Probably over reacting but…(question about timing)

[ml283]

So a little less than a month ago I had a one night stand with a girl I met in a bar.  She seemed nice enough and certainly clean.  We went back to her place and had protected sex with a condom (think she said she was on birth control, not that that matters.)  

Here's the thing.  While the INTERCOURSE was protected, the oral sex was not.  I performed oral sex on her for probably 5-10 minutes or so.  SHe was definitely wet during this time, but it wasn't thick or streaming ejaculate or anything.  

So about a week ago I started to have a persistent sore throat, which has since turned into a terrible covering all over my tongue.  After some quick research, I thought it might be thrush, and I've been on anti fungals for a few days now with no sign of a clear up.  I know you shouldn't diagnose yourself online, but every time you search for "thrush" you always get pages with the dreaded three letters: "HIV".  After three sleepless nights, I got an HIV test this morning.

Here's my question:  It's only been about 25 days since the encounter.  Is that too early to tell if it's HIV positive?  I know thrush isn't necessarily a sign of HIV, but i've managed to just freak myself out like everyone on here.  (Plus, to be honest, i don't really think it is thrush.  It's not white, it's more grayish, with red spots all over.  Think it's called "geographic tongue" or something)

Anyway….thanks to anyone with any info.  I get the results of the blood test in 3-5 days, so I guess i'm looking at some more sleeplessness huh?

[ml283]

Thanks, that really does help.  Maybe I should go over to the "thrush" or "geographic tongue" forum, 'cause this is just killing me.  As far as HIV, like I said, better safe than sorry, but I understand that I'm at something close to 0% risk.

Thanks again, and I promise I'll shut up now.

[disturbed777]

dude , pay a few bucks and ask the experts on this forum...

lets see what they say ... bet you they going to tell you NO RISK ....

[Teak]

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

Oral transmission of HIV, reality or fiction? An update
J Campo1, MA Perea1, J del Romero2, J Cano1, V Hernando2, A Bascones1
Oral Diseases (2006) 12, 219–228

AIDS:  Volume 16(17)  22 November 2002  pp 2350-2352
Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men

Page-Shafer, Kimberlya,b; Shiboski, Caroline Hb; Osmond, Dennis Hc; Dilley, Jamesd; McFarland, Willie; Shiboski, Steve Cc; Klausner, Jeffrey De; Balls, Joycea; Greenspan, Deborahb; Greenspan

Page-Shafer K, Veugelers PJ, Moss AR, Strathdee S, Kaldor JM, van Griensven GJ. Sexual risk behavior and risk factors for HIV-1 seroconversion in homosexual men participating in the Tricontinental Seroconverter Study, 1982-1994 [published erratum appears in Am J Epidemiol 1997 15 Dec; 146(12):1076]. Am J Epidemiol 1997, 146:531-542.

Studies which show the fallacy of relying on anecdotal evidence as opposed to carefully controlled study insofar as HIV transmission risk is concerned:

Jenicek M. "Clinical Case Reporting" in Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann; 1999:117

Saltzman SP, Stoddard AM, McCusker J, Moon MW, Mayer KH. Reliability of self-reported sexual behavior risk factors for HIV infection in homosexual men. Public Health Rep. 1987 102(6):692–697.Nov–Dec;

Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, Coates TJ. Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol Bull. 1990 Nov;108(3):339–362.
There is no debate (among experts) about the HIV risks associated with oral sex.  The risk is so low that almost nobody who cares for HIV infected patients has ever had a patient believed to have been infected that way.  Among experts, it's a semantic issue about using terms like "no risk" and "very low risk".  There is no difference between my or Dr. Hook's use of "low risk" and other experts' "no risk".
DR. HANSFIELD

"And oral sex is basically safe sex -- completely safe with respect to HIV and although not zero risk for other STDs, the chance of infection is far lower than for unprotected vaginal or anal sex.  Please educate yourself about the real risks.  If you stick with oral sex and condom-protected vaginal or anal sex, you have no HIV worries and very little worry about other STDs. "   DR HANSFIELD

"I am sure you can find lots of people who belive that HIV is transmitted by oral sex, but you will not find scientific data to support this unrealistic concern..."   DR HOOK

"HIV is not spread by touching, masturbation, oral sex or condom protected sex."- DR. HOOK

in the public HIV Prevention forum of MedHelp, TEAK and the other moderators maintain that oral sex in all forms is a zero risk activity. Would you agree with this assessment?  
I TOTALLY AGREE / DR GARCIA

"The observation on thousand and thousand of observations is that HIV is not spread by oral sex (of any sort)."  DR HOOK

[ml283]

Thanks Teak.  I really do appreciate it, and I'm not just trying to be annoying.  According to the CDC (which I take it is one of the more reliable online sources for medical info) there absolutely is a SLIGHT, SLIGHT risk of HIV infection vis a vi oral sex.  It's small.  So small that without (and until) these other unsightly symptoms, I thought nothing of it.  Figured better safe than sorry though.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/oralsex.htm

[Teak]

There are not risks in ORAL SEX. PCR-RNA tests are not standalone tests and cannot give a conclusive test result. PCR-DNA tests are not diagnostic tests. You were never at risk of contracting HIV from oral sex.

[ml283]

Well, there is SOME risk associated with oral sex, just very small.  If my mouth would have just cleared up I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, but the persistence of the pain/visual problem, the fact that it's getting worse with time instead of better, and the fact that I truly have no idea who that girl was (or who she had been with, how many guys, etc.) are all combining to scare the hell out of me.

According to the good folks who took my blood, PCR is pretty reliable from about a 15 days after initial exposure.  But I definitely appreciate your sentiments and I SINCERELY hope you're right!

[Vance2335]

PCR is not a diagnositic test and this poster did not have a risk.

[sleeplessinDC]

I have managed to drive myself nuts Googleing symptoms and then HIV symptoms.

If you need fast results you can try Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which is a new blood test that looks for HIV genetic information. It has very limited availability. It is expensive and labor intensive but the advantage is that the test can detect the virus even in someone who is newly infected.

I had mine done for anti-bodies at 87 days and came out negative. I also gave oral to this woman for less than 2 seconds and now I'm a mental mess with so much guilt that I might have passed it on to my girlfriend.

BTW - have you had a doctor take a look at your "Thrush" situation. This might be the fastest and easiest way to to figure out what's wrong and get the big HIV issue out of the way.

Good luck.

[Vance2335]

1. Yes it is too early for a conclusive test
2. Better news is that you did not have a risk for HIV. Protected sex is safe and so is oral sex.