Re: more of the same

[Giancarlo]

Ian,

Everybody in the world agrees that oral sex (especially performing a blowjob) is a risk for HIV infection, except the moderators of this forum.

And everyone knows that the most important risk factor, after the type of act (ie anal > vaginal > oral) is the viral load.
But still the moderators of this forum keep referring to their famous "three separate serodiscordant couples studies" as a justification why oral sex would be no risk, even though they have been told many times (by myself and others) that these studies include mostly people with low or UD viral loads.
In real life, doing a blowjob to a stranger, who could be in acute infection (when the viral load, and hence the transmission risk, is highest), is a risk. It is a small per-act risk, but in the long run, if you do it often, the cumulated risk may be significant.
Many people (including myself) have been infected like this, but for some reason that I fail to understand, it is forbidden to say so here.

[Jeff G]

Ian,

Everybody in the world agrees that oral sex (especially performing a blowjob) is a risk for HIV infection, except the moderators of this forum.

And everyone knows that the most important risk factor, after the type of act (ie anal > vaginal > oral) is the viral load.
But still the moderators of this forum keep referring to their famous "three separate serodiscordant couples studies" as a justification why oral sex would be no risk, even though they have been told many times (by myself and others) that these studies include mostly people with low or UD viral loads.
In real life, doing a blowjob to a stranger, who could be in acute infection (when the viral load, and hence the transmission risk, is highest), is a risk. It is a small per-act risk, but in the long run, if you do it often, the cumulated risk may be significant.
Many people (including myself) have been infected like this, but for some reason that I fail to understand, it is forbidden to say so here.

Its not forbidden to say here but you will find those of us who do risk assessments on the forum wont debate the issue with you. I make it a point in every risk assessment to tell people that they should test for HIV and all sexually transmitted diseases whether they think they had a risk or not . Although I wont go tit for tat with you on this issue myself you are more than welcome to discuss it.

I moved your post out of another members thread so as not to hijack it with your concerns.

This is not a new topic for you and you have questioned the studies some of the science behind oral transmission so I moved it here so that If you want to continue discussing this and the studies it is now in the proper forum.

[geobee]

Hi Giancarlo  --

I got infected through oral sex as well. And said so on this form. It also sparked a lot of debate which I don't understand.  Still, this form is useful for gathering research and making new friends.    So I stuck with it. 

I also think it's useful to say how we got infected.  It will make others think twice about oral sex. And I think that's a good thing.   I gave a lot of blowjobs.  Not smart.


George

[tednlou2]

I must say I agree with you.  I don't like seeing it posted that oral is no risk.  Some will qualify that something like meth mouth may create a situation for infection, while others say absolutely not.  There have been a few documented cases which "appear" to confirm oral transmission.

Since most do more than oral, it would make it very difficult to document. And, many do get amnesia about the penetration they had.  Yes, the mouth is a very unfriendly environment to HIV.  But, I don't think it is responsible to say that saliva will kill all the virus, every time and always.  And, especially if one does have sores and other oral issues and when the person has a viral load in the millions.  A few years back, someone prominent here at the time, said I was silly for thinking infection could occur when using semen as lube.  He said the air would immediately kill the virus.  He said using semen as lube would not result in infection.

I am posting the article about how long HIV can survive outside the body.  It discusses even dried blood remaining viable for days.  Now, I do not believe people are infected from someone's dried blood on a countertop.  I do not believe anyone has ever been infected that way.  I just post it, because the whole ph and air and temp thing is not absolute when it comes to taking a load in the mouth.  I will also say that I do believe the vast majority of infections are from condomless anal or vaginal sex.  But, I do believe we just cannot say how many are infected from oral sex-- again, with oral issues and high viral loads.  I believe it is very low, like many (if not most) experts say.  Just to be clear, I do believe oral is a poor vector for transmission.


http://mobile.aidsmap.com/Survival-outside-the-body/page/1321278

[Giancarlo]

Since most do more than oral, it would make it very difficult to document.

That's exactly my point.
In scientific studies, when recently infected people report 1 condomless anal sex act and 100 oral sex acts, the infection is systematically attributed to the unprotected anal sex act.
I have even seen a study in which they said that in the presence of protected anal sex and unprotected oral sex, the infection was caused by the protected anal sex act. (This study then concluded that oral sex is not a risk... after having virtually assumed it!)

The only study that makes me doubt is this one:
No incident HIV infections among MSM who practice exclusively oral sex.
Int Conf AIDS 2004 Jul 11-16; 15:(abstract no. WePpC2072)??Balls JE, Evans JL, Dilley J, Osmond D, Shiboski S, Shiboski C, Klausner J, McFarland W, Greenspan D, Page-Shafer K?University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States

That one is puzzling, and makes a much stronger case than the serodiscordant couples studies.
But it is very limited in space and time, so there could be other important oral sex transmission factors that are absent from this context.