 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2003HIV transmission and testing
About 3 weeks ago I had a brief unprotected sexual encounter (I am a male). There was approximately 5 seconds of unprotected contact/penetration. I do not know who the woman is so I will be unable to see her again. I do not know if she has HIV but I am concerned about possible transmission. I am curious about the risks of having contracted HIV. I did not have any STDs or open sores or anything on my penis. Although I was concerned I may have caught something based on some pains I was having so the doctor gave me some antiobiotics and things seem basically back to normal. How much contact and what types of physical environment (e.g. open sores) is required for HIV transmission? What is the normal timeline after possible transmission before getting an HIV test? >About 3 weeks ago I had a brief unprotected sexual encounter (I am a >male). There was approximately 5 seconds of unprotected [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >an HIV >test? > About 3 weeks ago I had a brief unprotected sexual encounter (I am a > male). There was approximately 5 seconds of unprotected [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > an HIV > test? From the french health ministery : http://www.sante.gouv.fr/pdf/dossiers/sidahop/ch16.pdf p 202 : RAPPORT SEXUEL NON PROTÉGÉ AVEC UNE PERSONNE SÉROPOSITIVE UNPROTECTED INTERCOURSE WITH A SEROPOSITIVE INDIVIDUAL ** ppa = probabilité de transmission par acte. (transmission probability for one intercourse) 2. Vaginal réceptif : ppa [0,3 0,7 ] 3. Vaginal insertif* : ppa [0,2 0,5] Thanks for the responses. If I'm reading this right it appears to be good news, if the person was infected. I just need to be smarter and more responsible in the future to avoid situations such as this. I've been an anxiety nightmare in my head the past few weeks. I'm trying to just get some info, take a deep breath and then get myself tested at some point in the near future. What is the typical time before a test should be taken? I did some reading about there being window periods when the infection may or may not show up. > From the french health ministery : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2. Vaginal réceptif : ppa [0,3 ??0,7 ?] > 3. Vaginal insertif* : ppa [0,2 ??0,5?] > Thanks for the responses. If I'm reading this right it appears to be > good news, if the person was infected. I just need to be smarter and > more responsible in the future to avoid situations such as this. Cool. Seems you've heard the wakeup call! > ... What is the typical time before a test > should be taken? I did some reading about there being window periods > when the infection may or may not show up. Earliest test should be 3 months/12 weeks after possible exposure. Then another at six months, which should catch 99.9% of infections. If you're still concerned, a third six months after that. Someone may counsel you to agitate for a "DNA" test. Don't. It's my understanding those are _too_ sensitive and can report a false positive. Diagnosis is not what they're designed for, it's like using a pregnancy test to detect uterine cancer. B/ > > Thanks for the responses. If I'm reading this right it appears to be > > good news, if the person was infected. I just need to be smarter and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > B/ Brian while PCR is indeed not labeled as a diagnostic test, it has become the standard of care in labs, and hospitals when dealing with one of there staff who has had a needle stick incident. So it is unfair to label it as not mainstream for the early detection of HIV in patients who are part of the medical community. In these cases early detection is thought to be critical in assessing the patients need for an Anti-retroviral drug treatment plan. With this type of early intervention there has been great success in preventing HIV from taking hold in needle stick patients. Gary Stein > > Someone may counsel you to agitate for a "DNA" test. Don't. It's my > > understanding those are _too_ sensitive and can report a false > > positive. Diagnosis is not what they're designed for, it's like using a > > pregnancy test to detect uterine cancer. > Brian while PCR is indeed not labeled as a diagnostic test, it has become > the standard of care in labs, and hospitals when dealing with one of there > staff who has had a needle stick incident. Do I misremember a long thread a couple years ago with Nick Bennett talking to one of the (then) trolls on this subject? B/ > About 3 weeks ago I had a brief unprotected sexual encounter (I am a > male). There was approximately 5 seconds of unprotected [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > an HIV > test? I think you need to wait several months before antibodies are detectable, though the time may be less these days. I remember when my brother caught HIV. He came down with a mysterious viral infection and felt terrible and the doctor diagnosed it as mononucleosis. Offhand, I would say the symptoms appeared 1.5-2 weeks after exposure. I believe swollen lymph glands are an indication, though they also can indicate other viral infections. If you are really worried, go and demand a viral DNA test. Don't let them try to talk you out of it. You will probably have to pay for it, the cost is around $200 I think. This test can detect even the tiniest bit of HIV DNA, i.e. it can detect the virus within a day or so of infection. I believe blood banks recently adopted the test for the screening of all blood donations because the previous antibody test allowed for such a long period between infection and detection. I have an appointment for a physical with a doctor on the 17th so I can get some testing then. Or should I go sooner? I had already been getting kind of sick leading up to my sexual encounter. So I went to the doctor because I started running a really bad fever a few days later and the doctor said it was Strep throat and I got some antibiotics. They helped a lot and I was back to normal in a few days pretty much. Other than that my lymph nodes have been fine from what I can tell. I spoke with the doctor about my sexual encounter and my concerns since I did not know the woman at all nor would I be seeing her again and the doctor said HIV/AIDS was not a concern of hers because of the brevity of the contact/penetration (a few seconds and no ejaculation). She was more concerned with other STDs. One of which I may have caught because I am still having some issues with ejaculation which I think is due to an infection. Have to go see a urologist about that one. Thanks for reading my post and for putting up a response, it's nice to just be able to talk about this. Been driving myself nuts keeping it inside because I don't know if I'm making a big deal out of something that isn't actually occurring in my body. > I think you need to wait several months before antibodies are detectable, > though the time may be less these days. I remember when my brother [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > screening of all blood donations because the previous antibody test > allowed for such a long period between infection and detection. I'm a 37 year old female and we found out my husband was HIV positive 10 months ago i tested then ,6 months after,and again last week i am not positive could someone please tell me how that is posible? > I'm a 37 year old female and we found out my husband was HIV positive > 10 months ago i tested then ,6 months after,and again last week i am not > positive could someone please tell me how that is posible? WOuldn't worry about the past, think about the future. How can you keep from being infected? B/ > I'm a 37 year old female and we found out my husband was HIV positive > 10 months ago i tested then ,6 months after,and again last week i am not > positive could someone please tell me how that is posible? Luck? And don't forget that in the West heterosexual transmission is uncommon, though certainly possible. And about 1% or so of Caucasians have a genetic mutation that causes an essential cell receptor that HIV uses to latch on and infect to be deformed so that the virus can't infect the cell. You may be among one of the lucky mutants! >> I'm a 37 year old female and we found out my husband was HIV positive >> 10 months ago i tested then ,6 months after,and again last week i am not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that the virus can't infect the cell. You may be among one of >the lucky mutants! Thats quite a feat.. If HIV is an infectious agent, a virus mind you, your saying that some Causcasians can actually prevent it from replicating, once there infected ?..does the AMA know about this? Is this ability recognized in other infectious diseases? Mmmmm Doubt it. It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can do only a little. Do what you can. ~ Sydney Smith ~ "D.Brown" <D.Brown_member@newsguy.com> wrote... > Thats quite a feat.. If HIV is an infectious agent, a virus mind you, your > saying that some Causcasians can actually prevent it from replicating, once > there infected ?..does the AMA know about this? Is this ability recognized in > other infectious diseases? Mmmmm Doubt it. It's true I tell you. There are 2 cell receptors that HIV needs to attach itself to in order to inject its DNA into the cell; CD4 and CCR5 (and maybe one other). I think it is the CCR5 receptor - some people have a mutated version that prevents the HIV virus from attaching to it and thereby preventing infection. I'm sure there are similar types of mutations in other types of cell receptors that make people possessing them immune to viruses that use those receptors to infect. That is likely why flu and other contagious disease epidemics don't infect everyone in the population - there are always some survivors. And conversely I suppose there are cell receptor mutations that make people who possess them even more susceptible to infection - perhaps that is why blacks always seem to be more prone to HIV infection no matter where they are in the world (even in the U.S. black HIV rates are far higher than white rates). >"D.Brown" <D.Brown_member@newsguy.com> wrote... >> Thats quite a feat.. If HIV is an infectious agent, a virus mind you, your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >people have a mutated version that prevents the HIV virus from >attaching to it and thereby preventing infection. I thought CD4 was a tpye of White blood cell? I thought in order for a person to develop AIDS there had to be a reduction of both CD4 and CD8 Cells? I'm sure there >are similar types of mutations in other types of cell receptors >that make people possessing them immune to viruses that use those [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >world (even in the U.S. black HIV rates are far higher than white >rates). What you say maybe true, but in the case of African-Americans living in the U.S, and in Africa, the progression of HIV into AIDS might have a more simplier explaination than of a genetic mutation..Medical Mal-Misfeasence for one. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mabcortico.htm If HIV is such a killer virus, then you'd expect alot more people to be dying of AIDS in in the U.S, What is your explaination for that? That White people are genetically superior? Maybe those Protease Inhibitors work, eh? It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can do only a little. Do what you can. ~ Sydney Smith ~ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.