4 week in your case is very conclusive, because you didn't have a risk to begin with. Let it go and move on!
per the CDC website. Most people will test positive by 25 days. Thats 3 days short from 4 weeks. But that test is not considered conclusive. It might be a good idea to have another test.
I agree. Why do a los of people insist in the 3 month? I think that is to prevent the situation in which everybody may feel confortable with a 6 week and even 4 week test, and won't test again, so in this scenario 5% of new infections would not be detected when they could, and the person believed he is neg.
a 4 week is like 95% right but is better to test after 6 weeks or more like a 12 weeks after exposure.
They say 95%. 6 weeks is the best on the early side, however, I am going to get a 4 week test next week. In my mind for me, if neg it will relieve alot of stress. All I know is with a healthy body, if the virus hits it its going to respond as soon as possible. It needs about two weeks to mount a response. Antibodies start being produced and with todays test being so sensitive I think most will be either Poz or Neg by 4 weeks with as Dr.HHH says 100% by 6 weeks. It is true however "officialy" 3 months is golden but that's just legal and certification stuff.
Let's say 4 week neg. very strong indicator did not contract hiv.
If it makes you feel better take it, and take then 13 weeks as a confirmation/reasurrance. ok?
stillworried. So a 4 week test would be OK for a low risk exposure? I just want to make sure that it is not a pointless test before I go do it. I've read all the other threads about the 6 to 8 week testing as well, but just wanted to know the accuracy of a 4 week test...is it 80%, less?....thanks, crix
Say orientative, 6 weeks reliable, 8 weeks very reliable, 12 weeks conclusive.
Depending on your exposure you'll find more or less confortable with each one