HIV screening info

[SexCraved]

Originally Posted by maxsee

Better to go for PEP now before it is too late.....if u suay enough to contract HIV....the long term medical cost will be much more.....

Curious when ppl mentioned cd slip is it the cd inside vagina , cause m thinking if slip during thrust the whole cd shld be inside nt easy to take out?

[Shadow_warrior]

Originally Posted by SexCraved

I had sex w a csw from fl3 , after came then realise cd slip off but she say is come in side cd, but the cd take out like not though I see some semen inside after she throw into dustbin. Am f scared now, less than 72hrs, is going for hiv pep useful? It's costly and will it cause long term damage as m planning a family..

F worried n couldn't slp all night. See my wife besid me emotions filled me.
I going to stop all these shit I swear . Moment of folly, married bros pls stop

I understand the feeling. In Hongkong KTV, I remember the condom putting on. But it was a dark room didn't notice the condom was on or not after that. FL didn't mention it slipped or anything. Think the WL would be more pissed than me if she noticed it slipped. If I worried, she would be damn worried.
Didn't feel the wetness of raw though, was quite a thick condom. I asked her what condom she used she said anti pregnancy one, she didnt want to come to Singapore to look for the father.....
Oh well take a test to be sure.

Yes, gonna stop this. First time, last time.

[SexCraved]

Is the rate of hiv & std contraction high?

[oorey]

Originally Posted by Shadow_warrior

I understand the feeling. In Hongkong KTV, I remember the condom putting on. But it was a dark room didn't notice the condom was on or not after that. FL didn't mention it slipped or anything. Think the WL would be more pissed than me if she noticed it slipped. If I worried, she would be damn worried.
Didn't feel the wetness of raw though, was quite a thick condom. I asked her what condom she used she said anti pregnancy one, she didnt want to come to Singapore to look for the father.....
Oh well take a test to be sure.

Yes, gonna stop this. First time, last time.

Research says HIV PEP is effective within 72 hours. Do bear in mind that the side effects are horrible and you have to continue taking it for 28 days. Good luck!

[DoctorTan]

Originally Posted by oorey

Research says HIV PEP is effective within 72 hours. Do bear in mind that the side effects are horrible and you have to continue taking it for 28 days. Good luck!

I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some misconceptions. It is true that PEP used to come with horrible side effects. In the past, the recommended boosted PEP regime consists of Combivir and Kaletra. These meds (especially Kaletra) can cause severe nausea, diarrhea, rashes, malaise etc

Fortunately, these meds are not longer the recommended first line drugs for PEP. In fact, one of the components in Combivir which is Zidovudine should NOT be used in PEP. This was in the recent policy statements of both the US CDC and Washington State Health Department.

The new first line drugs which are Tenofovir, Emitrictabine (Truvada) and Raltegravir (Isentress) have many benefits. First they have much less side effects. In fact, most of my patients have no side effects at all. Secondly, they are cheaper. Thirdly, they are more effective in stopping a chronic HIV infection.

So fear of PEP side effects should not be a factor for consideration in making a decision on whether to start PEP or not.

http://www.drtanandpartners.com/hiv-.../#.U7NZcLIaySM

[Shadow_warrior]

Originally Posted by SexCraved

Is the rate of hiv & std contraction high?

Estimated HIV transmission risk per exposure for specific activities and events

Activity
Risk-per-exposure

Vaginal sex, female-to-male, studies in high-income countries

0.04% (1:2380)

Vaginal sex, male-to-female, studies in high-income countries

0.08% (1:1234)

Vaginal sex, female-to-male, studies in low-income countries

0.38% (1:263)

Vaginal sex, male-to-female, studies in low-income countries

0.30% (1:333)


Vaginal sex, source partner is asymptomatic

0.07% (1:1428)

Vaginal sex, source partner has late-stage disease

0.55% (1:180)

Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner unknown status

0.27% (1:370)

Receptive anal sex amongst gay men, partner HIV positive

0.82% (1:123)

Receptive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status

0.18% (1:555)

Insertive anal sex, gay men, partner unknown status

0.06% (1:1666)

Insertive anal sex with condom, gay men, partner unknown status

0.04% (1:2500)

Receptive fellatio

Estimates range from 0.00% to 0.04% (1:2500)

Mother-to-child, mother takes at least two weeks antiretroviral therapy

0.8% (1:125)

Mother-to-child, mother takes combination therapy, viral load below 50

0.1% (1:1000)

Injecting drug use

Estimates range from 0.63% (1:158) to 2.4% (1:41)

Needlestick injury, no other risk factors

0.13% (1:769)

Blood transfusion with contaminated blood

92.5% (9:10)

Sources: vaginal sex;1 anal sex;2 fellatio;3 2 mother-to-child;4 other activities.5

[oorey]

Originally Posted by DoctorTan

I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some misconceptions. It is true that PEP used to come with horrible side effects. In the past, the recommended boosted PEP regime consists of Combivir and Kaletra. These meds (especially Kaletra) can cause severe nausea, diarrhea, rashes, malaise etc

Fortunately, these meds are not longer the recommended first line drugs for PEP. In fact, one of the components in Combivir which is Zidovudine should NOT be used in PEP. This was in the recent policy statements of both the US CDC and Washington State Health Department.

The new first line drugs which are Tenofovir, Emitrictabine (Truvada) and Raltegravir (Isentress) have many benefits. First they have much less side effects. In fact, most of my patients have no side effects at all. Secondly, they are cheaper. Thirdly, they are more effective in stopping a chronic HIV infection.

So fear of PEP side effects should not be a factor for consideration in making a decision on whether to start PEP or not.

http://www.drtanandpartners.com/hiv-.../#.U7NZcLIaySM

Doc, wouldn't Truvada have more biochem anomalies?
http://www.bhiva.org/documents/Confe...l2/O9Sacks.pdf

[aquaregia]

Originally Posted by Shadow_warrior

Estimated HIV transmission risk per exposure for specific activities and events


Receptive fellatio

........

Estimates range from 0.00% to 0.04% (1:2500)


Sources: vaginal sex;1 anal sex;2 fellatio;3 2 mother-to-child;4 other activities.5

While I know that the issue of HIV transmission in oral sex is a controversial one, it is interesting to see that only receptive fellatio is noted here.

This is considering that the topic of oral transmission is often broached with the consideration of insertive and receptive oral sex as a whole, with receptive oral sex contributing the bulk of the risk criteria due to the increased chance of infection from infectious ejaculate/pre cum in the mouth.

So what is the real risk of insertive fellatio (getting a blowjob)? Aside from the conservatives and potential liability, there seems to be a trend amongst some professionals in the medical community to advocate an almost negligible or zero risk factor with regards to insertive fellatio. The ultra conservative CDC reported 0 fellatio transmissions? With a note of regard only to undocumented receptive fellatio cases?

Then again there is the oft quoted Spanish serodiscordant couple study (amongst others) where almost 19,000 instances of unprotected oral sex were estimated to have occurred involving the 135 couples over the ten years of the study, but not a single case of HIV transmission was detected.

Romero J et al. Evaluating the risk of HIV transmission through unprotected orogential sex. AIDS 16:9:1269-97, 2002.


The risk of HIV transmission in insertive oral seems to be more of a theoretical then a medically documented one, especially so given the proven HIV damaging hypertonicity of saliva. I find the links in the stickys to be pretty outdated and fear-mongering imo. Anyone can offer an opinion?

[DoctorTan]

Originally Posted by oorey

Doc, wouldn't Truvada have more biochem anomalies?
http://www.bhiva.org/documents/Confe...l2/O9Sacks.pdf

The biochemistry abnormalities table stated a P value of 0.03. This is not statistically significant. Anyway most of the biochem abnormalities listed are minor and reversible.

This is not to say Truvada is definitely superior or inferior. As with all medicines it needs to be individualised to the patient and hence it is important to see a good doctor instead of buying pills off the shelf.

[hOlyJ]

Does anyone know if blood donation can check a person is it HIV positive?

[sammyboyfor]

Originally Posted by hOlyJ

Does anyone know if blood donation can check a person is it HIV positive?

If you donate blood, your donation will be tested for a a variety of diseases including HIV.

You will be notified if your blood tests positive.

If you made any false declarations, you could end up being charged in court.

[FlyingCircus]

Originally Posted by sammyboyfor

If you donate blood, your donation will be tested for a a variety of diseases including HIV.

Correct they will usually test for variety of stuff

[NewtonRoad]

Originally Posted by FlyingCircus

Correct they will usually test for variety of stuff

Never knew that

[Frankiestine]

Originally Posted by NewtonRoad

Never knew that

Didn't you know a few guys were caught after donating their blood and found to be HIV positive but in their declaration form they stated they never had paid sex?

[sammyboyfor]

Originally Posted by Frankiestine

Didn't you know a few guys were caught after donating their blood and found to be HIV positive but in their declaration form they stated they never had paid sex?

People can catch HIV from any sexual encounter not just a commercial one.

Faithful wives have caught the disease from husbands. Guys have caught it from slutty girlfriends.