POZ Community Forums
Main Forums => Someone I Care About Has HIV => Topic started by: Danigirl on November 07, 2013, 09:53:34 am
-
Hello everyone, :)
As some of you may know my husband was diagnosed positive in the beginning of the year. I have till this day have tested negative. He is now undetectable! :D
We have a pretty normal sex life and since he was diagnosed back in January, we have always practiced safe sex. Anyway, I always thought that once he reached undetectable status I could then engage in unprotected oral sex at least. Well, his ID doctor said that it was not safe...matter a fact he said it was only a little safer than unprotected vaginal sex but still unadvisable! I'm a little baffled by that because from what I have read it's relatively safe.
Has anyone here been in a long term magnetic relationship where you have tested this theory and you or your partner remained negative?
-
There is a helpful link below that explains the way mucous membranes work, when there can be a risk, and why there is usually NOT a risk 99% of the time.
http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/fall-2011/exposure-infection-biology-hiv-transmission
This is a discussion of oral sex with some doctors and a facilitator:
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=pr-rr-05
Also, undetectable in blood is not = undetectable in semen. Some say that at 6 months, there is a large drop off in the semen...though this is still being argued about (see below quote)
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_semen_transmission_1667_22190.shtml
"Dr. Marcelin said their findings were contrary to a statement made by the Swiss Federal Commission last year, that undetectable plasma HIV RNA for 6 months and no active sexually transmitted infections carried no risk for sexual transmission of the virus during unprotected sex. She said: "There is always the risk at the individual level.""
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/588060
I have seen "3 major studies of oral sex in serodiscordant couples" referred to a dozen times on this forum without a link to one of them though (I think one of them is discussed in my UCSF link above actually). Apparently, nobody ever got HIV from oral sex in these studies of hundreds of people. However, I tried to find these studies on google scholar and I cannot. I asked for a link but I am guessing nobody read that far into my post.
I am not positive (though pending a test that should be negative still) - but I went through a weird situation with oral sex and someone who lied about his status...so all of the above is what I learned. I think this sub-forum allows negative people to post....so anyway, I know I can't speak from personal sexual experience - but I found those links very helpful versus the "oral is no risk" mantra that I've read too often. It's not 0 risk...but it's very low. The caveats are explained in all of the above (kind of the typical gum health, oral / tonsil inflammation, corticosteroid use, Viral Load, etc...somewhere I read "swallow or spit - don't let it sit" - and that makes sense too in light of the facts about pre-cum or semen).
-
Hello everyone, :)
As some of you may know my husband was diagnosed positive in the beginning of the year. I have till this day have tested negative. He is now undetectable! :D
We have a pretty normal sex life and since he was diagnosed back in January, we have always practiced safe sex. Anyway, I always thought that once he reached undetectable status I could then engage in unprotected oral sex at least. Well, his ID doctor said that it was not safe...matter a fact he said it was only a little safer than unprotected vaginal sex but still unadvisable! I'm a little baffled by that because from what I have read it's relatively safe.
Has anyone here been in a long term magnetic relationship where you have tested this theory and you or your partner remained negative?
His ID doc sounds anti-sex.
-
You might have to find the links yourself since they tend to expire and move, I will certainly make an effort to update them.
There are actually 4 studies, with Page-Shafer doing two of them. The largest being the HOT study.
There is also a Vittinghoff study that I thoroughly distrust because, when they KNEY they had zero confirmed cases of HIV transmission through cunnilingus, they assigned a percentage to it anyhow. This is bad form in data collecting, and it skews every single number (especially the lower ones to whom a percentage point is considered important.
1. Page-Shafer, et al (1997); Case-control study of risk of
HIV seroconversion in MSM who report only ROS
Odds Ratio = 1.01 (1.00-1.02) per partner
• 2. Vittinghoff et al (1999); Per contact risk of HIV
associated with unprotected fellatio with HIV+/unknown
serostatus partner
0.04% (95% CI=0.01%-0.17%)
• 3. Del Romero et al (2002); incidence of HIV among
serodiscordant heterosexual couples practicing oral sex
0 (0-2.2) per 100 PYO
0 (0-0.25) per 1000 unprotected orogenital exposures
0 (0-0.5) per 1000 unprotected fellatio exposures
Can I state categorically that there are NO HIV transmissions linked to performing fellatio? No, but the "perfect storm" of significantly damaged oral tissue ("meth mouth" for example) and a soaring viral load such as found in a newly infected but not diagnosed person would seem to be the avenue here.
While I understand the cautionary tone of Tim Horn's article that was cited, it is also important to note that the caution was about what MIGHT be possible, and that further testing was warranted. There was no concrete data supporting the hypothesis that oral sex was actually a transmission risk, only that it could not be completely ruled out until relevant studies were completed. The article is slightly misleading in that, and the title even moreso.
Which is great for page views, but it does seem to be leaning towards a bias.
Performing fellatio on a male who has a high viral load is considered nearly safer sex, thanks in large part to the inhospitable nature of the human mouth and the aggressively anti-HIV properties in saliva. Not to mention that vulnerable cells are not found in any abundance in the mouth. When you add medication to that mix, the near negligible risk drops completely off the radar.
-
Thanks guys for all the helpful information! It will certainly help me weigh everything out :)