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.
No risk from oral? That is a huge relief? Other than that we can safely assume that the tests were pretty accurate anyways, no?
Of course your tests are because you had no risk.
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!!!
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?
I TOTALLY AGREE / DR GARCIA
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
* 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.