Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2014, 03:17:13 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 639866
  • Total Topics: 48577
  • Online Today: 220
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Welcome to Am I Infected

IMPORTANT UPDATE
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Welcome to the "Am I Infected?" POZ forum.

New members -- those who have posted three or fewer messages -- are permitted to post questions and responses, free of charge (make them count!). Ongoing participation in the "Am I Infected?" forum -- posting more than three questions or responses -- requires a paid subscription.

A seven-day subscription is $9.99, a 30-day subscription is $14.99 and a 90-day subscription is $24.99.

Anyone who needs to post more than three messages in the "Am I Infected?" forum -- including past, present and future POZ Forums members -- will need to subscribe, with secure payments made via PayPal.

There will be no charge to continue reading threads in the "Am I Infected?" forum, nor will there be a charge for participating in any of the Main Forums; Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits; and Off Topic Forums. Similarly, all POZ and AIDSmeds pages, including our "How is HIV Transmitted?" and "Am I Infected? (A Guide to Testing for HIV)" lessons, will remain accessible to all. 

NOTE: HIV testing questions will still need to be posted in the "Am I Infected?" forum; attempts to post HIV symptoms or testing questions in any other forums will be considered violations of our rules of membership and subject to time-outs and permanent bans.

To learn how to upgrade your Forums account to participate beyond three posts in the "Am I Infected?" Forum, please click here.

Thank you for your understanding and future support of the best online support service for people living with, affected by and at risk for HIV.

Author Topic: well, im back.. that didnt take long..  (Read 29174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #50 on: August 01, 2006, 02:49:37 AM »
Scaredstraight, I absolutely do not think you are using this forum as an educational tool. I think you are coming here each time you have a passing thought, and not ever bothering to read the lessons.

I am not going to dignify any further posts on this thread.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2006, 11:01:35 PM »
You should live in an oxygen bubble.
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2006, 11:33:02 PM »
lol, good one, just because I'm freaking out doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor.

On my questions, I'll make sure to read through the lessons before I post anything.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2006, 11:36:52 PM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2006, 11:45:19 AM »
I notice you lurk on this forum a lot, even when you are not posting. What for? Don't you realize how bad this forum is for you? Even though you might THINK it helps, it is actually the worst possible thing you can do. I am going to put you on ignore as I can't watch you do this to yourself anymore.

R
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2006, 02:24:34 PM »
Ok, I got my 6 week neg result back today and I feel VERY relieved :)  HIV worker, please don't get upset.  I'm more normal than you probably think.  Im not lurking around, I just never sign off so maybe it appears that I'm on more than I am. Maybe I lurk a little, who am I BSing.  With that being said, If I move to Massachussetts can I stop testing :)  (Joke)

Seriously guys (gals) please don't look at me as a freak, it's just a scary part of my life.  I know you guys have been more than patient with me. 

The good news is I will spread all the information on safe sex and HIV transmission I've learned from this site to as many people as I can. Thats the only gift I have to offer in return.

Have a good weekend everyone:)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 02:32:12 PM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2006, 10:52:12 PM »
Never signing off or lurking - you are always here and have the website open. It's doing you NO good.

R
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #56 on: August 07, 2006, 11:12:01 PM »
I can't shake it.  I went from:
Scouring the net for
"Odds of transmission durring mentration"
 then progressed to
"Odds of transmission after 4 week Elisa"
then progressed to
"Odds of transmission after 6 week Elisa"

My doctor told me to forget about HIV but I can't.  I finally broke down and made an appointment for a Psychiatrist.  I can't really sleep and I hate waking up in the morning because I know my mind will kick into "HIV calculation mode."  I've read so much HIV literature I think my head will explode. 

Does the combination 4 and 6 week get me almost out of the woods?  Should I approach the next test as just a formality rather than a possibllity?  I have to ask my doc to set me up for another test and she didn't think i needed the 6 week.  I know she thinks I'm crazy. I'm hoping that tests trump symptoms.   I'm trying to attribute my symptoms as self manafested.  It's hard.  I hate this crap.  No kidding.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2006, 11:17:14 PM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #57 on: August 07, 2006, 11:16:02 PM »
Go see your shrink. We can't help anymore, the answers have been gone over and over and over.

R
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2006, 08:42:27 PM »
Post 6 Week testing using 3rd gen testing: Theoretical Risk?

I've noticed that people claim receiving oral sex to be a theoretical risk more than an actual risk as it is rarely seen.  (Which I agree with).  With that being said, wouldn't the 6 week marker under 3rd gen elisa testing fall under that catagory.  From what I've read from AIDSMEDS moderators that have been around for a long time, they've never seen -6week to +12week.  Doctor H. has never seen it.  Mass ovbviously thinks 6 weeks in conclusive.  The UN now endorses 6 weeks.  Why wouldnt more emphasis be put on 6 weeks for those using current testing?  The only other reason I could possibly think of Mass having a 6 week window period is to reduce collateral damage: Ie:  Someone that knows their status at 6 weeks is less likely to infect others through 3 months.  The few that slip through would be worth those spared through a longer window period?  On the other hand I would think they could become liable if they were giving the green light at 6 weeks and people were coming back pos.  With a population such as Mass has, wouldn't we here more if they were actually incorrect in this matter?  They are bold enough to say stop testing after 6 weeks. If California said that smoking does not cause Cancer, the CDC would be very upfront about it saying California was putting its people in danger.  I havn't really read any literature on the CDC condeming Mass for its window.   Even the Elisa test itself has an accuracy of 99.9?%.  And yes I still think theres a chance of me coming back pos.

Reference:
http://www.medhelp.org/forums/STD/messages/524.html

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/258.html

http://huhs.harvard.edu/HealthInformation/HIVTesting.htm

http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040318.html

http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040617.html

http://www.sfaf.org/aboutsfaf/outreach/index.html?april00/two_tests.html~frontpage

http://peds.wustl.edu/labmed/retrovirus/

http://experts.about.com/q/Immunology-including-AIDS-973/ELiSA-6-Weeks.htm

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Women/Archive/WomenInfected/Q159734.html

http://www.areuatrisk.com/Learn/aids_hiv.php

http://liam.gnn.tv/print/1775/HIV_Antibody_Assays_Overview

http://www.retroconference.org/2001/posters/415.pdf  (Figure1)

http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1753,33966.asp

http://www.aac.org/site/PageServer?pagename=basics_home

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=2523.0

http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040318.html

http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/book/03MMHIV1to3.pdf  (page 7)

http://www.unaids.org/en/MediaCentre/References/default.asp#begin (q:32)

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SideEffects/Archive/Testing/Q142661.html

http://depts.washington.edu/hivaids/initial/case1/discussion.html (figure 7)

http://experts.about.com/q/Immunology-including-AIDS-973/u.htm

« Last Edit: August 18, 2006, 06:20:26 PM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #59 on: August 09, 2006, 09:00:38 PM »
If you want to look at the 99.9 percent are correct then there is only 1/10 of a percent that is not. That's like saying there is a 99.9 percent chance that a jumbo jet won't crash into your house this evening, BUT there is a 1/10 percent change one would. Nothing in life is 100% except that one day you will die.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #60 on: August 09, 2006, 09:57:38 PM »
(+ taxes)

But that's bascially what Im saying Rapid.  The WW (such as myself) focus on the 1/10th of a percent.  The word "100 conclusive" or "difinitive" is a word that is used alot from the "CDC" and "thebody" and from a ww point of view they look at everything else as 50/50 odds or even a strong possibility (with symptoms) until 3 months or even 6.  To them 90% of all information states none of the testing done means anything until a 3 month test is done.  THis leaves places like aidsmeds/medhelp/thebody trying to calm everyone down.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2006, 10:08:58 PM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #61 on: August 09, 2006, 10:18:17 PM »
Quote
The WW (such as myself) focus on the 1/10th of a percent. 

That's sort of the thing, isn't it. You look at that 1/10 of a percent without investigating the circumstances BEHIND people seroconverting later. Circumstances such as immune systems depressed because of other autoimmune disease, chemotherapy, or immune-suppression medicines taken with organ transplantation.

Thing is, the Mass. window is accurate, given the advanced tests they implemented statewide. I wish other states had the means to implement that level of technology in their health clinics. From what I understand, a state which has made great strides in standardizing HIV testing is North Carolina, utilizing the NAT testing procedure. But resources like that are not available in every state.

Until such time as the money is available to implement comparable testing resources throughout the continental US, I think that adhering to a 13 week window is a reasonable response. Obviously, in the case of Mass (and perhaps NC) that window is lower.

As far as the CDC goes, and their failure to endorse or condemn different testing windows, I understand your frustration and share it. How can one place (Mass) use a 6 week window, when the CDC still makes noise about 6 months? Is a whole state's healthcare so ludicrously incompetant and a danger to the public health? Or is the governmental organization so bloated and so inaccurate, thanks to bureaucracy and a religiously motivated agenda, that they would ignore scientific accuracy in favor of maintaining the financial support of the right wing contituents?

I think you know where I think the problem is :)

Of course, it does not help that our educational system has been so behind in teaching science and math, that we bring up generations of people thinking that 100% is a percentage found in nature, let alone medical science. It's not.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2006, 10:35:14 PM »

Thing is, the Mass. window is accurate, given the advanced tests they implemented statewide. I wish other states had the means to implement that level of technology in their health clinics. From what I understand, a state which has made great strides in standardizing HIV testing is North Carolina, utilizing the NAT testing procedure. But resources like that are not available in every state.



Actually jk, Mass isn't really that advanced on its testing as many think.  Their antibody testing is federally supplied.  The test they use most is the stardard ora rapid test (3rd gen equivillent)  which is along the standard at "most" labs accross the US, maybe even a little less advanced.  I had actually called their hotline and asked if different home testing matters to which they replied, "No it does not, 99% of all elisa's now created are considered modern".  Now, I will say that as this site is also looked upon globaly rather than strictly domestically which leaves aidsmeds with an obligation to make sure everyone gets credibal information.  So you can obviously see why a WW is stuck between clinging onto Mass knowledge in HIV testing and trying to get AM to give them an "All Clear."  Fustrating for everyone.

Offline longone

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #63 on: August 09, 2006, 10:44:56 PM »
Your body doesn't know whether you are in Mass or Mi during an Elisa or Ora-quick test. 6 weeks is all that is needed. I called the CDC the other day. Got as usual a person that couldn't put two words together. She told me the window period is between 2 weeks and 8weeks. She then said with out taking a breath after that it is 3 to 6 months. Gov. what does one expect.

happy to see kinatl2 is doing good. You are the man!!!

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #64 on: August 09, 2006, 10:55:08 PM »
Quote
  which is along the standard at "most" labs accross the US, maybe even a little less advanced

While accurate, it's that "most" part that keeps the window where it is. We have areas of our own country that lack the resources of third world countries. First gen ELISA tests still do a brisk business in places like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. And don't get me started on the Gulfport region.

Of course, even first and second Gen testing is usually accurate after six weeks.

One thing that was gratifying to know about Mass. and their tests, is that they were willing to go with the science, and not the rhetoric. I wish more states, more governmental agencies... and more people... would follow suit.

Our science behind HIV testing is really solid.



"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #65 on: August 10, 2006, 12:40:44 AM »
Your body doesn't know whether you are in Mass or Mi during an Elisa or Ora-quick test. 6 weeks is all that is needed. I called the CDC the other day. Got as usual a person that couldn't put two words together. She told me the window period is between 2 weeks and 8weeks. She then said with out taking a breath after that it is 3 to 6 months. Gov. what does one expect.

happy to see kinatl2 is doing good. You are the man!!!

This statement is very true.  The people answering calls are litterly fumbling though the CDC guide and have very little if any real knowledge on HIV.  It's amazing that the US will spend billions a day on war but can't get top notch qualified people to discuss logical HIV isuues.  The sad thing is most states refer you to them.  Last time I called the information I got was antibodies start building at 3 months.  At that point I was done with the phone call.

Offline RapidRod

  • Member
  • Posts: 15,288
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #66 on: August 10, 2006, 06:56:48 AM »
I'm sorry that is not the information that you received. It is on there own website that it may take up to 22 days for seroconversion. Now to refute the information you received on the phone it was incorrect. They do say 3 months. That is what we go by on Aidsmeds.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #67 on: August 10, 2006, 11:36:23 AM »
I'm sorry that is not the information that you received. It is on there own website that it may take up to 22 days for seroconversion. Now to refute the information you received on the phone it was incorrect. They do say 3 months. That is what we go by on Aidsmeds.

It would seem that with 22 days being the time to sero, 42 (nearly double that) would more than reasuring.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,228
  • Ninja Please
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #68 on: August 10, 2006, 11:41:52 AM »
It would seem that with 22 days being the time to sero, 42 (nearly double that) would more than reasuring.

Yeah, but it won't stop you posting even though you've been told HIV isn't an issue for you.

MtD

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #69 on: August 10, 2006, 01:26:11 PM »
scared,

You are blowing this condom break way out of proportion. Regardless of the presence of menstrual blood, your possible exposure to hiv was minimal at best. You have two negative hiv results under your belt that are not going to change.

I suggest you find another way to spend the remainder of your conclusive window period other than sitting in front of your computer, feeding your pet fear and feeling sorry for yourself.

I'm fully expecting you to receive a conclusive negative result. So should you.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #70 on: August 10, 2006, 11:45:33 PM »
...and yet here he still is browsing other posts on the forum...."keep my computer logged in".... my eye!

You are only lying to yourself.

R
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #71 on: August 10, 2006, 11:51:11 PM »
HIV worker, why do you bust my chops so much?  It's like you get p@ssed when I'm here.  Am I disrespectful to anyone?  Do I say innapproprate things?

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #72 on: August 10, 2006, 11:54:47 PM »
It frustrates me to see someone not do something about the problem that they are in and don't take the good advice given to you by pretty much EVERYONE and leave. I've been on this forum for over two years and I've seen people like you before. The only ones that were able to relax and move on during the window period were the ones strong enough to close the computer down.

Your problem is made worse everytime you open this website....and you don't see it.

R
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #73 on: August 11, 2006, 12:08:57 AM »
I felt I posted a logical legitimate question asking if a post 6 week test under 3rd gen testing was real or theoretical.  I wasn't asking for more assurance.  Ann, you and Andy and everyone else for that matter has probably given me 10 times more assurance than the average poster, and I thank you all for that.  I'm not fishing for more, I know the deal.  The more I understand HIV transmission and testing the better I feel.  You are correct that sometimes it fuels my fears but more times than not, seeing other threads kind of shows me my situation from the outside.  I told you I was set up to get counsouling next week, and you replied "Go see your shrink" which was rather uncalled for.  HIV anxiety is very real.  I know aidsmeds is more about transmission risks and testing but theres a reason that all WW look the same on here.  If I could turn the switch off I would have a long time ago.  Sorry of you have to watch this happening.  I'm dealing with it better every day.

Offline HIVworker

  • Member
  • Posts: 918
  • HIV researcher
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #74 on: August 11, 2006, 12:12:32 AM »
I know more about HIV anxiety than you give me credit for. Coming on this website isn't the answer - not anymore. All of the questions you have are answered in the lessons section. Given the risk the amount of worry you display is not called for. Go see your shrink is good advice because something is fueling your HIV concern that doesn't have a basis in logic. Once you tackle that, you will start to feel better. All this reading about HIV testing statistics is papering over the cracks.

R
NB. Any advice about HIV is given in addition to your own medical advice and not intended to replace it. You should never make clinical decisions based on what anyone says on the internet but rather check with your ID doctor first. Discussions from the internet are just that - Discussions. They may give you food for thought, but they should not direct you to do anything but fuel discussion.

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #75 on: August 22, 2006, 11:37:30 PM »
Could Acne on face and scalp arms last from week 5 to 9?  Could it seed itself during ARS and hang out.  Would symptoms that hang out to week 9 have anything to do with ARS? Or maybe a better question is can I forget any symptoms happeneing at this time?   I was starting to believe I manifested most of my stuff like but the acne has thrown me a little.  Maybe the antibiotics or stress can cause this? 

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #76 on: August 22, 2006, 11:39:32 PM »
yikes. scaredstraight, please. Stop.

Stress can indeed cause acne. I refuse to believe you did not know that.

HIV has become your obsession. Its up to you to quit it.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #77 on: August 25, 2006, 01:25:35 AM »
Why do condom break get "low risk" status.  Obviously I've read through some posts (no surprise there) and I notice the forum is tough on people who didn't use condoms compared to those who did and broke?  Is there really a difference?  Is it just because we tried and screwed up or is there actually a science behind it all?  Condom breaks are hard to get any kind of research on.  Trust me I KNOW.   

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #78 on: August 25, 2006, 05:08:52 AM »
scared,

Because people notice when a condom breaks. A condom protects up until the time of it breaking and usually the time frame after the break is very short. Go read my first post to you again and go read reply #69 in this thread too.

I'm still fully expecting you to test negative.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline HIVsexpert

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #79 on: August 26, 2006, 12:02:39 AM »
HIV isn't all that different from any other virus in the sense that, you don't automatically get infected if you are exposed to it.  "Iamecoli" was quoted as being "low risk" and he had sex without a condom whatsoever.  It's all relative really.  Things such as exposure length, times exposed, IF the other party was even positive in the first place, fluids present, and presense of other STDs all play an important role in transmission.  Odds can be reassuring, of course.............but someone always wins the lottery right?  HIV is one winning ticket you don't want however.  You had a condom break.........pulled out shortly after.  First off, the majority of people in this country are NOT HIV positive.  If you randomly selected 10 people, and had sex with each of them, chances are none would be positive.  You had sex with one, and you dont know her status.  If she doesnt have HIV, then this whole argument is irrelevant, you couldnt of gotten it.  Chances are outstanding that she doesnt.  Now.....lets say, she HAPPENS to have HIV.  You odds are still low........because A. you were the insertive partner, your peehole does not have a big opening for it to enter, B. you have no other STDS, C. it was brief....how much fluid could you of come in contact with????  Exactly.........now relax

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #80 on: August 26, 2006, 12:11:12 AM »
 :)  Sometimes logic is best seen from the outside looking in. Thanks everyone.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2006, 12:43:51 AM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #81 on: August 26, 2006, 06:07:05 AM »
To all,

"HIVsexpert" is nothing of the sort. He is parroting INCORRECT information given out on this forum by another poster. I have corrected the incorrect advice in the thread in question.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: I am an idiot!!!
« Reply #82 on: August 27, 2006, 03:42:52 AM »
Ann, I just read your post.  You did tell me that my deal was low risk but not a no risk? Am I missing something?

 OH CRAP, I ACCIDENTLY PUT THIS IS HIS THREAD.. SORRY IMEC CAN SOMEONE SHIFT IT>. I SUCK sorry.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2006, 03:45:03 AM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #83 on: August 27, 2006, 04:36:15 AM »
scared,

I put your post in your own thread, as requested.

There's a big difference between Im's situation and yours. You  used a condom and he didn't. You were protected up until the condom broke. He had no protection whatsoever. That's a huge difference.

I'm fully expecting BOTH of you to test negative because the odds are heavily in your favour, but you both do need to test as you have been told.

You've also been told that the negative results you have received so far are not going to change. You're very nearly out of your window period now and I suggest you stay off the internet and stay productively busy until it's time for your conclusive result.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #84 on: August 29, 2006, 08:44:32 PM »
jkinatl2,

I've noticed that some are very much against odd calculations.  Is it inaccurate to calculate odds?  For example, Will I conclusively not die of a heart attack tonight? Well, you can't put conclusive on that but the odds are very very heavy against it.  With HIV, obviously everyone knows that Doc HHH puts his assement in odds.  ie:

Odds of someone having HIV:
1/1000 or .001
Odds of getting HIV if they were +
1/1000 or .001
Odds of testing at 4-6 weeks being 95% accurate = 5 in 100 or .05

Calculated total risk = .001 x .001 x .05 =  .00000005 or 5 chances in 100,000,000 or 1 in 20 mil. 

I ask you because some seem to be into the science of HIV.  Some support calculated risks but for others they are very much angainst it.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just seen you say a few times that we (WW)  can't use calculations when it comes to HIV.  I've noticed that even the CDC uses odds.  It would seem that one can not assess ones risk without odds? I think most of us agree that the odds of oral is low, however that statement alone is based on odds not absolutes.

Please don't take this as a jab or insult, you're a good cat, it's more as a compliment as I respect your look into the science of HIV.

BTW, I hope this doesn't bring me bad karma or make people wanting to see me turn positive to prove a point.  It's just that the docs, (HHH) fustration with the WW not being realistic about HIV transmission colides with "testing previous to 12 weeks not being accurate" guidline here.  Both sites are highly respected however it leaves the WW jumping back and forth seeking the truth in it all.

SIDENOTE: My doctor said that The American Red Cross has a 6 week window.. Can anyone confirm or deny?  I couldn't find an literature on it.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2006, 11:02:38 AM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2006, 03:41:57 AM »
scared,

Here's the thing with odds/statistics. When you play the hiv odds game and end up hiv positive, the odds don't mean a damn thing. Trust me, it's not a lot of fun being a statistic.

I've never heard of the American Red Cross having any sort of window period. They are not an organisation that does public hiv testing, to my knowledge. They test donated blood, but that is not the same as public testing as donating blood is NOT a way to find out your hiv status.

Now what was I saying to you about staying off hiv internet sites until you've had your conclusive result?

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #86 on: August 30, 2006, 05:38:35 PM »
Well, I just got the call from my doctor, my 10.5 test was neg.  With my 4, 6, 10.5 I'm calling it conclusive enough for my situation.  I wanted to thank everyone who contributed on my post; Andy, Jkinatl2, Hivworker, Mattythedammed, Morgan,( I hope I didnt miss anyone) and everyone else who contributed ww's included.  I want to especially thank Ann, who I would give a big hug to if she was here, for helping me get through it all. You were right and my symptoms were wrong.  I had a speech planned out and everything.  You're one in a million Ann and I will never forget what you and everyone else did for me here.  I need to take a break from the websites for a while but I'll prob pop in every once in a while to make sure everyones doing good.  I won't post I promise :).  Here's to all of us growing old together.


Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #87 on: November 14, 2006, 10:02:00 PM »
Well, I'm coming out of retirement to retest again.  The 4, 6, 10.5 week test felt good but I still have lingering symptoms..which I wont get into.  Would I still be getting any kind of symptoms this far into the game.  If my calculations are correct it would put me just shy of 5 months which is obviously more than conclusive.  Just getting the nerve to do it again.  My doc wont do it anymore so Im going to have to find somewhere else. 

I guess my questions are: 
Even though symptoms or the lack there of mean nothing, In anyones professional experience with HIV related symptoms do they have a period of hanging around or do most people feel normal after a bout with ARS?  It's been 4 months.


Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #88 on: November 15, 2006, 05:43:39 AM »
scared,

Symptoms, if they happen at all, usually occur between two and four weeks after infection has taken place. They come on all at once and go all at once and usually last for no more than two weeks at most.

However, the bottom line here is that your six week test was unlikely to change, never-mind your ten and a half week negative. Hiv is a fragile, difficult to transmit virus and more so from a woman to a man, so the odds always were in your favour of testing negative. Collect another negative result if that is what you need to put this behind you.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #89 on: November 30, 2006, 04:45:18 PM »
well, I forced myself to get tested one more time post 13 weeks.. 24 weeks to be exact.  Negative ofcourse.  I finally believe i dont have HIV.  Before I leave this place.. is it considered safe sex if I got rimmed and recieved oral then used protection?  I feel like it is... 

I really never got into my specific symptoms but I guess Ill post them for anyone who feels symptoms = HIV.

Sore fatigued arms,
stomache pains
run down, tired , depression
loose stools
headaches
pimple like dots on my chest and arms
sensitivity to lights
popping joints
stuffed ear ongoing
patch of red dry skin on face thats been around for a while
sore throat or full feeling for 2 months.
what i believed were lymph node swelling under jaw
eppititimis
whitish tounge

I look back and probably attribute most to stress and anxiety.  and maybe overuse of antibiotics.
I did the tests at 4, 6, 10, 24 but if I had to do again I would just have done a 6 and 13.  Thanks everyone and happy holidays.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 04:54:29 PM by scaredstraight68 »

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Repeat offender
« Reply #90 on: September 28, 2009, 10:56:32 PM »
Couple years ago, I had a freak out... Girl on period condom broke.   I tested 4-6-12 1 year. whatever. came back neg on what ever test they use, had gobs of symptoms that I chalked up to IBS triggered by my freak out.  Still have some from time to time.   Since then I pretty much haven't had sex so to speak.  I have engaged in some oral sex.. Maybe a lot of it.  Some with girls I barely knew.  I'll throw the number 20 out there althoug it's probably not that.  Had one case where I got UTI or something but I took care of it.  I saw the cdc had some number of .5 per 10,000?  Does that mean that if I had oral performed on me my risk value increases.  ie .5x10 sessions would equal 5 per 100,000?  I was thinking about testing again I guess but I don't want to go back to where I was back then.  Pretty dark place.  Thanks.

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,710
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #91 on: September 29, 2009, 07:48:57 AM »
Scared, I have merged your threads. Please keep all of your entries in this same thread.

You are worrying needlessly about the issue of giving oral to a woman. There has never been a confirmed case of transmission in this manner. Nor to a guy receiving oral. You won't make history by becoming the first. Your saliva contains over a dozen elements and proteins which provide very effective barriers against the transmission of viable HIV. What the CDC numbers are about are guestimates and theoretical risk since anytime you have sex with anything other than your own hand there is theoretically some risk.

In the real world of HIV we know that sexual transmission of HIV is about unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse.

Before you get on to another extended unwarranted worry ride as you have in the past, I'll tell you that we won't indulge you in that again. You have no cause for concern about HIV at this time.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2009, 08:37:06 AM by Andy Velez »
Andy Velez

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #92 on: September 29, 2009, 07:57:33 AM »
scared,

Getting a blowjob is also not a risk for hiv infection. The number the CDC uses has no basis in scientific reality. The study which started throwing those numbers around pretty much pulled them out of a hat. Why does the CDC use them? Who knows. That study has been discredited.

Not one person has ever been infected with hiv through getting a blowjob and you certainly won't be the first. 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.

It doesn't matter that you had a UTI or two. UTIs are caused by bacteria, not hiv.

As Andy said, we will not indulge you like we did a few years ago. You didn't have a risk in anything you brought to us and if you insist on going on and on about it, you'll quickly be given a time out.

Ann
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline scaredstraight68

  • Member
  • Posts: 75
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #93 on: November 03, 2009, 12:07:17 AM »
I wanted to share this and I hope they don't delete it.  I think at times people including myself come on here and group everything we may (or may not have) with HIV.  I was so focused on HIV that the REAL issue was being blocked by me convinced I had HIV.  Often times I've seen the moderators explain that whatever someone's problems are, they aren't HIV related.  In my case, they were correct.  I hope they let this post stand as I believe it may help some people.

This is a long read, but it may help someone here.

Frustration:
I had the misfortune of losing my mom to cancer a few weeks ago.  My moms passing was obviously hard on us but to me it left me more frustrated.  Everyone was confused with how her disease came on so fast and her doctors really never could come to grips on what kind of cancer she had, which ended up being a stomach/intestinal cancer.  My mom's life was normal for the most part, she was a very motivated, self reliant individual.  However, there were medical things in her past that were not so normal. She often had serious migranes, she was very thin most of her life, she would have long sleep bouts, especially after a night of drinking in her hay day after the races.  She would also have an occasional fever blister and she had a historectomy at the age of 45.  I always attributed this to her off and on smoking, even after her cancer diagnosis. 

Growing up:
I was a typical kid.  I played baseball, soccer, rode BMX and skated.  Later I got into wakeboarding and fell into my longtime family pastime of autoracing.   Through all this I had some wierd issues in my life that I never really understood.  Going into HS, I looked like a 6th grader.  I often got headaches and felt like I had low blood sugar at times.  I would also find my self out of it.  School work was a challenge as I felt like I had to work 4 times harder than everyone just to understand the basics.  Later in my life, things panned out but I would still have this feeling of being out of it at times and would get serious stomach issues from time to time. My blood pressure was up and I started getting heart palutations and chest pains.  Over the last few years I started working out and avoiding fast food.  I stopped drinking coke and moved to drinking water "most of the time."  While this might have helped, it didn't fix my issues.  I was eating Subway everyday, skipping the mayo on everything I was eating.  At work, there were times my co-workers would be talking to me later in my shift and I just couldn't focus on everything they were telling me.  I chalked it up to just being tired.  My doctor said its nothing more than IBS so I just delt with it.  There are countless times I can remember getting into my race car a complete zombie.  I'm thankful I never hurt anyone including myself.  How I finished some of those nights is beyond me.  Often times peope would tell me I looked tired or even on drugs.  I just thought they were seeing things and I attributed most of it to CO2 poisoning.  Over the last year, I got a serious bout of Phenomonia, which I made worse but not taking time off from work or racing.  I ended up in the ER with what I thought was food poisoning and had a round of pretty bad headaches.  I had convinced myself I had HIV despite countless negative tests and moderators on message boards and doctors telling me HIV was not my issue.  My doc said, your probably stressed about your moms deal and have IBS. (Irritated Bowel Syndrome)

Sunnie:
When we had Sunnie, she was healthy but had a few red flags that were just.. well wierd.  She was very skinny, my mom always accused us of not feeding her.  She had this bot belly which we thought nothing of.  She had cronic diarea when we first got her onto food.  Under her eyes she looked anemic at times.  She would often times wake up in the morning of a stomach ache.  We would usually tell her it was just because she hadn't eaten breakfast.  After breakfast she would usually start to feel better.  Her attention span reminded me of me when I was a kid.  Short.  Aside from all that she was/is a perfect little 6 year old.  Very kind to people, very thoughtful and her teachers love her. And of course, she loves racing.

Research:
After doing a few weeks of research, I came across something that started to put all the pieces together.  Celiac disease. This is a common disease in the US.  Up to 1/100 people have it.  The scary thing is out of all those people that do have it only 3% of people know they have it.  Left untreated these people pick up things like, cancers, high blood pressure, diabetees, arthritis, heart disease, bone degeneration and the list goes on and on.  Usually, these people never really understand why they get these diseases other than they just do. 

What is Celiac disease?:
Celiac disease is where your immune system attack your intestins when you eat gluten.  Gluten is found in everything from breads, cookies, beer, and just about everything else you can imagine.  Your intestins make up around 75% of your immune system.  Over time your intestins become unable to absorb nutrients and vitamins which cause defiencies which lead to more sever complications.  Many people have no symptoms of the disease until later in life.

Why isn't this screened?:
In Europe all children are screened at the age of 6.  In the US no kids are screened.  It's one of the most undiagnosed diseases in the states.  I litterally had to ask for it both for Sunnie and myself.  My moms doctors, which included one UCLA's best never even thought of the idea she could have Celiac until after her death when I mentioned it to them.  The disease is genetic, meaning if your parrents had it there is a strong possibility that you may have it.  The main reason it isn't screened in the US is because the drug manifactures rule the medical establishement here.  The fix for Celiac disease isn't a pill.  It's a strict adhearance to avoiding gluten.  Good news is, once someone fixes their diet, the symptoms and disease starts to correct itself.  Caught at an early age obviously has the best outcome.  The intestins have the ability to repair themselves between 6 months to a couple years depending on how long the damage has happened with a strict adhearance to this dietary change.  In the U.S. most Celiac cases (which are rarely caught) are diagnosed between the ages of 40-60 years of age. The average time that it takes for someone to realize their Celiac disease is roughly 10 years.

Sad and happy:
We just had Sunnie tested and her test came back positive for Celiac.  In some ways I was sad but mostly happy that we may have saved her life and given her the chance to live a normal childhood.  As far as my mom, I wish I would have known more about this disease a few years ago.  I may have saved her life. I still have dreams/nightmares that I'm back in time informing her on Celiac disease.   IMO, I think every child should be screened for this as well as every American.  The amount of money my mom racked up in her short bout probably went over the million mark.  This could have been avoided to some degree with propper screening. 

Anyway, I know this was long winded and there are probably a select few that will read the whole message but if it saves someones life then it was time well spent.

Cheers, Billy.

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,710
Re: well, im back.. that didnt take long..
« Reply #94 on: November 03, 2009, 08:27:58 AM »
Billy, although I appreciate your concern about this issue, this is an HIV-specific website. Posting about other issues, however serious they are, is not appropriate.

Andy Velez

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.