my brutha give ur life 2 christ accept him as ur personel lord & saviour & ask him to help change what ever situation that u think ur stuck in
Realtively low risk. Oral sex is more dangerous (although still low) for the one performing. It is extremely low for the receiver.
It is too late to take the medication to stop an acute HIV infection, called PEP. The window period for HIV testing is generally agreed to be 6 weeks now with todays advanced tests. 8 weeks should be absolutely conclusive. That being said, I don't thnk you need to test based on your exposure. Oral is extremely low risk and the CDC hasn't conclusively documented a case of orally transmitted HIV. In the future, picking up hitchhikers and allowing them to perform oral sex on you and then get off in your car is probably not he best idea, from both a medical and physical safety point of view.
You were never at risk and don't need to test. For future reference if you have a known risk, PEP can be prescribed up to 72 hours after possible exposure. There has never been an agreement by the medical community, that 6 or 8 weeks is conclusive. Nor has the FDA or the manufactures of the approved test to say it is conclusive at that time. The conclusive time line is 3 months and depending on where you live that will be 12/13 weeks.
Again, you are wrong. Go on pubmed and look at the articles there. The absolute latest time to start PEP for it to be at all effective is 72 hours. It is most effective when started immediately, and usually doctors agree that this means within 2-3 hours. We were taught (by infectious disease faculty) that PEP can reduce the risk of HIV by 75% if started within 2 hours. If you take it out to 72 hours, it becomes barely effective. Those were old guidelines that you were referencing.
Regarding your disagreement concerning 6-8 weeks, maybe in your town of HIV laden cadavers with bone lacerations, and where paramedics are doctors, people take longer than 6-8 weeks to seroconvert. In the real world however, almost all knowledgeable doctors will agree that by 6-8 weeks, 99.9% of people infected with HIV will have seroconverted. Look at any of the posts from Dr. HHH, who is certainly more knowledgeable than you.
You're full of ****. Try reading my post, it say you can get PEP prescribed up to 72 hours. Go look at any of the tests it says a conclusive result is three months post exposure. New York, only gives a conclusive result at 6 weeks for non exposures. FDA only approves on what the manufactures application states. No one can change anything about the conclusive test dates except for the manufacture to ammend it's application with the FDA and none have.
"Regarding your disagreement concerning 6-8 weeks, maybe in your town of HIV laden cadavers with bone lacerations, and where paramedics are doctors, people take longer than 6-8 weeks to seroconvert."
don't forget no ARS symptoms and LTNP status....
LOL....you crack me up....too funny
As per MedHelp, apparently you got tired of being proven wrong. In any case, I did read you post about how you said PEP can be prescribed out to 72 hours. I never disagreed with that. I was pointing out that mechanistically, for it to actually have the greatest chance of working, it should be prescribed within two hours of an incident. This is the procedure followed in major hospitals everywhere. You can certainly give PEP at 72 hours, but will it be as effective? No. You can also technically give penicillin to treat a headache, does that mean it's right or that it will work? No. Mechanistically, for PEP to work, it needs to be given right after infection, before the virus has had time to incubate and multiply.
I am not going to go into the 6-8 weeks seroconversion status any more with you. It is hopeless, your skull is too thick to understand. For my own benefit, I will listen to all of the HIV experts that I read and work with on a daily basis, as opposed to listening to you and I would suggest others do the same. Have a nice day.
What does that mean? did he cry to Medhelp about you?? for what?
Someone did, we all got "reprimanded" for personal attacks.
was it posted? where?
I wonder if people start to give it back and show medhelp all the "Dork" comments and more, that maybe things would be different. But most here, including me, are too mature for tattling like that. I thought this was a forum full of adults who could agree to disagree.
Sorry, I didn't have anything to do with it.
dude, i have seen you calling people idiots. I actually saw a post where u said something like "thats typical christian mentality" just beause that person didnt agree with you. That shows your hatred and racist mentality.when i went through your previous posts, you pretty much picked fights with almost everyone and lot of people gave it back to you, e.g. Lizzie Lou etc. You never contribute anything useful to this forum and are just here probably because nobody pays attention to you in real life and are jealous of teak. you need to calm down and take this hate somewhere else. u have just one agenda, "teak-bashing". it is totally unfair to someone who is trying to help here unlike you who is just raking up useless issues and constant self-bragging about how you proved teak wrong. you didnt prove anything. you are just making an *** out of yourself.
I WAS THE ONE WHO REPORTED TO MEDHELP AND WILL KEEP DOING SO UNTIL THIS FORUM CHANGES INTO SOMETHING THAT WORRIED WELLS LIKE ME WANT IT TO BE..."INFORMATIVE" AND "SUPPORTIVE"
Guiltnworry: some of your remarks to teak were absolutely derogatory and probably reflect your upbringing and values in life. I am a medical PhD myself and i dont look down upon people with lesser qualifications or knowledge. you are just a masters student, so please dont pretend to be a know-all genious. Please show me one thing that teak said, that was wrong.
be compassionate and kind to others. no matter what they are. i am sure teak will stop his rebuttals as well if you stop your attacks.
before you start jumping all over the place trying to offend me, I am only trying to make this forum a better place for everyone.
First of all, I agree, this forum needs to be made better for everyone. I am not a masters student, I already have my masters and I a year and a half away from getting my MD. As far as Teak is concerned, he is the one who brought up my pregnancy and subsequent abortion simply for my proving proving him wrong. That was unnecessary and uncalled for and I am not going to sit here and allow it. I provide helpful and ACCURATE information on this forum and many people have found it effective and helpful. Regularjoey has done the same. Teak has been wrong about the transmission of hepatitis, risk assessment, seroconversion, amongst other things. I do my best and will continue to do my best to provide accurate information and support to the users on this forum who genuinely want help and advice. Simply telling them they need to get tested period is not helpful, as they already know this. I try to expand upon this and Teak continually bashes my responses. Did you also report him, as you should have?
I want to throw my two cents as well: nobody here looks down on people with less knowledge or education. However, people with little knowledge and no education should be a little humble when stating their opinion on medical issues, don't you think? Teak never gives an opinion, he always sounds like he's reading from the Bible - even when his opinions are wrong. When someone expresses a different opinion, what does he always say? "You don't know anything about HIV". Is this acceptable in your view? I for one have earned a PhD in HIV, I've given lectures to professors, why should some crack junkie have a right to tell me that I don't know anything? Why should he have a right to say the same about the Doc in the parallel forum, simply because he doesn't explicitly treat HIV? To other forum members, some of them highly educated (like guiltandworry)? Answer this if you can.
As far as Teak being wrong - he was wrong many many times here over and over again. The only things he says which are correct are "wear a condom" and "get tested three months after unprotected sex". Everything else is usually at least partially wrong.
Please learn to read. You are completely wrong and way offbase. I can take anything dished out to me. It's an internet forum so who really cares? But, I can give it back just the same. I am not sure why you people need to resort to this tattling everytime you do not like someone's response. Teak went too low when he started hammering on gnw's abortion. It was cowardly and uncalled for. He has also done the same to me regarding diabetes. I really don't care. I look at the source.
If your PHD makes you so smart then why are you here with "irrational" fears?
I am sorry if the truth does not make you "feel good" and you would rather live in fear. If you want to listen to teaks advice, then go ahead that is your perogative. But don't try to silence those who also have a voice, opinion, and their own thoughts. You don't like my posts, do not read them. Skip over them please.
You were entirely right to complain about the thread where teak was chastising guiltnworry about her misfortune. I am surprised they did not remove the thread completely. But since you follow me so close, do you recall where he asked me who made me God and who am I to judge? (even though I was not **** this by far)? Do you remember this? Do you not see some hypocritical actions when guiltnworry was chastised for her misfortune?
I encourage you to seek your "rational" side and then maybe you can see the light so to speak.
Good luck to you.
I hope we end this misunderstanding. Anyways, what you think about my 71 days negative after unprotected BJ (a prostitute sucked my tool). Is it conclusive?????
Of course it is conclusive.
How can one know that PEP is 75% effective, since you never know if the individual was infected in the first place. There is just no way of knowing how effective this really is, unless you take some x number of volunteers inject them with HIV give them PEP and do the statistics.
The only time PEP is usually prescribed is with high risk encounters like unprotected anal sex with a person known to be HIV positive, or a needle stick with a needle infected by someone known to be positive. The PEP studies were done retroactively by looking at people who were known to have been exposed to the virus from an HIV positive person. Looking back, less than 25% got HIV. You are right though, we don't know if they were infected in the first place. A lot of studies were done in animal models where they are allowed to inject animals with HIV and see if drugs work.
I don't remember the details of this study, but usually this is done using a control group. Say, 200 people got exposed to HIV and got PEP. 25 of them subsequently seroconverted. Then you compare that with 200 other people with similar exposures who did not get PEP. 100 of them got HIV. Conclusion here is that obviously PEP has some protective effect, around 75%.
Again, I'm not vouching for the details, but efficacy studies are generally done in this or a similar fashion...