Testing positive for HIV

[KBear]

A good friend of mine recently had some standard blood tests done prior to having minor surgery. Shortly after the test, he received a call asking him to return to the hospital, where he was informed that he had tested positive for HIV. They then took more blood, so as to perform a different style of HIV test, and that test also came back positive.

The news was of course devastating, he lost 5 lbs in two days, and was on pain killers to try to numb the pain he was feeling throughout his body, knowing that HIV = AIDS = DEATH, he prepared to die a horrible degrading death.

He then found some web sites that pointed out what the HIV test was all about. The test it seems is for a specific antibody in the blood, the HIV virus has never been identified. Further, there are lists of reasons why someone would test positive for HIV.

He later had two more HIV tests, and they both came back negative. It may have just been a flue he was recovering from, or a host of other reasons, that caused the positive results. Luckily, there had not been enough time for him to be put onto the aniti AIDS cocktail

I would not personally be betting my life on this information, but I am including some of the web sites sent to me. It may turn out that AIDS promoted as an STD, is not really an STD at all. If that is the case, think of all the lives devastated, and the billions made.

http://www.virusmyth.net/
http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm
http://www.duesberg.com/
http://healtoronto.com/
http://www.aliveandwell.org
http://www.rocktheboat2001.com/

Some sites supporting HIV=AIDS
http://www.who.int/HIV_AIDS/first.html
http://www.unaids.org/

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Sorry to hear about your friends false alarm. Obviously can be devestating emotionally sometimes more than HIV itself which now usually can be controlled and many with HIV are living long lives unlike just a few years ago.

However, I caution folks not to get on the conspiracy cult bandwagon of http://www.virusmyth.net which is very bad science and has been shown as just silly by many independent medical experts on HIV.

Posted by EpidemiologyExpert on April 07, 2000 in response to a "Read Duesberg" post

As a physician board-certifed in preventive medicine and trained at Johns Hopkins in epidemiology, I have been following the scientific research regarding AIDS since 1984.

HIV is unquestionably causally related to AIDS.

The misinformed and emotional assertion making the rounds that HIV is not really related to AIDS has as much validity as the tobacco companies claiming (as they did for decades) that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

The sequence by which HIV was transmitted from the green monkey in Africa to humans is well documented. The epidemiological trail of the spread from Africa to the Caribbean to the U.S. is also well documented.

There is an absolutely clear connection between receiving HIV positive blood (which has happened many times, especially in the early and mid-1980's when bank blood was not being tested) and becoming HIV positive and developing clinical AIDS. Likewise with hemophiliacs who received HIV positive blood products to control their clotting deficiencies.

The exact way which HIV infects T4 helper cells is voluminously documented, and development of clinical AIDS is clearly correlated with T4 cell levels. Recent information is strongly suggestive that a small minority of people with a specific genetic makeup are able to fight off the normal effects of the AIDS virus. . . .which lends hope for a cure. . . .but the vast majority of HIV positive individuals inexorably progress to death from clinical AIDS.

The incredibly ill-informed idea that there is no relation between HIV and AIDS is dangerous in the extreme. The idea that the National Institutes for Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are somehow in league with the drug companies to make money on AIDS medications is a paranoid's paradise.

Having said all that, it is only fair to point out that while HIV does cause AIDS, that the rate of transmissiblity is very low. . .it is a very fragile virus. Transmission via heterosexual intercourse probably only occurs under extreme circumstances. One well done study showed that a very low rate of positivity in the wives of male hemophiliacs who were having unprotected sex with their husbands prior to their HIV positive status being known. There is no credible evidence that HIV can be transmitted through oral sex. Most of the hysteria about transmission of HIV probably stems from the fact that it is much more socially acceptable to claim (and no one can prove otherwise) that one's HIV positive status came from heterosexual activity than from homosexual activity or intravenous drug use.

So, HIV causes AIDS, but the transmissibility is quite low from vaginal intercourse, and probably zero from oral sex. What does that mean in terms of behavior. Unless you like playing Russian roulette, or risking the legion of other sexually transmitted diseases, or pregnancy, it means you use a condom in casual sexual intercourse. . . .and that you wash reasonably soon after intercourse. Unprotected oral sex is a separate decision. . .personally I do not believe that either males or females need worry about acquiring AIDS by this route, but other STD's can be transmitted this way. At what point you feel comfortable enough with your partner to dispense with the use of condoms is a matter of how much you trust your partner and a realistic assessment of risk.

This information will undoubtedly have no influence on those who don't want to have their opinions confused by actual facts. . . .but I hope it might promote better understanding and good decision making in the rest of you.

Dave suggests other sites such as From maverick science to conspiracy theories at
http://cnn.com/HEALTH/AIDS/9909/15/aids.heresies3/index.html with many relate links.

 

[Heather]

Having said all that, it is only fair to point out that while HIV does cause AIDS, that the rate of transmissiblity is very low. . .it is a very fragile virus. Transmission via heterosexual intercourse probably only occurs under extreme circumstances. One well done study showed that a very low rate of positivity in the wives of male hemophiliacs who were having unprotected sex with their husbands prior to their HIV positive status being known. There is no credible evidence that HIV can be transmitted through oral sex. Most of the hysteria about transmission of HIV probably stems from the fact that it is much more socially acceptable to claim (and no one can prove otherwise) that one's HIV positive status came from heterosexual activity than from homosexual activity or intravenous drug use.

Dave, this part of your info here is severely outdated. There is now a great number of cases proving that HIV can and has been aquired by swallowing semen. Unprotected fellatio is not safe.

 

[C Dick]

Heather:

Do you have sources for the information about swallowing? Your information is not consistent with what I have read.

 

[Jamm]

C Dick Kbear and Dave

To cut it short: Can you please tell me if you knew ?Where your friends are?Is it in Toronto ?If she or he is not in Toronto I can't help you . I just wanna help and give the hospitals more funds ? I have donated more funds for the research in aids than anywhere else. I just wanna help.You could pm me if you like.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Heather]

taken from HIV info Web

The following was taken from hiv info web:


Oral Sex Transmission Risk - What Do We Know, What Can We Do About It?
The February Antiretroviral conference published a report on the statistical possibility of oral sex risk, and then a second report on the possibility of transmission of HIV when viral load is under 1500. A third study noted that levels of HIV can be very high in saliva in the weeks just after an infection, and that this might mean that mouth-to-mouth can be a vector of transmission under certain circumstances. Responses to these studies were confused because the media presented them poorly; and on the Internet at least, there was a barrage of emails from statisticians as to what all the numbers.

At a forum in Boston held over a year ago, two researchers, one from Mass General and one from the Fenway, totaled 5 cases of oral sex transmission in their personal experience. In a subsequent interview with yet another Massachusetts General Hospital HIV researcher, I learned that most of his clients, young ones in particular, think HIV "can't be transmitted orally". This aforementioned researcher at Mass General also told me that his clients, who often think in metaphors, talk about HIV the same way they talk about a car accident; most people don't really expect it to happen to them. (Sounds like some people on this board ) He stated that some cells found in mucus membranes are programmed to reach through intact mucus membranes and pull viruses into the body; these cells then try to break down the virus and later present the components to other parts of the immune system to finish off. This means HIV can find a way into the body through an intact mucus membrane.

During my interviews, several people voiced the concern that releasing the truth about HIV oral sex transmission will cause many gay men to just 'give up' what safer sex measures they are currently using, out of despair. That fits with what I am experiencing - I believe I am sensing a resistance to this information in some quarters, for understandable reasons, one of which is that people are battle fatigued. Normally, when people are being asked to surrender something valuable, such as their ability to have sex or make money, they negotiate to make the smallest possible sacrifices: how about if I cut the number of my partners in half, or only do it with someone I know well, etc., etc. Although I subscribed to 21 AIDS email lists, I have seen almost none of that sort of discussion on the Internet about this news; the bulk of the discussion has simply been to question the quality of the research, and very few people participated in the debate. So - what does all this mean for negative and positive persons alike? How much risk is there, and what sort of harm reduction or safer sex campaign might be helpful to help people deal with the answer? A May 2000 article in A&U, by Dr. Roger Anderson and Ed Schultz, sought to clarify the issues surrounding oral sex: Dr. Anderson cited 4 areas that could influence transmission:
The higher a person's viral load, the more infectious his sperm and pre-ejaculate will be (cum and pre-cum). Thus, newly infected persons may be the most infectious people, as their viral load can skyrocket. (In related news, a study of antibody-discordant heterosexual couples showed that people with a viral load less than 1500 tend not to transmit HIV.)

The less intact the recipient's mucus membrane, the more risky. (i.e. gum disease, irregular flossing, violent brushing, etc.).

The longer the pre-ejaculate or sperm stays in your mouth, the more risky.

The weaker the immune system of the sperm recipient, the more risky - i.e. it's important to maintain good general health, keep stress down, have good rest habits, avoid smoking, not be suffering from allergies, don't stay up all night dancing or doing party drugs before you have sex. (These are all my interpretations, none of which are specifically listed in this article).
Shortly after this article appeared, a report followed from the BU School of Oral Medicine, which garnered little attention in the press: it presented evidence that a person can be infected through oral sex despite a fully intact mucus membrane (healthy gums and throat lining). This report, which received favorable reviews from the NIH, and which backs up the MGH researcher mentioned in the first paragraph, states that the route of transmission is Langerhans cells and that transmission can happen through intact mucus membranes. Older reports on MEDLINE both support and contradict this finding, so it's very confusing. The bottom line is, there appear to be cases of oral sex transmission - 8 percent (or more) of all cases, depending on whose interpretation you choose to believe.

 

[Heather]

continued

In keeping with HIV InfoWeb policy, we want to present all sides of a story, and to do so in a way that strengthens people's feelings of control over their lives. So, via the links below, you will find all the material mentioned above; you can read the articles for yourself. Two of the links are email threads, and contain lengthy debate over the meaning of the Antiretroviral conference report.

HIV Transmission: The Roles of Viral Load, Oral Sex, and STDs (requires you register with medscape - a free registration)
SELECTED QUOTES: "No transmissions were documented from individuals with HIV RNA levels < 1,500 copies/mL. " "For each 1-log increase in viral load, there was a 2.45-fold increase in the risk of the partner seroconverting. " "Transmission of HIV via oral sex has always been considered a possibility, but one of low risk. In several cohorts of patients with primary infection, transmission via oral sex seemed to be the only route in a small but real proportion of patients. In a very rigorous study, Dillon and colleagues appear to have clearly pinpointed oral transmission in approximately 7% of primary infection cases. Originally, 16.4% of cases were thought to be due to oral transmission; however, on careful review, more than half of these cases had other possible risk factors. (Note: this does not mean they weren't oral sex transmission cases.)"
HIV present in saliva during early weeks of infection
Pilcher C et al. "In subjects with primary HV infection, high levels of HIV RNA are present in oral fluids, genital secretions, peripheral blood and CNS and are rapidly reduced with combination antiretroviral therapy. Abstract 556, Seventh Conference on Retroviruses, San Francisco, 2000. Infectious HIV can be detected at high levels in saliva during the early weeks of HIV infection (the 'window' period before antibodies appear), but levels fall rapidly after this point. Free floating infectious viruses and virus-infected lymphocytes could be detected in saliva taken from individuals with primary HIV infection attending clinics in North Carolina. In 7 out of 8 cases, free floating infectious virus could be detected at an average level of 2,000 copies per ml, and in 5 out of 8 cases cell associated virus could be detected at an average level of 20,000 copies per ml . . . However, some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva, suggesting that during the early weeks of infection some individuals may be 'super-excretors' of HIV, and may play a significant role in the ongoing amplification of the HIV epidemic."

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

Heather Thank you for your information.

I found the site you quote, but I can not find the quoted references or much about the Drs that are quoted, or the dates of most of the studies since they counter many other articles.

I also don't think 5 known cases as article states of some kind of oral transmission is "a great number of cases". You have to compare the risks to other everyday risks in life.

The studies you quote indicate the high viral load but that may not equate to high transmissiblity. Your other study suggests it does. The article isn't clear which partner they are talking about but since "The longer the pre-ejaculate or sperm stays in your mouth, the more risky," this would of course be the giving partner.

I have always said that the person (usually a woman) giving the oral sex is at much higher risk taking in the semen which could hit a bleeding gum etc vs the person receiving it unless he has open STD sores on penis etc.

In gay communities oral sex which is so common does not seem to be a significant vector for transmission.

For example I did a quick websearach and find from Apr 29, 2002:
Sexual transmission of HIV through oral sex is known to be transmitted to the person performing oral sex, and not the person receiving oral sex. The saliva of HIV infected people is not know to lead to transmission. See Saliva as a Barrier for more information.

Saliva as a Barrier
It may not be completely accurate to describe saliva as a barrier to HIV. The most important thing to remember is that there is no evidence that saliva transmits HIV. This makes your risk for infection practically negligible.

The saliva of infected people contains little to no virus, and the virus that is found in saliva is often inactive (not infectious). Studies have found that a protein in saliva inactivates HIV (up to 90% of virus was inactivated in one test tube study) and other factors that may contribute to the noninfectious quality of saliva. This is why transmission through kissing or receiving oral sex doesn't seem to occur.

This does not mean that saliva will PROTECT you from infection. While the proteins in saliva may reduce the risk of transmission to a person performing oral sex (it may explain the low-risk nature of oral sex), saliva does not serve as a barrier to HIV transmission during oral sex. People can still be infected when performing oral sex, even though the risk is much lower than vaginal or anal sex.

Source for all of the above:
http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/TransmissionSexual/Q138732.html

Again this was just from a quick search but also confirms more extensive research I did on the issue a few years ago.

Regardless of the HIV issues, other STD's such as Hepititus and others are far more easy to transmit than HIV. Therefore, covered BJ's should always be used to protect against all STDs.

The poster that started this thread was worried about his male friend so the very low transmission rates female to male are shown in years of consisdent CDC data in the U.S. and similar data in Canada (but I don't have a link to Canadian data)

 

[Dave in Phoenix]

I see on another STD thread someone quoted another current article from the same source:

New Oral Study Posted: Jun 10, 2002

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

Over 19,000 instances of unprotected oral sex did not lead to a single case of HIV transmission amongst a cohort of 135 HIV-negative Spanish heterosexuals in a sexual relationship with a person with HIV.

 

[KBear]

Jamm, thank you for the donation offer, but my friend is fine.

Dave in Phoenix, to disregard the work of the many medical experts referenced at http://www.virusmyth.net as, "very bad science and has been shown as just silly ", and then quote an anonymous poster on your site, and then reference a media site, is weak. It is interesting that know one has been infected by this “contagious virus” through oral sex, wondering if kissing is also considered statistically low risk. Thinking that statistically, anything is possible.

Dr. Mullis was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. “We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.” From: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/kmforeword.htm

The "We" Dr. Mullis is referring to is: Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Almost two decades of unprecedented efforts in research costing US taxpayers over $50 billion have failed to defeat Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and have failed to explain the chronology and epidemiology of AIDS in America and Europe. The failure to cure AIDS is so complete that the largest American AIDS foundation is even exploiting it for fundraising: 'Latest AIDS statistics - 0,000,000 cured. Support a cure, support AMFAR.' The scientific basis of all these unsuccessful efforts has been the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by a sexually transmitted virus, termed Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and that this viral immunodeficiency manifests in 30 previously known microbial and non-microbial AIDS diseases.” From: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrdilemma.htm

There are scores of sites with lists of recognized medical experts who are questioning the value of the HIV test, among other things. Most dogs test HIV positive, what is up with that? If there are any sites where known medical experts show they have identified the HIV virus, and that it causes AIDS, I would like to read them.

My Doctor’s office is now pushing Hepatitis as the killer STD, maybe change is coming in the HIV=AIDS world. http://www.hepnet.com/