Oral sex

[macgyver16]

There have been numerous studies and conflicting data over Oral sex ( Insertive, Receptive) numerous figures from expert.. What really is the fact behind the transmission of HIV through oral sex, guys pls shed some info here. any recent studies.. thanks  

[Claire_MHModerator]

At this time, we are CLOSING this THREAD to future posts.

-------------- CLOSED THREAD ------------
No Additional Posts Please.

[LIZZIE LOU]

FROM ONE OF THE MODERATORS EARLIER TODAY:
Lizzie, Teak, Vance, etc., all have some great quotes taken from our experts about the risks of oral sex and HIV, which I have included.  While one study may say one thing, and another says something else, there is no disagreement among our experts about HIV and oral sex.  Our forum experts are world-renowned, and have the ability to interpret situations and apply the science behind studies, etc., and they all agree on the risks (or non-risks) of oral sex for HIV.

If someone chooses to abstain from oral sex, or use a condom for oral sex (which is a good idea as other STDs can be transmitted via oral sex - see the STD community about that), or test after an oral sex encounter, that's a personal decision.  However, our stance remains the same.  There is no need for endless debate and insults about intelligence, education, backgrounds, etc.

[JayBourne]

I do, but if the theory still holds, according to your logic, than there is not full data to disprove it.

As for teak and the rest, I think lacti's stance of cherry picking is seeming more and more accurate

You must agree that the math does not add up, do you not?

[LIZZIE LOU]

do you know what THEORETICAL means?  

[Teak]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusively negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusively negative results or a no-risk situation will be based upon the criteria established by 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.

[JayBourne]

And now this:

by H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., May 15, 2010 09:41AM
If chlamydia could be transmitted, HIV could be as well.  In general, men who have sex with men are at elevated risk of HIV compared with heterosexual men and women; your sexual attractions (which are biological) and your decisions about how you go about expressing those attractions (which are largely in your control) will determine how high the risk is.  If you want complete assurance you will never get HIV, you will need to avoid anal sex altogether, including condom-protected anal sex, except with partners whom you know to be free of HIV.  This might mean no anal sex unless and until you are in a committed, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.  At a minimum it means never having anal sex, even with condoms, without first discussing HIV status with potential partners and avoiding anal sex

(and preferably avoiding unprotected oral sex as well) with those who are positive, don't know, or seem evasive in their replies.


From this thread: http://www.medhelp.org/posts/STDs/Chlamydia-From-Oral-sex/show/1241539


How come you bring so much stuff from this doctor, and yet he plainly states that "preferably avoiding unprotected oral sex as well) with those who are positive, don't know, or seem evasive in their replies. "???????????


This is so weird, I think the mediacl world is ok with saying no risk, as if they stated there is risk people will get scared.

If even a doctor states risk - AS LOW AS POSSIBLE - would you all want to be the ones preaching no risk and maybe resonsible to even one person getting infected due to this clearly illogical "zero risk" statement?

As for teak, as much as I value your contribution - it is still given in a rather abrasive manner, I am asking again - how come lacti's remarks, that are purely logic if you do the math - are not fact and yours are?

[lacti]

Matter closed

[Teak]

Your view point is incorrect and not fact. Keep your opinions to yourself.

[lacti]

Agreed but my view remains unchanged.

[Teak]

Read the very last post of this thread.

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/rapid-hiv-duo-test-neg-at-8-weeks-how-accurate/show/1234375?personal_page_id=348931#post_5653166

[kumar007]

the stand on this forum is oral sex carries no risk..
do not confuse people with misleading information..
it affects them and adds to their anxiety..

[lacti]

No i disagree as it doesn't add up mathematically.

[Teak]

The risk is zero and we stick to the facts on this forum.

[lacti]

When considering a risk factor of this nature, here oral sex with an infected person the risk assessment should be both retrospective and prospective. Just because there is no record of a meteorite haven't destroyed the earth in the past (restrospective probability = 0) doesn't mean it can not happen in the future (prospective probability>0).

My view is that such a risk represents a binary event with no data currently recorded. Actuaries will tell you that the risk cannot be zero because of the prospective dimension. My view on this matter is that the risk of infection is EXCEPTIONALLY LOW with the full permutation of opportunity not fully earned at the current time.

So the views of the experts is not fully logical and what is written on the internet makes no odds.

[Teak]

No incident HIV infections among MSM who practice exclusively oral sex.
Int Conf AIDS 2004 Jul 11-16; 15:(abstract no. WePpC2072)??Balls JE, Evans JL, Dilley J, Osmond D, Shiboski S, Shiboski C, Klausner J, McFarland W, Greenspan D, Page-Shafer K?University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States

Oral transmission of HIV, reality or fiction? An update
J Campo1, MA Perea1, J del Romero2, J Cano1, V Hernando2, A Bascones1
Oral Diseases (2006) 12, 219–228

AIDS:  Volume 16(17)  22 November 2002  pp 2350-2352
Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men

Page-Shafer, Kimberlya,b; Shiboski, Caroline Hb; Osmond, Dennis Hc; Dilley, Jamesd; McFarland, Willie; Shiboski, Steve Cc; Klausner, Jeffrey De; Balls, Joycea; Greenspan, Deborahb; Greenspan

Page-Shafer K, Veugelers PJ, Moss AR, Strathdee S, Kaldor JM, van Griensven GJ. Sexual risk behavior and risk factors for HIV-1 seroconversion in homosexual men participating in the Tricontinental Seroconverter Study, 1982-1994 [published erratum appears in Am J Epidemiol 1997 15 Dec; 146(12):1076]. Am J Epidemiol 1997, 146:531-542.

Studies which show the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence as opposed to carefully controlled study insofar as HIV transmission risk is concerned:

Jenicek M. "Clinical Case Reporting" in Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann; 1999:117

Saltzman SP, Stoddard AM, McCusker J, Moon MW, Mayer KH. Reliability of self-reported sexual behavior risk factors for HIV infection in homosexual men. Public Health Rep. 1987 102(6):692–697.Nov–Dec;

Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, Coates TJ. Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):339–362.

[JayBourne]

Teak,

Allow me to please explain, I have no issues with you, if anything, myself and others are indebted to you for the amazing, time consuming education work you do here.

A lot of us come to you in our time of need and are grateful for the information and the asistance you provide.

That said, and now after having a brief email conversation with someone else from this forum, I understand how grueling and repetative this volunteer job of yours is.

Please understand that no one is attacking you, nor picking a fight, or "highjacking" a thread.


This is a learning place, and at times new information will arrive.

No one is trying to make your job or life harder, and if I did so, I apologize.


J. Bourne.

[JayBourne]

I can read it, and took your point of ZERO risk, until I stumbled upon  H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., May 13, 2010 10:20AM post, stating - ALMOST never.

If it is an almost never, it is not a zero.

It may be less risky than other far worse in terms of contracting risk actions, but it is not a zero risk.

[LIZZIE LOU]

and this is PASTED several times every day.

There is no debate (among experts) about the HIV risks associated with oral sex.  The risk is so low that almost nobody who cares for HIV infected patients has ever had a patient believed to have been infected that way.  Among experts, it's a semantic issue about using terms like "no risk" and "very low risk".  There is no difference between my or Dr. Hook's use of "low risk" and other experts' "no risk".
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. "   DR HANSFIELD

"I am sure you can find lots of people who belive that HIV is transmitted by oral sex, but you will not find scientific data to support this unrealistic concern..."   DR HOOK

"HIV is not spread by touching, masturbation, oral sex or condom protected sex."- DR. HOOK

in the public HIV Prevention forum of MedHelp, TEAK and the other moderators maintain that oral sex in all forms is a zero risk activity. Would you agree with this assessment?  
I TOTALLY AGREE / DR GARCIA

[Teak]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusively negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusively negative results or a no-risk situation will be based upon the criteria established by 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.

[JayBourne]

by H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., May 13, 2010 10:20AM

Of course you realized there is no such thing as truly safe sex, unless you limit contact to mutual masturbation.
Condoms do sometimes break,

oral sex rarely can transmit some STDs (but almost never HIV),

once in a while even an apparently reliable partner will give false information, and there is always a possibility of skin-to-skin transmission of HPV or herpes from exposure not covered by condoms.  Therefore, you would be wise to be tested once in a while for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia.  Once a year would be about right.  But in general, I wouldn't worry about individual exposure events like this one.

[joggen]

The only evidence is anecdotal, and there have been a number of studies (see Teak's list) that have shown that that isn't very reliable. Those cases were never confirmed.

Read the well-controlled studies. If you are still not convinced that oral sex is safe after you have looked at the evidence, then by all means use condoms. Feeling safe is just as important as being safe.

[Vance2335]

For arguments sake lets take your number of 12 out of 10 million...that is .0000012. Which in reality equals zero.

The other reasearch was done as reporting. Which is basically getting a group of people together and asking them what they do sexually. Send them on there way have them come back after weeks report what they did and test. So there is no way to verify what they did or did not do.

The Spain study took couples and followed them for about 10 years and closly montered everything they did sexually with no transmissions from unprotected oral sex.

[JayBourne]

Also - then how come there are other researches indicating Oral is a risk (even though small one)?

As I am sure you agree with me, that even if it a dozen people out of 10 million, still no one would like to be one of said dozen

[JayBourne]

People actually agree to get tested and risk such infection?!
Why would anyone do that?

Also, can the virus not get into the body through the mouth?