Statistics

I think the body and Dr.Frascino information is more accurate. Check out thebody.com to get some real answers and here is a link on explaining statistics on how hiv is being trasmitted, it can happen only after 1 exposure of unprotected.
http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Current/Q183711.html

[dobber21]

If that's what you think, why are you on here?
Dr. Bob is very good, but causes unnecessary panic by stating that you should test three months after receiving an unprotected blowjob!
Also, your question will always be answered here, minutes after it's been asked.

[scareshitless]

im on here for those who wants to understand how to read the statistic from someone who can explain it better, and understand the statisitc better and calculate ur risk, and yes u can get answers here in a few minutes but noone on here seems to understand or interpret the statistics correctly!!!Not trying to scare everyone but everyone needs accurate information so they can decide how risky they exposures are.

[dumbo]

Go there and stay there then....please.  

I agree 100% with dobber.  Dr. Bob causes unnecessary fear imo....but he is hiv positive and if you follow boards moderated by people with hiv the answers are all pretty much the same.

Why?
for 2 reasons:

1. they do not want to see anyone go through what they are going through.  Respectable.

2. they are covering their ass.  they do not want to give out worng info to someone who may have lied, or not told the whole story and then have these same people come back and ask them wtf?  this is the net and they can only assess based on what people tell them.

capiche?

[mike_no]

I completely agree with dobber21, Yes Dr. HHH has a different perception about HIV and he has clarified the reason "WHY" in the past

This post was just not required

Damn ! I can't find the link...I'll paste it here as soon as I find it

[Joan123]

So, do your think that Dr. HHH's calculations are wrong!!? Dr. Bob himself says that those are not "his statistics", but CDC's. And everybody here knows that CDC tends to have a more conservator approach. He explains this really well here: http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/932.html

[mike_no]

I think you should read this

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/932.html

[mike_no]

Wow !!!

You're quick, lady !

Keep up the good work :)

[txtony]

dr bob, and dr hhh both give very accurate risk assesment/analyses both by experience and research. the differrence is dr.bob stands by cdc 3mos definitive and conclusive even for bjs.and dr hhh, stands by his 6-8 wks window.
especially for low risk situation.
you are telling people to go there, go there there grass is greener. well that is not so. i dont agree. dr bob knows his stuff, proffesional and personal experience, himself diagnosed with hiv, i would say he has an enormous wealth of knowledge and gives good advice.
what path you choose is totally up to you. i hope when you are an intern or resident or have your practice, that you dont only look at one set of data in diagnosing your pts. you have to look the big picture and be stuck in tunnel vision.
what do i gather from all these web sites? seroconversion 2-4 wks, time to test pos 4-6 wks, cdc definitive results @ 12-13 wks, if sexually active with more than one partner, test once a yr. oral sex very to no risk, mtf ,ftm low risk
msm top low to high,bottom high risk, iv drug user, very high risk.
thats just me.

[Joan123]

What do you think of this: http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/Symptoms/Q173095.html

[Teak]

I don't see where it was explained well at all, except, the difference in what Dr. Bob does (treats patients) and Dr. HHH (juggles numbers). I know of several people that contracted HIV on their first exposure and I also know people that have unprotected sex with known HIV+ people that have never been infected. Playing the ODDS game vers. the Statistics are never as reliable as taking the test and receiving your results. You don't play odds with HIV nor would you do it with a revolver.

[txtony]

well said. i agree with you.

[Joan123]

I will try explain this the best way I can. English isn't my first language, so it is a little bit harder. I don't think anybody should gamble with his or her own life. I was just trying to show the different opinions at different between Dr. HHH and Dr. Bob.  I greatly respect both of them.
I believe that the 3 month test for high risk situations needs to be done. Both Dr. Bob and Dr. HHH think the same, too. For situations where there is basically no risk, but the person can't let go, Dr. HHH often suggests a 4-6 test as being pretty much conclusive. Who am I to say that Dr. HHH is wrong? The man has years of experience and research. I don't.
I don't think you should say that I'm gambling or telling people to gamble with their lifes when you don't even know my opinion. I'm sorry if I'm being to harsh. I just felt a little hurt with such judgment.

[Teak]

I didn't say that you said anything except saying that Dr. H explains it well inwhich he only explained the difference between himself and Dr. Bob and that Dr. Bob works with patients and he works with numbers.

[scareshitless]

I did not say Dr.HHH is wrong, different interpretation but my point here is that beside looking at statistics one should measure their own risk and yes one exposure have been documented for transmission. I dont want to cause any fear but one can not simply rely on statistics and keep on doing unprotected sex, bc some might look at the statistic and interpret it wrong and think that 1 out of 2000 exposure is low but its still a risk, and keep on doing high risk things by relying on those numbers. I have read on this forum that some have had unprotected sex with Sws, does not really matter if she/he is a sex worker or not, and by using these stats, they might think that it is such a low risk that they will not be safer the next time they put themselves into a sticky situation. Dr.HHH had replied to someone that sex workers in thailand have a low hiv %, but still it is very risky to take that chance by misinterpreting the numbers.

[Teak]

To add to your comment, there is a difference if a person is a sex worker working at a brothel in Nevada compared to a streetwalker that is working the streets of any city to get money for a fix.

[mike_no]

I'm not trying to doubt your competency when it comes to HIV know how and also respect both of you, you guys helped me during my scare but the paraghaph below :

"As a clinician, Dr. Bob (and CDC) tend to focus on the 95% senstitivity of the test at say 4-6 weeks, and say 'to reduce that to almost zero, be tested at 3 months'. As a public health physician, I say that 1 in 2 million are plenty good odds which, for all practical purposes, means there is no chance you have HIV. But if you want to drop those odds to 1 in 20 million, it's fine with me if you get retested"

I think this paragraph is pretty clear to tell us that there are times when Dr. Bob tends to be a bit conservative with his notions to the posters and there are a  few things which Dr. H would love to say but I'm sure he's not in the position to say due to legal aspects...this is my understanding,I might be wrong too.

[scareshitless]

Im sorry if scared anybody or cause anymore stress, I agree with Teak's comments that u should not play with odds! Yes, DrHHH is a number guy but u can not rely on these numbers and still involve urself in risky behaviors. Yes Dr Bob is trying to imply that. The numbers are reassuring after someone have put themselves at risk, but must face that those numbers are on a wide scale, not individual risk! Dont' get me wrong, those numbers got me very confused, just like the person who asked Dr. bob.
I posted this thread in order for people to get a sense of reality on these numbers.

[mike_no]

I think those odds are nothing but PRACTICALITY which is fairly justified with data...I'm sure !

[Teak]

Put a 6 shot revolver in your hand, knowing only one bullet is in the cylinder and spin the cylinder and hold the gun to your head. What is the odds that bullet is not in alignment with the hammer? Now are you going to take a chance and squeeze the trigger? That's what "Odds" are? Now do you feel comfortable with the odds?

[dumbo]

Where do the odds numbers come from?  Stats of course!!

Do you not think Dr.H has treated patients?  done risk assessments in a clinical atmosphere?  Where do you think he has been for 30years.?  Maybe he does not do so now but in past I know he has assessed risk to actual patients/people.  He has said this directly in past posts.

To imply he only gets his info from odds calcs is rediculous.  Again, do you think a man of this caliber would assess a person only on odds?  Or do you think he has seen a thing or two?

I am just amazed at how people will refues to hear the honest to God's truth that they are getting from Dr.H and will listen to the layman with zip for knowledge, hiv infected or not.  I just can't believe it.

Seriously, you people who doubt the "real" doc, and want to accept a random net posters comments as truth should leave immediately and goto the body.com or aidsmeds where they will tell you what you think you already know.  Why hang around here and waste your time?

[scareshitless]

Im pretty sure i will not squizze that trigger even if my odds are 1 in 2000 that i will get a bullet in myhead, its low but one shot could blow my head off. Sorry to all again bc I know some people will actually live by those odds and forget that one shot one kill.

[scareshitless]

dumbo, stop trying to be a wise guy here, capiche! People are scared that is y they come to this site for relief, me too! Its not about who is wrong or who is rite, those stats are form the cdc, but people needs to be careful and understand the numbers, and be safer

[Teak]

He sure in the hell hasn't been working with HIV 30 years. They didn't have a name for it thirty years ago. They didn't know what was causing the deaths of young  men. So don't say he has been working with it for 30 years because that is not true. 1981 was the first AIDS case. 1984 was when the virus was identified and 1985 was when the first test was developed.

[mike_no]

Well, I think now this discussion is becoming illogical

one bullet in a 6 shot revolver and HIV are not even comparable, I understand you are trying to compare odds here but that does not makes any sense to me

Even I can say,

Start walking on the railway track - see a train coming your way - don't get off the track - possibility of you dying ?

A: 100 %

Similarly, if that was the scenario every one having sex with an HIV positive individual would have acquired HIV

[dumbo]

I did not say he was diagnosing hiv for 30 years, but he definitely has been in the STD field for that length of time.

[dumbo]

To add a bit more info, since teak is on this issue of how long Dr.H has been involved with hiv, I read a paper from 1985 where Dr.H was responding to a request from I believe the CDC (unsure) to ask what a suitable name for HIV was.  So he has been around it from the beginning and then some.

Will try to find the paper again for proof.

[dumbo]

As I said "for the most part"\.  But if th majority stopped their lifestyle, HIV would disappear, and sexual assault, as horrible as it is, would be of little risk for hiv.

[Teak]

There is a big difference in the STD field and HIV field.

Mike, then change the scenario to women of the night and have sex with one without protection. It

[scareshitless]

DrHHH, and Dr.Bob are both correct and very knowlegable, but my point here is that you can not rely on odds and numbers to calculate ur risk, that is a deadly mistake. I dont doubt any of their work!!! I just dont want people reading these odds and think that it is ok to play with these odds, then again it is a personal choice, bc we all know that a lot of people do not understand these numbers, like myself.

[dumbo]

It is obviously not a deadly mistake.  If it was, Dr. h's patients would have been dropping like flies long ago don't you think?  He would have been sued and license revoked if that was the case right?

And sure maybe there is a difference between the STD and HIV fields, granted, but, he has been involved in both.  HIV from the beginning.
re: the 1 in 5 scenario....I know what you are saying.  No one in their right mind would do this imo.  But I have said this before, if, for example, you are with someone who uses condoms with you and requests doing so, then the condom breaks by accident, a test is not really warranted here.  Why?  It says to me that my partner is concerned and aware of STD's right?  Especially if the contact was brief.

So lets turn your scenario around and go with the odds of infection with a person of unknown status.  The odds say around 1 in 150000 or thereabouts.  Now, 1 person in this group is infected, pick her or him.  What ar ethe chances now?

Again, look at common STI rates.  It shows that there is literally millions of unprotected sex events going on but around 40000/year get HIV in the US.  Big difference.

I have held my end of the bargain with you teak and will continue.  I do not mind debating with you but please refrain from directing your anger toward me.  I understand you are ill, I hope you are doing ok with it though even though I am sure your days are difficult.

[Teak]

Yes dumbo and Dr. H also helped the CDC write the new guidelines on testing and NO WHERE does it say less than three months for a conclusive test. Also it states if you had a risk, be tested. His affiliation with the department health in Washington also has a three month testing guideline.

[dumbo]

True.  But I know he has said somewhere that what he writes for say the CDC or even King County, is monitored by higher ups who are of the CYA mentality.

Here in this forum, because it is his forum, he can say what he wants without that restriction.  If he believed what he writes for the CDC or King COunty, he would be saying the same here on this site.

[mike_no]

Teak,

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to offend you here but THIS IS A GUESSING GAME, yes even odds are but they are supported by data and that's some thing you and I we both know

I don't say that no one can acquire the virus over one incidence of unprotected sex but what I was trying to convey was, * what was the need of this thread ? *

I mean, when you read the first post it seems like Dr. Bob knows it all and Dr. HHH is probably falsifying informations / misguiding people....is that what you think too?

I'm sure you aren't ...thats my point, Dr. Bob and Dr. HHH both of them are the best, they know what they're talking about however they have a different perceptions thats completely okay, for all the WWs it's all about preference; whom to go with

I have always felt that Dr. HHH's approach is practical and thats why I have followed his notions (6 week's conclusive for me) whereas on the other hand Dr. Bob's comments have always scared me, so I avoid "thebody.com", but ultimately I'm  following an experts opinion doesn't matter whoever it is

Mike

[scareshitless]

"it is obviously not a deadly mistake", tell that to the 45 million people living with hiv, and so many other who have died bc of AIDS. I really dont think u understand my point here, I just dont want people to play russian roulette based on these odds, they are low but do not rely on them to keep on living a risky life. Sorry for all the confusion.

[Teak]

If you are going to quote statistics about HIV infection at least give all the information. There are apx. 40,000 known new documented cases of HIV each year, that's KNOWN. There are an estimated >100,000 cases each year of persons that are infected that don't know they are infected and have never been tested.

[mike_no]

"It is obviously not a deadly mistake. If it was, Dr. h's patients would have been dropping like flies long ago don't you think? He would have been sued and license revoked if that was the case right?"

SO TRUE !

[dumbo]

I am about to tell you to f*ck off.  You show me one fuc**ing place I said it was ok to go have random unprotected sex?  where ?

You simply refuse to take the advice of someone who knows more than you (Dr.H) and lean toward Dr. Bob's info....so do that then.  I could give a ****.....leave here but do not preach to me about how the 45million people have been infected....yuo have no idea.  I have studied the stats and numbers far more than you have to see exactly where the risks are and all of it falls directly in line with the odds/info Dr. H provides here.  I have heard the same info from several others in the filed, EXPERTS, who I have seen in person at random and different times.

So now you can fu*k off dumba$$.

[scareshitless]

The purpose of this tread is to inform people like urself and me and many others to be safe and dont rely on odds so much where they can be misleading, and to understand what these numbers mean!!! Do you understand those numbers before I started this tread? If you do, then im sorry to scare you. If you didnt then keep on being safe. 6 weeks is conclusive for u, bc it gives u a sense of reassurance for the low risk to no risk. but if u engaged in high risk such as unprotected receptive anal sex (highest risk) with ejaculation from a positive guy then I would have to agree with a 3 months test not 6 weeks.

[dumbo]

Ok, I will accept that.  But that is estimated.  It was also estimated that the price of oil would hit over $100/barrel in 2004.....

Even if your 100000 is correct...it is still a long ways off cancer rates, diabetes, common STI's etc.  Still a relatively low number based on a 300+ million population.

I always think of Deal or no Deal as an analogy so people can put the numbers in context.  26 cases, 1 with 1,000,000 in it.  How many people have won this since the start of the show?  The odds of picking that case are 1 in 26....compare that to 1in 300 for receptive anal sex with a known positive.

Poor analogy?  maybe but it certainly puts the numbers in perspective.
Doesnt mean it can't happen, it obviously does, but not as much as people think.

[dumbo]

"but if u engaged in high risk such as unprotected receptive anal sex (highest risk) with ejaculation from a positive guy then I would have to agree with a 3 months test not 6 weeks"

Who has said otherwise???????????????????? this is exactly what Dr.H says for God's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  DO you even know what the hell you are talking about??????????????????

Mike did not takepart in uncovered receptive anal as far as I know so how is that relevant?

[scareshitless]

No need to get angry here tony soprano!!! If u have studied these stats then thats good for you if u are a statistician, rely on ur stats. but for those who did not understand these numbers and need an explanation to clarify these odds, that is y i started this thread.

[dumbo]

"but for those who did not understand these numbers and need an explanation to clarify these odds, that is y i started this thread"

You don't even understand them so how can you "teach" them to others?

In other words..."fuggetaboutit"

[scareshitless]

receptive unprotected anal sex with known positive is estimated at 50 per 10000 exposure, am i right? Would you take that risk? Look dude or dudette, its up to the individual to rely on stat or be safe, stats are very encouraging and comforting, but theres is always a possibility, its not 0 risk.

[scareshitless]

im not trying to teach people these numbers that is y i posted a reply from dr bob, have u read his answer? So if u did and dont agree with it, then thats fine, its up to the individual.

[mike_no]

NO, these odds aren't misleading, you can say it's confusing to calculate for WWs like you

Since you don't understand it that doesn't mean no body does, it's plain and simple MATHEMATICS derived from CORE data and very EVIDENT

You are NOT scaring me cuz I KNOW what's the idea behind saying 6 week's CONCLUSIVE, I tested at the 6th week and I have no intentions whatsoever to retest, low risk / high risk has nothing to do with a 6-8 weeks test, even if I was involved in High Risk scenario, I think 6 - 8 weeks would have been pretty good for me

It's not about reassurance, a risk is a risk (your own words) 10 - 15 - 30 sec of unprotective insertion with a promiscuous partner is definitely a risk

You are trying to impose YOUR FEAR on the OTHERS, if that piece of info that you posted in your initial post soothes you, be happy with it and follow it, there was NO REQUIREMENT whatsoever to post it here, when you know that this forum deals with hyper sensitive individuals and every info discussed here is taken very very seriously

[dumbo]

"receptive unprotected anal sex with known positive is estimated at 50 per 10000 exposure, am i right? Would you take that risk? Look dude or dudette, its up to the individual to rely on stat or be safe, stats are very encouraging and comforting, but theres is always a possibility, its not 0 risk."

I give up.  You are obviously too young or just not smart enough to grasp how numbers work.  Stats are just that, stats.  These numbers are based on actual real information gathered  over time....odss are then calculated from these stats....how do you think Vegas determines the odds of winning at Blackjack or Roulette? based on so many hands played and spins of the wheel...who usually wins?  The house of course.

My closing comments here are you have no idea of what you speak...so quit speaking.  You started this thread saying Dr. H does not know what he is talking about basically....very offensive.  

You do not know how to read stats and calculate odds based on those stats so quit trying to do it.  You only confuse the WW's here and perpetuate fear.

Nobody ever said to go have unprotected sex with anyone.  The reason to point out the odds to people is to put their exposure into context when people make their mistakes as absolutely everyone does on the planet.  

Goto thebody.com......please.

[dumbo]

Oh and btw your 50 in 10000 equates to 1 in 200 (I said 1in 300 for the same event).  

But then if you knew how numbers worked you would have known that right?

[Teak]

Those other disease you posted about, are not preventable. HIV is preventable.

[dumbo]

Type 2 diabetes is totally preventable, as is most cancers.  HIV is totally preventable yes.  All are simply dictated by lifestyle.  Change lifestyle and these diseases would disappear for the most part.

[Teak]

Not all person with type 2 or cancer could have prevented it. Everyone can prevent HIV except the persons that were infected by blood transfusions and blood by products.

[Joan123]

HIV is also not preventable when you are sexually assaulted.

[dumbo]

that was quick.

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MV/B/B/L/V/_/mvbblv.pdf

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MV/B/B/S/C/_/mvbbsc.pdf
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MV/Views/AlphaChron/series/014141/015022/015023/

just google H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.

I don't know, to me, when someone is asked to help name a new virus, it shows they have been around it for awhile.....again, just because a person has it does not mean he/she is an expert.

[Teak]

Joan, I'll add that the next time. Thanks for reminding me. But Joan, you know you are going against everyone here that says, "You don't contract HIV from one contact." Hmm, that would mean someone that contracted HIV by a sexual assault would have had to contracted HIV from their second assault because it wouldn't happen the first time and there wouldn't be a need to test the first time. How ironic.