Let's take a look at the facts. Yes, you did engage in the highest risk sexual exposure. The fact he did not ejaculate greatly reduces the chances you were infected, but you are still at a moderate-high risk. Now, an incident of unprotected anal sex to completion usually results in transmission 0.5-1% of the time - if the person was infected. Did you ask if the person was infected? That's just as important to prevention as using a condom. You did not know that they were infected (most likely they were not), and HIV is a hard virus to transmit unlike what most believe (as the data I've told you indicates - 0.5-1%? Shocking number to most people). Overall, sexual transmission of HIV is not highly efficient and the odds are strongly that you dodged the bullet. It's important, however, that you change your behaviour - otherwise, you are at high risk for future infection.
Now, check out this awesome post by Dr. HHH that has some information I think you would appreciate: http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/489847
An ELISA is not reliable at 28 days and a PCR test is not an approved diagnostic test.
thanks for the infomation. I guess that I am going to have to stick it out but I do not know how I am going to be able to wait that long for I am already in shreds after 5 days. Everyone has noticed the change in behaviour but will have to somehow find a way. Problem is that also I am not out and that is what led me to this hidden behaviour rather than being open brave and safe. And as for finding out whether he was positive, I still wrack my brain as to why I was too afraid to ask. I guess I had too much trust in believeing that if he knew he was positive, why would he wish to go without a condom. Whatever the case, I have learnt my lesson although it is a very hard lesson to learn and the worst way. Is there any test I can primarily take a few days from now which will be able to give me at least partial coverage and percentage statistics that I have not got hiv?
The only sure way to know that you are not infected is by testing. Any other way is guessing and HIV is nothing to guess about.
You've been reported to Medhelp for giving out false information on testing. There are NO TESTS approved to give a conclusive test result less than 3 months.
thanks for all your comments and help. i do not think j friend means that that is absolute for finding out status, but that at least it can provide at least a temporary assurance at least until the 3 month test. I would rather take all these tests and remove some form of this anxiety rather than wait a whole three months before I can do anything.
this is your ego talking, and if you need to make me the bad guy, then so be it. Perhaps I'll be removed from this forum. I have never (not ONCE) told anyone to not get a 12 week Elisa test - I suggest that EVERYONE does. What I AM saying is that a negative Elisa combined with an undectable viral load at 28 days will reveal one's HIV true status; and if one is inclined to obsess, then it's wise to do this. Then one may relax and collect their conclusive negative at 12 weeks.
I challenged you and pointed out inconsistencies in your feedback - namely, relying on the CDC when it suits you, and then giving out information which does the CDC does not agree with when it suits you.
If you can't debate rationally, and if you are going to "fall apart" when I confront you with information you're not comfortable with, then I think that is a shame; and what's more, it's telling as to how you handle a debate.
Which is false information. Do you even know what the VL has to be to detected? In the first few weeks of infection you wouldn't even have a detectable VL. VL tests are not approved diagnostic tests for those that believe they were recently infected people. They are screening tests to monitor the progression of people at are positive. Like I said I have HIV and I don't have a detectable VL.
What you think and what is fact is totally different. It's not an approved diagnostic test. If you want to argue the point take it to the Drs. forum where they will both tell you that they are not approved diagnostic tests.
Incorrect. In the first few weeks of infection, the VL is literally "through the roof" in most infected people. Hence, this is why many people experience ARS - they have an enormous viral load; which, when antibodies are formed, the VL decreases dramatically, and the illness subsides. This is BASIC information, and I find it spooky that you educate people about HIV and claim to be unaware of this scientific fact regarding HIV.
It is unbelievable how much you claim to know, and unbelievable how you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Viral load is ridiculously high post-exposure. You are harming people on this forum who come here for help by giving them false information - by telling them oral sex poses no risk at all, by claiming that people do not develop a high viral load in the first days and weeks post-exposure. What about if we report you for giving out false information?
I believe Teak is probably correct in regards to oral sex, although there many out there who swear that is how they contracted HIV. However, you are 100% correct in stating that the viral load is VERY high during the first few weeks of infection. There are several things about this virus which can be debated: window period, PCR testing, oral sex, etc. However, there is absolutely NO debate in the scientific community about the typical progression of HIV. Google it and get an image - the graph charts show a HUGE spike in viral load during the initial weeks after infection, and then a marked decrease in viral load when antibodies are formed. To say that there is not detectable virus in the first weeks post exposure is irresponsible, and dare I say negligent.
The CDC, and any number of other sources, are clear that oral sex poses a risk. Look, there's not some magical quality about oral sex that keeps you from getting HIV. All the components are there - infected fluid and a place for the virus to get in. From everything I've read, there are lots of things about the mouth that make infection a lot harder than the vagina or the anus. It's not likely to go through as much stress as the anus, which means it is less likely to have cuts. Saliva helps deactivate the virus. You can spit out any semen or pre-seminal fluid. Obviously, the risk is tiny. But it does certainly exist, and I believe the CDC and several other sources do have documented case of infection via oral sex. You probably have a bigger chance of being struck by lightning, but the chance is there, based on what I've read. Granted, an amateur opinion. But I'm never going to be so convinced about the safety of oral sex that I'll start letting guys ejaculate in my mouth or something.
Well, you have no argument with me over here. And, when you look at the dynamics of transmission, it seems to make sense it's possible. I mean let's take this scenario: Someone has an open sore in their mouth (which isn't uncommon) - and let's say it's even a large sore. They go out, have a few drinks, and although it hurts ... this person meets a guy at a bar and performs oral sex in the parking lot (not an uncommon situation, I'm sure). Let's say the man getting head is newly positive and has a high viral load. In addition, the person performing allows the guy to ejaculate in his mouth, and even (in the moment of lust) swishes the semen around in this mouth before swallowing. So, we have infected fluid (with a high viral load) which literally being sucked into an open wound. Sorry for the graphics ... but in your defense, it DOES seem like that could be a scenario for transmission to take place. But who knows, perhaps the air in the mouth, the sailva, and the type of cells located at the wound do not allow for infection. I guess my point is, we just don't know. Again, there are people who swear they've been infected this way. On the other hand, I'd say giving head to someone (even if you have a sore) when there's no ejaculation would be next-to-impossible for transmission. This is ALL just speculation on my behalf ...
This is ALL just speculation on my behalf ... and of course, we're just playing with different possible scenarios. And, although I think that oral is a VERY, VERY small risk (if at all), I'm much more convinced of my previous point regarding the 28 day Elisa combined with a PCR.
Anyway, I don't mean to illicit a rant from Teak ... but as we all know, HIV is such an odd disease in that has so many variables regarding so many different aspects: transmission, window period, testing, etc.
Oral sex and saliva
ok, i need to talk about further developments because my body is going haywire. I have now got a very itchy anus, and it is swollen and red on three quarters and has thickened around the sides. That is causing me severe worries that I will have at least got a sexually transmitted disease. This was my first time ever that anything has been inserted there so could it just be trauma? In addition, it has been six days now, but I am getting an incredibly dry mouth, am sweating profusely although I do not believe I have a fevour although my body feels weak and I am unable to sleep. I beleieve that all these last symptoms are due to the incredible anxiety I am feeling. I just needto know if I can go for an std test immedtaely and not wait so long like i do for the hiv test
See your doctor if you believe you have hemorrhoids.
You're giving us a link from 1998 to prove that saliva blocks the virus? The article is optimistic that "This finding could lead to the development of natural inhibitors to HIV transmission." Well, ten years later, we're still waiting for that, aren't we? I'm not sure how much stock I would put in that study.
Yes it's been known for years.
Well, then I'll keep waiting with eager anticipation for the saliva-based vaccine or cream that will enable us all to have unprotected vaginal or anal sex without risk of infection.
You just keep waiting. I've been waiting for 23 years.
Alas, I think it's going to take a while for any vaccine or really revolutionary new treatment. So discouraging when the vaccine trials start out so promising and end up failing. Viruses of any kind, and particularly this one, are so hard to deal with.
Anyway, though, I don't want to continue to hijack the original purpose of this post, which was for someone with a high risk potential exposure to get answers. It's probably not the proper forum in which to debate the risk from oral sex.
I agree with you about hi-jacking the forum, and I also think it would be irresponsible for someone to say that is is literally impossible for oral sex. But, if you can get it from giving than wouldn't you HAVE to be able to get it from receiving? I mean, we're talking dynamics, right? And if you're soley talking dynamics, then you'd have to concede it's POSSIBLE to get it from receiving if ALL the conditions are present (open wound on penis, blood gushing into open wound). But, it doesn't happen. I've read (forget where I read this) that they've tried to inoculate the mouth's monkeys with highly concentrated virus, yet it doesn't take for some reason.
So, here's what we DO know: you don't get HIV from receiving - not one documented case. There have been three MAJOR studies (and large ones) performed with couples in which one partner has HIV and one doesn't. And, when condoms were ALWAYS used for anal and vaginal sex, there was NO transmission of HIV - zero. And I'm talking large studies in which unprotected oral (even with ejaculation) occurred thousands of times. These studies tell us that although the transmission dynamics DO exist, for some reason (probably MANY reasons - some we know, some we probably don't know) it just didn't seem to happen in these THOUSANDS of documented episodes. I guess you take from that what you will. Personally, I think it would be irresponsible to say there's NO WAY it can happen; and I've yet to ever hear a doctor say that it's 100% impossible. However, it does seem to be more theoretical than real.
Just a clarification on the testing advice posted here previously. We sent this to HHH for clarification and he does agree that Elisa is not reliable or approved. Here is his reply, and please note, this is an exception that we get clarification from him, and not something we will do by request:
I believe it is true that PCR tests for HIV is not FDA-approved for diagnosis of early HIV infection; they were developed to monitor viral load in people with known HIV infection, not for the primary purpose of initial diagnosis. However, they certainly have been used to detect HIV infection in people in the seroconversion window, including routine use by some health agencies. I believe blood banks routinely do it as well, on all blood donations.