POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: Denverguy on January 24, 2007, 03:07:21 pm
-
I have seen the recent controvery about how Viagra is marketed and the concern that it's recreational use is being encouraged by some ads. And I also remember the efforts of Jeffrey Klausner in San Francisco (among others) to have a warning about sexual risk added to the label. In addition, I once read that there was some concern that Viagra physiologically increased the risk of HIV transmission. Is there any truth to that? The other arguments, as I understand them, suggest that recreational use of Viagra as a "party" drug will increase the risk of HIV transmission because it allows people who have already lowered their inhibitions through drug use to have sex longer and with more partners, thus effectively creating more "contact minutes" of sexual activity, some of which may well be unprotected because of the risks people often take while on meth or other drugs. But has the physiological concern been ruled out? What I remember hearing was the idea that by increasing blood flow to the penis, it increased the potential for transmission by having more blood reaching the mucous membrane of the urethra, as well as more blood flowing around areas that might have minor cuts or scrapes. I don't recall if anyone was concerned about more blood flow in the anus/rectum and any impact of that. So, is their any physiological concern about Viagra, or just a behavioral concern?
Thanks!
-
The only concerns about using Viagra and E or other drug combination is DEATH. Does it make anyone any riskier no. If people would have protected sex then there is no increase in the transmission of HIV. There have been no studies actually done. They just quizzed a group of guys. It's like a group of guys saying that their penis length is 10.5 inches in reality it is only 4.5. The risk factors for abusing Viagra is no different than abusing alcohol and other drugs and mixing it with sex.
-
So what is the argument about the dangers of Viagra vis-a-vis HIV transmission? Yes, Viagra is dangerous when used by people with certain heart conditions or blood pressure concerns, and yes certain recreational drugs can interact very badly with Viagra and cause heart failure, among other things. But are the arguments about HIV and Viagra just based on assumptions? And is there absolutely nothing to the physiological argument, versus the behavioral argument? Condoms are incredibly effective, of course, but just as an active STD or other infection can increase the chances of HIV infection, even when condoms are used (since they could break, or be used incorrectly, or not put on soon enough, etc.), can't Viagra, by dilating blood vessels in the penis, rectum, etc., make those blood vessels a bit more receptive to HIV, when and if there is any contact with a body fluid containing HIV?
-
As Rod has said, the issues you have raised as to whether Viagra might cause physiological changes which would increase potential HIV transmission haven't been studied.
Along with the known potential side effects which are noted above, it's really about the behavioral issues which come up when drugging, drinking and casual sex get mixed up together and increase the likelihood of unsafe sex.
If you're expecting the manufacturer of Viagra or any similar product to be interested in safer sex issues, good luck.
-
I've seen the timeframe for ARS estimated at between 2-4 weeks, and 2-6 weeks, depending on the site or medical expert. Would that therefore rule out ARS for someone experiencing potential ARS-like symptoms at 7 or 8 weeks after exposure? I know, I know. We shouldn't worry so much about symptoms. But if the timeframe makes ARS impossible or at least highly unlikely, that will help me rest easier as I wait for the next HIV test. Possible exposure, by the way, was protected receptive anal sex, but with a guy who might have been HIV+.
-
Dear Denver
The first thing you need to know is that condoms are 100% effective against the transmission of HIV (regardless of what the pope says). You were protected even if the guy was poz. You don't need to test over this specific incident, but as a sexually active adult you should consider a full STD screen every 6 months to 1 year.
Regarding your specific question - the only way of reliably telling if somebody is HIV+ is a test. Not everybody undergoes a seroconversion illness, a significant minority of people seroconvert without any clinical symtoms - which is why a test is important, to catch HIV early enough so that the treatment works.
The "average" seroconversion time is about 20 days, and the vast majority have seroconverted by 13 weeks. But regular check-ups are really the key.
Matt.
-
You should keep all your thoughts, questions and comments in your original thread. (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=8236) This helps us follow your story and provide you with the most accurate advice.
If you can't find your original thread click on the "Show own posts" link in the left hand column of any page.
MtD
-
The original thread you highlighted is actually completely unrelated. Hence why I started a new thread for this question. I know this site prefers people to stick within a thread, but do please LOOK at the thread before assuming that more than one post from the same person means it's the same topic.
-
Denver,
I'm not going to argue with you about this other than to say that irrespective of the subject matter, the rules of the Am I Infected forum require members to post ALL their questions, thoughts and comments in the same thread.
End of story.
MtD
-
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm having a hard time believing that this site has a rule that requires every indivual poster to NEVER start more than one thread during the lifetime of their being registered on this site. The post you reference is from January and was NOT asking for advice or feedback on a specific incident, but rather was a question about a general sexual health issue that occured to me after reading an article around that time on Viagra and its connection to HIV infection. The post I put up today was a reference to a specific incident that I AM asking for advice about. It would seem to me that burying this question in my earlier thread would prevent anyone from seeing what the topic was from the subject line, and therefore would prevent anyone from answering. I don't believe I've seen evidence that the one-post-per-person for life rule is actually enforced here, if it's even real. It simply makes no sense. I DO understand people being restrained from starting new posts for follow-up questions to their original posts. But that is not the case here.
-
Then you best read the guidelines like you should have before you ever began to post.
-
I did read the guidelines. They state: "Please do not start a new thread every time you have another question or thought. It helps us to help you when you keep all your thoughts or questions in one thread and it helps other readers to follow the discussion. Additional threads will be locked."
The point about helping "other readers to follow the discussion" seems to me to clearly suggest that the assumption is there is a "discussion" to follow. Again, I get why you don't want people posting their new questions and health/testing updates, etc. to new threads. But to keep two COMPLETELY ABSOLUTELY unrelated things in the same thread defies the concept of "thread." How else is a user supposed to know what the topic is about from a subject line if the goal is that every user on the site is allowed one thread and one thread only for life, such that threads might have 3, 8, 20 different and unrelated topics over many years? As someone who worked in a research library for many years, I can tell you that it's a recipe for chaos and also very unhelpful from the point-of-view of web useability (I've also worked in Web design). So since this is a site run by smart people, I just assumed the moderators woudn't make a rule that was, simply, absurd. Perhaps I'm wrong.
-
Change the subject heading when post.
-
From Wikipedia, here is a useful definition of a thread (note the reference to grouping "by topic" not "by user"):
"A threaded discussion is an electronic discussion (such as one via e-mail, e-mail list, bulletin board, newsgroup, or Internet forum) in which the software aids the user by visually grouping messages. Messages are usually grouped visually in a hierarchy by topic. A set of messages grouped in this way is called a topic thread or simply "thread". A discussion forum, e-mail client or news client is said to have "threaded topics" if it groups messages on the same topic together for easy reading in this manner."
-
Denver, follow the guidelines here or don't post at all. We don't care what Wikipedia states, this site doesn't belong to Wikipedia. It has worked very well for severial years with these guidelines just the way they are.
-
Denver, I've merged your threads. You don't have to like our rules or agree with them. But you do have to follow them. I'm not going to discuss that issue any further. Please keep your comments in here. As has been pointed out to you, you can change the title of your thread to reflect whatever your current concern is and that will insure getting additional responses.
Now, to your concern. The whole point of using condoms for intercourse is to make the issue of the HIV status of the person you're with irrelevant. Condoms provide very, very effective protection. Period. So if you were with someone who is HIV+ you don't have to be concerned unless the condom broke or was otherwise used improperly. I am not suggesting either of those things occured, just mentioning them as issues which sometimes occur.
So there is no need for testing in relation to this incident unless you decide that you need the inevitable negative result for your peace of mind. If you are having any symptoms which are concerning you, discuss them with your doctor. Just in general you need to know that neither the presence nor the absence of symptoms will ever tell you anything accurately about your HIV status.
Given what you have reported I would certainly expect you to test negative.
-
Thanks Matt and Andy for the reassurance on my original question. And I still think the one-thread-per-person-for-life thing is an odd strategy from an archival and web-useability point of view, but if that's the rule then I'll stick to that in the future. Apologies.