The oral fluids test picks up virtually all infections after 3 months. Although false negatives occasionally occur, the test is not the only evidence against you having HIV. You had an extremely low risk exposure (protected vaginal sex with a partner statistically unlikely to have HIV) and, despite what you think you have learned in your online searching, no symptoms that suggest HIV. Let's put some numbers to it: Average chance any particular sexually active woman in the US has HIV, around 1 in a thousand. Transmission risk if she were infected, roughly 1 in a thousand. Condom protection somewhere around 99%, i.e. a 1% risk remaining despite condom use. Accordingly, the odds you caught HIV were rougly 0.001 x 0.001 x 0.01 = 0.00000001. That's one chance in 100 million, and that's even before you were tested. If we now assume a 5% chance of the test missing an infection, the odds you have HIV decline even further, to 1 chance in 2 billion. (If I have my decimal places right. Even if I'm tenfold off, I hope you'll agree it doesn't matter.

In other words, zero.

FYI, HSV1, even when genital and not oral, does not increase HIV risk if exposed. Only HSV2 does that.

I hope this helps you get beyond your obsessive worry about this. Of course if you like, you could have a test that never gives false negative results, such as an antigen/antibody (duo, combo) test. If you do so, it will be negative.

Best wishes--  HHH, MD

Thank you for your answer! Just as a follow up: 

Are you assuming the sex I had on July 23, 2015 was protected because the condom only ripped at the base? Or is is that when you start with a condom on HIV risk is 1%

Just to shut my worrying mind up, can you comment on the nonprotected exposures I had around the November test? 

Thanks again!! 

So all is well and you should move on without worry. But see my last comment above about considering a top of the line test instead of less reliable rapid testing. It's up to you. If you do it, you can count on a negative result.

Also I has no idea condom protected sex was only 99 percent effective. Is that really the case?

I like the way you run odds. I've read it on your old medhelp posts thousands of times but I feel our exchange has just increased the odds of infection in my head by decreasing the reliability of my OQ test and condom protection. 

I sincerely mean no offense and I sincerely appreciate your help. But can I trust my current result? I feel too much anxiety even approaching a doctor and asking for another test. 

It is difficult to put meaningful numbers to condom efficacy. For any single exposure, a carefully applied, properly used condom that doesn't break can be considered 100% protective against HIV acquisiton by vaginal or anal sex, especially for the insertive (male) partner. However, condoms often are not used perfectly and sometimes they break. Therefore, people who rely on condoms as their main prevention strategy probably have about a 90% reduction in HIV risk. (Same for conception:  overall only 90% reduced pregnancy risk, taking into account human error and other failures.) I used 99% as a rough example for the purpose of the calculation. Don't hang your hat on it. And don't worry about it -- if you plug 90% into my analysis, i.e. using 0.1 instead of 0.01, you'll see that the risk you were infected remains extremely low.

It is nonsense that this exchange should have increased the odds you have HIV. That's silly. You can still trust that you do not have HIV. Why are you having so much trouble just accepting the reasoned, science-based reassurance I have given you, as almost all people would in this situation. You're really working hard to prove to me and to yourself that you really were at risk and that your fears are justified. They are not. But this isn't a debate. I suggest you re-read my replies and concentrate on them, then move on with your life. 

That completes the two follow-up replies included with each question, and so ends this thread. Take care and stay safe.