Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
Question for Gail
avatar
lakeshow29 posted:
Gail, Three months ago I had a possible exposure, at least I think it could be an exposure. I gave oral sex to a female CSW. The oral sex was licking etc. while she was wearing lace panties, not directly to her privates, however it was vigorous. My first question is if this is a realistic risk? I've heard oral is a low but possible risk, is this type of exposure any less risky? Secondly I got a blood test at. 3.5 weeks, negative (not sure what generation etc). At 13 weeks I did an Oraquick test at home, C line with no T. Is this conclusive or should I take a second one incase I made a mistake, or am not detectable yet? Thank you for your time!
Reply
 
avatar
georgiagail responded:
Is this a realistic risk?

No.

Oral sex is extremely low in the first place (think along the lines of .5 to 1 per 10,000 exposures with a source KNOWN to carry the virus).

It's zero through lace panties. Even assuming this person was HIV positive, the virus doesn't go through underwear.

Gail
 
avatar
lakeshow29 replied to georgiagail's response:
Thank you Gail! Just out of curiosity a lot has been made of false negatives on oraquick home test . Is this just a problem with testing before three months or other issues?
 
avatar
georgiagail replied to lakeshow29's response:
It's important to understand what screening tests check for. They don't look for the actual virus but rather antibodies the immune system begins to produce after transmission has taken place. It takes a while for these antibodies to reach levels in the body where they can be picked up by screening tests. That's why the recommended time period for testing is 3 months after a potential exposure. By then 99.99 percent of newly infected folks will have enough antibodies present to have a "reactive" (i.e., positive) test result.

Often the issue with false negatives involve those who test too early; i.e., before the immune system has had time to kick out enough antibodies to be picked up by ANY screening test.

When folks had to GO somewhere to get tested (i.e., a health department, a doctors office) there were often told to wait the recommended 3 month time period to undergo the testing.

With the Oraquick available in many drug stores etc. those who are terrified they might be infected will often waste their money testing days after an exposure. Even IF infected, there won't be enough antibodies present if one tests just a few days after transmission.

It's not the test, it's the operator.

Gail
 
avatar
lakeshow29 replied to georgiagail's response:
That makes sense, thanks for your great information!
 
avatar
lakeshow29 replied to lakeshow29's response:
Hello Gail I just had one other question. I took a test at 88 and 95 days. Oraquick home test. I waited 20 minutes, but I didn't use the flap they put to cover the display on the test stick so I saw the test going through it's process. Is this a problem in anyway??
 
avatar
lakeshow29 replied to georgiagail's response:
Hello Gail I just had one other question. I took a test at 88 and 95 days. Oraquick home test. I waited 20 minutes, but I didn't use the flap they put to cover the display on the test stick so I saw the test going through it's process. Is this a problem in anyway??
 
avatar
georgiagail replied to lakeshow29's response:
Nope...

Gail


Helpful Tips

Coping With Anxiety & HIV Worry
Is HIV anxiety keeping you up at night? Are you finding yourself questioning every random act as an HIV risk? Don't let anxiety steal your ... More
Was this Helpful?
31 of 38 found this helpful

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.