Oral Sex and HIV

[bumfie]

Duesberg counts as a "dissenting view" on AIDS the same way Creationists and Flat Earthers count as dissenting views on biology and geography.

Kepler is spot-on with this comment. As I said before, I do HIV/AIDS counseling
and I've had conversations with well-known authorities on the subject. Duesberg is universally regarded as a crank.

At any rate, HIV is an extremely fragile virus that is exceptionally hard to transmit, particularly female to male. If this were not the case, a billion people would be infected by now.

 

[coccinelle]

As I said before, I do HIV/AIDS counseling
and I've had conversations with well-known authorities on the subject.

Do you have links or names to any research that is very clear the oral sex is safe for HIV? I am (obviously) concerned with receiving it from giving a blow job. One thing I will agree with the paper about, even if it really isn't "solid" (I don't know, I'm not qualified to say it is or isn't), is that it is hard to get clear recommendations and answers, even from doctors. Everyone just says "everyone knows...", "I read somewhere...", "wasn't there a study...".

When I was looking up some of the sources (on pubmed) she ("she" - oops) used, I couldn't find anything other then the Romera article that said that oral sex was safe for HIV - which is what she said in the paper and it seemed like she described it pretty well. (edit: by "it" I mean she described the article well)

I think lots of people would be interested if you had links or names of research you do think is solid, I would be anyway! There doesn't seem like much (and CDC doesn't have anything).

 

[metoo4]

Nobody with any kind of good reputation will ever, EVER, say it's totally safe. That would be putting themself up for lawsuit if somebody ever had a possibility to prove they got infected by oral sex. Don't forget, in USA you can sue almost anybody for almost anything! So, you'll never see 100% safe, only stuff like "there's a 0,0???% chance you'get infected."

 

[hotwomenlover]

Dr. Handsfield has a forum where he answers questions regarding oral sex and HIV at http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/wwwboard.html. University of California at San Francisco has a HIV information center at http://chi.ucsf.edu.

 

[HarmonyNYC]

The Doc say's this is the end of the story!

Dr. Handsfield has a forum where he answers questions regarding oral sex and HIV at http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/wwwboard.html. University of California at San Francisco has a HIV information center at http://chi.ucsf.edu.

Here is a thread "Theoretical Risk or Actual Risk?" from the medical board forum quoted from the post above mine: The HIV Prevention Forum (www.medhelp.org).

In this thread the Board's Doctor clearly and repeatedly expresses' his opinion that it is a far reach to think oral sex is an hiv/aids risk. The Doc knows that it is highly illogic to fear oral sex as an hiv/aids risk. And he is not afraid to let us know it!

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/734.html

Below are some of the Quotes from the MedHelp board doctor:

"There are reports of people acquiring HIV by receiving oral sex (fellatio, not cunnilingus). However, many (most? all?) such reports were by people who might have denied or forgotten other exposures, and some experts do not consider them validated cases.

My view is that such transmissions probably occur, but too rare to worry about for practical purposes"

"Bottom line: Safe sex means selecting partners carefully, asking new partners (before having sex) whether they have HIV or not, and using condoms for vaginal or anal intercourse. That's it.

Do those things and you could go a lifetime with a new partner every day and never expect to catch HIV.

Other kinds of exposure basically don't matter much"

"The very fact that there are conflicting reports and debate among the experts proves the point: acquiring HIV by receiving oral sex either doesn't occur or it occurs with sufficient rarity that it doesn't much matter.

End of story."

 

[coccinelle]

Dr. Handsfield has a forum where he answers questions regarding oral sex and HIV at http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/wwwboard.html. University of California at San Francisco has a HIV information center at http://chi.ucsf.edu.

Those aren't peer reviewed either. There are lots of people with PhD's that say things that aren't true (I have had some doctors who said some pretty whacked out things to me). Not that I am trying to say those sources are wrong... There are just tons and tons of different points of view out there and if we are interested in looking for "solid" research, it doesn't work just to choose a point of view you believe in even if it has no evidence. I guess I trust peer reviewed medical journals more than a web forum and a community HIV clinic. Even if you don't read the "facing 2007" article and just use the bibliography, it is much more convincing then the two unsourced weblinks above.

Anyway, I have probably dragged this out long enough and will stop now. I would still like it if anyone has any real sources indicating that oral sex is very low (or zero) risk, particularly because most people on this board seem to think it is. The author of the paper is right when she says that most of the new sources I can find seem to say the opposite.

 

[HarmonyNYC]

if we are interested in looking for "solid" research, it doesn't work just to choose a point of view you believe

Does this prove your full of _ _ i t !

This is exactly what you and your "research-paper" are guilty of.

So it is ok for you to spread your agenda as fact, but you warn us to not trust such information when it contradicts your needed perspective.

Your last name must be Bush!

______________________________________________________

 

[HarmonyNYC]

I hope this will sum up the keys of this argument:

a) The argument that tells us not to worry about hiv/aids from natural oral sex is an argument of logic based on the available research and statistics.

The truth points out that the risk's associated with such things are "theoretical" because of the great lack of evidence.

b) The argument that tell us to worry about hiv/aids from natural oral sex is an argument of illogical fear-mongering loosely based on convenient data that fits the agenda.

This is not a thinking person's argument of "better safe then sorry" it is an automobile-phobic persons argument of "I'll never drive car because people get killed driving cars".

 

[HarmonyNYC]

This is not a thinking person's argument of "better safe then sorry" it is an automobile-phobic persons argument of "I'll never drive car because people get killed driving cars".

I guarantee that any honest doctor would have to agree that driving a car is a thousand times greater risk then a "theoretical" hiv/aids risk associated with natural oral sex.

Yet no one claims that driving a car is too dangerous to do. In fact most who drive do it every day, day after day and never get killed. I am sorry for those who do die in car crashes but the facts are that well over 99.9% of drivers will not die in a car crash no matter how many times they take the "risk".

Deaths via car accidents is a known risk! No one can argue this.

HIV/AIDS via a natural blow job is a theoretical risk! Many believe it a reach to even call it a risk at all.