Nutrition Health Chat: Tuesday, Dec. 8th, 5-6 PM Eastern. Learn how vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients affect your health. Free live Q&A. Join us!
Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
Related discussions
-
CDC CHAT LOG-ABOUT WINDOW PERIOD (66 replies):Please wait for a site operator to respond. You are numb...[more]
-
Aids Action Hotline - 6 weeks [I called] (54 replies):I managed to talk to the councellor at the hotline and s...[more]
-
6-8 weeks (why 2 week range)? (69 replies):The good doctor on the Forum used to always quote 6 week...[more]
-
Teak. Where did you get this info? (26 replies):"Testing out to six months is only an issue when IV drug...[more]
-
HIV duo test positive AFTER 4 weeks (45 replies):Not really a question as such - trying to help resolve t...[more]
-
More Help on the 6-8 Week Testing (36 replies):Dr. HHH's comments essentially say that medically, 6-8 w...[more]
-
Could I please have your opinion on my test result? (16 replies):Subject: Could I please have your opinion on my test res...[more]
-
HIV Hotline states 6 weeks is very conclusive (24 replies):Here something i found that states 6 weeks can be very c...[more]
-
Accuracy of antibody testing these days? (36 replies):What's the accuracy at 25 days, 3 months, six months, an...[more]
Post Comment
Related Communities
Recent Videos
Related Expert Forums
Recent Activity
Most Popular Trackers
RSS
Expert Activity
Community Members
Popular Groups
http://www.orasure.com/uploaded/398.pdf (LIMITATIONS OF THE TEST #8)
http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/712.html
Posted just today in the forum he replies in.
said that they took.
if you are really RR from aidsmeds, why don't you just say so... Especially if you keep making snide comments to people who seek counsel in both forums.
Also, on the topic: my understanding is that the orasure tests due exactly the same as ELISA test, i.e. look for HIV antibodies. And do that with pretty much the same accuracy and sensitivity. Hence, the comment that 80-90% of people will test positive by 4 weeks (if we take that number as a given for seroconversion) is correct also for the Orasure test.
Quoting Dr HHH and other experts: kind of test or test generation do not matter post 2-3 weeks. Antibody development once it starts is exponential. The spread of the window period just comes from the different times when different people seroconvert.
Thats what Dr H says anyway. Ive come to trust Dr H.
8. A non-reactive does not preclude the possibility of exposure to HIV or infection with HIV. An antibody response to a recent exposure may take several months to reach a detectable level.
So to tell someone that they have an 80-90% accurate at 4 weeks, 95-99% at 6 weeks is absurd and incorrect, base on the information given by OraSure., the manufacture of the OraSure Advance test.
So your telling me that WE shouldnt believe what Dr H has to say about HIV, testing windows, and risks?
Still that qualifier, though: vast majority. What's up with that? Well, there are a handful of people who may acquire HIV in any given year who take longer to develop detectable antibodies than 6 weeks. Who are these people, and are you one of them? Before you start thinking that you are, let me say this: if you don't know that you are, you aren't. If you were, you would surely know it. Why? Because, the people who fall into this category are not your average bear - they are people with severely compromised immune systems. Chemotherapy patients, for instance. They aren't in good shape to begin with, and nor are their immune systems, so it doesn't really come as any surprise that their bodies cannot mount a response to an HIV infection. And when I say not in good shape, I don't mean that they feel a little bad each day, or that they have the sniffles, or that they are on some medication. No, I mean they are laid up in a hospital bed or are in some other dire circumstance.
The reason OraSure and every other company who makes tests as well as the CDC says 3 months is because of the above reason, and you know that.
If your not on chemo, or have a compromised immune system, or are an intervinus drug user. then there is no way your gonna test positive after a 6 week NEGATIVE.
So what exactly is your problem? and what are you scaring the **** out of people for?
See my above post for who will take longer then six weeks to become HIV+.
If you dont fall into that catigory then you wont take longer then six weeks.
Its all legal BS man and you know it, so again what exactly is your problem?
Until then im sticking with Dr H.
I most of the times do agree with you. However, certainly our views do not match regarding PCR DNA and RNA. One more thing I want to understand is that you quote a HIV test at 12/13 weeks conclusively negative. However, even CDC and at times thebody.org ask people with known risks to test way out to 6 months. You say you want to follow CDC and when CDC brings down window to 6 weeks, you will also change your advice. But, even currently, the CDC window to be 100% sure is 6 months. They still state 97% at 3 months on their website (forget about HIV training manual). Based on that I see a 2 faced approach from your side about this matter. If you really want to follow CDC, you should plainly speak 6 months window like Dr. Bob. You also tell that CDC is most conservative. Don't you think a company like Orasure will be equally conservative to save their behinds. And, if they were really not worried about the legal aspects, they would not use terms like several months. "several months" - what kind of an expression is that(not the least helpful).
I would really want to believe that what Dr. H says as a transmission and testing expert hold some weight. I understand that the percentage game is absurd but as a worried well I would not want to challenge it. Why would he give wrong information and state Orasure test in the modern test category and call it 80-90% at 4 weeks.
Even NY state believes that 96% seroconversions happen in 30 days. I, by any means am not criticising you or anyone as a matter of fact. However, I would like you to have consistent views about an organization which in this case is CDC. Right now, your words are implying that you believe CDC is extremely conservative organization which believes in 6 month theory. You on the other hand have better knowledge and understanding than CDC and believe in 12-13 week theory. But, when CDC comes down to 6 weeks, you will also come down to 6 weeks. So, in a nutshell, what you are saying is you ae not as conservative as CDC but in furure will follow them blindly. If you are still not following exact CDC guidelines, why say in future you will???
Again, by no means I am trying to criticise you but what I am doing is questioning your stand as I at a personal level take you in high esteem of someone who knows what he is talking about. Kindly clarify...
Peace bro!!!
No company will ever say 4-6 weeks is conclusive for LEGAL reasons ....so again ....WHATS YOUR PROBLEM??????????????
With MODERN testing a 6 week NEGATIVE turning POSITIVE doesnt happen unless you fall into one of the catigories we spoke of earlier.
The Dr here has never seen one ever even heard of it happening with modern testing.
Now I understand why Dumbo was so pissed off at you all the time.
I think you know alot about HIV and testing but, I dont believe your helping anyone by scaring them and telling them that their 6 week NEGATIVE really doesnt mean anything.
I had protected vag sex with a sex worker back in Sept, I had a 6 week NEGATIVE test, you think I should go and test again because my 6 week NEGATIVE isnt good enough?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Wow.
You do not agree people telling you that you did not have a risk. You do not agree that window period is 12/13 weeks for actual risks. For a non-existant risk like your 6 weeks is more than enough. You simply do not fit in the category which teak is talking about as you did not have a risk.
This thread was started by "cucamunga" and the testing guidelines that were stated were for him and not for you. I am sure you can at least agree that his risk was different than yours. I wonder why you are mixing up unprotected sex risks with protected sex non-risks.
Hey do you have a link to the NY State 96% 30 day thing? I just need some data to reassure myself.
teak:
Thank you for keeping it real.
Most people on here dont have a risk ...and even if they did have a risk a 6 week NEGATIVE with MODERN testing has never gone on to be POSITIVE.
NOBODY can give you 100% assurance at 6 weeks buts its as close to 100% as it gets.
Anyway Im done with this topic ....When someone can show me proof of a 6 week negative turning positive later on then I will change my mind about 6 weeks being enough for 99% of people who are tested.
Peace
of unprotected sex. You are making too much out of your non existing risk issues but we have genuine issues to worry about so please do not generalize things saying "most people don't have risks". You can not base statements as facts for advice given to people who are not in risk category.
cucamunga: hi...actually, i am using a new laptop as my old one crashed. I will need to do some search. Will post the % and resource shortly. currently, at work....
of unprotected sex. You are making too much out of your non existing risk issues but we have genuine issues to worry about so please do not generalize things saying "most people don't have risks". You can not base statements as facts for advice given to people who are not in risk category.
cucamunga: hi...actually, i am using a new laptop as my old one crashed. I will need to do some search. Will post the % and resource shortly. currently, at work....
The promblem is that we dont know if we should believe them because there are many different opinions about this window
Here is an other link:http://huhs.harvard.edu/HealthInformation/HivTesting.htm
I have decided to stop feeding into my fears with obsession and compulsive behavior. I have also decided to seek out psychological help, which I believe I have needed for a long time, as indicated by my propensity to risky behavior.
The HIV Antibody test is not a test for AIDS, but rather for the antibody that forms in response to the presence of HIV in the blood. The antibody can be detected in most people within six weeks to six months from the time of infection.
http://www.mass.gov/dph/cdc/factsheets/hivfac.htm
BUT if you call them at their hot line they would tell you that a six week test is highly accurate!if this is not true as you think so why they say something like that?can you tell me please?and why the doctor here has the same opinion?
of course it is not conclusive but highly accurate and yes could be some rare cases but you cant say that a test at this time is useless..
Anyway thanks for your help or for what ever you are trying to do here and stay well.
My HIV scare has been already posted in here if you actually cared to read my posts.
I know enough about HIV to know NOBODY ever tests POSITIVE after a 6 week NEGATIVE. Unless your have a compromised immune system, or on chemo, or an IV drug user, or a few other options with MODERN HIV testing.
I already know your story because I actually read what people post on here, So I wont ask you what your deal is because I already know.
You keep saying 6 week NEGATIVES turning POSITIVE later on have happened and do happen ...so Id like to see some proof of that?
If you cant prove it then shut your mouth.
Simple.
The reason they wont is because of people with compromised immune systems, chemo, Iv drugs, ect....
The people who fall into the above categorys I agree could take longer then 6 weeks.
From what Ive read it NEVER happens happens with MODERN testing.
I agree it could happen ....It just doesnt.
<<The EIA/card tests can be falsely-negative in very early HIV infection, for the first 4-12 weeks of infection. For example, patients with the acute HIV infection syndrome frequently have negative antibody tests.>> After this "window" period, false-negative tests in patients with HIV-1 infection are exceedingly rare. Patients with HIV type O infections may have negative EIA tests, although many HIV-1/HIV-2 EIAs detect a variable number of such patients; infections with this HIV type are very rare in the US. Patients who don't make antibody, due to immunosuppression or intrinsic humoral immune defects, may have negative assays. An unusual cause of false-negative tests is massive transfusion before testing. Not all test kits are known to detect HIV-2 antibodies; the Abbott assay used at HUP is known to detect these antibodies. Technical errors can result in false-negative tests, as can glove powder.
Immunoblot tests can be falsely-negative in early HIV disease, usually with indeterminate rather than negative results (that is after the EIA test has become positive). Patients with HIV-2 infection can also have false-negative immunoblots, although as stated above there is often cross-reaction with some HIV-1 antigens resulting in a stereotypical pattern. If you have a EIA-positive, immunblot negative or indeterminate, patient who may have acquired HIV infection in West Africa, or from a West African, call the laboratory to ask about sending the serum for a HIV-2 blot. Also, if you have a West African patient with immunodeficiency disease and negative EIA/blot, call the laboratory to inquire about HIV type O testing.
Depending on the clinical circumstances, there are several options available when a HIV test is negative, and there is a high pre-test probability of disease. One option is to repeat the test one to three months later. If the patient is suspected of having early HIV infection, and the EIA is positive and immunoblot indeterminate, then repeating the immunoblot with serum collected 2 to 4 weeks later usually results in a positive immunoblot if the patient truly has HIV infection. Repeat serologic testing is recommended in all cases of EIA-positive, blot-indeterminate results, 1 to 3 months later. If the immunoblot remains indeterminate after 3 to 6 months, then it is very unlikely that it will become positive in the future absent new infection. Molecular methods are better for diagnosing the acute HIV syndrome, in particular viral quantitation - as the viral load should be quite high in this setting.
revised by Paul H. Edelstein, Sept 2006
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/bugdrug/antibiotic_manual/HIVtesting.htm
You keep saying 6 week NEGATIVES turning POSITIVE later on have happened and do happen ...so Id like to see some proof of that?
If you cant prove it then shut your mouth.
Simple.
Now you show me in all the posts that I said NEGATIVES turning POSITIVE. I stated you can not say someone that had a risk can be conclusive a 4 weeks or 6 weeks.
typical keyboardcowboy.
"Unless you are on Chemo, antirejection drugs for a transplant, an IV drug user or you have a severe immune suppressed system, then you don't have to worry about late seroconversion. Your 9 weeks is a good sign at to what you 13 weeks conclusive test will be."
This is the exact information that I have been saying the whole time.
Your telling me I know "NOTHING" about HIV and then you go around giving out the exact same information as me.
WOW.
But as you can see over the last 4 months I have leard as much as you.
Seeing as how you and I are posting the EXACT same information.
Have a nice day :)
Dumbo..it seems u have major homophobia. You have made personal attaks on Ronnie, JohnnyV. I wonder why you have to make it a personal issue with gay folks. xworriedx...u didn't even have a risk..n u claim to know what u r talking about..Utter nonsense. If you did know what you are talking about, you wouldn't be hanging around on this forum.
Both you guys have demonstrated utter lack of compassion only because someone has a different set of ideas which are out of your comfort zones. Anyone can say anything on WWW but its nice to maintain a minimal level of decency which for some reason has gone completely missing for you guys.
xworriedx - u didn't listen to the fact that u had no risk but u want to team up for bashing someone who tells that 6 week test is not conclusive. Why does that statement from a person bother you. If you tell your risk to the same person he will say u didn't even need a test. Dude..get it straightened out for yourself. You can point someone for not agreeing with doctor's testing timelines but are you really agreeing with the doctor when his numerous replies point that you did not have a risk.
I assume this officially includes me in your bashing group..Happy hunting guys!!!
Also, Im not going to "bash" you.
I will agree that when I came here I didnt know anthing about HIV but a person can learn a lot in 4 months.
On another note you can't for 100% say that somoene who has "protected" sex is at "no risk" there is a risk however small it might be.
If you read a few of my earlier posts you will see that me and Teak have been giving out the same information about 6 week negatives and late seroconversion.
I never once said anything about Teak being gay or being HIV+ or "bashed" him in anyway on his choice of lifestyle and I dont think I was "bashing" him at all to be honest.
Can any of us imagine how living will be like with CD4 count less than 100. Answer me a simple question. Every healthy person with regular immune system has off days. Compare it to a person when he has to fight to get an off day to somewhat managable levels for 23 years. That is a lot of effort and is extremely exhausting. Still, he tries to come and impart knowledge and be helpful as much as he can. He may sometime come across politically incorrect but even a normal healthy person won't give a rat's ass about the way he is coming about when he is having 1 single off day...forget about 23 years..
You know we were having a very valid discussion on this thread. Look at my post where I myself questioned Teak's atance on testing but as soon as you guys jumped into the thread...the whole thread got completely messed and it is not the 1st time this thing is happening.
It might not be a source of information for you guys anymore but you interference is denying other people some information which they are trying to gain. In this case my question to Teak left unanswered and Cuca probably left wondering what mistake he made to get this thread to where it is now.
Cuca: I am sorry I havent been able to pull out the link. I will inform you as soon as I do about NY
My very deep and uncontrollable anxieties (getting a perscription for Xanax soon) aside, this is a very helpful forum because of people like you and Teak.
For those that are not at all familiar/acquainted with Dr. HHH, the man is a reknown specialist in the area of STD's and has printed books worldwide that are available in print. He is applauded by the JAMA, and has written numerous articles relating to HIV and various STD's. The man knows what he is talking about.
Now, ...to the point of the 4 week issue?
Dr. HHH wants to tell you all as it is. The beaurcracy that leads to the printed versions of the HIV antibody tests is a legal facet for the makers of these products. They do not want to tell someone that they may still have the potential of having HIV if they knew it was possible to test in 4 weeks to be certain.
What am I saying realistically?
MD HHH cuts through all the bullshit and says, .."Hey, listen, as someone who has tested and seen persons affected or infected with HIV, I know for certain with my 23+ years of service that I indeed know what I am talking about".
If you cannot live with the idea that any "modern" test is 80-90% accurate after one month....no less we have been studying this disease for 20+ years, then either (a) you need to suck it up and wait the standard 3 months as most states have designated, or (b) come to terms with reality.
Testing is ALL about making $ and companies (such as Home Access, Orasure, etc..) want to cover their ass. I certainly cannot blame them on this legal avenue. Who would? people's bodies are different....and for the "normal" human being who is in general health, their antibody detection would be "normal"..therfore valued at 80-90% of the time. Hence, that is where the stats come from.
I need not say anymore.
Good Luck to those who want to continue such a waste-of-energy argument.
B.
I don't know, but it involves quite a bit of self involvement. I have had enough of it and am ready to move on from the dread.
Just taking something now to help get over my new sleep phobia.
When you get stuck in a hole like this it is awful. I had my whole family convinced I was going to die.
It seems rather disrespectful to those who suffer every day from this horrible disease to play their role, although maybe some get some kind of humor out of it.
This whole "I got head after I shaved my pubes" thing needs to be addressed more publicly so that people dont take years off their lives worrying so excessively.
I plan on trying to spend as many hours doing something to volunteer for people with AIDS as I have spent worrying about this episode, just because I feel like such a jackass for having gotten into this situation and making myself so sick over it.
It may take the rest of the year to accomplish this task.
What are the limitations of rapid tests? No test is perfect - there may be a very small proportion of people who are not infected with HIV who will have a reactive result on this test (false positive), and a similar small proportion of people who are infected with HIV who will have a non-reactive result (false negative). Also, this test will not detect HIV infection in people who are tested within about 3 months of exposure to the virus (3 months is the time it takes for detectable antibodies to appear in the blood in repsonse to the HIV infection). These limiteations are true for all currently approved HIV antibody tests. For these reasons, it is essential that all individuals who are tested with this rapid test be appropriately counseled both before being tested and after receiving their test results. For those individuals with reactive test results, follow-up testing using another technique is necessary to confirm that the result is positive for HIV antibodies.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/aids/testing/rapid/faqs.htm#general
Hey Cuc,
I am not sure there is a medically defined disorder for convincing oneself that they have HIV, specifically. The main reason that this forum was established was because of the high proportion of moderated forum users who seemed to need emotional support rather than straight medical advice. In other words, the medical advice seemed to do little to help calm people's fears.
I guess the question is why do some percentage of people who are sexually active seem to feel that they might have contracted HIV? From my observation (I am not a doctor), it seems that guilt has a bit to do with it. Read many of the forum posts, and a lot of them are from people who cheated on a girlfriend/boyfriend. What better way to punish oneself than to convince yourself that you might have gotten the most dreaded of all diseases: HIV?
That's pretty simplistic, I know, because certainly other factors have to play a part in this syndrome. Perhaps OCD, or hypochondria, a form of OCD? Perhaps something else entirely.
Whatever it is, it seemed to me when I was going through my own period of anxiety that there was just a huge emotional component to the whole thing. As such, I finally decided, after being told countless times to stop worrying about HIV and not being able to, to visit a therapist. And that was the best decision I could have taken, because it did me a world of good. I, for one, finally realized that HIV was a handy proxy for other things that were bothering me. And once I recognized that, I could and did start working on straightening them out.
I think the question everyone needs to ask themselves is this: how rational is the fear of HIV? A small portion of the posters here did have a real risk, a larger percentage did not. If the fear and anxiety is out of proportion to the actual risk, and inhibits one's functioning, then it is time to at least consider seeking help.
I see that you have decided to speak to someone. Not sure if you need to or not, but if you feel you do, then good for you. Takes a lot of guts to face up to one's issues. So, more power to you, and I wish you luck.
LMAO.....