Aa
I need to know Conclusively if I need to retest
I already had tested at 5 weeks (neg) and am planning on retesting at 9 weeks (which will be this coming Tues).
My question is simple: having read almost all of the posts on this site (including your respone to my post), I had felt better about my situation (I had posted earlier about giving oral sex to a man with ejaculation and the kiss a few weeks later with blood as I had bit his gum)- however when I checked out thebody.com (which many on this site had recommended), the Doctor on that site told everyone that 3 months is conclusive and anything less is not!
I realize that my risk level to begin with was very low (and I am heeding your advice not to worry about the kiss- so now the only incident that concerns me was the oral- I know you said not to worry about it as it was only one incident but knowing that there is a realistic risk, albeit minimal, I cannot forget about it). I am getting involved in a new relationship and even if the chance of having HIV is ridiculously slim, I would not feel right having unprotected sex unless I knew conclusively that I was fine. Therefore, should I wait out the 3 months or would the 9 week test be fine? Thank you very much!
My question is simple: having read almost all of the posts on this site (including your respone to my post), I had felt better about my situation (I had posted earlier about giving oral sex to a man with ejaculation and the kiss a few weeks later with blood as I had bit his gum)- however when I checked out thebody.com (which many on this site had recommended), the Doctor on that site told everyone that 3 months is conclusive and anything less is not!
I realize that my risk level to begin with was very low (and I am heeding your advice not to worry about the kiss- so now the only incident that concerns me was the oral- I know you said not to worry about it as it was only one incident but knowing that there is a realistic risk, albeit minimal, I cannot forget about it). I am getting involved in a new relationship and even if the chance of having HIV is ridiculously slim, I would not feel right having unprotected sex unless I knew conclusively that I was fine. Therefore, should I wait out the 3 months or would the 9 week test be fine? Thank you very much!
Like 1 in 10,000. 'Bout the same as getting struck by lightning.
I have added a post regarding my personal experience in the "Testing after rape" thread.
This might shed some light on the window period that some professionals are not able to give due to the nature of their work. Do not take anything I said as the be-all and end-all but I want you to feel more reassured by what I have gone through.
Cheers,
Iggy
This might shed some light on the window period that some professionals are not able to give due to the nature of their work. Do not take anything I said as the be-all and end-all but I want you to feel more reassured by what I have gone through.
Cheers,
Iggy
I understand you may get frustrated as many posts seem similar to others on here, but please understand that I am a REAL PERSON with INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS. All I wanted was a response to my personal question and perhaps yes, your response may be similar to others you have already given, but keep in mind that if I am anxious beyond belief, I am willing to charge my question to my credit card, please do not be so dismissive. Perhaps I worded my question wrong- I know nothing is 100% but I meant close to it- and I am still VERY confused- I did read your response to the rape victim (my heart goes out to her), but that combined with what I read on the body.com site, I am just more and more confused. Even my doctors disagree! My gyn said 6 weeks is fine, my gen prat. said 3 months- I don't know who to believe anymore. Yes, I can just wait out the 3 months but I already have a doc appt this week (9 weeks after) and I don't want to have to postpone and keep my anxiety going if I do not have to. PLEASE write back. Thank you very much.
Oh and your risk wasn't actually 1 in 2000, that was an example of a more serious risk exposure. Yours is much much much... lower.
Here goes...
When you consider the statistic about Elisa test accuracy they are based on actual numbers of people diagnosed with HIV after a certain period of time. This window period is called seroconversion as I'm sure you know.
So to say that the test is 90& accurate at 4 weeks means that around 90% percent of people diagnosed with HIV who feel they know the exact time of particular exposure will test positive by 4 weeks (will start seroconverting by 4 weeks) . I think most will seroconvert within 21 days or so, I've read 25 days in few places but that's still within the 4 week mark. Hence why you get this particular statistic. Going by what a well established AIDS organisation here in Australia provided me with at 6 weeks neg you're close to 96%, 8 - 98% and by 3 months you're at 99.9%.
One thing you must note is that some of these statistics (perhaps the larger part) are based on findings during the earlier years of the epidemic. I.E. when testing methods used were earlier generations and fairly ineffective in detecting anitbodies promptly enough. Obviously we have made leaps in that technology and today most people will tend to say around 6 weeks should do.
I know it's confusing but you have to realise what a professional who has to take into account all possibilities will be able to say. They can assess your risks and base their findings on the researched and well established formulas for transmission risk. All they can give you is your chances. Not to scare you but 1 in 2000 is still a chance and when you're dealing with HIV it's someting people dont want to mess around with. As the weeks go on and you test negative those chances become so small that they should be looked at from a realistic perspective. Yes you still have a chance but you have an incredibly good chance of NOT having HIV and a very very bad chance of having HIV. Look at the link the doc posted. It'll show you just how minimal your odds are after even 5 weeks.
As long as the leading health government bodies advocate a period of 3 months all professionals are forced to say that for your peace of mind, to be absolutely sure beyond any reasonable doubt, you should test at 3 months. Some will tell you anything before that is not sufficient (I got that from Bob on the body). Others such as one of the more experienced in the field, Dr HHH themself, will provide you with a more factual answer.
I'm not going to get into a body vs medhelp discussion here but all I'm trying tell you is that you have to consider the whole picture. If the CDC said 6 weeks is sufficient, so would Dr Bob. Dr HHH wouldn't have to worry about the good ol' window period question either because he could simply say "It's 6 weeks." AAhhhh, wouldn't that be nice!?
You are like me. Nothing anyone tells you will ever fix up the instability we feel in our minds over a situation such as the one we're going through. Take my risk for e.g. It was much greater than yours and I had far more basis for concern. If that doesn't make you feel better than simply test out to 3 months and you'll see you are HIV negative.
When you consider the statistic about Elisa test accuracy they are based on actual numbers of people diagnosed with HIV after a certain period of time. This window period is called seroconversion as I'm sure you know.
So to say that the test is 90& accurate at 4 weeks means that around 90% percent of people diagnosed with HIV who feel they know the exact time of particular exposure will test positive by 4 weeks (will start seroconverting by 4 weeks) . I think most will seroconvert within 21 days or so, I've read 25 days in few places but that's still within the 4 week mark. Hence why you get this particular statistic. Going by what a well established AIDS organisation here in Australia provided me with at 6 weeks neg you're close to 96%, 8 - 98% and by 3 months you're at 99.9%.
One thing you must note is that some of these statistics (perhaps the larger part) are based on findings during the earlier years of the epidemic. I.E. when testing methods used were earlier generations and fairly ineffective in detecting anitbodies promptly enough. Obviously we have made leaps in that technology and today most people will tend to say around 6 weeks should do.
I know it's confusing but you have to realise what a professional who has to take into account all possibilities will be able to say. They can assess your risks and base their findings on the researched and well established formulas for transmission risk. All they can give you is your chances. Not to scare you but 1 in 2000 is still a chance and when you're dealing with HIV it's someting people dont want to mess around with. As the weeks go on and you test negative those chances become so small that they should be looked at from a realistic perspective. Yes you still have a chance but you have an incredibly good chance of NOT having HIV and a very very bad chance of having HIV. Look at the link the doc posted. It'll show you just how minimal your odds are after even 5 weeks.
As long as the leading health government bodies advocate a period of 3 months all professionals are forced to say that for your peace of mind, to be absolutely sure beyond any reasonable doubt, you should test at 3 months. Some will tell you anything before that is not sufficient (I got that from Bob on the body). Others such as one of the more experienced in the field, Dr HHH themself, will provide you with a more factual answer.
I'm not going to get into a body vs medhelp discussion here but all I'm trying tell you is that you have to consider the whole picture. If the CDC said 6 weeks is sufficient, so would Dr Bob. Dr HHH wouldn't have to worry about the good ol' window period question either because he could simply say "It's 6 weeks." AAhhhh, wouldn't that be nice!?
You are like me. Nothing anyone tells you will ever fix up the instability we feel in our minds over a situation such as the one we're going through. Take my risk for e.g. It was much greater than yours and I had far more basis for concern. If that doesn't make you feel better than simply test out to 3 months and you'll see you are HIV negative.
Your risk from giving oral was astronomically low, but if it makes you feel better to test at nine weeks, go ahead. You can definitely trust your negative result.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
I do not give people "conclusive" advice. I only assess the odds. Read this comment I posted just yesterday: http://www.medhelp.org/forums/hiv/messages/558.html. Scroll down to comment C9. Then do whatever you want.
HHH, MD
HHH, MD
You are reading content posted in the HIV - Prevention Forum
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
