How early?

[bruce76]

This is obviously for anxiety reasons as the doctors on here have assured me of a very low risk for stds.  Even if my penis brushed her labia, that isn't penetration, etc etc.

Question, I will take a test to ease my mind.  I took a HIV test at PP only 5 days after exposure and it was negative but it is my understanding that is WAY too soon.

I am considering a HIV by DNA PCR test.  It has been 10 days since exposure (if there was).  Should I wait till 28 days or could i take it next week which would be over 2 weeks.  And if comes back negative, it will ease my mind, but would I need to test again at 3 months and 6?

Anxiety is a B***H...but thank you very much for your services and your knowledge!

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Of course not.

That's all for this thread.

[bruce76]

Thank you both.  I am actively seeking counseling for anxiety part of which is due to the low risk exposure.  I have a lot of what if what if what if that my counselor tells me to quit overimagining.  I know even though I was intoxicated, I learned my lesson.  The only thing that really frightens me is if the head of my penis was rubbed between her vulva and barely in the vagina, is that penetration?  I don't think this happened (because if you have had sex) you know the difference.  I guess my final question would be, is that considered penetration?

Thanks and I am off the forums now as to control my anxiety!!!!  :-)

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Good comment; thanks. However, I don't think the reasons are all that hard to understand.  Take a look at this thread, starting with my follow-up comment on December 14:    http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/1119533

This isn't intended to open this thread for ongoing dialog.

[TheAlchemist]

I understand your quandary: most websites state the theory i.e. that if infected genital secretions (such as vaginal fluid) "meet" mucuous membranes (such as the urethra) there is a risk of HIV infection.

However,  Drs Handsfield and Hook here, and various others elsewhere (such as Dr Bob at thebody.com) and the moderators of the HIV International Expert forum, state that penetration is required for HIV transmission to be realistically possible, as evidenced by the fact that it seems , in practice, all the (millions) of instances of sexual transmission of HIV have occurred through penetration.

Of course, I think it is impossible to prove a negative 100% (i.e. that non-penetrative transmission can never occur), but there is sufficient evidence i.e. what has been proved, that leads experts to conclude that penetration is a practcial, if not a theoretical, requirement for HIV transmission.

It may be difficult for you and me to really understand the reasons for this: probably, only someone who has studied medicine would do so. So, you need to take their word for it.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

The risk for HIV in this situation is even lower than for STD -- which, as you learned from Dr. Hook's reply on the STD forum, was zero.  Nobody in the world has ever caught HIV from the sort of exposure you describe -- even if the female partner had HIV, which yours almost certainly did not.  There is no point in testing for HIV, and I certainly would not recommend a DNA test. If you insist on testing, just have a standard antibody test at 6 weeks or a duo test (HIV antibody plus p24 antigen) at 4 weeks.  Be very clear:  if you have a positive result, the first thing a wise provider will ask is about you other possible exposures.  Because it is simply not possible you caught it from the one described here.

Really, this is a ridiculous thing to be concerned about.  Let it go.

HHH, MD