Well, like you said, you did have unprotected anal sex. What you think of a seroconversion illness may not have been one. The seroconversion illness aspect of it is very unreliable in determining when someone was infected because up to half of people never get a seroconversion illness as I never did. Sometimes people equate a flu or a cold with it, when that is all it was.
I don't know that feeling anger over how you got it is healthy for you.
Hmmm....
Has anyone responding to this thread noticed that the original poster is most likely British (based on spelling and how the dates are listed)?
Now, I know I'm probably gonna get shit for this, but you know what they say about British oral hygiene....
So, with that in mind, why are you so quick to dismiss the possibility for infection by performing oral sex on a male?
Just looking for clues here....
Now if you gave oral, you are still taking a big chance by even taken on someone bodily fluids such as precum. We all know that precum is very much a carrier for the virus. Receptive anal is high risk.
Hmmm....
Has anyone responding to this thread noticed that the original poster is most likely British (based on spelling and how the dates are listed)?
Now, I know I'm probably gonna get shit for this, but you know what they say about British oral hygiene....
I'm a cum addict.
I've had gallons of cum in my mouth, even few hours after having a mouth cleaning at the dentist. I tested negative for 20 years of eating cum twice or more a day.
Then I got fucked without protection back in december. And I tested positive 2 months later.
Just my story.
Milker.
Since when did saliva become an infectious agent?!?!?!?!. Jeezus!!!!
Hence the name Milker, I suppose. I will confess that there's something I find rather hot about that post.
"Um...welcome back from your Time Out, scottttttttttttttttttttttttttttt."
My point is valid. Get over it. :'(
Let's try sticking to the issues here. No need to flame bait. Suggesting that being uncut may result in getting HIV from getting a blow job suggests that saliva is an infectios agent which it is not. Calling such assertions into question is merely correcting the dissemination of misinformation. As I recall, one of the purposes of this website is to dispel myths not reinforce them.
Thunter,
Let's stick to the issue. It was suggested that saliva is an infectious agent. It is not. I merely corrected blatantly incorrect information.
Thunter,
Let's stick to the issue. It was suggested that saliva is an infectious agent. It is not. I merely corrected blatantly incorrect information. No need to get so huffy. Getting a "time out" here impacts my life very little. I managed to pick up the pieces when I had my time out. Should I get timed out for correcting irresponsibly incorrect information, I would be shocked. I have addressed all concerned with kindness and respect. I merely attacked the misinformation not the party disseminating it.
What I said is correct. Saliva is not an infectious agent. There are no cases of HIV transmission from receiving a blow job. Not in the entire span of this pandemic yet ignorance and misinformation still persists. It is our collective duty to stamp out misinformation. Ignorance is dangerous. For pointing out misinformation, I am not sorry. For being upset by the further dissemination of misinformation I am not sorry. If I make a factually incorrect statement about something of significant importance, such as the modes of transmission of an infectious disease during a pandemic, I would welcome the correction.
Let's stick to the issues.
Thunter,
Let's stick to the issue. It was suggested that one can become infected with HIV from receiving a blow job. This suggests that saliva is an infectious agent. In the entire course of the pandemic, there is not one documented case of a person getting HIV by receiving a blow job. To suggest that saliva is an infectous agent in this day and age is highly irresponsible.
That is the issue.
Hence the name Milker, I suppose. I will confess that there's something I find rather hot about that post.
I said this wasnt going to end well.
And thunter... what pills? You lost me!
2. Surveys are not science. Science is testing in a controlled atmosphere where there can be no question as to the results. Results from questionaires should not be considered science.
4.Being HIV+ is not some badge of honor or joke, it can destroy your life as well as the lives of those you love. The guilt of the damage you have done or might do to others is a far greater weight than anything you suffer personally. Thats just me. I dont have sex anymore,but I sure think about it a lot.
Same thing here. When I'm replying to topics such as this one, I make sure I read twice what I type... No irony!
I happen to know two guys who affirm they have been infected by just giving blow jobs. Should I doubt their sincerity, or should I just thinking they are naive?
Tough question, if you ask me.
I have a tendency in trusting people --- not judge them! And I believe in what Keyite says.
Val
___
___
Keyite's been a member since September of 2006
The plural of anecdote is not data.
As was noted earlier there are other factors at play in this case.
The unprotected anal sex, for instance.
Yes, I have had unprotected anal sex - long enough ago, and with enough negative test results in between to know I could not have been infected that way.
I would ask one question, does it actually matter how you got the QueerPlague? I mean, it's all a bit late to fuss about this now.
I wonder if all the people who ran the studies and asked the survey questions, dismissed everyone who claimed oral sex as their transmission route just as easily as Keyite is being dismissed as somewhat delusional.
Key, I don't think you'll get anyone to believe. As has been pointed out, there are big reasons why no one wants to believe it possible.
First off, I find your insinuation repugnant.
Secondly, had you bothered to review the Page-Shafer and Romero studies, you ...
once you postulate that exposure to saliva can infect,
we should not be shocked when our families and friends withdraw, when we are given plastic forks at Thanksgiving, when our hands are not held when we die.
Again, I apologize for participating here. I respectfully withdraw
Secondly, had you bothered to review the Page-Shafer and Romero studies, you would
I know some of you have great fondness for Jonathan, and I can appreciate that. However, blindy defending Jonathon is NOT COOL.
I never said a word to Jonathon, in this thread, prior to his post to me. I suppose the above statement from Jonathon to me is perfectly acceptable according to your (pl) standards.
Got it.
And this thread is not the place for a scientific discussion of oral sex and first tier peer review. I for sure am NOT going to further alienate myself from this site by starting yet another, ultimately pointless oral sex thread in the LIVING WITH forum. I stand firmly behind my research, and the efficacy of the assertions I have made. That having been said, I welcome the new member, and in THIS forum, it is absolutely irrelevant HOW someone became infected - except that silence is construed by many who lurk as complicity.
At no time did anyone insinuate that Key had no business asking his question, Paul.
doubt that.
Doubt that, do you? Paul, I am steaming from head to hoof over that comment you made above- and even moreso by how steadfast you are standing behind it. I'm not defending Jonathan so much as admonishing you for a callous statement.
For the record: I would have called out the horrible swipe of yours no matter who was on the receiving end because it is foul and utterly inappropriate. Believe it or not, I would have said the very same thing to Jonathan had he hurled such a comment at you.
For now, I shall take the high road and leave the contents of your PM between us.
Take care of yourself as well.
right. You all can fight amongst each other all night. I have to get to bed.
If I had as much time on my hands as you do, I just may have read it.
Boy, when I had a vague suspicion this topic might result in a bit of heat I certainly wasn't far off!
Finally, for what it's worth (and I realise my credibility account is running very low right about now): several people have sent me PMs to say that they too believe they were infected via oral sex but that they feel too intimidated to post in this thread, or too bruised from previous discussions on this subject to participate again. I find that quite telling and very depressing. Perhaps we should form an underground network on AM: the transmission route that dare not speak its name... ;D
I'm sorry but the statistics don't show that you are "taking a big chance" when you give a blowjob. At BEST its an extremely LOW risk but most likely only theoretical (according to the studies which is what we go by in the AM I forum).
What is a "theoretical" risk? I've seen this term used a number of times, and I've never understood exactly what it means.
It is basically like the old saying, "You could get hit by a bus".
Kudos to David for diplomacy! Very carefully done, D! You traversed the landmines of this thread quite nicely! :-*
What is a "theoretical" risk? I've seen this term used a number of times, and I've never understood exactly what it means.
Historically semen has been used as a beauty product known for smoothing the skin. Perhaps this is where the term "facial" comes from. ::)
The doubts seem to be strictly in relation to those who say they have become infected through performing oral on a guy, NOT from those who have been sucked.
I keep reading a bunch of people saying that they are OK with this and that oral-wise with their partners because of their VL being undetectable. It has been my understanding (see the current fabu thread "Undetectable, but why not "gone"? by milker in Treatment Questions for more) that, while VL is guaged by a blood draw, the actual amount of virus present in other parts of the body (read: testicles. read: SEMEN) may be higher than that because the meds may have less ability to corner the virus there. This, I believe, is a similar scenario in the brain also. Am I correct or incorrect on this?
It has been my understanding (see the current fabu thread "Undetectable, but why not "gone"? by milker in Treatment Questions for more) that, while VL is guaged by a blood draw, the actual amount of virus present in other parts of the body (read: testicles. read: SEMEN) may be higher than that because the meds may have less ability to corner the virus there. This, I believe, is a similar scenario in the brain also. Am I correct or incorrect on this?
...once you are on the wrong side of a statistic, it doesn't much matter.
VG
No you are not barking mad.
HIV is transmitted with blood to blood or semen to blood contact.
That can happen with oral sex.
Gum inflammation, often times not visible to the naked eye, is a route of transmission.
Is it possible ? yes. Is it probable ? Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Science isn't my God, either...but I'd place more faith in some evidence rather than none.
Well you've heard some evidence in this thread. From me, and from Keyite and from other members.
Just because it isn't in the form of a peer reviewed paper doesn't make it nothing.
"Yes possible" and "yes probably" are some pretty muscular assertions.
Your documented evidence to back those statements would be?
Look: I am not trying to shout down anyone who wants to say that they got it this way or that. In fact, I think it is important to look into it- not so much for we who have already crossed over into Pozville, but for those who haven't to be better armed to protect themselves.
I just keep wanting to see something, ANYTHING concrete to back up this kind of declaration. There appears to be science to support the other side of the argument. I'm waiting to see it for statements like these as well.
One thing about this thread and posts like that one: It will likely make AM more of a one-stop shop for all things HIV. Folks will be able to get unsubstantiated fear fodder completely in-house. No need to shop at The Body for it or anything.
No, I haven't heard evidence. I've heard anecdotes. And we're back to anecdote < evidence. I am not saying your testimonials are "nothing", but I don't believe they carry the same weight as information collected from careful study.
Just to illustrate what I am saying: If I came on here and said, "I got HIV from a mosquito. I am certain that is what happened." Would my saying that automatically qualify that statement to have equal footing as documented research that would contradict such a claim?
It belittled it by equating the opinion of forum members on this subject with getting HIV from a mosquito. It's calling people liars but with more words.
I notice you didn't comment on the abstract, which would appear to contradict both your arguement, and the purposes for which it has been quoted previously. And that is data in that paper, whichever way you want to cut it, and no number of lazy metaphors are going to change that.
As I've said previously. I don't think this mode of transmission is likely, or probable. But it does happen - and as (and if) people get the message about safe sex more and more, this mode of transmission is going to become proportionally greater. Get used to it.
M.
This does not mean that its application is subjective, which by definition is the reverse of the scientific approach.
And I gotta say that the absence of evidence is not evidence. One can prove that something happened, but can never prove that something did not.
Of course, we discussed so long, that we didn't get to "practice" anything........ :'( ::)
Lovely! ;) ;D ::) :-*
Brent,
I don't think this is exactly true. The underlying data may be objective, but few see all the underlying data. What most see is the interpretation of the underlying data, which is subjective. We have all seen different people present the same study differently simply by how you frame "the question" and/or the statistics that you use. So while I do agree with your overall point, I'm afraid that science isn't as black and white as we might like.
You are absolutely correct here. So how can anyone say that people have NOT gotten HIV from oral sex?
Now I'm not saying you said this, because I don't think you did, but others are certainly implying that perhaps some aren't forthcoming on whether they've had anal sex as a risk factor.
I will say again, I think oral transmission is possible but rare -- and like Andy stated, that isn't that far off from what most are saying on here.
I wonder if this causes such angst in some because it makes them have to reconsider some of the "risk" that they feel is acceptable in their sex lives?? I think this is a very good discussion to be having not because it's important how someone got infected, but because it is important that people keep reassessing what risks they are comfortable with and which they are not. I know that my partner and I had another discussion on oral sex last night -- we're still in the same place, but the discussion was good. And for that, I need to thank everyone who has posted in this thread.
Of course, we discussed so long, that we didn't get to "practice" anything........ :'( ::)
Hugs,
Mike
I should no doubt leave this alone, but I just can't help wondering: public health authorities, HIV prevention agencies, ID and other doctors across the world all appear to deem oral sex (giving it, not receiving it) a LOW risk. Contrast that with kissing or indeed mosquito bites which they categorically deem NO risk.
Why is that? Global conspiracy or have they simply not yet caught up with Jonathan's selection of publications?
So no, there is no Global Conspiracy- and I imagine they are all caught up with J's reading list.
I'll acknowledge that when they say so publicly.
Thanks, that clarifies.
Four, possibly five (not entirely sure if that was Siang's intention), have done exactly that.
Hereby acknowledged for the few that have stated so in this thread.
I acknowledge that these people have made this claim.
thunter, it is not being 'too sacred' that matters;
it is being ridicule that counts.
Siang
Are they gonna be knighted?
No.
Most of them are already Queens to begin with.
Hereby acknowledged for the few that have stated so in this thread.
I acknowledge that these people have made this claim.
Confining myself to the science, although I haven't read the paper I mentioned earlier as I have lost my Athens password, it took me 30 seconds to read the abstract on pubmed. If none of the people in the study had seroconverted after they controlled for factors via anal sex, then it would have been impossible to get an odds-ratio >1, which was mentioned in the abstract. I would urge people to read this abstract, and comment.