTUALLY use 6-8 weeks.  Continue to believe your outdated information, my information comes from my actual work in the medical field and not someone sitting behind a phone at the CDC who simply looks up your question and tells you 3 months.

[Teak]

I just posted a reply of what Dr. Hook advised a poster. You are not giving out factual information you are going by hearsay from people that don't know what they are talking about. Call the CDC and verify it. Then come back an post how wrong you were.

[guiltnworry]

People who don't know what they are talking about?  Infectious disease docs at Emory in Atl, one of the hot spots for HIV?  Ok, yes I guess they don't know what they are talking about.  I think I'll listen to you in the future Teak.  Wow

[dumbo]

I am not sure why all the ongoing endless debate on this subject.  But I will add I would go with the over 60 years of combined experience of the 2 doctors here and others I have heard from in person,also in the same field.  

I think it is important to realize that Dr. H (and others) have said they have never seen a 4 week negative turn positive later without any other risk factors.  I like to go by real world experience.  So, in the case of testing recommendations, I go with recognized dorctors in the trenches so to speak.  But it all depends on how comfortable a person is and who they will go with.

  In temrs of say oral sex, which the CDC says is a risk, I go with the studies done and with the comments made by sero discordant couples on Aidsmeds.  That is real world experience and no governing agency can beat that imo.

[bigdummy1]

Here is a reply from Dr Hook:  "If this test is negative, your should have the serological test at some point between 4-6 weeks after the exposure and then again at 12 weeks."  Also CDC does not have a law.  They will continue to follow the testing procedures established by the manufacturers and approved by the FDA.  Until that changes -which it wont, the CDC will not be changing their guidelines.  CDC law-now thats laughable.

[guiltnworry]

I agree totally.  Real world experience trumps lab work and projected studies all of the time.  People are not lab rats and they do not behave exactly as predicted or projected.  Good post.

[bigdummy1]

The CDC says oral is a risk because it is a risk, albeit a small one.  Dr HHH has also said transmission probably does occur via insertive oral but in such small numbers it really doesnt matter. Also the studies that have been done are with relatively small subject samples that conclusions can not be called definitive.

[Teak]

What does AidsMeds say about a conclusive test? They say three months is conclusive.

[Teak]

That is incorrect, the studies that have been completed and some are ongoing and have been for many years verifies that oral sex, receiving or giving is not a a risk. There are no verified cases that anyone has been infected via oral sex. There is however the long and on going studies on serodiscordant couples and no one has ever seroconverted.

[guiltnworry]

Dumbo is right, as is Teak this time.  Oral is no risk, period.  Nothing has ever been confirmed.  If oral was a risk, many more people would have it, as serodiscordant couples who use protection for both anal and vaginal sex and no protection for oral never get HIV.  

[bigdummy1]

You are 100% WRONG!  There is documented proof that people have become infected through receptive oral sex-it is not theoretical but real documented cases.  GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

[guiltnworry]

There is NO documented proof of an infection via oral.  The ONLY thing that these studies claim is that participants in the study have REPORTED that oral was their only risk.  This is highly unlikely that a gay (or straight man for that matter) only had oral sex over a period of two years! You need to get your facts straight.  Theoretical it remains, not documented.  All of those studies you are referring to have been disproven by the LONG term studies of serodiscordant couples.  You need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.  I don't agree with Teak on much, so it's saying something when we both agree on this, you are dead wrong.

[bigdummy1]

The long term studies that you are referring to- such as the Spanish Study doesnt disprove that prior infections have not taken place.  There is no denying that receptive oral sex has resulted in HIV infections.  Everyone in the medical community agrees with this -even the San Francisco City Clinic shows receptive oral sex as a documented risk but not insertive.  I agree that insertive carries virtually no risk but receptive is low risk.  Just read the documented case reports which have been verified!

[bigdummy1]

And what dont you just do a little research differentiating between receptive and insertive oral.  And don't use selective filtering.

[Teak]

From the San Francisco City Clinic's website.

Questions about oral sex are probably the most common ones we get. In terms of HIV, oral sex both ways is very safe. The University of California San Francisco and the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health just completed a study of men in San Francisco who have only had oral sex and found zero new HIV infections

[bournemistake]

Who is bigdummy1, is that the guy that use to be one here?

[bigdummy1]

Thats what I said.  Oral sex is very safe but very safe doesnt mean that infections cannot occur.  Take a look at their risk chart and then come back and tell me what that says. You guys have selective interpretation.  These studies have proven that it is low risk but not no risk!  It safe to walk outside but you can still get hit by lightning!

[Teak]

Yes, he was here and changed his nick several times and trolled this forum.

[bigdummy1]

I have just come to this forum and have not been here before.  What is wrong with you people.

[bournemistake]

You are not the same guy are you? I don't remember the old guy posting allof this data.

[bournemistake]

Why did you pick the name bigdummy1 then. That was another poster's name

[Teak]

My mind and body are a wreck - HIV Prevention - ... From To Post bigdummy 06/16/07   Dr. on ... views of any user. bigdummy 06/16/07 I did ...
ARS Symptoms after Azithromycin - HIV Prevention - ... views of any user. bigdummy 06/20/07 Dr. H ... Seattle - WA 06/20/07 bigdummy I don't remember your ...
Just ask? - HIV Prevention - ... views of any user. bigdummy 06/19/07 people lie ...
HIV test basket case - HIV Prevention - ... Seattle - WA 06/21/07 bigdummy You may not contintue to ... of this distracting comment. bigdummy 06/21/07 I apologize

[guiltnworry]

No selective filtering.  THEORETICALLY, receptive oral would be more risky, but there STILL have been no proven cases.  I am not speaking of a Spanish study, but the numerous African ones.  Let me guess, you are THE ONE person who got it from oral sex?  That guy eh?  Unlikely, get real.

[Teak]

That is just one nick he used and he used several for months. You can go back through the archives and see how many times he changed his nick.

[guiltnworry]

If there was any risk at all, do you REALLY think the SF health clinic would be telling people it was safe? NO, they wouldn't especially since SF has a high rate of HIV amongst certain populations.  Again, get real

[bigdummy1]

I really dont know who you are referring to.  But what I do know is that Teak and Guiltnworry are wrong with respect to many things that they quote:

The CDC is not changing their guidelines
CDC doesnt have laws
Cohort Studies with semi-discordant couples can't disprove prior infections and documented case reports have not taken place
All epidemiologists agree that HIV transmission has occurred via receptive oral sex because semen has entered through cuts in the mouth, gingival recession, recent dental work, etc. Insertive oral sex, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue since one is exposed only to saliva and saliva is carries non-infectious levels of HIV.

[bigdummy1]

What does the San Francisco City Clinic Risk Chart state.  Go look at it and report back.

[guiltnworry]

No epidemiologists agree that HIV transmission has occurred via oral sex, certainly not ALL of them.  No one said the CDC has laws, only guidelines.  I don't know who you are or what your agenda is, but oral is no risk.  Your user name says it all.  

[bigdummy1]

I took bigdummy1 because bigdummy was taken. I do not have HIV and I do not think I will/would contract it through unprotected oral sex. I agree that it is very low risk both ways-probably no risk for the insertive partner.

[Teak]

What are you talking about? In the serodiscordant studies, the negative partners DID NOT contract HIV and the study was done for years. Do you even know what serodiscordant means? If you've came back to start your routine all over again, you best think again. MedHelp will ban you permanently.

[bigdummy1]

You wrote "by CDC law" in this thread!  You cant even remember what you wrote!

[bigdummy1]

I said that in these studies there were no proved transmissions.  Why are you twisting what I have written.  What I stated was that these studies do not disprove prior documented case reports.

[guiltnworry]

Ahh one word that I couldn't remember what I posted.  Take it as a typo, as they have guidelines which are essentially the equivalent of laws at HIV clinics.  I see you have been essentially proven wrong by Teak and myself, which is why you are nit picking.  Have a nice day.  Maybe we will read about you one day as the only person ever to get HIV through oral sex.  I hope not for your sake, but maybe.

[Teak]

"Cohort Studies with semi-discordant couples can't disprove prior infections and documented case reports have not taken place "

That is exactly what you posted. There has never been a verified case and the CDC even states it. Verified and documented are not the same.

[bigdummy1]

WOW-First- you guys are on a trip!  Second-I have no affiliation with Bigdummy.  Third-I am new to this forum. And 4th you guys state things as if they are black and white and I can guarantee you there are a lot of grays.  If want to live in your little world and think that way-fine by me.  By the way what does the San Francisco City Clinic state on their risk chart for receptive oral sex.

[guiltnworry]

Perhaps they do not disprove prior cases, but if NOT ONE negative person in a serodiscordant couple got infected in MANY studies, then how likely is it that HIV is transmitted orally.  Not likely, in fact zero.  Your skull must be thicker than everyone else's on the forum.  

[Teak]

We'll see if this is your first time here. Your ISP can be checked.

[bigdummy1]

What does the risk chart state from the SFCC and then come back and restate your comment.  Why are you ignoring that?

[bigdummy1]

Please check the ISP and again you will be proved wrong

[dumbo]

You have some serious problems and I am not going  to get into more childish meaningless debate with you.  It is a waste of time out of my life and you cause more trouble on this site than anyone.

I pointed out what the CDC says in regards to oral sex, it is a risk.  You always say it is not...why not?  because of the mentioned studies and aidsmeds couples.  Ok, I accept that. But then you go on to quote the CDC as being the king of all kings on testing recommendations.  You cannot go both ways.  If you accept real world data on oral sex then there is no reason why you cannot accept real world recommendations on testing times.  And if you choose to go both ways like that then you cannot try to sway others who may do the samejust because they do not agree with you.

The point is you cannot so adamantly defend the CDC's recommendations on testing, and then defy them on oral.  I really do not get why you are so defensive on this subject anyway.  It is really pointless.  The Dr.s trump anything you could ever say imo anyway.....and I have a right to my opinion just as you do yours.

cheers

[guiltnworry]

Good post, I was thinking the same thing about the CDC with Teak, but I'm glad you said it.  I still don't think oral is a risk, so I suppose that will have to be one of the few things Teak and I agree on.

[Xhost]

>We'll see if this is your first time here. Your ISP can be checked.

A CSI crew will be at your door momentarily. Do not attempt to flee, just sit quietly while they check your ISP. And they may check under your fingernails while they are at it, so they had better be clean, buster.

>What does the risk chart state from the SFCC and then come back and restate your comment.  Why are you ignoring that?

You know, when I was going through my own freak out period, I was thinking the same thing as you. I had performed oral sex on a woman, and was pretty sure, initially, that it had to have some risk associated with it. It's sex, right? So, like, how could it not?

Thing is, several very helpful people, Teak being one of them in another forum, sort of educated me on those risk chart thingies. The truth of the matter is that no one seems to catch HIV from oral sex. Odd, but true. Those numbers you will find in the risk charts represent a theoretical risk. Now, that's the part that escaped me. What the heck is a theoretical risk? I said to my self, "Self, what do that mean?". I soon found out that it means that while it may be theoretically possible to acquire HIV through oral sex, it just never seems to happen that way. Thus, the whole notion of assigning any risk percentage or level to oral sex is really just an academic exercise, as far as I can see. And, as others have pointed out, studies involving serodiscordant couples (one is HIV positive, the other HIV negative) seem to confirm this. The couples studies used protection for intercourse, but not for oral sex, and not one of them, not a single one over the course of thousands of acts of oral sex, ever passed or contracted HIV. Not a single one. I know, this is a bit of a rehash, but I think that it deserves repeating. So, I repeated. And, I repeated. There, I just did it again, damn my eyes!

Anyway, that's pretty remarkable evidence, to me at least, that oral sex is not a risk factor for HIV. When you think about it a bit, it does make a bit more sense when you think about how many more HIV cases there would be (exponentially higher across the world) if oral sex indeed was an efficient means of contracting HIV. Well, at least it does to me.

[bigdummy1]

I agree with you 100 percent.  I have only commented on some of the misstatements by Teak and his comments that oral sex carries no risk both giving and receiving.  I agree that receiving is no risk but giving is very very very low risk.  The fact of the matter is that transmission has occurred and has been documented and verified but admittedly it is an extemely rare event.  I'm not sure why he continues to postulate, take things out of context and ignore experts who have stated otherwise.  As a matter of fact, I asked Dr. HHH about insertive oral and he replied that transmission probably has occurred even via this route.

[Xhost]

Well, I wasn't calling out anyone's beliefs in my original post to this thread, only giving my 2 cents, which, in many cases, may only be worth 1 cent. Sometimes 1 1/2. But not often.

I look at the "risks" associated with oral sex to be, essentially, non-risks, or close to that to not be worth worrying about at all. Does that mean I will be going down on every woman in the world? No. Well, mainly because, hard as it is to believe, not every would want me to. But, having said that, if I do enjoy the occasional oral dalliance, I am not going to wake up in a panic the next morning and start arranging my funeral, solely because if I were to do that, I might as well start planning to be crushed by a giant llama thrown from the back of a helicopter, too. Really, it's all about context, and once you put those odds into context, they don't seem so dramatic anymore.

[guiltnworry]

You say that there are documented and VERIFIED cases.  Where are they, and who verfied them?  Not you I hope.  There may have been people who reported that oral was their only risk and this was DOCUMENTED.  However, there has been NO VERIFICATION.  

[troggs]

I was just on youtube where they have a series of hiv videos made by a physician. A man posted a statement saying that he tested positive for hiv and hep-c 8 months after exposure! What does this mean? is this possible? Is it because of the multiple exposure? Now i'm worried again. Contridictions everywhere in 2007, hiv testing still seems inconclusive or is it me.

[Ausguy]

Did he test before 8 months?

[troggs]

i'm not certain of these types of details. All he said was that "Well it has been eight months now and he tested poistive for hiv & hep c! Is this possible? He also states that he lives in British Columbia, Canada. The guidline are more broad in Canada, basically they are saying the 6/8 months is the window period?

[Ausguy]

Lol, well, if he didnt test until 8 months, of course he didnt KNOW he was positive until then. Stop trawling the internet looking for bad news. As you say, you don't even know the details, so dont stress about it. Canada follows the 12 week window period IIRC.

[troggs]

okay, just worried still.
I have until the first week until Feb to find confirm my status.

[Rae1]

Hep C is rarely sexually transmitted, you must have  blood to blood contact in order to accomplish this. Not blood to mucosa, blood to blood.

[dumbo]

That is a good observation regarding Hep C needs blood contact.  HIV is also blood borne and from what I have been told and read it needs initial blood contact to infect.  I have read and been told HIV does not cross mucous membrane easily (if it did it would be like getting a cold) at all and without access to the cells it needs to contact for infection it does not infect.  It simply does not swim up a male urethra and find an entry point or absorb thru membrane, then find the tcells it needs to attach itself to.  It needs to do this with all of its RNA strands intact as well. It is a weak virus until it infects.  HIV is also not technically alive and has no brain so to speak.  So it does not know what it is looking for, it must "bump" into it from what I understand.

Even Dr.H has said it is not transferred via sex easily (minus receptive anal).  He says mainline injection is needed somewhere along the line.  that is why sharing works is so efficient for transfer as well as receptive anal (male or female) because blood is involved.

I found this post from Dr. H interesting.

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/STD/messages/1569.html

where he talks about injecting vaginal fluid.  

Maybe guiltnworry could confirm or correct any of my observations/comments.

[fobos]

Guys,
please let's not even border about the risk statistics of oral sex. We know at the core of our consciousness that it is still risky. Why not cut the risk factor to a realistic 'no risk at all'. Sometimes we want a certain answer to be the right answer and we go all out to look for where any professional has posited it, perhaps implied, so that we can use it to justify our desires. The truth still remains that there is still a remote possibility of infection via oral sex. Afterall, there may be microscopic cuts bothways leading to either blood to blood or mucosa to blood as the case may be.
I advise all to stay with a familiar partner and the worl will be homefree.

[guiltnworry]

On the contrary, I know at the core of my consciousness, as you say, that oral sex is NOT risky.  No risk it remains.  Just to inform you as well, a "familiar" partner could very well have STDs that you don't know about.  

[longone]

At the risk of being slandered, reported and yes mind read, I will as an oral sex expert give my opinion about its risk. I say it is irresponsible for anyone to claim there is NO risk in oral sex. These kinds of discussions can lead people to irresponsible behavior and put themselves at risk. Many of you are well written and come across as experts [which you are not] therefore countless numbers of people read you daily who never post. For you to make these unequivocal statements is simply wrong. Call the GMHC in NY and talk to a councilor that has worked there many years. They will tell you people call in with POZ results that swear they did nothing but oral. I know, they all lie but why? Why do they all lie to an anonymous person on the other end of the phone line when they are simply seeking comfort?

Next take a flashlight and look down your throat, what do you see? Mucus membrane, veins by the hundreds sometimes inflamed gums and all the rest.  No, to say there is no risk in oral is wrong, to say its LOW risk is correct.  To think someone can ejaculate a volume of infected fluid into someone’s mouth and have no risk is in my opinion foolish.
Again LOW risk YES, NO risks NO.  

[Rae1]

agreed :)

[guiltnworry]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Knowing anything at all about human nature makes it easy to see why people would lie, even to an anonymous person on the other end of the line.  They do not want to be judged.  Somehow, people think that if theygot HIV from unprotected anal sex versus unprotected oral, they will be judged more.  Saying your only risk is oral and you got HIV from it takes the blame a little more off them, as if it was even a blame game.  The bottom line is that in numerous studies of serodisocordant couples throughout the world, who use condoms for anal and vaginal sex, but do not use anything for oral, NOT ONE person has ever gotten a positive result with oral being the only risk.  These were well studied, well organized, and closely followed subjects.  If people actually got HIV from oral sex, don't you all think that the CDC would have at least one verified case?  Yes, they most certainly would.  There are certainly mucous membranes in the mouth, but there is also saliva and an enzyme called amylase.  It has been hypothesized that amylase and the slight acidity of saliva stops even any potential threat of HIV from oral sex.  

Again, you are all entitled to think what you will, and if you choose to use protection for oral, then more power to you.  I will go with the conclusions of all of the large scale studies.  Good conversation guys.

[troggs]

The man did not say he contracted hep/hiv from sexual contact, he may have been exposed through needle works.

[raj12345]

Yesterday when i been to give my test at 43 days, the doctor says 6 weeks is conclusive and no more test needed. He works here in london and he is the Director of Medical Services.

[stupididiot]

we all seem to agree that insertive is basically no risk, but i also like to add that in one post (dont remember exactly where it is) someone actually swallowed semen and dr.hhh said testing was NOT warranted

[longone]

That's correct Dr HHH also has said babies that swallow breast milk seldom contract HIV. Other time as he did with my reply he said if I continued to have sex with unknow persons HIV would mostly be in my future. He knew I was talking about oral. So,  it is the same old thing, we all are looking for absolutes and there are none. If you want to play the odd go for it. I for one feel lucky to have beaten them.

[stupididiot]

i wont do it again, not worth the anxiety. (was the insertive partner anyway)

[stupididiot]

and you didnt beat the odds, the odds were in your favor if it was oral

[Xhost]

>Other time as he did with my reply he said if I continued to have sex with unknow >persons HIV would mostly be in my future. He knew I was talking about oral.

Really? I am not so inclined to believe that he knew you were talking about oral sex. Personally, I don't think there's much to the notion that it has some appreciable risk. I don't think it does, in terms of oral sex.

In the end, though, if you feel it does, be my guest, use protection. Couldn't hurt anything, really, so no harm in it.

[stillworried74]

I'm worried that iIt seems because anal or vaginal sex (especially anal) are the common routes, when someone says he was infected from oral the community will tell him that it's not possible. I agree the risk is very very low, but I can't say It's zero, there are some conditions like primary infection and oral (which have been studied) that could higher the risk for that type of contact.
The studies between serodiscordant couples and oral didn't evalute when the hiv+ one was in PHI, and it's impossible to do.
When a lot of papers say: oral less than 0,04% , may be it means (for example, not true numbers) 0,0000001% with "normal" viral loads and less than 0,1% with insertive hiv+ in PHI. Why? because they're statistics.

[guiltnworry]

You are grasping for straws here. Get over yourself and your risk.  Let me answer the question you are about to ask: NO, YOU ARE NOT THE ONE PERSON WHO THE CDC IS GOING TO VERIFY AS HAVING THE FIRST CASE OF ORAL SEX TRANSMITTED HIV.  Get over it.  Really.

[stillworried74]

I'm not talking about myself. And you are right, I will NOT be that person.
Time passes and I think It's something else what's causing all my symptoms. It should.

[stillworried74]

But please, don't mix it with my problem, just read what i wrote.

[longone]

Really, professor, in as much as you haven’t read my post to Dr. HHH how then do you form this opinion? Actually it was my second post to him within a couple of months. Yes he knew my exposures were oral but as you say in reverse, if you want to play the odds be my guest. I for one have learned my lesson.

[longone]

"Let me answer the question you are about to ask:"

Really Guilt, get into the stock market. With your ablity to read what people are about to say or imply converted to stocks we could all make a fortune.

[guiltnworry]

his risk was rimming and protected anal sex.  no condom break.  no risk.  Rimming is a form of oral sex.  Judging by the rest of his posts, it is clear that sooner or later he was going to ask if he was at risk by rimming.  No, the answer is no.  

[Xhost]

>Really, professor, in as much as you haven’t read my post to Dr. HHH how then do you >form this opinion?

Whoa, cool your jets turbo, I wasn't calling you a liar, I was really just speculating aloud that, based on every other answer to every other oral sex question I have seen posted to him, this would be the first I had seen where he implied that oral sex was some type of appreciable risk. Granted, I have not read *every* post on the subject from the Doc.

But, of course, you are entirely correct that I have not read the post, so perhaps I should not be speculating. Mind posting the link to the question so I may read it and see what it says? Would be much obliged.

[Xhost]

Never mind, I went to look it up myself. In your post you spoke about oral sex, and your concern that you contracted HIV from such an event. In his reply, the doctor mentioned the *theoretical* odds of such an event, 1 in 10000 (the term theoretical being important here for the reasons outlined earlier in this thread).

To me, a 1 in 10,000 chance of something happening isn't really much of a concern. Add that to the fact that transmission via oral sex has never been verified, and I'd say it isn't much to worry about. But, as I also said, to each his own.

Now, on to the point of this post. Further along, after the doctor had directly addressed your question, he also said this:

*****
Finally, why in heaven's name are you out there having sex with other men without asking and sharing HIV status?  That should be automatic for all gay/bi men, even when safe sex is planned.  Fail to follow that rule, and there is a good chance HIV is in your future.
*****

This is his standard advice to all gay and bisexual man, no matter the relative level of risk involved in the poster's description of events. Is he speaking specifically here of oral sex? That's not my take on it. In the end, though, perhaps it doesn't matter.

BTW, are you feeling any better since your last post to the doc?

[longone]

"To me, a 1 in 10,000 chance of something happening isn't really much of a concern"


I Guess if it were someone else it wouldn’t be a “Big Deal” to me either. The problem is, some people like me are looking for “zero risk” which we both know is not possible. Enter into that equation guilt, family and of course the never-ending sex drive and one has a formula for a very stressful life. As I have said, I am out of the Bi life it simply is not worth it givin my freaking out at the slightest change in my health after an encounter.

Years past were I had encounters and no health changes ,however after the last two I did have strange things transpire with my health which brought me back to reality concerning the damage I could do to my loved one’s.

Thanks for asking how I’m doing.  Although Dr HHH words gave me some peace the only thing that was important was my HIV test results. I have tested NEG. thank God @ 8 weeks so I am home free. As you and I both know, my risk was small in reality but not small emotionally.

Have a good day you are a talented writer.  BTW don’t judge others by their writing skills, there is much more to true intelligence that writing skills alone.

[dumbo]

Everything in life is and has inherent risk.  There is truth to the old saying nothing is certain in life except death and taxes.

Docotrs are not really allowed to say anything with certainty.  

[stressed25]

I actually don't think Xhost judged you on your writing skills at all, in fact I'd go so far as to say Xhost is the least judgemental person I've ever come across on an internet forum.

And yes he is a talented writer. I'm very jealous!!

For the record, you're right, everything carries a risk. Even leaving the house, or getting out of bed. But you're not going to stop doing those things are you? Because you're pretty damn sure you'll be fine.

If you're Bi and you're limiting your actions to oral, I would say you will never contract HIV. I think what HHH meant - and of course, I could be wrong, as I often am - was that eventually sexual contact could lead to unprotected anal, or condom failure, which would be far more likely to lead to infection. But that's easy for me to say; here I am concerned about testing next week over unprotected cunnilingus!

Such is life.

[longone]

No I'm done, and yes it is so easy when it's not you. If your problem is cunniling get your Neg and move on

[stupididiot]

were you the insertive partner or receptive?

[longone]

doesn't matter now. Oral is LOW risk get tested

[stupididiot]

i did get tested, awaiting my results...i was just trying to make a point.  i just wanted to get your view on how it can possible for the inserive partner to get infected

[longone]

I don't think that is possible. I was the receptive and got nothing. You are fine

[Xhost]

> BTW don’t judge others by their writing skills, there is much more to true intelligence >that writing skills alone.

Lots of emotions come into play when we are discussing something like this, don't they? I understand what you are saying.

As far as judging anyone on their writing skills, I do my best not to judge anyone based on something so superficial. Besides, your writing skills are rather good. So, no worries about that, intelligence shines through in all sorts of ways.