am I losing my mind?

[helpneed03]

Dear Ann,

RapidRod (Teak) has already given me an answer in Medhelp but I really need a reassurance. I appreciate your work and thanks in advance.
 
I cheated my wife in a gay sauna. This was my first gay experience and I would like to kill myself. I even can’t look my wife’s face. I am too miserable now. I really don't know why i did this.
 
I entered in a sauna and 1 minute later a 55-60 years old man started to give me unprotected oral sex. It was brief as not more than 30 seconds. I stopped him and put the condom on immediately. He invited me to dark room. It was literally very dark, I even could not see the guy. I started to rub my protected penis to his anus. He started to finger me very shortly but I did not see his hands. But I heard that he opened the lube tube. I do not know if blood, cut or semen do exist on his finger. Then I tried to penetrate but during the very first penetration he stopped the action and literally run away.  I quit the dark room and checked the condom, it was perfectly ok because actually I could not use it.
 
Now I am wondering that could any action of him infect me? This sounds crazy but as I mentioned it was extremely dark and could not see his hand.

[Andy Velez]

As long as you were wearing a condom during what may have been a brief penetration then you were well proctected.

None of the other activities including his having given you oral sex were risky for HIV. So essentially you are worrying needlessly.

What this mostly sounds like to me is a married guy who's inexperienced with sex with men and is having a lot of after the fact guilt. Don't bother with that stuff. It's bad for your health and your marriage. You did what you did, take a breath and get on with your life. That's best for all concerned. And if you find yourself in a like situation again just make sure you are always wearing a condom for intercourse.

[RapidRod]

1. guy gave you unprotected oral not more than 30 seconds. ------No risk.
2. I stopped him and put the condom on immediately. He invited me to dark room. It was literally very dark, I even could not see the guy. I started to rub my protected penis to his anus. -----No risk.
3.  He started to finger me very shortly but I did not see his hands. But I heard that he opened the lube tube. ----- fingering is not a risk
4. Then I tried to penetrate but during the very first penetration he stopped the action and literally run away.------- you had a condom on no risk.

[helpneed03]

You are really very precious people. Thank you Andy and Teak.

My case shows how anxiety and guilt cause people to think irrational. It is like Dostoyevski 'crime and punishment'.

I sometimes still think that the guy infected me in some way but can't explain how he did. That is what I call self punishment. If I wasn't married, I would not think about it for a second. Then, it is related to my guilty.

Anyway, thank you again.

[Andy Velez]

Fortunately fears and doubts are not facts. And the facts of your situation = no risk for HIV.

[helpneed03]

Dear Precious Team,

I have read the lessons at aidsmeds.com again. I am not familiar to medical subjects and I could not understand the meaning of "theoretical risk". But at least, I have an idea:

there is a theoretical risk that in 2 minutes I will be dead due to hearth attack. Yes, this is true but it wouldn't happen for sure.

and

there is a theoretical risk that insertive partner will be infected through oral sex. Yes, this is true but it wouldn't happen for sure.

Does it make sense?

Regards,

[Ann]

Help,

Getting a blowjob is NOT a theoretical risk. It isn't a risk in ANY way.

Ann

[helpneed03]

Dear Ann,

So why don't you change your statement:
Is insertive oral sex a possible route of HIV transmission? Yes. But is it a documented risk? No.

Or what do you mean exactly?

[RapidRod]

There are documented cases of Alien abductions, but like oral sex, there are no verified documented cases.

[Andy Velez]

Stop trying to complicate what is really a very simple situation. What Ann is telling you is that getting a blowjob is not a risk for HIV. Period.

Instead of telling us how to respond why don't you just give it up and get on with your own life. You did not have a risk for HIV and all of this drama about your incident is totally unnecessary. Really.

[helpneed03]

People please do not ban me.
This is my last question:

I am PhD student and I think that's why I am trying to understand things in detail.

Ann, you will probably be expecting this question: How about blood?

You will say a lot of blood is needed that the BJ giver should be in Emergency Room instead of sucking you. It is a taken for granted answer but I don't understand the reason beneath your explanation.

But how did you reach that conclusion? What if his viral load is very high? Doesn't his small bleeding gum infect me? I really want to understand.

[jkinatl2]

People please do not ban me.
This is my last question:

I am PhD student and I think that's why I am trying to understand things in detail.

Ann, you will probably be expecting this question: How about blood?

You will say a lot of blood is needed that the BJ giver should be in Emergency Room instead of sucking you. It is a taken for granted answer but I don't understand the reason beneath your explanation.

But how did you reach that conclusion? What if his viral load is very high? Doesn't his small bleeding gum infect me? I really want to understand.

Several factors make it nearly impossible to theorize HIV transmission through giving fellatio.

The environment of the mouth is vastly different than the environment of the anus or vagina. Saliva does not only contain over a dozen elements that neutralize HIV, but added together these elements act to dissolve the elements of HIV necessary to bind to other cells. It does not matter whether a person's viral load is high or low, and the volume of blood needed to defeat this environment is hemorrhagic.

This was determined decades ago in petri testing, in simian testing, and most recently, in long-term following of serodiscordant couples. There have not been ANY documented instances of HIV transmission through receiving fellatio. This in over thirty years of tracking this pandemic. I daresay you are unlikely in the extreme to make modern medical history.

Ann's assessment, and indeed the assessment of the others trusted to respond in this forum, are NOT our own conclusions. They are the conclusions of decades of first-tiered, peer-reviewed repeated studies, from the molecular level up.

There is, of course, no way that this science can successfully argue with irrational fear. As a PhD student, you no doubt have access to university libraries as well as the capacity to understand the often dense verbiage found in most scientific journals. While much of what we reference on the internet is more than a few years old, or requires subscription(s), you can access the latest information available (though to be fair, I do not believe there have been current transmission theory studies published within the last few years).

I truly hope you can come to terms with this no-risk situation.

[helpneed03]

Dear Team,

I understood that receiving oral sex is not even a theoretical risk but I still believe that I have been infected.
The life is unbearable, I feel miserable, no sleep, no eating, no studying. I am imagining that the guy had blood in his mouth. How can I know? I did not tell him "Open your mouth, I will check your gums"

Should I go to a mental health doctor? Because I am living as though I were HIV positive.

[Ann]

help,

Yes, you need a therapist. There's nothing more we can do for you here. You have NOT had a risk for hiv infection.

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

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

[helpneed03]

Dear Team,

I did not want to open a new heading to obey the rules but my question is not related to my former enquiries.

I just want to learn your opinion on P24 antigen testing. I read many scientific materials and understood that while the sensitivity is very low, the specificity is almost 100%. That means, if a person is negative at 3 or 4 weeks during p24 protein is very high, then the ratio of false negative (specificity) is almost 0.

Please do not tell me you are hiv negative, I know. Just want to learn something.

thank you in advance

[Ann]

help,

The p24 antigen is only present in high quantities before antibodies have been formed. When there has been a real risk (you did NOT have a risk), you cannot assume that a negative p24 antigen at three to four weeks is necessarily correct.

You cannot assume ANY negative result is correct - where there has been an actual risk (you did NOT have a risk) - until you have tested out to the end of the three month window.

However, regardless of whether or not you want to hear it, you did not have a risk and you are not hiv positive. Deal with it - and deal with it elsewhere. You simply will not be permitted to continue to use this forum to keep your fears on the front-burner. Go see out a therapist. We cannot help you with your concerns here.

Ann

[helpneed03]

If you, as moderators, aim to help people who live all around the world, you should quote that "hiv testing is conclusive at 3 months in USA"

This is because you use 2nd generation tests although most of the european countries use 4th generation tests.

If you do not care a continent's (australia) and a first-world country's (france) hiv guidelines, then please do not let people who do not live in States to enter your web site.

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.testme.org.au/FactSheets/FS_HIV_anitbody_test.pdf

It can take up to 6 weeks for HIV antibodies to develop after a person has been infected
(known as the ‘Window Period’)

http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-02/hiv_infection_screening_in_france_-_screening_strategies_-_executive_summary_2010-02-26_10-28-32_643.pdf

Based on the performance of the techniques currently available on the European market, a
negative result from the combined ELISA screening test 6 weeks after suspected HIV
exposure will be considered as indicating that no HIV infection is present. In the case of
post-exposure prophylaxis, the period remains 3 months after discontinuing treatment.

[Matty the Damned]

You must keep all your thoughts questions and comments in your original thread. This helps us follow your story and allows us to give you the most accurate advice.

If you cannot find your original thread, please click the red link I have posted above. Alternatively you can use the "Show own posts" link which appears in the uppermost left hand column on any forum page.

Your questions will not be answered unless you return to your original thread

Please take the time to read our Welcome Thread and familiarise yourself with the posting guidelines.

MtD

[helpneed03]

Your questions will not be answered unless you return to your original thread:

1-This is not a question.

2-My original thread was an enquiry about transmission but this is absolutely another issue.

[Matty the Damned]

Your questions will not be answered unless you return to your original thread:

1-This is not a question.

2-My original thread was an enquiry about transmission but this is absolutely another issue.

It doesn't matter. You are not allowed to start new threads for any reason. If you want to post additional comments, keep them in your original thread.

This thread will soon be merged or deleted.

MtD

[Andy Velez]

I've merged your threads here. In the future please follow the rule of the site which is to keep all of your entries in a single thread. Thanks for your cooperation.

Your latest entry seems more like an argument than a question. You don't have to like our rules. We do follow the recommendation of the CDC which is for someone who's had a risk to get tested at 3 months. At that point no matter where they are in the world all generations of tests being used will yield a reliable result.

At the moment this is irrelevant for you since you didn't have a risk. There is no need for you to be getting tested. Ann warned you that if you continued to return here you were risking getting a Time Out. I'm going to give you that Time Out now for 28 days. Don't make the mistake of trying to get around it by creating a new name because that will be spotted right off and will get you permanently banned from the site.

In the meantime you need to chill out and get on with your life instead of looking for ways to get into arguments here. Happily, HIV is not your problem at this point and it won't be sexually a risk as long as you consistently use condoms for vaginal and anal intercourse. i

[Ann]

Even though Helpneed has been given a time out, I want to address the testing issues he brought up, because I know it is not only the OP who reads these threads.

We continually and consistently state that the vast majority of people who have actually been infected will seroconvert and test positive by six weeks. We also state that a six week negative is highly unlikely to change, but must be confirmed at the three month point. That information is the same no matter what part of the world you live in.

The ultimate window period in Australia for ruling out hiv infection is three months, even though most cases will be caught by six weeks. It is the same in the US. The US also mainly uses fourth generation tests, not second as the OP claimed.

The window period in the UK where the OP currently resides is also three months, despite universal use of fourth generation testing. Again, it is acknowledged in the UK that most cases of infection will be caught by six weeks.

In France, the window period when rapid testing is used also remains at three months which the OP would have realised had he read his links a little more carefully. It is only in certain circumstances that six weeks is considered conclusive.

This is not unique. In Massachusetts, the window period in state run facilities was reduced to six weeks some years ago.

However, the CDC still recommends a three month window no matter where in the world you are and that is what we stick to and will continue to stick to until the glacially moving CDC changes their policy.

When there has been an actual risk - and the majority of the risk assessments in this forum are NO RISK (including the OP of this thread) - it is always better to be safe than sorry and get that confirmation at the three month point.

And one more point about what generation of test is used and how that impacts on the window period.

Most hiv infections will be caught in the first six weeks REGARDLESS of what generation test is used. The difference lies in the weeks before the sixth week. A fourth generation can, because of the inclusion of the p24 antigen test, detect hiv infection by the second or third week, unlike some of the earlier generations. I repeat - the majority of infections will be caught by six weeks regardless of what generation of test is used.

And when there has been an actual risk, it is prudent to confirm a negative six week result at the three month point. No matter where in the world you live.

Ann