Aa
Need clarification
You all strictly follow the testing at 3 months only conclusive for unprotected sex as per CDC guidelines. But you wont accept as CDC says "Unprotected oral sex can also be a risk for HIV transmission, but it is a much lower risk than anal or vaginal sex." Even though low risk, testing is essential or not?
Hi there -
The CDC has not said that tests are conclusive any earlier than 3 months, which is why this forum is still using the 3 month guideline. Doctors are able to say otherwise, as they have the training, education and license to do so. Until the CDC changes it's guidelines for testing, we will use the 3 month guideline, knowing that antibody tests done at 6-8 weeks are really good indicators.
Emily
The CDC has not said that tests are conclusive any earlier than 3 months, which is why this forum is still using the 3 month guideline. Doctors are able to say otherwise, as they have the training, education and license to do so. Until the CDC changes it's guidelines for testing, we will use the 3 month guideline, knowing that antibody tests done at 6-8 weeks are really good indicators.
Emily
"antibody tests, including Home Access are completely reliable at any time more than 8 weeks following exposure" - Dr.EWH 29 July 2010.
"If you choose to be tested, you can have complete confidence in an 8 week test result. In the past few years the tests have gotten much, much better in terms of time to positive tests. In our own practices, in the literature and in conversation with other experts, we have not found anyone who has seen a person take more than 8 weeks following exposure to develop a positive HIV test and in most cases, it takes less than 8 weeks." - Dr.HHH 1 Nov 2009.
"even with the first generation tests, it was almost never necessary to wait more than 3 months for reliable test results. With the standard tests now in use throughout the US, testing is almost never needed more than 6-8 weeks after exposure" - Dr.HHH 6 Oct 2010
"you had a HIV antibody test, negative at 10 weeks. This is nowadays totally reliable. One does not necessarily needs to wait 90 days anymore; a negative test result after 8 weeks is conclusive". - Dr.Jose 23 Jan 2010
"if your HIV test was a third or a fourth generation then you are fine and you do not need to wait to 12 weeks" - Dr.Sean 26 July 2010
From the answers above why you people dont accept the window period is less than 3 months? You show the studies and replies from the experts for the oral sex transmission. then you should accept the experts opinion about testing is it not?
Really I dont debate with you. when you follow the CDC guidelines then you must follow all. simply you all follow the guidelines, only for testing and ignore all others. Sorry if I hurt you. Just tell what I think.
"If you choose to be tested, you can have complete confidence in an 8 week test result. In the past few years the tests have gotten much, much better in terms of time to positive tests. In our own practices, in the literature and in conversation with other experts, we have not found anyone who has seen a person take more than 8 weeks following exposure to develop a positive HIV test and in most cases, it takes less than 8 weeks." - Dr.HHH 1 Nov 2009.
"even with the first generation tests, it was almost never necessary to wait more than 3 months for reliable test results. With the standard tests now in use throughout the US, testing is almost never needed more than 6-8 weeks after exposure" - Dr.HHH 6 Oct 2010
"you had a HIV antibody test, negative at 10 weeks. This is nowadays totally reliable. One does not necessarily needs to wait 90 days anymore; a negative test result after 8 weeks is conclusive". - Dr.Jose 23 Jan 2010
"if your HIV test was a third or a fourth generation then you are fine and you do not need to wait to 12 weeks" - Dr.Sean 26 July 2010
From the answers above why you people dont accept the window period is less than 3 months? You show the studies and replies from the experts for the oral sex transmission. then you should accept the experts opinion about testing is it not?
Really I dont debate with you. when you follow the CDC guidelines then you must follow all. simply you all follow the guidelines, only for testing and ignore all others. Sorry if I hurt you. Just tell what I think.
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, 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.
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
"The observation on thousand and thousand of observations is that HIV is not spread by oral sex (of any sort)." DR HOOK
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, 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.
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
"The observation on thousand and thousand of observations is that HIV is not spread by oral sex (of any sort)." DR HOOK
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
