Aa
A different question
Sorry, I posted this in the wrong area earlier. Hope I get it right this time!
Firstly thanks so much for all the time and effort you devote to reassuring people with worries about HIV.
My story is that I had unprotested sex with a prostitute in Malaysia eight weeks ago and developed symptomse two weeks later which eventually convinced me I had been infected. Mainly night sweats (every night), loss of appetite and weight loss, burning pain on the inside of both elbows.
I took an HIV test at 7 weeks which came back negative two days ago. Since then I've read all that you have said about the modern tests being about 99% reliable at that stage, and I am now much more hopeful and optimistic.
Incidentally, the clinic in Scotland where I was tested told me that the negative result was "a good sign" but that I had to wait twelve weeks. They asked me how I planned to cope during the four weeks until the next test. It intruiges me that, given the weight of evidence you present, they don't try to reassure at that stage. Surely they could say something like the tests are at least 90% reliable at 7 weeks. Doctors routinely put percentages on things in other settings.
I am not asking you to repeat the stats on the reliability of the test at various stages. My question is this: If I was having symptoms (such as night sweats) weeks before I took a test and the symptoms were HIV related would that mean I should test positive. I have no medical knowledge but it seems that symptoms are a sign of seroconversion taking place, during which antibodies would be produced.
Firstly thanks so much for all the time and effort you devote to reassuring people with worries about HIV.
My story is that I had unprotested sex with a prostitute in Malaysia eight weeks ago and developed symptomse two weeks later which eventually convinced me I had been infected. Mainly night sweats (every night), loss of appetite and weight loss, burning pain on the inside of both elbows.
I took an HIV test at 7 weeks which came back negative two days ago. Since then I've read all that you have said about the modern tests being about 99% reliable at that stage, and I am now much more hopeful and optimistic.
Incidentally, the clinic in Scotland where I was tested told me that the negative result was "a good sign" but that I had to wait twelve weeks. They asked me how I planned to cope during the four weeks until the next test. It intruiges me that, given the weight of evidence you present, they don't try to reassure at that stage. Surely they could say something like the tests are at least 90% reliable at 7 weeks. Doctors routinely put percentages on things in other settings.
I am not asking you to repeat the stats on the reliability of the test at various stages. My question is this: If I was having symptoms (such as night sweats) weeks before I took a test and the symptoms were HIV related would that mean I should test positive. I have no medical knowledge but it seems that symptoms are a sign of seroconversion taking place, during which antibodies would be produced.
A related discussion, elisa was started.
a 4 weeks elisa blood test is 99%accurate and a 6 weeks elisa blood test is 100%accurate as i read in many lectures and in many books about hiv and infectious diseases, but many doctors they still wait 3 monthes for accurate results and in my opinion this something very silly ,because the immune sysytem in 1 month surely will develop a big amount of antibodies against hiv .
I finally went for a test at 12 weeks, which turned out to be negative.
The clinic in Glasgow were not as re-assuring as I feel they have a right to be. The nurse who took the sample at 12 weeks said that the 7 week negative was 'a good sign'. These were exactly the words used by a different nurse who delivered my 7 week negative result.
The clinic in Glasgow were not as re-assuring as I feel they have a right to be. The nurse who took the sample at 12 weeks said that the 7 week negative was 'a good sign'. These were exactly the words used by a different nurse who delivered my 7 week negative result.
Curseoflust, the reason they say that in Boston is because they test people all day. The clinic i go to i never took a test at 6 weeks but i'v takeing one at 8-weeks the rapid test and it was neg they told me i didn't have to come back. Alot of people test pos at this clinic, they treat people for hiv infection it's the gay and lesbion center. I'm not gay, i go there because they give the naat, which can tell if a person is infected within the last 12 days. I'm going to call a conselor i know their on Monday. On one web site they say 3 months, but then they tell people if they took a test at 6 weeks it is very unlikely that it will change.This what they say at Aidsmeds.com and i'v never seen them be wrong yet.Peace.
I just want to thank everyone for their help and advice.
If it weren't for the information on this site I would still be in full panic mode. As things stand I'm optimistic that I can get on with life. In the past few days since I tested negative at 7 weeks and read the docs advice I have started trying to eat food instead of just living off scotch and cigarettes. I changed my clothes yesterday!
Although I'm not 100% certain that I'm HIV negative, I feel like thinking about life again. I don't know if I'll go back to the GUM clinic and test again at 12 weeks, as they advised. My current thinking is that I will just get a home test kit and do that at week 9/10, and leave it at that (assuming it's negative). The only thing that could change my stance is if I were to discover that the NHS testing is behind the times. I did find a post that suggested it was, but they said to me at the clinic that they were using 4th generation tests.
Although I live in Scotland, I called the HIV hotline in Boston (MASS) because that's the only other place (I know of) where they say you can be 99% confident of a negative at six weeks. I wanted to know if there was a special reason they had gone out on a limb. Although the Boston stance on reliability of six week tests is mentioned on this forum, the person I spoke to there had never heard of medhelp.
Of course, I did have a lot of "symptoms", and my doctor has suggested a batch of tests to rule out other possible illnesses.
Anyway, rightly or wrongly, I feel optimistic. My heart goes out to everyone out there grinding through the "window period".
If it weren't for the information on this site I would still be in full panic mode. As things stand I'm optimistic that I can get on with life. In the past few days since I tested negative at 7 weeks and read the docs advice I have started trying to eat food instead of just living off scotch and cigarettes. I changed my clothes yesterday!
Although I'm not 100% certain that I'm HIV negative, I feel like thinking about life again. I don't know if I'll go back to the GUM clinic and test again at 12 weeks, as they advised. My current thinking is that I will just get a home test kit and do that at week 9/10, and leave it at that (assuming it's negative). The only thing that could change my stance is if I were to discover that the NHS testing is behind the times. I did find a post that suggested it was, but they said to me at the clinic that they were using 4th generation tests.
Although I live in Scotland, I called the HIV hotline in Boston (MASS) because that's the only other place (I know of) where they say you can be 99% confident of a negative at six weeks. I wanted to know if there was a special reason they had gone out on a limb. Although the Boston stance on reliability of six week tests is mentioned on this forum, the person I spoke to there had never heard of medhelp.
Of course, I did have a lot of "symptoms", and my doctor has suggested a batch of tests to rule out other possible illnesses.
Anyway, rightly or wrongly, I feel optimistic. My heart goes out to everyone out there grinding through the "window period".
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
I have explained this many times, but here it is again. My advice about timing of testing always takes into account the overall risk, not test performace alone.
Situation A: Receving oral sex (risk 1 in 10,000) with someone with a 1% risk of having HIV, test at 4 weeks, when ~90% of infected people will be positive: Likelihood of HIV after the negative test is 0.0001 x 0.01 x 0.1 = 1 in 10 million.
Situation B: Receptive anal sex with an unknown male in a bath house, 1 in 100 risk of infection, 20% chance the partner had HIV, 4 week test with 90% performance: Likelihood of HIV is 0.01 x 0.2 x 0.1 = 0.0002. That's 2 in 10,000, or 1 in 5,000. Quite low, so the 4 week result is reassuring. But still, most people will not be happy with those odds. So this person needs testing at 6 weeks (99% test performance, odds now 1 in 50,000) or even at 12 weeks for 100% reassurance.
Exact same test, different levels of reassurance. This translates into different advice depending on the level of risk described by the exposed person. One of these days I'll get around to putting this in the FAQs. I'm getting tired of repeating it!
HHH, MD
Situation A: Receving oral sex (risk 1 in 10,000) with someone with a 1% risk of having HIV, test at 4 weeks, when ~90% of infected people will be positive: Likelihood of HIV after the negative test is 0.0001 x 0.01 x 0.1 = 1 in 10 million.
Situation B: Receptive anal sex with an unknown male in a bath house, 1 in 100 risk of infection, 20% chance the partner had HIV, 4 week test with 90% performance: Likelihood of HIV is 0.01 x 0.2 x 0.1 = 0.0002. That's 2 in 10,000, or 1 in 5,000. Quite low, so the 4 week result is reassuring. But still, most people will not be happy with those odds. So this person needs testing at 6 weeks (99% test performance, odds now 1 in 50,000) or even at 12 weeks for 100% reassurance.
Exact same test, different levels of reassurance. This translates into different advice depending on the level of risk described by the exposed person. One of these days I'll get around to putting this in the FAQs. I'm getting tired of repeating it!
HHH, MD
Because the percentage of accuracy increases as time goes on. Six weeks is accurate and probably MORE than enough for the low/no risk encounters everyone worries about on this forum. But if you had a greater chance of having actually contracted HIV from an encounter (unprotected receptive anal with a known HIV positive partner, etc.), you also have a greater chance of slipping through the cracks, of being one of the tiny percentage who would test positive after six weeks but before three months.
I don't understand why people in this forum look at risk and then equate it to length of time until results are accurate. Many people in this forum think 28 days is enough. Most all think 6 weeks is sufficient. And then people look at the risk and say that 6 weeks isn't good enough and you need a 12 week test???
Why should risk have anything to do with the time in which a test should be taken and how accurate the results are? What gives?
Why should risk have anything to do with the time in which a test should be taken and how accurate the results are? What gives?
As I'm sure you've read, symptoms are not a reliable indicator of HIV infection. If your symptoms had been due to primary HIV infection, I imagine that you would have tested positive at 7 weeks (since recovering from ARS indicates that the body has mounted an immune response).
Of course, given the rate of infection in Malaysia and Thailand, you did have a high risk encounter, so a test at 12-13 weeks is likely warranted, just to be sure.
But your negative result at 7 weeks is extremely encouraging.
Of course, given the rate of infection in Malaysia and Thailand, you did have a high risk encounter, so a test at 12-13 weeks is likely warranted, just to be sure.
But your negative result at 7 weeks is extremely encouraging.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
In direct response to your question, you are exactly right: if your symptoms were due to HIV, you would definitely have had a positive test soon after they started. In this circumstance, your 7 week test is close to 100% reliable. Waiting 12 weeks is conservative advice; for practical purposes, you can be certain you don't have HIV. But it's fine with me if you want to follow up with a second test 3 months after your Malaysia exposure.
Thanks for the thanks about the forum. Good luck-- HHH, MD
Thanks for the thanks about the forum. Good luck-- 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.
