If you believe you have been exposed to HIV and want help to judge your risk, would like advice about HIV testing, or have questions about the effectiveness of condoms or risks associated with specific sexual practices, this is the site for you.
I'm confused as to why Doc HHH said my negative test was conclusive at 6 weeks. I know he said my exposure was no risk but let's say by some freak accident which I pray to God did not happen (considering I do have bad gums/teeth) the girl I kissed was bleeding a little in her mouth and it got into a sore or mucous membrane in my mouth. Why would a 6 week negative be conclusive when I've seen the DOC recommend testing again for certain people at 3 months? Why would the risk matter? I would assume that no matter how HIV is transmitted it would produce the same type of seroconversion would it not? And if the doc says that all people will definitely develop detectable antibodies within 2 weeks of onset of symptoms then why do ALL people not test positive by 6 weeks if most people (90%) have ARS within a couple of weeks of being exposed?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's too inconsistent - this makes me think that I have to test all the way out to 3 months. How do I know if I am one of those people who has not developed detectable antibodies yet???
Tests are conclusive for virtually everyone at 6 weeks (over 99%), and those who need to test out longer are generally people with seriously depleted immune systems due to cancer treatment/IV drug use etc. If you were one of these people you wouldn't be sitting here typing away on an online forum, believe me.
But....if you had engaged in a really, really high risk activity, would you not test out to three months? If you had unprotected receptive anal sex in a bath house with a known HIV+ partner, the chances are you'd test out to three months JUST to be sure. If you read his replies, you'll realise that he rarely advises this.
Finally, he has recently stated that at a gathering of HIV experts last November, 300 experts were asked had they ever seen a negative 6-8 week test turn positive, and not one of them had. Not one of them.
But all of this is irrelevant to you as you didn't have a risk
I swear, this will be my absolute LAST reply to you. I think this is making your irrational paranoia worse, not better. I did YOUR WORK FOR YOU, and searched Dr. HHH's archives. It took 5 minutes. YOU COULD HAVE HAD THE ANSWER without asking.
"OK, here it is again (for at least the 10th time).
Assume a low risk exposure, like a typical heterosexual exposure with a partner of unknown (but probably negative) HIV status. Say the odds someone acquired HIV were 1 chance in 100,000. Now assume a test is 95% accurate at 4 weeks and 99.9% accurate at 3 months. After a negative test at 4 weeks, the odds the person has HIV (despite the test result) is 0.00001 x 0.05 = 0.0000005. That's 5 in 10 million, or once chance in 2 million. That's so low to be considered zero. (It's 75 time LESS than the lifetime chance of someone living in the US being killed by a lightning strike!)
Now assume a very high risk exposure, like a gay man who has unprotected anal sex with a known-infected partner (or being raped by an infected man). The odds of infection might be 1%, i.e. 1 in 100. Test negative at 4 weeks. The odds the person has HIV despite the negative test are 0.01 x 0.05 - 0.0005. That's 1 chance in 2000. Pretty low, and the test result is reassuring. But not nearly reassuring enough; most people will not accept a 1 in 2000 risk of being infected an not knowing it. Therefore, that person needs another test at 3 months. At that time, a negative test result translates into 0.01 x 0.001 = 0.00001, 1 chance in 100,000.
Same test, but the differenence in circumstances leads to different levels of reassurance. The bottom line is that the higher the risk, the more important it is to carry out testing to a later time, such as 8 weeks or even 3 months. The lower the risk, the less it matters to wait that long.
Only you can decide whether you "need" testing as long as 3 months after exposure. But for most people, a single test at 4-6 weeks is sufficient. (If you're going to worry about the possibility of HIV despite a risk of less than 1 in a million, I have to assume you never drive, don't cross busy streets, and never take commercial flights--all of which have a much higher chance of killing you.)
I was going to say if you don't understand or are not reassured by this, you are seriously disturbed...but I think I already have the answer to this question. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A RISK ANYWAY, SO ITS ALL IRRELEVANT.
HOW MANY FREAKING TIMES DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO SAY THE SAME THING TO YOU?
Test all you want, if you don't believe us. I could care less. Just STOP ASKING about it, and do whatever it takes to reassure yourself. BUT STOP ASKING ABOUT IT HERE. Why do you feel you have to get "answers" here, when OBVIOUSLY the only thing that will reassure you is testing?
BUY SOME FRIGGING TESTS OVER THE INTERNET OR AT THE DRUGSTORE if you want to. TEST EVERY DAY. WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET YOU TO STOP ASKING ABOUT YOUR NON-RISK EVENT.
This isn't about HIV. It's about your deep seated mental issues. I honestly believe that you're the type of person that's going to test out to six months or even longer, because no boundaries of reason apply to you. I guarantee you that you weren't infected. I've probably written this a thousand times now, but you just don't want to believe us. You believe you're HIV positive. Only you can turn that round.
So test away for as long as you like. But it won't heal your anxiety. Only you looking in the mirror, realising how silly you're being and saying 'I am HIV negative' will end all this.
I thought you were through talking to this guy? You might want to recommend to him that he checks himself into the mental health ward of a hospital, in all seriousness. I know he said he was seeing a shrink, but I think this guy needs serious help. Anyone with that much anxiety over nothing is going to do something dangerous to himself or someone else eventually.
I'd say you were either lying about your result or your exposure. It's like trying to convince us you saw the boogyman in your bedroom. If it is a legitimate concern, it boils down to paranoia and delusions.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.