|
|
STD
#7324 - 07/18/00 11:03 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
If no visible STDs are present after a period of time after possible infection does that mean HIV although possible, is unlikely?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
Re: STD
#7325 - 07/18/00 11:21 PM
|
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
In my humble opinion, definitely not! For two reasons:
1. Most STD's don't have any symptoms (particularly in the
case of infected women).
2. While the presence of an STD will increase the
probablilty of HIV transmission (according to this website
and the CDC), not getting one is no guarantee that you're not infected.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with HIV and no other STD's - IV drug users would seem to be eminently suitable candidates.
Of course, one then wonders if one is more likely to have HIV given that they have picked up and STD (sadly the situation I'm in). To that the answer would have to be "Maybe". As I mentioned above, if the other party has HIV
things definitely don't look good. But without a knowledge of that they have HIV things probably aren't too bad. The CDC estimates that there are about 12 million new STD infections each year in the US - and 40,000 cases of HIV. Even if all of those HIV cases were sexually transmitted, you'd still have to think yourself pretty unlucky to have gotten both HIV and an STD together. I guess the odds look to be about 1 in 300.
Of course, this is just my two cents. Please argue with me if you feel like it :)
Mudcrab
Post Extras:
|
|
0 registered and 65 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess, kicker
|
Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1128
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3
| |
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
