HIV , in my mind? Or in my body?

[justjazzy]

Before I say anything at all let me state that I have still not engaged in sexual intercourse since January 17th, which was my last "risk" and I tested negative since then  on the following days ; March 9th 2010, April 13 2010, and August 28th, 2010 (yes I went again "strictly for peace of mind" as I know Andy and the rest of you told me my April 13th test was conclusive.) I did mention here that ever since January 17th I was dealing with what was first diagnosed as a  "yeast infection" , but upon a more recent visit to the doctor on September 16th, 2010...a wet mount was preformed and it was found that I had Trich the whole time. -__-

Despite the pills they gave me to take care of it, the discharge still doesn't seem to subside but that is a whole other issue entirely. My issue now is, being that I had an underlying infection such as Trich for so long -- is there any way at all my negative tests for HIV were innacuarate? Is it possible for multiple underlying infections to delay seroconversion? Or does nothing truly delay it at all?

Also, two weeks ago I preformed oral sex (that was it) on my current boyfriend without a condom. I have read time and time again on here and on Medhelp that oral sex is not a risk for transmission. But why is it that the CDC OFFICIAL website states it is? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/transmission.htm <--- Please help me out here....

[Andy Velez]

THe CDC is just covering all bases with their position that giving oral is a risk. It's strictly theoretical only. In the real world of HIV claims of having been infected through giving oral never hold up under careful scrutiny.

Longterm ongoing studies of sero-discordant couples who have lots of mutual oral of all sorts and only protected vaginal and anal intercourse have resulted in not a single sero-negative partner having become nifected.

If you're going to get anxious unnecessarily every time you give your bf oral, then use a condom for it if that will make you feel better.

[Ann]

JJ,


A trich infection will have absolutely no bearing on your hiv tests. You are conclusively hiv negative.

You need to go back to the doctor if you're still having a discharge. Trich can be difficult to get rid of and more so if it's a long-standing infection such as yours. Good luck with that.

Ann

[justjazzy]

Thanks a lot, Andy and Ann. So to clarify ; No underlying infection at all can delay seroconversion? Along with the wet-mount on September 16th, my smear was also sent to the labs to be tested for HPV, Chlamydia ,and Gonorrhea -- all which came back negative. The nurse told me she saw a lot of white blood cells on the smear- - but she said she guessed it was the Trich causing it. I know I'm probably worrying incessantly and that my negative tests are just truly that; negative.

And as far as oral sex being only  thematically a risk -- my current boyfriend's "head" was extremely wet and I do have a so/so dental record...meaning I haven't been to the dentist in about a year. I just want to make sure that sex act (the giving head) does not warrant another HIV test despite those details. And that I'm still in the clear...!?!. I do plan on going back to the doctor this week about this persisting Trich.

[Ann]

JJ,

This is the last time I'm going to tell you this - you are conclusively hiv negative. You do not have hiv.

You do not need further testing.

Yes, I read about the blowjob. You do not need further hiv testing.

You have already had TWO time outs from this site. There is no third time out, it is a permanent ban. If you insist on using this site to continually question your CONCLUSIVE NEGATIVE RESULT, you WILL be permanently banned.

PLEASE CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED FOR THE LAST EVER TIME!

Ann

[justjazzy]

Happy Holidays, AIDSMEDS. Wow to think around this very time last year is when all my worry and concern  over HIV and STDS began.

I don't want to be banned under any circumstances. Not at all, so I will watch it as I know you guys are here voluntarily and have other people with "real risks" to service. So I will not further question my past negative HIV testing. I know that my tests since my last "real risk" on January 17th, 2010 are conclusive. DO NOT BAN ME as I understand that to the fullest.

What I do wish clarification on is the: GREAT ORAL DEBATE. I had an oral encounter a few weeks back in which I was the receptive, i.e. I received him in my mouth. To my knowledge, I believe there was precum because  his hood was very wet and he ejaculated rather fast (Not inside my mouth, sorry if TMI >_<) .  Also I do not have the best dental health, but I'm cetaintly no 'Meth Mouth'. I only gave him unprotected oral because I was so sure it was safe sex in terms of HIV. Like, I read that several times here and other places so I was startled when the CDC website said it was "A RISK, ALBEIT A SMALLER ONE" .

I gladly did not obtain HIV from my last "real risk" encounter, but I did get TRICH (Earlier misdiagnosed as a YEAST in March, 2010). I have been to the doctor TWICE concerning the infection. The first time she gave me 7 day pills, which did nothing. I returned recently and she said she saw no more Trich parasites or white blood cells but I still have the exact same discharge and discomfort. So IDK? I'm planning on going back. I told my boyfriend that I had Trich, and he has beens supportive but should I also tell him I want him to get an HIV test done? Does it matter since all we have done is oral (Me receiving his penis)? Why does the CDC confirm 3 cases of women catching HIV from oral sex?, i.e them giving men a blow? This awakens me in my goddamn sleep. Please help me out with the Oral facts for an UNPROTECTED RECEPTIVE WOMAN furthermore, and that is all I ask? No longer questioning my negative results...so I don't warrant a permanent ban, but please?? SO confused about the risk about female (ME) giving oral to a guy?

HAPPY TURKEY DAY YOU GUYS...YOU'RE THE BEST AS ALWAYS. !

[Ann]

jj,

I have never once seen anything about three women who allegedly were infected via oral. Not one confirmed, documented case.

There have been long-term studies of couples where one is positive and one is negative. In the couples who used condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, but no barrier for oral activities, not one of the negative partners became infected with hiv. Not one. You are worrying for no good reason.

Don't think you'll be able to use this site to go on and on about your latest worry. That's not what we're here for.

Ann

[justjazzy]

From the CDC website...

Yes, it is possible for either partner to become infected with HIV through performing or receiving oral sex, though it is a less common mode of transmission than other sexual behaviors (anal and vaginal sex). There have been a few cases of HIV transmission from performing oral sex on a person infected with HIV. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is

And

If the person receiving oral sex has HIV, their blood, semen (cum), pre-seminal fluid (pre-cum), or vaginal fluid may contain the virus. Cells lining the mouth of the person performing oral sex may allow HIV to enter their body.

Makes it hard not to worry. :/    I wish it said/I could something about saliva making the disease inactive on there. But I will move on if I really had no risk. I will just go through the archives here and read up instead of getting banned. Thanks.

[RapidRod]

   Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

[Ann]

JJ,

As you are going to be reading the archives, I suggest you make sure you read some posts made by jkinatl2.

Particularly this one.

There have been many claims over the years by people who say they were infected through giving blowjobs. This is called "patient report" and patient report is very unreliable. Read here for JK's very astute post on why patient report is unreliable and why we should believe the studies that have been done on serodiscordant couples (where one is negative and one is positive).

You're still under a time out warning. And please, do NOT post in either of the threads I linked you to, or any other thread other than your own. Thanks.

Ann

[justjazzy]

Thanks for those links, and I will be careful not to boast on anxiety and stick to the facts in this post as I am understand I'm under a warning.  I read both of those posts in their entirety and I have gathered that a man/woman getting "head" is not at all a risk, and that it has never happened.  but that a man/woman giving (ie taking a penis in their mouth/eating out) is a "theoretical" risk and that there have been no confirmed cases reported. I also understand why a patient report is less reliable than the scientific studies. What I  do wish clarification on is how a "theoretical risk" can still have the phrase "risk" involved  if it does not warrant any testing?I thought all risks warranted a test?  As I told you I would be going through the archives, two  posts in particular a few pages back (sorry I can't cite them I'm posting this from mobile)  with answers from jkinatl2 and yourselves, Andy and Ann confuse me a bit. In both scenarios the women were being assessed for similar situations where they had given blowjobs to men found to be HIV+ , one woman had oral herpes (I was diagnosed with hsV1&2 last year though I have never had any outbreaks that I know and my iGG results were a low positive--yes my BF is aware)and the other had Syphilis (which I don't think I've been tested for before) -- Jkinatl2 assessed these risks as "low to theoretical"and stated he would be "surprised" if they tested positive following giving the BJs but they were advised to test -- I guess to knock out the possible theory that they could be infected that way?  If my risk was low to theoretical, do I need a rapid test done also? There was also another post where Ann had said that as long as the person did not have awful dental health they wouldn't need to test after giving a blowjob.  All the different add-ons and the "theoretical risk" is really confusing me. Hope I didn't violate my warning by wanting this clarification?

[Ann]

jj,


You know what? It seems to me that you just want to create worry and drama in your life. I'm so over drama.

If you cannot bring yourself to believe us that you weren't at risk in your latest drama, then go test and collect your negative result.

But you're not going to be permitted to use this website to act out your dramas. I'm giving you that permanent ban you've been warned about.

Ann