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.
July 30, 2014, 06:40:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 632357
  • Total Topics: 47887
  • Online Today: 227
  • 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: I think I'm in trouble.  (Read 3872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
I think I'm in trouble.
« on: February 04, 2013, 08:01:52 AM »
Over 4.5 months ago, went to my first massage parlor, like an idiot.

Girl walks in, proceeds to give me handjob immediately.  She used some kind of KY type lube from a pumping bottle. 

She was not very good at it, and she spent quite some time trying to get me to finish, having to "reload" from the bottle an additional time during.

I started to get uncomfortable and left, only using some Kleenex to clean up.  Couldn't do a proper rinse till about 15 minutes later when I got to my shower.

I know from doing some reading, that handjobs are not considered and STD/HIV risk, so I wasn't worried much about catching something... However guilt of doing this behind my partners back had me feeling pretty low.

About two weeks later, started to get symptoms of urethritis.  Docs all told me that it couldn't be STD because of no risk scenario.  Put me on multiple antibiotics anyway like Amox, and Cipro over the course of the next 60 days.

Did very little good to relieve symptoms. During this time, guilt/anxiety causing total lack of appetite and some significant weight loss began to occur.

In addition, was dealing with going on and off multiple anxiety/depression meds because they thought it was all in my head.  This did not help my appetite or fatigue issues.

Was finally diagnosed with chlamydia and epididymitis around 65 days out, and given even more antibiotics.  Needed both zpak and then doxy to finally get rid of it.

How did I get this from HJ?

Around day 90, my groin nodes began to feel uncomfortable.  Thought it might be lingering effect of the above issues, but started reading on HIV symptoms.

The nodes, along with the 30 pounds that I have dropped began to concern me, especially since I was so tired al of the time.  Months of depression and not eating have made me skeletal in appearance.

Around day 95 I took an Oraquick home test, which returned "negative".

Since month 3.5, (and continuing till now - 4.5 months after exposure) I have been experiencing the following symptoms:

Stiff neck

Swollen and (sometimes) painfull nodes in the front, sides, and back of neck

Non tender node between my chest and collar bone (left side)

On and off swollen nodes in my pits, mostly on left side

Palpable node in left elbow

Sore spots on back near shoulder blades (in mid upper back)

Some spotty , but painful muscle pain in various areas of my body, legs, back, biceps, quads, elbows, etc... That last for a couple of days then move to different spot(s).

Everyday my temperature starts and ends between 97.6 and 98.4, but I shoot up to 99.5 for 5-6 hours in the afternoon/evening

Fatigue

Random joint discomfort

Possible spleen pain.


From week 13 through week 19, I have tested negative 9 times with Oraquick home.

My questions are:

The same people all over the net (Medhelp, etc...) that said HIV is impossible from HJ also said Chlamydia was too, yet it happened.  With the Chlamydia present, and apparently some infected fluids - either on her hands or in/on the pump bottle... Isn't HIV possible?  Wouldn't the STD cause higher viral load threat?  Could a water based lube protect HiV from the environment for a few moments?

Are my tests conclusive at this point, even though my HIV symptoms didn't even start till month 3.5?

I wonder if the significant courses of antibiotics didn't mess with my immune system a bit and throw me off of a normal seroconversion course....

I am terrified, and do not know what to think at this point.

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2013, 08:32:35 AM »
2much,

You are indeed testing way too much over a handjob that absolutely did NOT put you at risk for hiv infection.

Chlamydia is a whole other thing. It is much, MUCH more easily transmitted than hiv. UNLIKE hiv, it can remain viable and able to infect when it is outside the body. Most bacteria can and chlamydia is a bacteria. While it is unusual to get chlamydia from a handjob, it is totally possible. As you can attest.

None of the antibiotics or other meds you have taken would have the slightest effect on your antibody tests. Even if you DID have a risk (which you did NOT), you are conclusively hiv negative.

You do NOT have hiv.

If you continue to feel unwell or have other problems, see a doctor. Whatever is going on has nothing to do with a virus for which you not only have not been at risk, but have also conclusively tested negative.

YOU DO NOT HAVE HIV.

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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2013, 08:44:50 AM »
 :-[Ann,

     I have read archives of responses from experts such as yourself, and find relief in the consistency of your thoughts on this subject.  I certainly don't want to be the "first" to be dx'd with HIV from the HJ scenario, nor does my rational mind believe me to be so unique.

But these symptoms are REAL.  Is the Oraquick home test really able to provide a conclusive result?  The studies out there are inconsistent at best.

(I spend WAY WAY too much time on the Internet.... Especially over the past 4.5 months....)

Have you (or anyone else) really never heard of anyone being infected this way?

I can come up with no other explanation... Every day seems to bring a new ache or a new swollen node.

I am way beyond the normal period for ARS, and most of those symptoms all occur at the same time, no?

Is it foolish for me to continue testing?  I am soooo scared for my wife and small children, that I cannot risk being even .01% unsure.... Know what I mean?

Thanks for your expertise.

I know ya'll get innondated with these anxiety type situations, and I hope not to annoy you to the point of getting banned like some of the others I have read!



« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 09:33:54 AM by Testingway2much »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2013, 10:37:38 AM »
2much,

While your symptoms may be real, they are in NO WAY connected to hiv. You need to work with a doctor to find out what is actually going on. You have already conclusively ruled hiv out as a possible cause. You could be missing something serious through your misguided focus on hiv.

Not one person has EVER been infected with hiv through a handjob and you are NOT going to be the first.

Yes, you are way beyond the time frame when ARS occurs (usually week 2/3 following infection). The symptoms come on all at once and go all at once.

You can test all you like, but your negative result is NOT going to change. Keep in mind that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. And yes, the test you used is reliable at the window-period time-frame in which you used it.

You have NOT had a risk for hiv infection.

You do NOT need further hiv testing.

You do NOT have hiv!

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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2013, 11:59:28 AM »
Well,

     Anxiety won again, and prior to reading your latest response, I went out and took a home access express test.... I read that the results from that test are more reliable than the Oraquick home.

I guess it's going to be a long couple of days waiting for the results of this test, but I have promised myself that if these results are negative, I will make a Dr. appointment to explore other options - up to and including some psych evals.

Wish me luck.

Thank you for your consistent expertise.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 12:01:46 PM by Testingway2much »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 12:07:00 PM »
2much,

The only luck you need is luck in getting over the fact that you were never at risk for hiv and the fact that you do NOT have hiv.

Don't wait for your latest negative test results, go book a doctor appointment NOW to get to the bottom of what, if anything, is actually going on.

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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 02:44:30 PM »
Thanks Ann, but i can't schedule with Doc just yet.   Need to be sure this isn't HIV first.  Doc is my family Doc, and is very close to me and my wife.

It seems like every day, I am just happy to get to spend "one more day" with my wife and kids, before the inevitable fact that I am positive comes out, and they all leave me. 

I can only imagine how it is for those for all that have been definitively dx'd + and all they have had to overcome.  My situation has not been confirmed, and I am already in a very, very dark place. 

Regardless how my diagnosis turns out, I will NEVER forgive myself for getting my family into this mess.

Thanks for listening.


« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 02:55:28 PM by Testingway2much »

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2013, 03:52:29 AM »
2much,

Look dude, you should already be "sure" you don't have hiv. For argument's sake, lets say you engaged in the absolute highest risk - unprotected receptive anal intercourse with someone who is known to be hiv positive but not on meds.

You have tested hiv negative FAR outside the testing window period, and - for argument's sake - even if you had the highest risk on the chart, you'd still be conclusively hiv negative.

The vast majority of people who have actually been infected will seroconvert and test positive by SIX WEEKS, with the average time to seroconversion being only 22 days. A six week negative must be confirmed at the three month point, but is highly unlikely to change.

You don't have hiv. You were never at risk in the first place.

f you read the Welcome Thread before posting like you're supposed to, you will have read the following posting guideline:

Quote

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.


Please consider yourself warned!

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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2013, 08:35:28 AM »
Ann,

     Certainly not looking to get banned.  My last post was simply me sharing my thoughts.  I understand exactly what you are saying.

But the fact that my symptoms have shown up so late, (too late to be EBV or anything of the sort as well) coupled with the fact that my "conclusive tests" are only shown to have 84-93 percent sensitivity (the Oraquick home).  It leads me to some doubts...

If I were exposed, it would only be to a very small amount of virus....  (Rather than the large amount from the UAI that u describe.  This smaller inoculation may have taken more time to multiply and prompt an immune response, hence my (potentially late) seroconversion.

I do not want to get banned, or timed out.  I'll not say anything further until I have some good (or bad) news for you,,and to offer our thanks for allowing me to vent during this difficult time.

« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 04:16:35 PM by Testingway2much »

Offline Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2013, 08:12:21 AM »
Update:  no surprise to you.  Blood sample Home Access test at day 140 = negative!

So to sum up:  low/very low risk event, 9 oraquick home tests (with questionable sensitivity) between day 94 and day 138 post "exposure"; and now... Blood test (with proven high sensitivity) at day 140.

All negative.

Perhaps all of you people that know more about HIV transmission than I do we're right all along.

Is it possible that I am simply guilt plagued, anxiety/OCD driven, and paranoid?

Apparently so.

Ann, I thank you for your patience, directness, and consistency of message.

You have helped me during a very difficult time.

I'm gonna schedule that Doc visit to find out WTF is actually wrong with me.

Thanks again.


Offline Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2013, 01:11:27 PM »
Home Access express (blood sample) is still considered a highly reliable test after 3 months correct?

I am reading that some experts do not recommend this test because it is considered a generation one test.   

In 2013, there is no way they (Home Access) would still be using 1st generation testing technology- could they?

Their counselor was pretty clear that I could consider my 140 day negative as comclusive.

(And I am VERY aware that the experts here felt testing was not necessary to begin with.)

If you could just comment your opinion of the Home Access test, and the generation of test it is considered, it would help me tremendously.  I am SO close to getting through this (irrational?) fear.

Dammit.  I really need to stay off the @&$!? Internet.

Thanks for your ongoing patience and guidance.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2013, 01:17:43 PM by Testingway2much »

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,399
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2013, 02:24:04 PM »
No, no more comments about tests. You're HIV negative and you were never at risk.

If you can't accept that then get yourself some professional help to deal with it.
We can't address that need in this setting.

We are not going to indulge you in an endless round of just one more question. HIV is not your problem. Period.

If you come back with more of this kind of self-indulgent carrying on you are going to get that time out which Ann warned you about. This is your last warning. Cut it out and get on with your life.
Andy Velez

Offline Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2013, 03:07:03 PM »
Andy,

All due respect, but if you look at my entries. I have only asked a few questions.  Most of my entries have been me sharing thoughts and progress while trying t absorb Ann's sound advice.

I paid for additional entries, so why would it be unrealistic for me to ask an additional question about testing generation specifics?

I'm not looking for hand holding, I am simply trying to get specific answers to questions that will help me alleviate personal doubt.

I will respect your wishes, as I do not wish to take time away from others, but i am disappointed that - after paying for additional time, you are being so short with me.







Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2013, 05:00:20 PM »
2much,

Our answers are not going to change regardless of how many times you ask or how many related questions you ask.

You did NOT have a risk.

You do NOT need further testing.

You are CONCLUSIVELY hiv NEGATIVE. 

YOU. DO. NOT. HAVE. H.I.V.

Cut the drama and get on with your life.

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 jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2013, 05:23:02 PM »
Home Access express (blood sample) is still considered a highly reliable test after 3 months correct?

I am reading that some experts do not recommend this test because it is considered a generation one test.   

In 2013, there is no way they (Home Access) would still be using 1st generation testing technology- could they?

Their counselor was pretty clear that I could consider my 140 day negative as comclusive.

(And I am VERY aware that the experts here felt testing was not necessary to begin with.)

If you could just comment your opinion of the Home Access test, and the generation of test it is considered, it would help me tremendously.  I am SO close to getting through this (irrational?) fear.

Dammit.  I really need to stay off the @&$!? Internet.

Thanks for your ongoing patience and guidance.


I am curious as to why experts question the first generation Home Access Test. Granted, they are plentiful and far less expensive, but at three months EVERY GENERATION of test is considered reliable. It isn't like they are using tests from 1990.

Here is a rundown form the site:

Quote
We do use the first generation ELISA, which uses viral lyzates as antigen. The difference with the third generation ELISA is that the latter uses recombinant proteins as antigens. Because of the fact that recombinant proteins are purer than viral lyzates, it's possible to amplify the reaction with antibodies to HIV-1 more.

Two considerations. Firstly, by three months, there is no difference between 1st and 3rd generation EIA. Secondly, even the early difference between 1st and third generation is eliminated because of confirmatory testing. We can safely tell that accuracy in 3 months is close to 100 or at least more than 99.

To the first point. The third generation EIAs detect antibodies 5-10 days earlier than the first generation during seroconversion, the period when the HIV-1 infected person is turning from antibody-negative to antibody-positive. It means that after HIV-1 exposure, on average, in a week half of individuals become reactive with EIA, if tested with 3rd generation EIA. 1st generation will pick up these infected individuals in two weeks. As practically all individuals turn reactive after two moths, in three months, there is no difference between different EIA generations.

To the second point. The EIA reactive samples should be confirmed by Western Blot or IFA (as in our system). Western Blot and IFA turned indeterminate at the time when 1st generation EIA becomes reactive, in around 14 days. Western Blot and IFA become positive after 40-50 days, on average. Hence, the infected individuals tested reactive with the third generation BEFORE 1st generation can pick them up, will test negative with confirmatory test. Algorithms using third and first generation EIA, but the same confirmatory testing, will return THE SAME results.

The difference in the third and the first generation matters ONLY during blood testing of donors as blood is rejected if only EIA is reactive.


We prefer the first generation ELISA because it is less specific and can pick most of HIV-2 infected persons and abnormal HIV-1 samples."

I added color to the last, in my opinion most pertinent sentences.

There is no advantage to another generation of testing because any positive test would need to be verified regardless - and as long as the three month testing window remains the gold standard, there is no compelling reason to sacrifice the benefits inherent in first - gen testing for the specificity of the third gen which might not catch certain outliers.

As for the payment thing, it's sort of our responsibility as a risk assessment forum to remind you that you had no risk - and that even the scientific stuff I unearthed for you can and likely will be used for another round of needless worry about a situation that did not, CAN NOT result in HIV infection.

It's not that we don't want to give everyone their money's worth here. It's simply that in good conscience we should not encourage obsession over a no-risk event, even if it pads the corporate wallet.



"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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2013, 06:35:18 PM »
Exactly the response was hoping for. 

Thank you for taking the time to dig that up and post it here.  That was both educational, and relieving.

I am going to try to stop surfing the web for HIV symptoms and testing facts now, and go back to using it for something more appropriate like shopping or porn.

Thank you all again.







Offline Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2013, 11:59:08 AM »
I am curious as to why experts question the first generation Home Access Test. Granted, they are plentiful and far less expensive, but at three months EVERY GENERATION of test is considered reliable. It isn't like they are using tests from 1990.

Here is a rundown form the site:

I added color to the last, in my opinion most pertinent sentences.

There is no advantage to another generation of testing because any positive test would need to be verified regardless - and as long as the three month testing window remains the gold standard, there is no compelling reason to sacrifice the benefits inherent in first - gen testing for the specificity of the third gen which might not catch certain outliers.

As for the payment thing, it's sort of our responsibility as a risk assessment forum to remind you that you had no risk - and that even the scientific stuff I unearthed for you can and likely will be used for another round of needless worry about a situation that did not, CAN NOT result in HIV infection.

It's not that we don't want to give everyone their money's worth here. It's simply that in good conscience we should not encourage obsession over a no-risk event, even if it pads the corporate wallet.


Turns out that Home Access is not a first, but second generation test.  Not sure where the above info was found, but it may be outdated.  (Thanks for looking anyway though!)

Ok, so I've tried to stay away, and per advice given, I went to Doc for complete physical. 

Doc felt nodes, and seemed to think they were palpable because of my weight loss and poking and prodding....  Not sure i agree, but I am not the doctor.

Took CBC and my white blood cells have dropped from 5.3 a month ago to 3.8(low) a few days ago.

Took yet another Home Access test (154 days, or 5 months) and STILL NEGATIVE.

Still have stiff neck (every day, all day), various annoying nodes, pain/discomfort under left rib, malaise, and FEAR.

Has ANYONE heard of a 154 day Home Access being false negative????

I know, I am toeing the line for a time out...  But I repaid for another week, so I was hoping for just a little bit more leeway.

 

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2013, 03:02:44 PM »
Your 158-day test result is reliable. You absolutely do not have HIV. I urge you to celebrate with shopping or porn.
"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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2013, 07:08:03 PM »
In relation to answering questions from the anxiety-ridden (like myself)...

Have you guys ever been wrong?

I see many cut-and-paste responses on the sight.  Is transmission (or lack thereof) really as simple as you make it sound?

No shared needles, no unprotected penetrative sex, no HIV?

Please don't misunderstand, I HOPE you are ALWAYS right.

It just seems like such a complicated disease, that perhaps transmission isn't always as simple as stated above.

I suppose with the hundreds, or thousands of questions you receive, surely if there was a method of transmission (oral, handjob, etc...) that had occurred, you would have heard of it.

I worry, because some  other sites have been known to delete comments or entire threads whenever one of their "experts" is questioned....

I just appreciate the level of directness and apparent honesty found here.

God, I hope you people are as smart about this as you claim to be!!!!!! ;)


Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2013, 04:17:44 PM »
In relation to answering questions from the anxiety-ridden (like myself)...

Have you guys ever been wrong?

I see many cut-and-paste responses on the sight.  Is transmission (or lack thereof) really as simple as you make it sound?

No shared needles, no unprotected penetrative sex, no HIV?

Please don't misunderstand, I HOPE you are ALWAYS right.

It just seems like such a complicated disease, that perhaps transmission isn't always as simple as stated above.

I suppose with the hundreds, or thousands of questions you receive, surely if there was a method of transmission (oral, handjob, etc...) that had occurred, you would have heard of it.

I worry, because some  other sites have been known to delete comments or entire threads whenever one of their "experts" is questioned....

I just appreciate the level of directness and apparent honesty found here.

God, I hope you people are as smart about this as you claim to be!!!!!! ;)



Have we ever been wrong? Do you mean, have we ever told someone that they were not at risk for HIV and then had them test positive? Not that I am aware of.

Perhaps other sites delete comments. We normally don't. We can and do give time-outs and even eventually ban someone who keeps asking the same questions over and over again, or becomes so argumentative that they leech time away from our abilities to help people who are actually receptive to accurate HIV information. But we normally leave the whole wretched affair up for the world to archive. Transparency seems to work better than censorship.

As for cutting and pasting, I have started to do that myself. Given that there are only a handful of people who respond to questions here, and almost no one gets paid for it, the volume can be staggering sometimes. Moreover, there are only so many different ways I can answer essentially the same questions.

Example:

 ****

Can you get HIV from a kiss?

Answer: No. Saliva is not infectious. It actually contains over a dozen identified elements that render HIV inert so even "caveats" like sores, cuts, bleeding gums, recent tooth surgery, and other qualifiers make no difference.

In the entire history of the pandemic, there has never been a case of HIV transmission documented through kissing.

*****

There really are only so many ways I can phrase that. The science has not changed.

And it is the science that is right or wrong, not us. We are careful to use the most up to date, credible, published. tiered peer-reviewed science out there. We can back up our statements with links when accessible, and abstracts when the links are behind a paywall.

Most of the links will be accessible by now, however, since I have not seen new HIV transmission studies ongoing for quite a while now.

The science of HIV transmission has indeed evolved from the hysteria of the early 80s and even the 90s, when things like "microscopic cuts" and the like were spoken of in earnest by doctors and researchers because there as absolutely no way to even identify the virus, much less study it in the lab. Much early science was extrapolated from SIV, a simian version of HIV that behaves similarly (but not exactly) to HIV, and a manipulated mixture of the two called SHIV. Then, as now, this research was woefully incomplete. And transmission vectors were based on patient report after the fact - which is notorious for being inaccurate.

It was only in the mid 1990s, after the advent of anti-viral therapies that totally changed the landscape of the pandemic, that effective transmission science could be utilized. People were actually living long enough, healthy enough lives to be involved in long term relationships with other people - often HIV negative people.

No fewer than three ground-breaking studies, in Spain and the USA, followed hundreds of these "serodiscordant" couples for ten, three, and five years. The couples in question had the commonality of using condoms for penetrative anal and vaginal sex, yet chose NOT to use protection for any form of oral sex. These couples were both hetero and homosexual, and during the course of the study, some of the positive partners had undetectable viral loads, some had very high viral loads. Some were on meds, some not. Some started medication, others went off.

And throughout these studies, cataloging hundreds of thousands of sexual acts over a combined eighteen year period, yielded exactly ZERO infections through oral sex.

During that time, of course, laboratory studies discovered the powerful anti-HIV properties of human saliva, and have identified a dozen different elements that render it inert.  Lab studies had already been aware of the extremely fragile nature of HIV, given the difficulty keeping it active and infectious long enough to test it at all.


So, though it's far too late to be brief, we copy and paste because the transmission vectors for HIV really ARE as simple as we make it sound. The virus itself is complex, but then again so is syphilis. And both are deadly if left untreated.

The reason I choose to cut and paste, now that I am a moderator here, is because this little essay I wrote to you has taken several hours over the course of two days to complete. If I did this with everyone who asked a question, many of these questions identical, but only would I have no time for anything else in my life (like most, I am a volunteer here) but I suspect I would have thoroughly burned out by now.

I have been on this forum for ten years, answering questions here. Ann and Andy have been here even longer. We always fact-check one another and mistakes in typing or unclear phrasing rarely go uncorrected. And when I, for one, seem to get a paragraph concise and readable regarding HIV transmission, I would be an idiot not to keep it and copy and paste it when appropriate.

Hope this has been of help.

"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 Testingway2much

  • member
  • Member
  • Posts: 12
Re: I think I'm in trouble.
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2013, 06:04:51 PM »
Thank you for taking the time to write that detailed response.

I know that I have monopolized a tremendous amount of your time, but I am thankful for your insights.

I will continue to hope that your perfect record does not end on me and my low/no risk exposure!

Thank you again.

 


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.