[Question #14112] Omitted Timeline Detail — Does It Change Your Previous Conclusion?
 |
2 hours ago
|
Thank you again for your previous replies. I apologise for this follow up, but I realised I omitted one detail from the timeline in thread #13685.
Timeline:
May 1, 2024: Received unprotected oral sex -1 min and protected vaginal sex - 1min with sex worker
May 8, May 19, 2024: Protected sex with wife
June 13, 2024: One episode of unprotected sex with wife
July 4, 2024: Protected sex with wife
August 2, 2024: first urine STI PCR
January 19, 2024: Another episode of unprotected sex with wife
February 19, 2025: Second urine STI PCR
Sept 20, 2025: Third Urine STI PCR
Jan 13, 2026: Fourth urine STI PCR using a true first catch urine( all negative)
In #13685, I forgot to mention the (June 13) unprotected sex and other protected sex with my wife before my first (August 2) PCR test.
In one of your previous replies, you confirmed my summary and understanding:
I do not have an STI and did not transmit anything to my wife.
My only question is whether the omitted June 13 unprotected sex changes that conclusion in any way, or whether your previous conclusion remains exactly the same.
If your conclusion remains unchanged, may I understand that the omitted June 13 intercourse likewise does not create any realistic possibility that I had asymptomatic gonorrhea or chlamydia from May 1 exposure, transmitted either infection to my wife on June 13, and later had repeatedly negative urine PCR tests only because the infection had cleared naturally before my first PCR test by August 2?
If your previous conclusion remains unchanged, I will consider the matter closed and move on without concern anymore. Thank you again for your time!