3 Months

Why do people keep saying that Chemo and immuno suppressed blah blah blah are the 3% that take more than 3 months to convert? The CDC website simply does not say that. Part of the website says that it can take up to 6 months with no reason given as to why it just says its rare and one of the new testing modules suggests 3 months is conslusive but yet if you call the CDC they will say 6 months is conslusive. Oh yeah and anyone responding please don't say it is just that they dont update what the script readers read. Really? Is that what we are supposed to believe on an issue this important? They would just add to  the spread of the virus?

[LIZZIE LOU]

dr. hansfield explaination of the cdc hotline:

It's appropriate that you and others who call CDC's national HIV/STD hotline do not actually reach CDC, but a contract answering service company.  The telephone personnel there are not health professionals, not even health educators -- just low-paid lay persons with minimal training. They are required to give standard, stock answers.  I'm certain some of them learn on the job, and sometimes people probably get accurate, individualized advice.  But it's hit or miss at best.

The situation is quite unfortunate. CDC's contractor for the hotline used to be the American Social Health Association (www.ashastd.org), a highly professional agency that Dr. Hook and I often recommend for excellent STD/HIV advice.  (Both of us serve on ASHA's Board of Directors.)  Because of a government contracting policy, however, around 3 years ago CDC was required to select a less expensive and, no surprise (you get what you pay for) less professional company to provide hotline services.  The selected company had no prior experience in STD/HIV issues and even today, knows only what CDC provides them.  Most people needing personalized telephone advice about STD/HIV prevention will be better served by local phone services provided by local or state health departments or community based organizations -- or outfits like ASHA.

[AfraidMistake]

Well In that case I guess the CDC just does not care much about subcontracting shoddy service to spread misinformation? Good info thanks Lizzie just very disconcerting at best..... Why don't they care to give out accurate up to date info about stopping the spread of disease?

[Teak]

No they don't and they don't care about maintaining their websites with up to date information either.

[AfraidMistake]

There is the liability argument I suppose but I don't think you can bring a tort against the CDC regardless of what they say and your reliance about your infection status as nothing in science is 100% and they likely have governmental immunity from such torts anyways. This just does not make any sense....

[AfraidMistake]

Well is there another logical inference from the data we have, Teak?

[Teak]

It's called scientific medicial journals. AMA, JAMA etc. subscribe to them or go read them in your local medical library.

[AfraidMistake]

Just so I understand. You were not being sarcastic in your first post right? Your position is that the reliable data are in peer reviewed journals and for whatever reason the CDC does not give a **** about up to date information? Or have I misunderstood what you have stated?

[Teak]

I was giving you the facts that you have been receiving since you starting coming here. Now if you don't like the information you receive you can find another forum. It's that simple.

[AfraidMistake]

Ok, so we are in agreement then. I apologize but because of this medium it can be difficult to decipher the tone of certain statements. I actually find this to be a great wealth of knowledge and experience concerning HIV related issues. I have seen a few other forums but this one is by far I think the best. Both Dr. Hook and Dr. HHH have impeccable credentials. I think the forum regulars here seem to be pretty well versed in HIV issues as well. Don't you agree that it is odd that the CDC shows such lack of care on updating information concerning such a very gravely important health issue though?

[joggen]

What is so odd about a government agency leaving a conservative, CYA statement on their website?  

[Teak]

The Internet does not replace a doctor that specializes in a certain field. It helps give you an idea.

[AfraidMistake]

Well nothing really if in fact they would be exposed to liability otherwise but I'm not so sure that is the case. It seems to call into question whether 3 months is accurate but if nobody is testing negative at 3 months and then positive at 6 months, then why don't they just update it to 3 months?

[Teak]

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/gap/pmtct/Trainer%20Manual/Adobe/Module_6TM.pdf

Page 11
Number 4

Now that they have move on.

[AfraidMistake]

I'm glad they printed that manual, I like it alot better than what is on their webpage. Was it produced in 04?

[joggen]

If you read Dr. Hook and Dr. Hansfield's threads on the window period, they never recommend testing beyond 3 months.

[Teak]

It's the same that I've been getting since April 2004

[LIZZIE LOU]

it's time to accept your negative test result as being reliable and conclusive.  move on with your life.

[AfraidMistake]

True but this is kind of a scary quote from Doc HHH. "Therefore, estimates that say seroconversion occurs in any particular percentage of cases (95%, 97%, or 99% etc) at various intervals (6 wk, 3 mo., etc) are just that--estimates.  Clearly there are some people who acquire HIV and do not seroconvert for as long as 6 months.  (According to a colleague who is a true HIV testing expert, who I emailed about this yesterday, the probable mechanism is that in rare cases the virus remains inside white blood cells or other tissue cells, not breaking out into the bloodstream; and bloodstream exposure may be required for development of measurable antibody.)  This probably occurs in no more than 1% of infected persons."

[LIZZIE LOU]

* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
    * After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
    * Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
    * Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban

[Teak]

We're done here with this.


* Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to action by MedHelp. Conclusive negative results or a no-risk situation will be based up the criteria MedHelp’s doctors. Action will be taken as follows:
    * After excessive posting, a warning will be issued by MedHelp
    * Continuing to post regarding the negative result / no risk situation will result in a 3 day suspension
    * Continuing to post upon your return will result in a permanent ban.

[AfraidMistake]

I do see the mental health problem of excessive testing I mean at what point is it good enough? If those Hep C 1 year coinfection cases are true then it is possible to convert at year or later right? That is what is so frustrating about this. You can go crazy and test forever or just try to move on but how can you be sure you are not that rare case? a 3 month negative seems unlikely to change but isn't that also true of a 6 week? I think I'm losing my marbles.... I mean I agree it is exceedingly exceedingly unlikely but is it something to guess about? Maybe I just need to get mental help. I can't get past this mentally. I mean I've read so many posts here and it seems that no one test positive after three months. I think I had an obsessive personality anyways.... I'm just rambling. Thanks so much for this forum and all the knowledgeable people here. It is so awesome

[AfraidMistake]

Ouch. I like you guys. Granted I know I'm obsessing but jeez these are just questions.....

[Teak]

MOVE ON.

[LIZZIE LOU]

ditto

[AfraidMistake]

I know it is cliche but thanks for spreading good info it fights the spread and hopefully changes actions. I know this much, Ann at Aidsmeds really has this part right its the action not the person that is the risk. If people don't accept that the spread of virus is going to get even more out of control. So mad props to you guys. I will try to stop obsessing about the tiny possibility. Peace out and keep the good work y'all

[AfraidMistake]

hahaha lol