salt_marsh
Forum Replies Created
They reduce it meaningfully but not to near zero, and the reason is geometry. Herpes transmits from skin, and a condom covers some of the skin involved and not all of it.
Studies of couples generally find a substantial reduction with consistent use rather than the near total protection people associate with condoms for other infections.
Possible in principle but uncommon in practice. They do not survive long away from a body, and transmission is overwhelmingly through close body contact.
Shared bedding immediately after an infested person is the scenario usually cited, and hotel linen is generally laundered hot between guests.
A negative retest is meaningful and it means something else is causing the symptoms. Common candidates are bacterial vaginosis, thrush, skin conditions affecting the vulva, or irritation from products.
Repeatedly retesting for trich will keep giving you the same negative and will not move this forward.
Both. HIV testing is routine at sexual health services, and it is also specifically recommended alongside a syphilis diagnosis.
The infections travel together, sores make HIV transmission easier in both directions, and syphilis behaves differently in people with HIV, including a higher chance of nervous system involvement.
It does. Reduced immune function is associated with lower clearance rates, more persistent infection and higher risk of progression, which is why several conditions come with modified screening schedules.
What that means in your case depends on the medication and the condition, and it is a question for the team managing that rather than for a general service.
Yes. Sustained undetectable viral load means the virus is not transmitted sexually, and that applies to conception as much as to anything else.
Transmission to a baby is also preventable with treatment in pregnancy and appropriate care at delivery, with very low rates where that care is in place.
Agreed. Go, and tell them explicitly about the recent diagnosis and the date of treatment. That single sentence changes what they consider first.
There are also situations where the alternative is not considered acceptable at all, pregnancy being the clearest one. So preference has limits depending on your circumstances.
Yes, tell them. Throat infection is possible in both directions, and because it is almost always symptomless the only way that person finds out is if somebody says something.
They may need a throat swab specifically, which will not happen if they book a standard screen and say nothing.
People land in different places on this and both are defensible. The arguments against a formal disclosure: there is no test for him, no treatment, and most sexually active adults acquire HPV at some point.
The argument for mentioning it: it is your health information and some people would rather know.
They are not known to transmit infections themselves. The relevance to sexual health is what they indicate rather than what they carry.
Because they are passed through close body contact, having them is a reason to be screened for other infections, and rates of finding something else are meaningful.
There are observational studies reporting associations between trichomoniasis and cervical abnormality, but association is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
HPV is the cause of cervical cancer. Trich is not established as an independent cause, and the overlap in who gets both makes the studies hard to interpret.
This happens. A positive treponemal test with a negative or very low non treponemal test can indicate previously treated infection, or infection that was inadvertently treated by antibiotics given for something else entirely.
A course of antibiotics for a chest infection years ago can do it without anybody knowing.
Not overthinking at all, it is standard advice in a lot of places. Several of these infections matter considerably more in pregnancy than outside it, and finding them beforehand is far easier than finding them at twelve weeks.
Syphilis and HIV in particular are screened in pregnancy everywhere precisely because treatment changes the outcome for the baby.
The likeliest explanations are long standing infection that has persisted quietly, or reactivation of virus acquired decades ago. Both are recognised.
A new positive at this age is not evidence of recent exposure and should not be read that way.
Persisting symptoms after a documented cure are recognised and they are usually not the original organism. Inflammation can outlast the infection, and chronic pelvic or testicular pain syndromes are real diagnoses in their own right.
Being told it is cured and having ongoing symptoms are not in conflict.
Generally not. Throat cancers associated with HPV are overwhelmingly linked to one of the high risk types, not to the low risk types that cause visible warts.
So a wart diagnosis is not an indicator for that risk, and the two are usually different viruses in the same family.
This is heavily country specific and the answers differ by an enormous margin, so general advice here is close to useless.
What is fairly consistent: employment discrimination protections exist in many places, insurance is a contractual question where non disclosure can void a policy, and the two are governed by completely different rules.