HIV Prevention and Testing > Am I Infected?

oral transmission

<< < (3/3)


I don't really see what your argument is here.  Being in biomedical sciences myself, i believe the information given out here is extremely accurate.  The advice i've seen here from the moderator's is that as more information pours in the likelihood of contracting HIV from receptive oral sex seems extremely rare.  They have never said that it does not happen, they consistently admit that there is a very small chance that it could happen.  According to any studies out there, this seems to be the case. 

Additionally you only sight the Spain study.  I believe it was some by the name of Dr. Shafer who look at a very small cohort of men in San Fransico and followed them for a brief time, noting that none of them seroconverted after a certain number of episodes of receptive oral sex.  I think the average was 2 or 3 "casual" partners.

Furthermore you seem reasonably knowledgeable in the field of science and I agree that the Lancet study published a good report of a VERY rare event.  However, you should know that just because it is published in clinical journals such as Lancet or NEJM or their basic science counterparts like Nature or Science does not mean they are the holy grail. One of the first classes i took working on my dissertation was reading INCORRECT papers published in high impact journals such as these.

By the way where did that stem cell guy from South Korea publish?? You remember the guy with completely fabricated data - i think he made it into some high impact journals.

Bottom line is what all these guys have been saying.  Receptive oral sex is not with out risk, however from all available data, it appears to be extremely low risk.

Again, the plural of anecdote is not data.

And this is NOT being dismissive of the patient report studies. Were I dismissive of them, I would emphatically state that oral sex presents no quantifiable HIV risk. I do not. I concede that there seems to be a possibility for infection via this route, but it is exceedingly small. Just like the "thunderclap" analogy used in the first post on this thread.

I am rather proud of this forum's ability to make rational and science-based risk assessment. I am proud of it's foundation in first-tiered peer reviewed science.

And I for one am not about to inflate a risk which has proven to be so vanishingly small as to be currently unquantifiable, simply to assist someone else with an agenda. And the OP in this thread seems to have one.

Bloody fights? Rare indeed to get HIV through such a situation. Rare enough that any quantifiable transmission through such a vector is worthy of deep scientific scrutiny and study.

Receiving oral sex? Again, a vanishingly small risk. But even though the THREE serodiscordant couple/HOT studies by Romero, Shaffer, and others have yet to quantify the transmission vector, we err on the side of caution and state that it is low, but not no risk. And we emphatically state that people should examine the science and go with the level of negotiated risk with which they are most comfortable.

That's what we have always said.

It seems that we are being dragged through the collective coals for something we simply did not - and do not - do.

The information on is some of the most recent, most accurate, and best researched available. I for one am proud of the risk assessment here, and the LESSONS in transmission remain one of the best written and best researched pieces of information outside of a medical journal.


And like I said, the bottom line is everyone who is sexually active should have regular sexual health care check-ups. If more people did this, we wouldn't have people finding out they are hiv positive after they've already been infected for years and find out only when they've collapsed with PCP.

Regular testing... it's the only way. Your hiv status is nothing to guess or assume anything about.



[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version