Hiv Worry

[girlrose]

Having always considered myself a sensible person I made a major slip up and am now worried that I may have HIV. I am posting this in the hope that people will advise me that the chance of having caught it is slim.

About a month ago I slept with a man on two occassions who works in a boys bar, we used a condom first time but on the second occassion we didnt and he used the withdrawl method (stupid, I know!) Now I know that he had only been working in bars for 2 weeks but I also know that being a typical Thai man he has been to prostitutes and I dont know about the customers he had had since working in the bar. He also has a long term Japanese girlfriend who was pregnant. I keep thinking well if she had HIV she would have found out when pregnant and then again if he did have it there would be a slim chance of me getting it.

I don't expect sympathy for getting myself into this mess but I hope that people will put my mind at rest that there is little chance of me getting it.

[toptuan]

... he has been to prostitutes and I dont know about the customers he had had since working in the bar...

I think you just answered your own question right there.

Get a test.

Good luck.

[Mighty Mouse]

There have been some cases of HIV positive people having unprotected sex with their spouse and not transmitting the disease....and some of those cases were over a long period of time.

This was when one partner did not realise that the other partner was positive, and the positive partner did not realise either.

There is only one way to find out whether you are positive or not. Take yourself for a blood test at a hospital or reputable clinic. If the blood test comes back negative, you will need to have another blood test 3-6 months later to confirm the negative result.

[thankuverybig]

i went to a hospital in the north for a hiv test ,mainly because i have a new girlfreind,& the thought of passing anything like that on worried me.

anyway,the negative test results came back in 24hrs.

is this normal,such quick results,from a hospital?

should i get another test,as somebody posted,to be sure?

im not a tart,but you dont have to be nowadays.

[mbkudu]

Having always considered myself a sensible person I made a major slip up and am now worried that I may have HIV. I am posting this in the hope that people will advise me that the chance of having caught it is slim.

About a month ago I slept with a man on two occassions who works in a boys bar, we used a condom first time but on the second occassion we didnt and he used the withdrawl method (stupid, I know!) Now I know that he had only been working in bars for 2 weeks but I also know that being a typical Thai man he has been to prostitutes and I dont know about the customers he had had since working in the bar. He also has a long term Japanese girlfriend who was pregnant. I keep thinking well if she had HIV she would have found out when pregnant and then again if he did have it there would be a slim chance of me getting it.

I don't expect sympathy for getting myself into this mess but I hope that people will put my mind at rest that there is little chance of me getting it.

You say that you met him in a 'boys bar.' It is highly probable that he frequents both male and female customers. You can form your own conslusion from that.

[solo siam]

//text of suspect post removed pending "blackflip" providing a reliable source - lopburi3//

None of your post is true, the likelihood of infection can be greatly increased if EITHER person has another STD, From what I know female to male vaginal contact results in a 1 in 300 chance of catching HIV (If the male is - and the female is +), the opposite and the chance is likely 1 in 100. Increase these probabilities by a factor of around 10 if either part has a current STD.

HIV infection needs at least a 1-3 month window for antibodies to show up, none of your info is true and in fact could be deadly to anyone reading it.

[eugengeri]

My test in the Bangkok Rayong hospital was not a blood test. They took the saliva from the gland for testing. High technology? In 60 minutes or lesser I got the result. The test was negative and I was happy. About five years no more had made one. I always have it displaced - no good, I know.

I wish you good luck.

[atlastaname]

I can't add anything to what has already been said , but one thing has ALWAYS intrigued me since HIV was first talked about 20 years or so ago. It is this .

Bearing in mind in the late 70's and early 80's before AIDS most people had unprotected sex , i have often wondered why ALL of them haven't died. I mean those with multiple partners. How come some people who went to the infamous New York saunas died quickly and some are still alive today ? And similarly in the 20 years since that. Every day thousands (or more) of people have unprotected sex with partners they don't know and will go on tomorrow or next week to have it with someone else. So the question again is "why don't they all die of AIDS??"

My conclusion to this is reached through logical thought. I believe that only a small percentage of people will ever catch HIV and go on to develop AIDS. Rather like some people can smoke like a trouper and live to be 110 and others will die of cancer at 30. Why ?? Must be in the make up of the body. So my conclusion is that some small percentage of people are unlucky and are programmed in a way that makes them vulverable to catching AIDS quickly and dying. Others (the majority) can **** around all they want and , through their body makeup , will never get it .

Anyone else ever questioned this ??

[Heng]

^ Sounds more like wishful thinking than logic.

[boppia]

Just get checked. Worrying will do nothing for you. The truth will set you free as they say.

[Thaiquila]

I can't add anything to what has already been said , but one thing has ALWAYS intrigued me since HIV was first talked about 20 years or so ago. It is this .

Bearing in mind in the late 70's and early 80's before AIDS most people had unprotected sex , i have often wondered why ALL of them haven't died. I mean those with multiple partners. How come some people who went to the infamous New York saunas died quickly and some are still alive today ? And similarly in the 20 years since that. Every day thousands (or more) of people have unprotected sex with partners they don't know and will go on tomorrow or next week to have it with someone else. So the question again is "why don't they all die of AIDS??"

My conclusion to this is reached through logical thought. I believe that only a small percentage of people will ever catch HIV and go on to develop AIDS. Rather like some people can smoke like a trouper and live to be 110 and others will die of cancer at 30. Why ?? Must be in the make up of the body. So my conclusion is that some small percentage of people are unlucky and are programmed in a way that makes them vulverable to catching AIDS quickly and dying. Others (the majority) can **** around all they want and , through their body makeup , will never get it .

Anyone else ever questioned this ??

OK, if what are you saying is that if you have unprotected sex with an HIV positive person, there is LESS than a 100 percent chance you will be infected during a specific sex act, the science definitely says that is true. But the more unprotected sex one has, the greater the odds of infection occuring (again assuming sex with a HIV positive person).

[Sheryl]

Actually the epidemiological work done during the epidemic in the early 80's found a very high rate of transmission among people who had repeated contact with an infected person. It's a crap shoot -- all the unprotected sex in the world won't infect you if none of the people you have it with is infected. But as you have no way of knowing whether they do or not.....

It is known that certain sexual practices are more likely to transmit the virus than others, but that doesn't mean that the otrhers can't. But tis also explains why not all of the people who frequented the bath halls etc in the 70's-early 80's got sick: transmission risks are greater for the passive partner (in terms of male homosexuality). But it is POSSIBLE for the active partner to get infected, just less so. Likewise, transmission from men to women happens more readily than from women to men, but again the difference is relative. And lastly, presence of any other sexually transmitted disease or any sores/tears in the genital area greatly increased the ease with which the virus can enter the body.

Thin of it like pregnancy. Not every act of unprotected sex results in pregnancy -- but every pregnancy resuklted from a single sex act, usually unprotected. And the risks of both (pregnancy & AIDs) are NOT small. Just because some people successfully risk it doesn't mean that you can -- or for that matter, that they won't get "caught"the very next time around.

The current HIV tests are very rapid and results can be given on the spot.

OP -- get tested, that is the only way to really set your mind at ease.

[backflip]

ben,

"HIV infection needs at least a 1-3 month window for antibodies to show up"

That simply is not true. The latest testing technology, as used by teaching hospitals working in conjunction with the CDC in the US (Stanford University, for one) - indicates HIV infection in hours, not months. I'm not sure what how you've been tested.

There are many studies available regarding HIV infection. I suggest that you find one that is indicative of the population in which you are interested. The rates of infection between different populations are dramatic.

You are corrdct that misinformation is hazardous to your health. When Kim Bergalis died of AIDS, both the left (AmFAR) and the right (TV ministers) used public ignorance for their own use. AmFAR pled for money claiming it could find the cause. Oral and his ilk claimed that anyone, even a virgin, who had sinned in any manner could be infected. Of course, when the facts became apparent (Kim's dentist was gay, with a gay clientele, and he had failed to steralize the dental instruments), both sides ignored them.

[Sheryl]

It is possible to detect HIV in the very early stages of infection but it is a high-tech and expensive procedure and NOT what is used for routine screening. Hence the advice for repeating the test at 3 and 6 months still holds.

[JimsKnight]

ben,

"HIV infection needs at least a 1-3 month window for antibodies to show up"

That simply is not true. The latest testing technology, as used by teaching hospitals working in conjunction with the CDC in the US (Stanford University, for one) - indicates HIV infection in hours, not months. I'm not sure what how you've been tested.

There are many studies available regarding HIV infection. I suggest that you find one that is indicative of the population in which you are interested. The rates of infection between different populations are dramatic.

You are corrdct that misinformation is hazardous to your health. When Kim Bergalis died of AIDS, both the left (AmFAR) and the right (TV ministers) used public ignorance for their own use. AmFAR pled for money claiming it could find the cause. Oral and his ilk claimed that anyone, even a virgin, who had sinned in any manner could be infected. Of course, when the facts became apparent (Kim's dentist was gay, with a gay clientele, and he had failed to steralize the dental instruments), both sides ignored them.

Not quite, the hiv can incubate for up to 3 months and is picked up by checking for a drop in the bloods white blood cells!

[Digger]

ben,

"HIV infection needs at least a 1-3 month window for antibodies to show up"

That simply is not true. The latest testing technology, as used by teaching hospitals working in conjunction with the CDC in the US (Stanford University, for one) - indicates HIV infection in hours, not months. I'm not sure what how you've been tested.

There are many studies available regarding HIV infection. I suggest that you find one that is indicative of the population in which you are interested. The rates of infection between different populations are dramatic.

You are corrdct that misinformation is hazardous to your health. When Kim Bergalis died of AIDS, both the left (AmFAR) and the right (TV ministers) used public ignorance for their own use. AmFAR pled for money claiming it could find the cause. Oral and his ilk claimed that anyone, even a virgin, who had sinned in any manner could be infected. Of course, when the facts became apparent (Kim's dentist was gay, with a gay clientele, and he had failed to steralize the dental instruments), both sides ignored them.

Ben is more correct than you let on - he is talking about anti-bodies - these do take up to 3 months to show up on tests that are most commonly used - i.e they are looking for the bodies own defences against HIV, hence the term in most places for checking is a 'anti (body) HIV test'. Earlier tests can be done as Sheryl points out and they look for the virus itself as against the anti-virus. In simple terms its called a viral load test which measures the amount of virus in the blood. Normally done in conjunction with a CD4 test which assesses how many of the good CD4 cells have already been destroyed. Taken together, an experienced HIV doctor could reach a 99%+ sure prognosis just based on these two factors even with normal anti-body testing showed as HIV negative - for the simple reason that the viral load test would show the HIV virus in the bloodstream and the CD4 count would show approx: how many cells are currently left (unfortunately they dont know how many you started of with as it varies by person, however there is a range of 'normal' level of CD4 in the bloodstream). As an indication a viral load and CD4 test in somewhere like Bumrungrad will cost around 8,000 baht, hence due to its cost, its not the normal method of routine checking for an infection when other tests which are far cheaper generally do as good a job in 95%+ of cases.

[girlrose]

Thanks for all the replies, I've certainly learnt something.

I think I went into a bit of paranoia overdrive as I a Thai friend of mine was admitted to hospital recently with AIDS and hasn't got long left.

I will do the test after 3 months has past but the whole thing has taught me a very valuable lesson and made me realise how stupid I have been. I hope that anyone reading this who may have considered putting themself in a similar situation realises that it's just not worth the risk or the worry.

[cathyy]

I can't add anything to what has already been said , but one thing has ALWAYS intrigued me since HIV was first talked about 20 years or so ago. It is this .

Bearing in mind in the late 70's and early 80's before AIDS most people had unprotected sex , i have often wondered why ALL of them haven't died. I mean those with multiple partners.

HIV is a new disease. It didn't exist in the 70s. All those people having unprotected intercourse and not being infected in the 80s were having it with uninfected people. The reservoir was small, not many people infected. Early HIV was virulent, killing in 2 years, but it took too long until they were able to figure out what it was and how it spread. Watch the movie "And the Band Played On." There was little research into HIV because it was "a gay-only disease." So it spread, first to hemophiliacs, then drug users, then heterosexuals. And it spread fast, because nobody else was careful because it was only a disease homosexual men got.

Now the reservoir is huge. Many, many people are infected worldwide. The odds of any given sexual partner being infected are too high to risk unprotected sex. That make it clearer?

[raro]

check out www.thebody.com - excellent source of information around HIV, made by HIV+ doctors.

Good luck on your check!

[orchis]

also look at aidsmeds.com in lessons or in the thread 'Am I infected?'

[backflip]

"Ben is more correct than you let on - he is talking about anti-bodies"

He certainly is talking about "antibodies".

I'm referring to "antigens", a completely different marker.

[Digger]

"Ben is more correct than you let on - he is talking about anti-bodies"

He certainly is talking about "antibodies".

I'm referring to "antigens", a completely different marker.

Might help if you refered to that then in your post rather than saying "that is completely untrue" - he was correct in what he said and you quoted.

[backflip]

Ben is incorrect in stating that it takes months for antibodies to appear at sufficient levels for detection - that was true decades ago, and it is no longer true. Current HIV screening technology detects both antigens and antibodies at very low levels.