No Oral Risk Explantion

[Duxenbury]

Hello all,

I have recently come across the website and done a bit of reading around the forums. I've noticed that a lot of answers to question about oral risk, particularly from LIZZY LOU and Teak state there is virtually no or zero risk from active or passive oral sex on a man or a woman. I was wondering if anyone could offer an explanation of why this is?

Thanks

Tom

[Teak]

· Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
* After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
* Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
* Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.

[sunnyone22]

So, i was reading some of these posts.  I used to think it was no risk, well in fact I didn't think of it at all, until a nurse said it was possible.  Now, I think it's "possible" in that if you have a sore or cute and semen or blood gets in, but that could be said of holding hands, "if I held your hand and we both had cuts in the same spot..." etc etc.   I guess theoretically it is not IMPOSSIBLE but in terms of worrying it is something you can't stress about. Easier said than done for me, since I recently posted my paranoia about such a topic and kissing.  It's great to read these comments and even greater that people are asking questions about it and that it isn't not being talked about.  I never thought about it until recently and I'm glad I do because I know for sure I will be protected when I finally have sex, but as far as the oral thing goes, like I said a nurse told me "you're too young and beautiful to not use protection, please, use it, you  can get anything, even HIV, it's a low risk but it's still a risk," whereas my actual doctor went so far as to say "it's really difficult to get HIV through sexual intercourse, obviously it happens but it's not a guarantee that you will get it if you have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive".  A risky statement to repeat I think, but of course she still recommended using condoms every time! :-)

[LIZZIE LOU]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
    * After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
    * Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
    * Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.

[Teak]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
    * After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
    * Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
    * Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.

[worriedmuch09]

maybe posting that after Duxenbury's query does not help you in proving a point

[Duxenbury]

Alright geez I was only asking. Thanks for your most enlightening answer.

[Teak]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
    * After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
    * Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
    * Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.

[Duxenbury]

To Lizzy

You haven't really addressed my point, rather emphasised it. I say there are many other professionals in the HIV area which disagree with the "no risk" claim. Im going for a HIV rapid test today and when I ask the specialists there I dont expect them to tell me that oral sex is "basically same sex". So rather than throw quote after quote from the Doctors on this website can you provide an answer to why the views of those here are different from the views of many other people with expert knowledge on HIV?

To Longone

I agree with much of what you've said, but i'm not debating whether its a low or zero risk. Im asking why the views here are different from others I have discussed with.

[longone]

It is a useless debate and my post was no meant to get one stated.  You right LL it is an old post from the good DR.

[joggen]

These debates are pointless. It is impossible to prove that transmission through oral sex never happens or to verify that someone who claims to have been infected that way actually was. But even if every report in the literature were verified, the risk would still be close to zero.

I have NEVER seen the doctors on this site disagree with the advice of this forum on oral sex, because on a practical level the advice is consistent. Oral sex is not something that one need to be concerned about as far as HIV transmission is concerned.

And in the thread that you have quoted from, Dr. HHH goes on to make the point that most experts do not recommend condoms for oral sex because it could be potentially counterproductive for prevention efforts:

[LIZZIE LOU]

ya might want to check out that date ! ! ! ! !

[longone]

y H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., May 14, 2006 12:00AM

Oral sex is of such low risk for the insertive partner (the one receiving the BJ) that HIV transmission has never been proved.  There have been claims here and there, but sometimes there is reason to question the truth of statements about lack of other exposures.  Transmission to the receptive (BJ-giving) partner clearly occurs, but is uncommon.  It simply is very rare to see people with newly acquired HIV who give believable histories of oral sex as the only exposure, and the overall risk is clearly less than one transmission in 10,000 exposures, when one partner is known to have HIV.  On average, how long would it take to get infected if someone gave or received oral once a day with HIV infected partners?  Do the math.



I guess it just is what answer you like to cut and paste.  Have a nice night.

[LIZZIE LOU]

from dr. hansfield:


"And oral sex is basically safe sex -- completely safe with respect to HIV and although not zero risk for other STDs, the chance of infection is far lower than for unprotected vaginal or anal sex.  Please educate yourself about the real risks.  If you stick with oral sex and condom-protected vaginal or anal sex, you have no HIV worries and very little worry about other STDs. "

LONGONE:
what you "feel" is irrelevant.  facts are facts ! ! !

[longone]

I have been reading this site for years. They seem to have moved from low risk to no risk. The Dr. on the Med side say very low risk.

I feel its a low risk. IMO no one can say NO risk about anything pertaining to a virus. That said, like Dr HHH says do we hide under the bed worrying about getting hit by a meteor?

As far as the Spanish study, that was a good indicator. I wounder though, if one partner was HIV poz and more than likely on Meds. would that be a real world study. Could the Meds repress the virus present and thus resulting in a biased study?

Real world does offer proof though, if it were spread orally everyone would have it.

[Vance2335]

From several studies. One being 10 year study with over 18,000 incidents of unprotected oral sex and no new infection. The risk given by the CDC is 1 in 10,000. So being that is the quoted risk, shouldn't someone in the study gotten HIV?

[Duxenbury]

As I stated in my previous post I have ecountered more than one person with medical authority that told me the risk was not zero. I disregard the opinions of people on helplines with wikipedia in front of them of course but these are trained with a good knowledge of HIV and other STIs. So you say there is a very low risk, fair enough. But saying there is zero risk, with all the uncertainity about HIV how exactly do you prove zero risk?

[JeanClaude]

Those who work with HIV and understand transmission routes/modes will tell you NO RISK. What is necessary is for patients to report their sexual behavior accurately.

-JC-

[Teak]

Absolutely,  NO RISK.

[Duxenbury]

I think we can both agree that the risk is very low. The difference between this site and many others i've seen, including that of the NHS is that here it is generally agreed that there is no risk. With an issue as senstive as HIV the difference between low-risk and no risk is a big one. So do you think there is enough justification to give an answer as absolute as "NO" to the many questions people have asked regarding oral sex and its risks?

[Vance2335]

This forum has the education and un to date info that it is not a risk. Due to several studies and several experts.
It is still a topic that many people do not agree on but think of it this way. Even if the risk was low, wouldn't you expect that you would see many more people with HIV and many more reports of people getting HIV from oral sex.

[Duxenbury]

Thank you Vance, a very informative article. I did recently go to a clinic to have my first test. When I was there I discussed issues such as oral sex with a nurse. The risk of which he said can be up to 7 % depending on the circumstances. What are your thoughts on this? Are the views expressed in the article held by the majority of HIV experts or is it still a highly controversial topic? A greater understanding into this would be much appreciated.

Regards

Tom

[Vance2335]

Read this...
http://www.medhelp.org/user_journals/show/88524?personal_page_id=434