Author Topic: ars or not (Read 10642 times)

cjake7935 · « **on:** June 12, 2012, 11:52:54 pm »

Well, I know what I am going to ask has been answered many times, but my question is something different I was with a sex worker and we did a lot of deep kissing. I suffer from gingivitis and periodonthosis. Though I have not received any oral surgery recently but my gums are receding and very little blood comes when i touch them while brushing or may be with a soft white cloth. I can see very small red spots, though not very high blood. But please note when i spit, i dont see any blood in the spit. So what i mean here is very very small amount of blood, but yes, it is there.

In this scenario, do you thing that a deep kissing is probably a risk.

Also, after the exposure, I developed a mild fever after 3 days, which went away after taking a brufen. Then i developed swollen tonsil but then it went away and again now I am having this huge tonsil which is somewhat ok now as i has taken an antibiotic. But then my stool from yesterday is also not ok. I had these watery stoll along with small ball like hard stool. Not sure if there was mucous in it but i guess, we cannot call it diarrohea or may be we can, i just am not sure.

Do you think this swollen tonsil and stool issue can be a symptom of ARS or the chance of catching up the virus via the bleeding gums. Do you think, only these two symptoms would pop up if its ARS and no other symptoms like swollen nodes or rash may be. how do i know if the nodes are swollen. Are they like really visible as in ping pong balls may be.

Do u suggest a test

RapidRod · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2012, 11:58:16 pm »

At no time were you at risk of contracting HIV by kissing no matter if you have sores or gum diseases.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2012, 12:05:55 am »

Thanks Rod. I know kissing like protected sex is not a risk but my concern is just the possible blood from her mouth to my bloodstream due to the receding gums. It becomes a case of blood transfusion then and infected blood is known to carry the virus.

Also what would u suggest about the symptoms. Do you think, it cannot be ARS as they did not come all along or it can be ARS still.

There was a case reported by CDC where a woman became infected due to kissing, though its pretty old and also about a gay who caught the virus despite of safe sex.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2012, 12:32:52 am »

Quote

Thanks Rod. I know kissing like protected sex is not a risk but my concern is just the possible blood from her mouth to my bloodstream due to the receding gums. It becomes a case of blood transfusion then and infected blood is known to carry the virus.

This is in no way a risk. Saliva contains over a dozen different elements that neutralize HIV. No one has ever been verified as having been infected through kissing. deep or not.

Quote

There was a case reported by CDC where a woman became infected due to kissing, though its pretty old and also about a gay who caught the virus despite of safe sex.

The case you refer to was discredited years and years ago. The couple in question were long term chronic IV drug users who later admitted having unprotected sex.

We are well familiar with the case in question. We really do stay on top of the science here.
You had absolutely no risk, no matter what caveats you bring to the forum.

As far as someone getting HIV through, I am assuming you imply, a condom? Scientifically impossible. Which is why patient report is not only well known to be very inaccurate (people lie) but in this century, with the wealth of serodiscordant couples, unnecessary.

HIV is a virus, It is not magic. It is not evil. It behaves according to it's own strict rules and guidelines, and as far as pathogens are concerned, it is very delicate.

You do not, will not get HIV from kissing.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2012, 12:54:04 am »

whow.. buddy, i know and agree with you that kissing is not a risk.. My concern was not the kissing. My concern is just the blood in the kissing, which may have gotten in my blood stream, which according to CDC is a risk. And the virus is found in blood.

The CDC states that "There is a remote risk from deep, open-mouth kissing if there are sores or bleeding gums and blood is exchanged. Therefore, persons living with HIV should avoid this behavior with a non-infected partner. "

I met a GP who also says that it is highly unlikely but then a nurse told me that its a risk. Now i am confused as to what is a risk and what is not.

RapidRod · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2012, 01:03:10 am »

The nurse was incorrect. You never had an exposure and jkinatl2 explained the reason why.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2012, 01:32:48 am »

I don't know what to tell you. Blood in the mouth, even with a high viral load, would be destroyed by the saliva. The kisser's saliva AND the kissee's.

I wish I knew why terms like "remote possibility" and the like were bandied about on a web site supposedly designed on a foundation of hard science. But the CDC is also a government site, and change is made at a glacier pace.

I've been an HIV activist for almost twenty years. Been a prevention counselor for at least fifteen. I've scoured reams of scientific data, and watched the science evolve - and the transmission vectors dwindle - as the mechanics of HIV has become clearer and clearer.

In the 1980s they cautioned against "microscopic cuts" and the like. The inability to even SEE the virus through the technology at the time brought about hysteria in the scientific community. And sadly, in the pre-ART era, scientists discovered that a great way to become renown was to absolutely prove an unconventional method of HIV tranmission. From tooth brushes to kissing to cunilingus. And given the almost complete lack of serodiscordant couples to study, such "proof" took the form of patient report.

How many times has someone in this forum expressed extreme unease at telling their doctor they needed an HIV test? How many hoops do people go through to avoid discussing their real lives with the physicians charged with maintaining the quality of those same lives?

It's a sad part of human nature. We lie. We fabricate. We selectively forget, and we say what the authority figure in the white coat (who, in the case of a scientific study, also holds a check book) what we feel they want to hear. We paint ourselves in light that is often very different from the truth.

The serodiscordant studies int he 90s through the mid 200s were insanely well designed. They employed people of every sexual orientation, people who were on meds and who were not. People who had high viral loads, and people whose viral loads were undetectable. And the common denominator was that, for the purposes of the study, the couples admitted to having unprotected oral sex (all four varieties) yet simply used condoms for anal and vaginal sex.

The purpose of these studies was to finally quantify the REAL percentage of people who get infected through oral sex. The people in the study knew the risks assigned to oral sex, and chose to take that risk regardless.

After three studies in two continents, spanning ten, five, and three years - with hundreds of thousands of hours of sexual activity and absolutely no reward for lying, the researchers were unable to find a single instance of HIV spread through oral sex. The only risk for HIV infection sexually is unprotected anal and vaginal sex.

These studies absolutely agree with the lab work which had been done years before, using not only HIV in a petri dish but HIV. SHIV and SIV in chimps and other primates.

I get that you are worried. And that you have received information all over the board on this.

It is the intent of this website to educate regarding the risks of HIV transmission and provide a science/data-driven forum in order to prevent transmission, erode the stigma associated with HIV, and provide reassurance using factual, quantifiable information.

The data, both in vivo and in vitro, along with all our statistical data gathered over the past thirty-odd years, simply do not support kissing, fingering, or even oral sex as a viable transmission vector. Maybe we could cover our asses, hedge our bets and simply make elusive comments about "theoretical risk" and "remote risk."

But to use those terms for activities that have, to date, NEVER been quantified using hard science would be, in my opinion, unethical.

Sadly, no one requires nurses or doctors to stay on top of HIV transmission theory. Which while understandable (only so many diseases can be studied by anyone in a given day/month/lifetime,) it is unfortunate. Especially since the last ten years have offered SO much change in how we view this virus - from it's transmission vectors to it's methodology once infected, to it's vulnerabilities and treatment.

You won't find this much equivocation about, say, syphilis. Because we have studied it for so long (it's also much easier to isolate and study) and because our science has been proven correct time and again as regards it's transmission vectors. I submit that a person in the mid 1800s who was afraid of syphilis might encounter the same convoluted mishmash of medical indecision.

You do not get HIV from kissing, with periodontal disease or gingivitis.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2012, 05:31:34 am »

Now thats an explanation. So i guess I should not bother to test .

cjake7935 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 14, 2012, 08:32:40 am »

I am having a sore throat , which i know of course, can be due to many reasons, but the point here is that its not going down even after taking antibiotic pills. Hence I am little scared, if this could be ARS as in the body is not responding due to HIV or it cannot be as I do not have any fever. I have read on the net that the most common symptom for ARS is fever but in my case i do not have a fever but have a sore throat, which is little painful and this is fueling the anxiety.

If someone can tell about the ARS please

RapidRod · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2012, 08:39:57 am »

■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.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 14, 2012, 08:46:37 am »

whoaa... Hey Rod... chill man....I am not at all questioning a non risk situation. I just wanted to get educated about the ARS and the onset of symptons.

Ann · « **Reply #11 on:** June 14, 2012, 09:26:24 am »

jake,

Why should you be concerning yourself with ARS or seroconversion symptoms when you absolutely have NOT had a risk for hiv infection?

Unless you're in the habit of repeatedly punching a person in the mouth before you kiss them, there could not possibly be enough blood to cause concern.

Not only is saliva not infectious, but it also contains over a dozen different proteins and enzymes that damage hiv and render it unable to infect. This is why small amounts of blood that may possibly be in another person's saliva won't make a difference. The saliva belonging to BOTH of you will contain the elements that deactivate hiv - so any hiv present would NOT be infectious anyway by the time it got to your mouth.

We do not discuss symptoms here as they are meaningless when it comes to diagnosing hiv. The ONLY way to diagnose hiv is testing at the appropriate time - after a risk. You have NOT had a risk and you do NOT need to test over a kiss, deep or otherwise.

If you feel unwell, see a doctor. Whatever is going on has NOTHING to do with hiv.

You will not be permitted to use this forum to continue to wring your hands over a NO RISK kiss. If you attempt to do so, you WILL be given that time out Rodney warned you about.

PLEASE CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED FOR THE LAST TIME!!!

Ann

cjake7935 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 19, 2012, 12:17:39 am »

I just tested negative at two week mark....P24 antigen + hiv antibody test

RapidRod · « **Reply #13 on:** June 19, 2012, 12:22:36 am »

You never had an exposure.

Andy Velez · « **Reply #14 on:** June 19, 2012, 08:44:33 am »

Of course you tested negative. You never had a risk for HIV.

You don't have to believe us about not having been at risk. But I am going to warn you that if you continue to return here about your non-risk you are going to find yourself getting a Time Out for at least 28 days from the site.

HIV is not a problem for you. Period. Get on with your life.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 23, 2012, 03:47:55 am »

HI Guys,

m here again.. Sorry Ann but i am feeling low fever from the past 3 days ... now that its exactly three weeks from my exposure. A temperature of 37.5 not sure if call this fever , a low grade one may be. also a reddish skin near groin on one side though..do u think the ars fever is a high fever or could be a low grade one.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2012, 03:54:12 am »

Unless you had an exposure that you didn't mention, how could it be HIV?

Ann · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2012, 06:24:20 am »

cj,

37.5C is NOT a fever.

Kissing is not a risk for hiv infection. You have not had a risk for hiv infection.

If you feel unwell, see a doctor. It has nothing to do with a virus you could not possibly have.

I'm giving you that time out you've been warned about. Do not attempt to create a new account to get around your time out because if you do, you will be permanently banned.

Ann

cjake7935 · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:16:27 am »

I am back after the TO. i tested negative DUO test at 34 days. Just wanted to ask one last thing. Please do not tell me now that I will get a permanent ban. Its a last question, which basically is due to the anxiety , as its HIV related and had it been something else, no body would have bothered that much which I am sure of

Do you think I need further testing or I can consider it conclusive.

Thanks a ton a again. You guys are just doing a great job.!!!

RapidRod · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:19:23 am »

If you can't understand what has been posted adding anymore information would be wasting our time. Move on.

jkinatl2 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2012, 12:29:08 am »

Quote from: cjake7935 on July 25, 2012, 12:16:27 am

I am back after the TO. i tested negative DUO test at 34 days. Just wanted to ask one last thing. Please do not tell me now that I will get a permanent ban. Its a last question, which basically is due to the anxiety , as its HIV related and had it been something else, no body would have bothered that much which I am sure of

Do you think I need further testing or I can consider it conclusive.

Thanks a ton a again. You guys are just doing a great job.!!!

For kissing. You are seriously asking about this for kissing.

Please think of more clever ways to further stigmatize and insult those of us who are HIV positive.

PS: I just totally made out with my HIV negative boyfriend. And I am So very very positive. Some people aren't monsters about that sort of thing. We call them enlightened.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #21 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:19:22 am »

I tested negaive at 55 days..hurray

RapidRod · « **Reply #22 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:21:01 am »

■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.

cjake7935 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 28, 2012, 11:43:04 am »

just a question, which category of people seroconvert post 2 months. why is the window period 3 months. If we are so sure that no one turns positive after 55 days days negative, then why is it required to test again at 13 weeks. Also, some say 12 weeks, some say 13 weeks. what is the diiference.

Ann · « **Reply #24 on:** July 28, 2012, 01:11:06 pm »

c,

We can be sure that YOU are not going to seroconvert and test positive after 55 days because you never had a risk in the first place, as you have been repeatedly told.

I'm giving you that (second) time out you've been warned about. Do not attempt to create a new account to get around your time out because if you do, you will be permanently banned.

Ann

Forums Index

Welcome

Welcome to Do I Have HIV?

Author Topic: ars or not (Read 10642 times)