|
amenableboy -> RE: stomach acids nutralize HIV virus ---> wtf!! (3/9/2007 12:24:44 AM)
|
>Oral sex (both eating pussy and sucking cock) have been proven routes of HIV transmission.
I believe that very few cases of HIV infection have been reliably documented as occuring through oral sex (perhaps a handful, though I could be wrong, where fellatio is concerned, and none for cunnilingus). In fact, most ID specialists that I have spoken to are laboring under the impression that unprotected oral sex is not a high risk activity, as seemingly confirmed in controlled studies.
The study that comes immediately to mind is the one conducted in Spain. The study participants, a group of serodiscordant couples (one is HIV+ and the other is HIV-), were tracked over a period of time and periodically HIV tested to determine the relative level of risk involved in certain sexual practices. Over the course of the study, the particpants engaged in approximately 19,000 instances of oral sex. Of those participants that reported using condoms for sex, but having unprotected oral sex (both cunnulingus and fellatio), none of the study participants later tested HIV positive. Another study that comes to mind was conducted in San Francisco, the study particpants of which were homosexual men in serodiscordant pairings with other homosexual or bi-sexual partners. Of the study participants who reported engaging in unprotected oral, in some cases swallowing ejaculate, none eventually went on to seroconvert at the conclusion of the study.
Risks associated with oral sex are mostly talked about in theoretical terms. In other words, there is a "theoretical risk" that HIV is indeed transmissable during oral sex. This is different than saying that HIV is a documented risk in terms of oral sex. Certainly, some surveys of those newly diagnosed as HIV positive have suggested that oral sex was the primary means of HIV infection for some, however, the accuracy of such data is often called into question due to the self reporting nature of such surveys. In other words, the results, reported by the participants themselves without corroborating evidence, are deemed unreliable.
Of course, it seems logical to say that oral sex is indeed a risk for HIV transmission, though most IDs would not recommend getting an HIV test based on only an unprotected oral sex encounter. The simple fact of the matter is that if it has happened, it does not seem to happen very often at all. Add to this the fact that HIV is indeed a very fragile virus, as has been stated in earlier posts, and that saliva based enzymes seem to exhibit anti-HIV properties, and perhaps that is the reason why. Of course, no one seems to know with any certainty, least of all me, as I am certainly not an HIV epidemiology expert.
|
|
|
|
