Query about testing and risks

[dumbmistake323]

Hello,
I need some guidance regarding my test results. I am male 22 bisexual not so sexually active. I had a 2 exposures in a row first, unprotected brief vaginal with a girl i met in a bar, second oral sex on a male. These events happened a with a day's gap from each other. Started developing some symptom(slight fever and sore throat) 29 days after 2nd exposure) please note that these were before my hiv anxiety started so stress cant be the cause. I also got rash, itchy feeling   sweating, red and dry eye but after i read about hiv so anxiety might be the cause not sure. I took a test at 41 days after exposure and another one at 66 days both negative hiv1/2. These tests were ab elisa.
What are my risks?
how conclusive are my tests?
Have u seen anybody 66 days negative later pos?
Do my negative tests cancel out symptoms which occured before them?
Your replies would be greatly valued

[Teak]

The only risk you had was the unprotected vaginal sex. You can obtain you conclusive test 3 months post exposure.

[dumbmistake323]

Thank you for your reply. I understand that guidelines state that 3 months is conclusive but  66 days must mean something or is it pointless? i have read that most people have not seen a neg at this point turn pos later, do you know anyone that did? And if u have knowledge regarding my last question please answer it.
Thanks again!

[latchu_ek]

Even though modern day antibody tests shorten the window period .An additional HIV test should be offered to all persons at 3 months (12 weeks) to definitively exclude HIV infection.

[dumbmistake323]

Yes, but experts like doctor hhh consider it conclusive. I know cdc guidelines but so many experts opinions must mean something shouldnt they? And cdc also considers oral sex as low risk but this forum considers it zero risk or no risk.
Thanks!

[Teak]

There are no test marketed or sold to give a conclusive negative test result earlier than 3 months post exposure.

[dumbmistake323]

You have a point there. It may seem very odd but i m actually more concerned about oral than vaginal because the girl i had sex with is a friend's and i got to know her and she assured me shes negative(but i am still suspicious) and and also said she never practices unsafe sex nor is very sexually active but the guy who i gave blowjob to seemed very suspicious and never met me after that event.
PS have you ever seen someone with a negative around 9 or 8 weeks turning positive?

[dumbmistake323]

I will surely take a 3 month test. The questions are just for some info

[Teak]

Oral is not a risk of transmitting HIV. Yes I have seen people test positive at 8 weeks.

[dumbmistake323]

I meant have seen people negative at 8 but pos at 3 months.  And people who tested pos at 8 were they on chemo or iv drugs or transplant or any other immune ilness which delays seroconversion or not?

[Teak]

No they were not on chemo, or antirejection drugs nor were they IV drug user. As you were told your test is conclusive at 3 months. Not 6,8, 9 or 10 weeks.

[dumbmistake323]

Testvmight not be conclusive but one thing is for sure that the symptoms which i suffered from are not hiv ars because my last test was conducted 2 weeks after their onset right?

[OrionB]

An HIV Antibody test 6 - 8 weeks after any exposure is very near or indeed conclusive as the doctors on this site have stated many times.

However, official guidlines advise that there is no test available guaranteed to pick up 100% of HIV infections before 3 months. If you want to legally exclude HIV infection, they advise you to retest 3 months after any recent exposure.

[Teak]

There are no tests marketed or sold to give a conclusive negative test result earlier than 3 months post exposure.

[dumbmistake323]

I saw some posts by dr hhh and hook one of them goes as far ad saying
Any test after 8 weeks is reliable, further testing is not required. Do you disagree  with them teak?

[Vance2335]

When it comes to testing, we use the CDC guidelines. We may or may not agree with the Dr's but no matter what we use the guidelines.

[OrionB]

3 months post exposure for a conclusive result. A negative from 3 months post exposure means you do not have HIV. You can then get on with the rest of your life without any anxiety driven "what ifs"

[dumbmistake323]

Thanks!

[dumbmistake323]

As i said before i am going to test at 3 month and you r right  that  a test at 3 months clearly will finish the what ifs but the point of asking these questions is can i be assured that  that the purpose of test at 3 month is just to finish anxiety and that i can start relaxing ffrom now.
Thanks

[dumbmistake323]

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/oralsex.htm

U guys strictly follow cdc guidelines then why do u consider oral sex as no risk?

[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.

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 believe 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
"HIV is not spread by masturbation, through oral sex, through kissing or other casual contact." Dr. Hook
"The observation on thousands and thousands of observations is that HIV is not spread by oral sex (of any sort)." DR HOOK
"I would not say your risk ,if he had HIV is "slim to none"- that's too high.  I would say they are effectively zero.  How much of his ejaculate or other genital  secretions you may have swallowed makes no difference.  EWH "
"As far as HIV is concerned, there is no known risk of getting HIV from performing oral sex on an infected partner, even if that person's genital secretions get into your eyes or if you swallow." Dr.Hook
HIV is not spread by oral sex, giving or receiving, even if sores, gum disease or blood is present
DR HOOK
The fact is that there are no cases in which HIV has been proven to be transmitted by oral sex, including fellatio..  EWH

[dumbmistake323]

I got inflammation front side of my right ear my ear kinda feels blocked  too. I read somewhere that this kind of oppurtunistic infection in ear is a sign of hiv.is it?   Tommorow wouldl be almost 80 days  would a result at 80 would be conclusive?

[Teak]

I don't know where you read it, but it is not an opportunistic infection. Newly infected people do not get opportunistic infections.

[dumbmistake323]

Thank you teak! What do think about testing tommorow?