Worrisome Thailand Experience

[hopefullyhealthyguy]

Thanks, in advance, to all of the moderators on the AidsMeds forums. You're doing such a wonderful job and are helping to quell fears and save lives!

Unlike the some 150,000 Americans a year that travel to Thailand for their world famous sexual exploits, I wasn't there looking for a "good time". However, things get the best of you and you end up in the bed of a Thai girl you've never met and whose sexual history you know nothing about. I recieved protected oral sex from her (including the kissing and licking of the entire genital area) and that was it sexually. Luckily, I was completely sober and tried to take the best precautions I could. No risk.

However, earlier that day, I had shaved my chest, for some time out on the beach, and had a few nicks and cuts on my skin and a small one on my nipple. A little bleeding and irritation (the usual from shaving) but not that much. She kissed and licked my chest all over. If I were in America, I'd brush it off and chock it up to another no-risk situation. However, I've done some reading on South East Asia and understand that there is a predominant subtype there called CRF A/E. From what I gathered, this subtype is very effective at attacking the langerhans cells in the skin that are part of our adaptive immune system. Part of the reason experts, like yourself, say that cuts and nicks are not a risk is that our bodies heal quickly, from the inside out. But if this form of subtype can attack the cells responsible for preventing pathogenic infiltration and there was blood in her saliva, do I need to start worrying about this being a risky activity. I am still waiting back on my nine week results. Hopefully, those will ease my mind.

P.S. Currently, I am working with my doctor towards diagnosing what he believes to be lupus, a chronic inflammatory disease. I'm active and live a healthy lifestyle. Will this effect my test results and lump me in with the 3 percent of people (chemo patients, IV drug users) that require a six month window period?

This is a quote I recieved from thebody.com:

"False-negative HIV test results are not caused by lupus or other autoimmune illnesses. False-positives can be caused by (1) testing in the window period, (2) agammaglobulinemia, (3) rare subtypes (type N or O) or (4) technical or clerical error."

Is this correct?

[RapidRod]

You were never at risk of contracting HIV in the situation you've provided.

[Andy Velez]

You are worrying needlessly about HIV. No guy in the entire history of the epidemic has been confirmed to have been infected through receving a blowjob.

It's safe to say you won't make history by becoming the first.

Whatever is going on with you symptomatically has nothing to do with HIV and there is no need for HIV testing on your part.

Cheers.

[Ann]

Guy,

You won't end up positive because she licked you either. Not only is saliva not infectious, but it also contains over a dozen different proteins and enzymes that damage hiv and render it unable to infect.

And the only effect lupus may have on your test is to give you a false positive result. This can happen sometimes when there's an underlying auto-immune illness. A Western Blot, which must be run to confirm any positive antibody test, will rule out a false positive caused by auto-immune problems.

But you don't need to test anyway. Nothing you did or had done to you was a risk for hiv infection.

Ann

[hopefullyhealthyguy]

Thanks, Rod, Ann, and Andy! So I assume it's safe to assume that all HIV-1 types are created (for the most part) equally and any one type isn't any more infectious than the rest?

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Ann has given others, in regards to cuts and the like not being a risk when exposed to potential blood in the saliva, is that HIV only infects a certain types of cell. So smalls cuts on the hands, chest, back, etc. aren't really effective means of transmission. But if this certain CRF A/E subtype is particularily effective in infecting Langerhans cells found in the epidermis, wouldn't that make it easier to infect cuts? Or is that only in reference to Langerhans in the mucus membrane of the cervix and urethra? Or, better yet, is this just some ridiculous, unproven theory by scientists trying to explain why HIV is so prevelent in an area of the world where unprotected sex work is so common?

EDIT: Sorry, Ann. I was writing my post while you were also posting. Does saliva render CRF A/E innactive as easily as it does type B?  

[hopefullyhealthyguy]

Ann,

I was unsure of whether or not Andy, Rod and your own replies were only applicable to common type infections in the Western world but, after reading some more responses regarding subtypes, I stumbled upon this quote from yourself:

"If ANY subtype is more easily transmitted, that only means it's more easily transmitted during UNPROTECTED ANAL OR VAGINAL INTERCOURSE. It does not mean it can infect through routes that other subtypes cannot."

I suppose this applies to my situation and the risk (or lack thereof) of kissing, licking, finger, and the like etc. with cuts and small amounts of blood exposure?

[Ann]

Guy,

Yes, that applies to your situation.

You didn't have a risk. It's time you got on with your life.

Ann

[hopefullyhealthyguy]

Guy,

Yes, that applies to your situation.

You didn't have a risk. It's time you got on with your life.

Ann

Will do.

Thanks everybody!