HIV Prevention Community
53.2k Members
Avatar universal

Tested after 4 weeks...


I had unprotected oral sex (i did not go down on her though) with a woman but protected vaginal sex. She performed anilinugus on me too. I freaked out after I began to feel a little sick and went to get tested. I was tested after four and two or three days after exposure with NAT test and the anti-bodies. All came back negative.

How accurate is NAT test after only four and half weeks? The counselors at the clinic told me to get tested again for peace of mind, but for the most part do not believe I was infected.

Any thoughts? The only reason why I am flipping out is because I think I have angular chelitis too, the thing with the dryness at the corners of the mouth.
13 Responses
Avatar universal
You did not have a risk.
1519393 tn?1306802108
You had no risk for HIV from protected vaginal sex and no risk for HIV from Oral Sex. The dryness at the corners of your mouth have nothing to do with HIV.
Avatar universal
No risk from oral? That is a huge relief? Other than that we can safely assume that the tests were pretty accurate anyways, no?
Avatar universal
Of course your tests are because you had no risk.
Avatar universal
any links you can provide that say oral sex is no risk? never heard that before.

Also, would one be able to tell if a condom broke? It looked at though it was fully intact. It doesn't just rip into little unnoticeable holes does it, or is it an actual big tear that is very evident?

also, aside from any anxiety I may feel about anything, is NAT and anti-body testing pretty accurate at detecting HIV after 4 weeks?

thanks for the advice!!!
Avatar universal
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".

"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?

Large rip where penis is exposed.
No risk so testing doesn't matter
For a real risk...6-8 weeks is a very good indication, 3 months is conclusive.
Avatar universal
That covers just about anything I would even ask, thanks. But considering that there was no risk; there was no large rip on the condom where penis was exposed, there was just oral, protected vaginal, does this still mean that 4 week negative NAT and anti-body tests are not accurate?

You said six weeks is good indication but we're talking about four, and I guess I just want the test to be the final word. Could I trust both the negative results AND the fact that I was at no point at risk?
Avatar universal
You can trust no risk.
Avatar universal
Sweet! but just to be sure, NAT, anti-body tests would've picked up on something, right?

But considering that there was no risk, it doesn't really matter. Secondly, the angular chelitis that is effecting me now, is not a symptom of ARS. I can just relax. Thanks.
Avatar universal
Yes. My goal is to get you to believe no risk. This is what you should be thinking not about tests but that it's no risk. Not just from my mouth but from the mouths of Dr's.
Avatar universal
Thanks Vance, I appreciate the advice. It's good to know there are people out there who take the time to really research this and give out sound advice.

Why is there so much disinformation out there concerning oral sex? Is it a legality issue, a technical one; one based on theoretical risk vs. actual risk?
Avatar universal
Avatar universal
* 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.
Have an Answer?
Top HIV Answerers
366749 tn?1544695265
Karachi, Pakistan
370181 tn?1428176748
Arlington, WA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
These tips can help HIV-positive women live a long, healthy life.
Despite the drop in new infections, black women are still at a high risk for HIV, the virus that causes Aids.
What are your HIV treatment options, and how do you choose the right one? Our panel of experts weighs in.
Learn the truth behind 14 common misconceptions about HIV.
Can HIV be transmitted through this sexual activity? Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia answers this commonly-asked question.
A breakthrough study discovers how to reduce risk of HIV transmission by 95 percent.