quote from fearfire.

"
Abbott's recommendation of window period is 16-23 days but by 2 weeks, many cases can be detected. I am very confident that you will continue to test negative.
"

I am wondering about the accuracy of the test done on 10days after possible exposure.

Many many thanks.

Nessie123

Hi Doctor HHH:

If you remeber me, I am from China and posted my message 2 weeks ago.  I had a sex encounter with a sex worker 1 month ago and the condom was broken.  I don't know if I need to donate $15 to post a question again.

I just had my 4 weeks EIA antibody done and it came out negative.
1) Do you think i should be home free now.  Can i have sex with my regular partner?

2) Do I think I need a PCR test?

Thanks so much. You have been giving me a lot of useful advises.

Again, I apologize. I have a wireless network that froze.
I see that the message was sent nearly 4 times.

I WILL NOT POST ANYMORE COMMENTS ON ANY OF THE FORUMS.

Again, I am sorry for this.

Brian

Hi Again,

I get the point!!!!! :)  Computer glitches will happen.  With repsect to the Mass 6 week window being conclusive...its not really anything that is hidden....its on there website.  Just google it and let me know what u think.

Hi....I have been reading the forum for quite sometime and posted myself.  This thread(and the testing???? thread) really speaks to the heart of what I believe to be the main problem with WW's and the window period.  I believe Johhny V's comments to hold a great deal of validity...however(like I said i have been a silent observer for a long time) I recall on one thread where Johnny had written that he wished he knew about the 6 week window as being conclusive in Mass- so as the stress that he endured during those next 42 days would have lessened(inferring Johnny, sorry if I am wrong in my assumptions).  

On the subject matter of the CDC, Mass., and testing window and what Brian spoke about....this is what is somewhat confusing to me.  Ok, the CDC has to account for EVERYONE in the US. Fair enough.  What about Mass.?  Don't they have an obligation to the population of their state.  Shouldnt they observe a window period that will GUARANTEE complete conclusivness.  And if I recall on one particular thread...Will stating that Home Access was considered to be conclusive in Mass(and I believe still uses 1st gen ELISA testing-but I am not completely certain of that fact). So, i guess what im saying is that maybe 6 weeks really is sufficient.  Maybe, we all have to wait 13 weeks...but getting tested @ 6 weeks and getting a negative result should be "almost as good as gold"...and hearing that from Dr HHH...regardless of underlying emotional factors(and there is no doubt Johnny that they exist....if they didn't this site would have no visitors as at all) is extremely helpful.

Anyway....not sure if that rambling made sense...but like I said at the beginning...this thread was extremely intersting and I felt compelled to say something.

Keep up the great work Dr HHH.........

This is an interesting discussion. As for people obsessing over HIV, and whether they have contracted it or not, I do not believe it has anything to do with latent prejudice against any group of people who typically "bear the brunt of the disease". I think that's being too hard on them.

You state:

"Maybe I've just gotten deadened to the stresses of the window period since I'm one of the high-risk boogeymen (a man who has sex with men!!!!) who has to wait the longest all the time anyway."  

I assume you mean 3 months?  I too am of the high risk category (MSM).
Whether or not your of high or low risk, 3 months is more than adequate for any risk (high or low).  Just curious, is this what you were trying to convey in your message?

As far as 6 months, MSM is still an antiquated standard proposed by CDC and other agencies who propogate this message.

Other than that, I agree TOTALLY with the rest of your message. Most people who post messages on here are obssessing over guilt-ridden issues relating to extra-marital affairs, one-time risks out of their relationships, or lack of general knowledge of HIV/AIDS

Brian

Here's a simple question in Dr H's tradition of "Keep it Simple, Stupid":

Is it really so hard to just wait another 42 days to get the 12 week test? If you've made it 6 weeks, can't you just hang in there for another 6 weeks?

Maybe I've just gotten deadened to the stresses of the window period since I'm one of the high-risk boogeymen (a man who has sex with men!!!!) who has to wait the longest all the time anyway.

I admire Dr H's patience in trying to calm down all the people who want 100% satisfaction after 6 weeks, but maybe he needs to be firmer with the people who post on this website. If you're in a panic over a low-risk encounter after 6 weeks and can't wait another 6 weeks because you feel like the suspense would kill you, then I think you have problems that go way beyond HIV and need to think more about the big questions in your life.

Is there some task that you procrastinate by obsessing over HIV?
Are you deathly afraid of people judging you?
Do you have a crippling fear of being associated with society's undesirables?
Are you yourself a little prejudiced against gay men, promiscuous people, the poor, drug users, and others who carry the brunt of this disease?
Have you been hiding some unsavory side of yourself and putting on a false front that now you fear will be exposed?

It's easy, if the real issue is one of the things above, to project everything onto a little retrovirus. But if you stop and think about it, HIV is probably not as much of a risk as some other aspect of your attitude about yourself and your place in a larger social context.

I like the KISS rule. Keep it simple, stupid. The window is 3 months, wait 3 months, and while you're waiting, work on being happy every way you can.

J

I don't want to sound like I am brown nosing Dr. H here, but I think the difference is that Dr. H tends to practice a little reasoning behind his advice instead of just blindly stating a minimum of 3 months, which any idiot could do. Those that are so worried after a low risk exposure who can't wait 3 months probably do have a deeper issue. Many of them that are worried about HIV AT ALL after their "risk", no matter how long they are willing to wait, may indicate that there is another problem at work.

But addressing a person's mental health is not the goal of the particular forum, nor trying to figure out how guilty a person should feel. I think giving practical medical judgment (the way it has been done) is a better approach. He bases his KISS method on probability, which makes sense to me.

"Hmmm....I am getting really confused as to why you have changed your FIRM belief in a 6 week HIV test. Now you are recommending a 3 month test. I understand thats the recommendation from the CDC  (that is incorrect) but YOU used to say 6 weeks is almost 100% conclusive. I have been following your forums for quite some time now, and have noticed your responses to testing has recently changed. Did something happen that made you change your mind on that?? Just wondering."


(see what I had typed above in parenthesis.)

As stated in my previous thread to "scared" under the title of "testing?????" you will see why the CDC still sticks to 6 months. Three months is considered more than highly acccurate (in NY, many other states in the U.S. and all of Canada) considered that the variables for which someone is testing is not altered (see the thread stated in this same paragraph).

I think, and he may correct me if I am wrong, MD HHH is suggesting 6 weeks as highly probable of individuals affected with HIV to show up positive on a test because the likelihood of them showing up for a positive result is more than 90% accurate...as research suggests. I also do agree with him that he does adhere and suggest the 3 month standard (even though not in strict adherence with CDC policies) for liability and common practices.  Numerous states  have adopted this time frame  (3 months) as a legitimate window period of infection.

Person(s) that exhibit highly risky situations should test @ 6 weeks, and if needed, @ 3 months. The only problem that is exhibited on this forum is suggestive to individuals who "believe" that their risk is considered "high risk" when indeed it is not at all.  These persons often do not believe nor take the advice provided to them, thus foresaking appropriate, well-provided advice from someone who is clearly knowledgeable (MD HHH) on this forum.  This is why this "type" of question is reiterated in variable forms on this forum.

Brian

I don't know whether you posted this before or after you looked at my comment in the thread below (testing?????), where you also posted a response.  My perspective is explained there.  The only thing that has changed is the amount of time I am willing to devote to keep typing the same response repeatedly.  It's easier to generalize (e.g., "6-12 weeks") than to repeat the more complex explanation.

HHH, MD

Hmmm....I am getting really confused as to why you have changed your FIRM belief in a 6 week HIV test.  Now you are recommending a 3 month test.  I understand thats the recommendation from the CDC but YOU used to say 6 weeks is almost 100% conclusive. I have been following your forums for quite some time now, and have noticed your responses to testing has recently changed.  Did something happen that made you change your mind on that??  Just wondering.

Hi confused31

Your English is not bad at all :-) I am from China (Hong Kong) too. Your p24 and antibody tests at 2 weeks is very encouraging but not conclusive. You will need to get a re-test at 4-6 weeks to be certain. At 6 weeks almost all infected individuals will turn positive.

Abbott's recommendation of window period is 16-23 days but by 2 weeks, many cases can be detected. I am very confident that you will continue to test negative.

Good luck,
FF

I am sorry. I forgot to tell you that both tests came out Negative at 14 days.

Your English is fine.

Two weeks is too soon for the antibody test; the P24 test often will be positive by then, but to be certain you aren't infected you need standard antibody (EIA) testing at 6-12 weeks. But remember the risks always are low for any single episode of unprotected vaginal sex--somewhere around 1 chance in 1000, even if the sex worker had HIV.  So the odds are very strong your follow-up test results also will be negative.

As far as other STDs are concerned, the chance you acquired anything are low in the absence of symptoms.  The likely risks are for gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and herpes; for hepatitis B if you aren't immune or vaccinated, as you probably are; and for HPV, but there is no test for that possibility.  You could be tested at any time for gonorrhea and chlamydia.  For syphilis, you need to wait at least 6 weeks; and for HSV, 3 months.

Bottom line:  Consider a urine test now for gonorrhea and chlamydia; and blood tests for everything else (including follow-up HIV) at 3 months.  You can also wait 3 months for the gonorrhea and chlamydia testing, as long as you do not develop symptoms and don't have a regular partner you are putting at risk.

Good luck--  HHH, MD