POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: ChicagoCubs1 on January 23, 2008, 05:17:56 am
-
To preface my questions: This situation occured this past summer, and yes, I have procrastinated getting tested due to anxiety. I am going to get it over with this weekend and face my fears, and hopefully put them to rest.
If anyone can give some advice or help it would be appreciated.....
I had unprotected insertive vaginal intercourse with a female of unknown status.......who in hindsight, was either beginning or ending her period due to light bleeding. I am a circumsized male, and this exposure lasted around 30 seconds. 2-3 weeks after this encounter, I visited San Diego..........from Chicago, and also visited Tijuana. I ate alot of food and drank some alcoholic beverages down there, and within 24-36 hours got nasty flu-like symptoms (fever, chills, nausea, sweat rash) which resolved completely the next morning (about 12-14 hours of feeling sick). Now I know there is no way of knowing FOR SURE without testing, but......does this sound indicitive of ARS, or would ARS typically manifest itself for longer and more severe???
Secondly, I also developed a case of molluscum...........which my dermotologist didn't seem to be worried about, said to "wear a condom next time". I looked online and lots of websites claim that molluscum is often "the first sign of HIV in alot of people". There seems to be a lot of conflicting info, so I guess I am just hoping for a little reassurance on my way to getting tested.
Lastly, on the topic of these "statistics" posted everywhere, 0.1 and 0.2% seem incredibily low for a one time exposure..............and I understand that there is a variety of factors which make infection very hard to predict. Are these statistics basically reflecting how hard it would be for HIV virus to enter the urethra and be absorbed? Or assumming they were absorbed, could there still be a chance of avoiding infection due to chance or your immune system killing HIV before it inflitrates host cells? Any advice or comment would be appreciated, thank you so much in advance for all you do!!! (tried to ask as much as I could so I don't clog your site with more posts) thanks again!
-
Cub,
In all that you posted this:
I had unprotected insertive vaginal intercourse with a female of unknown status
. . . is the only part that is of any real importance.
Yes you've had a risk and you need to be tested for HIV as a result. Nevertheless HIV is a difficult virus to transmit, particularly from female to male. The likelihood that you will test positive for HIV as a result of this encounter is very small indeed.
You should know that other STD's such as chlamydia and gonorrhoea are much more prevalent and transmissible than HIV and you can carry these with no symptoms at all. Therefore you would be wise to arrange to have a full STD screen. A full screen will include, but is not limited to, an HIV antibody test.
The window period for HIV testing is 13 weeks, but given this incident occurred in the past Northern summer, you can be tested for HIV right away and the result will be conclusive.
Please take the time to read our Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) and follow the links to our Lessons to learn more about how HIV is and is not transmitted.
MtD
-
Thank you for the prompt reply,
I am getting tested this weekend, I understand that it's very cut and dry.............as to quantifying your risk and getting a test. I guess it's kind of a catch-22 that they put so much information that makes people think so extensively on the web. On one hand, it seems like there are thousands of infections due to heterosexual sex each year..........yet looking at statistical charts, receptive oral sex (which I think alot of girls dont even consider a risk at all) is a 1/10000 exposures, and insertive is pretty close at 5/10000..................yet hearing from knowledgable people on the subject..........the risk of insertive vaginal seems like it's light years away from oral in terms of risk. Just a thought..........thanks again!
-
Cub,
Numbers, shumbers.
Let me tell ya' all those lists and tables on risks and probabilities that you've found in your panicky travels over the internets in the last few months mean nothing.
You'd do best do dump all that junk and just go and have the test done. I'm betting that in terms of HIV you're gonna be ok. I can't guarantee it, but then nothing is guaranteed in this crazy life.
More importantly make sure you have a full STD screen done too. Things like chlamydia and gonorrhoea are nasty diseases and need to be taken seriously. They can have serious long term consequences, such as making you sterile.
Be well,
MtD
-
Yes, I had a feeling that not many here put faith in the statistical side of HIV transmission. I think the reason there is so much discussion and why the topic gets brought up so often is because you have the CDC, and many reputable websites quoting these stats often in response to people who have had legitimate, and illegitimate risks.
I don't keep addressing this as scapegoat for testing......................I have put myself at risk, bottom line.........and I fully understand there is a chance I could have contracted HIV, among other STDs from this. Testing is warranted.
I have seen Andy address many peoples questions regarding the statistics............my last question, and forgive me if I'm being annoying, but I am truly interested. Andy, and others have stated that barring extenuating circumstances.........fellatio transmission of HIV is really only "theoretical" and does not have all that much bearing on "real world" situations and risk. Yet, numerous credible agencies quote this risk as 1/10000............so with all the insertive vaginal transmissions from woman to heterosexual man........wouldn't the stat of 5/10000 be EXTREMELY higher than such a "theoretical", unproven risk?
-
CC,
How do you think they came up with those numbers? Do you think they lined groups of 10,000 people up and had hiv positive people perform specific acts on them to see who seroconverted and who didn't? Of course they didn't do this - it would be highly unethical. Those numbers were pulled out of thin air in a discredited study - discredited because their mathematical forumula for arriving at the numbers was woefully flawed.
The fact is, you had a risk. You need to test. Hiv is a fragile, difficult to transmit virus and more so from a woman to a man. It's highly unlikely you would have become infected from 30 seconds of possible exposure and I do NOT expect you to test positive. However, you do need to test.
You need to be using condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, every time, no exceptions until such time as you are in a securely monogamous relationship where you have both tested for ALL sexually transmitted infections together. To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with an STI. Sex with a condom lasts only a matter of minutes, but hiv is forever.
Have a look through all three condom and lube links in my signature line so you can use condoms with confidence.
Anyone who is sexually active should be having a full sexual health care check-up, including but not limited to hiv testing, at least once a year and more often if unprotected intercourse occurs.
If you aren't already having regular, routine check-ups, now is the time to start. As long as you make sure condoms are being used for intercourse, you can fully expect your routine hiv tests to return with negative results. Don't forget to always get checked for all the other sexually transmitted infections as well, because they are MUCH easier to transmit than hiv.
Use condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, correctly and consistently, and you will avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple.
Ann
-
ok so i am a newby. but damn people come on...i am continually AMAZED and I say AMAZED at the number of people who have unprotected sex of ANY sort which might be a risk factor then FREAK out, come here or anywhere for that matter, and then won't get tested. IF you have unprotected sex outside a monogamous LTR, period, ever, you should be tested for STDs. Its free, its safe...it takes a few minutes. I have been astounded by many of my friends and one lover (protected only) who has NOW informed me they have never ever been tested for any STDs and wouldnt cause they don't want to know. Of course, given my work and time as a counselor in a hospital setting I guess nothing would surprise me at this point. but it does...sigh. get tested, stop pokin it around and then worrying....test....Zan
-
dvinemstre
Please read the quote below and please stick to the posting rules...thank you for your cooperation.
Just to add, we are here to help peolple not to judge them, and as a counselor I would have expected you to show a little more compassion...please do not post in this thread again, or indeed any thread in the "Am I" forum...again thanks for your cooperation.
Only those Moderators and members who are authorized to answer questions in the Am I Infected? forum are permitted do so. Unauthorized responses may be deleted without permission of the poster. Repeatedly posting replies of this nature may result in a Time Out or permanent ban, at the discretion of the Moderator Team.
Jan
-
Dvine,
Wouldn't it be easy if there was an auto-reply that just shot out "GET TESTED" to anyone that posted here? The point of this board isn't necessarily just a place where worried people come to get reassurance................it's also an information hub. I'm sure a lot of people here truly do not know if they should get tested. Part of the problem that has fueled the spread of HIV is lack of/conflicting information. Contrary to popular belief..........HIV really isn't "front page news" to the majority of everyday Joe's in this country, especially a lot of heterosexuals who don't even think about HIV or think they are at risk. Obviously, when you are directly affected by the virus, or work in a medical setting and see it everyday...........you are going to take a different view and exude more urgency than someone who doesn't. That goes for any disease....................I wouldn't of gotten tested for prostate cancer, had my father not had it. A lot of women aren't vocal about standing up and getting tested for breast cancer until it hits home with a loved one. Yet you see messages in your face everyday about a variety of diseases. A lot of people without HIV, who either dont have sex, are always careful, or who have been lucky to not contract HIV thus far, take the stance of the people who also think "well I dont feel sorry for you that you got lung cancer, you smoke", or "well, of course you had a heart attack.....you eat fast food everyday". I think forums like this are important............because you have websites and government agencies telling you one thing...........and doctors and people living with the disease telling you another. It's important to separate truth from fallacy as it pertains to the real world and real situations.
-
Chicago, stop and consider for a moment the difference between an auto-reply such as you suggested and getting a response which considers the specifics of your situation.
For many a flashing "get tested" sign just wouldn't cut it or even penetrate consciousness. In my experience which has been confirmed on these boards, readers appreciate having the details of their situation considered and evaluated. Along with the factors involved in particular situations, for a number of reasons, readers are often isolated with their concerns and fears and this is the place they can anonymously discuss everything that's up for them.
A flashing get tested would hardly address that.
Maybe that would have worked for you -- or would it?
Cheers,
-
sorry about the post. did not fully intake the rules for this section. not gonna happen again. thanks, zan
-
Blood count tests and nervous phone call
« on: Today at 05:24:44 pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First I just want to thank everybody for the time they spend on this site answering questions, it is appreciated by us all. I have a couple questions...........I am going Wednesday for the test.
1. Before the long weekend, I had a complete blood count test as I am going to be starting Lamisil for a toenail fungus I've had for awhile. I realize a blood count test CANNOT DIAGNOSE HIV, and can't be used in ANY way as a replacement for testing, but could there be any result of that test that could serve as a "marker" or "raise a red flag" for infection?
2. The reason I ask this question is that the doctors office left a message Friday late afternoon that the results were in and to "please call the office" Tuesday. If everything was fine wouldn't they just have left a message saying......"Got your results in, everything is fine and you can go ahead and start with the toe medication". Why would I need to call them back unless there was a problem with the test results...........or is this just standard practice? Thanks in advance!
-
CC,
There is nothing in a CBC that would make a doctor suspect hiv. The ONLY way to know your hiv status is through testing - and I gather you still haven't grabbed your kajones and gone for a test.
They normally take a CBC before starting Lamisil because it can be hard on the liver. You need to find out what the doctor wants to tell you.
Personally, I've had more success with Tea Tree Oil applied directly to the nail - far better than that toxic lamisil. You have to be persistant with it once a day, every day, but it works.
Now quit playing with your toes and go get tested for hiv. Get it over with already! Whether you test or not, it's not going to change your actual hiv status. If you're positive, you'll be positive whether you know or not and it's far better to know so you can get proper medical attention.
But - you've barely had a risk. Go collect your negative result so you can get on with your life.
Ann
-
Thank you Ann,
Would you happen to know why I would have to "call back" to get results if everything was fine????? Why wouldn't they just leave that info on my answering machine?
-
CC,
What, am I a mind-reader?
It could be pretty much anything. Maybe there is something wrong, but why does that have to mean hiv? If you drink alcohol, maybe he didn't like the look of your liver enzyme levels. As I said, Lamisil can be hard on the liver.
There are things that go wrong with the body that have absolutely nothing to do with hiv. Go find out what your doctor wants to tell you. He's the only one who can.
And get than darn hiv test so you can put this behind you. However, you won't be allowed to use this forum as a place to ask these kinds of questions, so you can try to figure out your hiv status on your own. You HAVE to test to find that out. No way around it. Test. Now.
Ann