6-8 weeks (why 2 week range)?

[ImStupid]

The good doctor on the Forum used to always quote 6 weeks as his "basically conclusive" number.  Latley he has been quoting 6-8 weeks.  (I saw another use picked up on this in the Doctor-Patient Forum.  First of all why has he become more conservative?  Secondly, why the 2 week range.  Is he really stipulating 8 weeks?  With a 45 day negative this is confusing to me.

(I know 12 weeks is conclusive per CDC, for all those who plan on responding with this figure)

[alienshadow]

it has confused me too i tested 40 day negative now im wondering if i need to also test at 8 weeks just to feel better again

[ImStupid]

Why give a range?  It just doesn't make sense.  Why not just use 8 weeks then?

Is Dr. HHH's 8 week figure his equivalent to the CDC's 12 week figure?  Is that what he is trying to convey?  Do you believe he still thinks a 6 weeks negative is 99% reliable?

[alienshadow]

put it this way my personal dr has told me he has never seen a positive after a 6 week test but who knows how many test he has done for hiv i sure dont i just hope i am ok here man this is so frustrating

[ExtremeStress]

That is why you should just stick with the 12 week period! It is guaranteed not to go against the grain. You did not have a risk to begin with, so your 6 week is conclusive.

[alienshadow]

who are you refering to here my exposure was with an escort condom slipped off

[ExtremeStress]

Imtupid who originally started the the thread and asked the question.

[alienshadow]

where u from

[ImStupid]

east coast in the US

[alienshadow]

me to north carolina

[longone]

Here is the reply you all wanted from Dr. HHH concerning my post I will post my post and his reply.


This is a question no one can answer. There are two schools of thought in my opinion.

1--The Legal Part Is:All tests in this country must be certified by the FDA. All manufacturers work in concert with the FDA and also the CDC. The CDC is a massive organization who's views are taken seriously by world wide health organizations. It tries to cover all possible scenarios and therefore is very conservative in its recommendations. When HIV came on the scene, the health industry rushed to perfect a screening tool i.e. an antibody test. This type of test was not new but they did not have one for the HIV virus.  Anyway, at first they  [the tests] were not that sensitive thus the CDC stated it could take up to 6 months to detect antibodies. Your body was producing antibodies from the start but the tests were not sensitive enough to detect them. As the years rolled on the industry has made these tests much more sensitive and they now can detect the antibodies much sooner which leads to part two.

2—THE REAL WORLD:  As stated the tests of today are very sensitive, however the CDC and the manufacturers still want to be super conservative and although they have reduced the time for antibody detection in their literature, their official policy of detecting time really has not changed. Why should they? Why should they subject themselves to all the legal ramifications of blame and law suits. They have no competition so there is no incentive for them to change.
Now in the real world after ten years working with these new more sensitive tests Doctors and health care providers now know these new test are almost 100% reliable in a 6/8 week time frame. Some who have done studies on testing techniques even say MOST people will have produced enough antibodies to be detected within a 3/5 week time frame.
So now knowing this it is really up to the individual as to what he/she feels comfortable with. Some will accept the 6-week time frame, some will only accept the 3-month time frame and other will never accept any time frame and will always doubt the results.

For those who doubt the results it’s a sad thing and most should seek mental counseling.  I always am amazed at this because the same people will go and get numerous other tests in their life i.e. cancer, blood work [cbc] and the like and believe all the results.  Anyway hope this helps. Have a good day


Longone's analysis is very good.  In addition, as I have said many times, precise data simply are not available on seroconversion times.  Estimates of serconversion time are based on improving technology to detect antibody earlier, scattered reports based on when people say or think they were infected (which often is wrong), plus expert opinion.  The research necessary to get more precise data would be much more expensive than could be justified.  Twenty years from now, the data are not likely to be any more precise than now.  

All this cannot be re-explained for every new question on seroconversion time.  Therefore, our responses may seem more precise than the data support, and forum users who look for differences between responses will find plenty of them.  With 2 of us now involved in the forum, probably there will be even more difference than before.  Suck it up and don't read so much into it!

And to repeat another principle yet again:  Dr. Hook's and my assessments of the chance someone is infected are based not only on test performance.  They are based just as much (often more) on the likelihood of infection based on the exposure event and overall risk context, and those vary all over the map.

So the bottom line is that nothing has changed.  As a rough ballpark, I base my responses on the approximation that with modern HIV antibody tests, among newly infected persons roughly 85-90% will be positive by 4 weeks, 95% by 6 weeks, 98-99% by 8 weeks, and over 99% at 3 months.   Dr. Hook might use slightly different assumptions.  These are for antibody tests, not P24 antigen (a component of the DUO test) or PCR.  There are even fewer data on the performance of those tests.

Finally, I do not know the trade names for most of the many HIV test kits on the market, even in the US, let alone other countries.  Nobody will ever get anywhere by asking us whether antibody test A is different or better (or becomes more positive sooner) than test B.

HHH, MD

[guiltnworry]

Great post by longgone.  To shorten it up a bit, the reason there is a two week window is because everyone's body is different.  In this CYA (cover your ***) era of medicine, doctors will rarely give a precise number (like 6 weeks).  They give a range, because for 99.9% of the population, they will have seroconverted by 6 weeks, there is always that 0.01% of people who have some other condition (or who lied about their last risk) that delays their conversion by no more than 2 weeks (making them 8 week converters).  In the event that Teak posts here, don't let him scare you about saying how many people he has seen seroconvert after 6 and 8 weeks, take his posts with a grain of salt.  

[Teak]

Why does it bother you that I've seen people test later than 6 weeks? I'm not not going to lie to anyone, just to make them feel better. You have the nerve to talk about me, when all that you went through just because YOU didn't have enough sense to use a condom.

[longone]

ghezzz I really think I have posted a good post and a reply from Dr HHH. That should be the subject.  Even Dr HHH states that no one really knows if the person who seroconverts even knows when they were infected. If one says they seroconverted +6 weeks who really knows. I will keep testing and let's hope mine stays neg. for I do know when I had a potential exposure.
So to all, lets just keep it professional. Let people choose who they believe and who they trust.

[regularjoey]

It doesn't bother anyone that people can test later than 6 weeks, but it bothers everybody that you are a fraud and a moron that abuses this forum.
How can you POSSIBLY "see people test later than 6 weeks"?  Do you know what people do in the weeks preceding their positive test?  Are you certain that they are not taking any risks, sexual or other?  Are you obtaining any proof that those people were infected during the exposure that they claim was the one?  Go back to sleep!

[Teak]

The only fraud on here is you with your fake Phd.and thinking you know so much about HIV, which you know absoutely nothing. You have even read and conprehend what you've read. Dork!!

[Teak]

Yes, only a test at the proper time, will give you that conclusive negative result you're looking for.

[guiltnworry]

Your comments about my one time lack of condom use don't bother me, like I said, I have accepted this.  But my question to you is, who are you to make and judgements about my condom use, you have HIV, and it is unlikely you got it after one exposure, so how many times did you NOT use a condom? That's what I thought.

[sparkley]

I have been reading this forum for quite a while....since my risk back in August.

Just some thoughts...

For the most part, people on here, such as Teak, regular joe, etc..offer some good advice.
Teak (rapidRod), and I hope you do not mind me saying so, is a regular forum poster on Aidsmeds.com.
He has quite a bit of knowledge /advice reagarding AIDS/HIV that speaks volumes.

The bad aspect of this website is that it allows forum users a soap-box mentatilty, the availability to say whatever they want, when they want.  As on Aidsmeds.com  they do not allow this.  Which, from my perspective, is starting to seem like a good idea. (That is, not allowing people to voice their own opinions about risks (homosexual or heterosexual in nature)

Too many people on here are wrapped up in their own fears, phobias, and risks to offer sound advice,...and all too often reiterate the same advice said over-and-over again.

I understand from a human-compassion point, that many people would like to offer solace and hope for forum-posters.  No less, the Federal Gov't (with the exception of Mass. with their modern testing strategies) have considered 3 months to be the finality of HIV testing (With the exception of IV drug users, possible cancer patients, etc.)

From a person who has had an exposure in the past, I too have felt the need to vent, have hope in the 6 and 8 week testing.  But, ....and I say,,."but".....I also left the negative test result at the end of 6 and 8 weeks thinking.."Could I still be infected?".  It was only then that I, myself, needed to feel comforted with the 3 month test.  As most people on here would/will tell you (even Teak/regular joe) that 6 and 8 week testing is encouraging.  However,....I know loike myself, most people will have doubts,.....we all do.   Peace-of-mind is and always seems to be achieved at the 3 month mark.

So please, let's put the piddly quarrels behind us.  None of us really care about Ph.D qualifications, experience, etc...

the truth of the reality is...."time is our worst fear and enemy"....not each other.

[longone]

I have visted aidsmeds and to tell you the truth it stinks. It is very political and full of sicko's with an ultra left position. They shut anyone down with an opinion different than theirs. No this board is much better with better advise.
If Teak is this rapidrod I have lost respect for him. I have read that guy but he says he is from Detroit. doesn't matter I hope this board does not sink to the sikco over their.

[sparkley]

Only being able to devise the way you write ...tells a lot about you....and that is not saying much.

[longone]

Really, read my posts and replies from Dr HHH. Professor

[dumbo]

Teak is a liar and I have said this all along.  His advice is always the same.  Test at 3months.  Anyone can say that.  

His childish attacks on the sad event that guiltnworry went thru is low and cowardly.  He likes to hit when people are down, even though many could do the same to him obviously.

Nonetheless, he is quick to call people names when they do not follow him and simply tell the truth.  hmmm, Why do you think that is?

[ImStupid]

I was feeling pretty good about my 45 day negative.  Looks like I may have to do the 3 month.  I think all of us are searching for FACTS.  HHH says 95-98 % wll test positive by 6 weeks.  I'm sure there are a small handful that test negative at 6 weeks and positive afterwards as he is saying.  So my question to Teak is, when you say you know some that have tested positive after 6 weeks....Does it seem to be along those percentage lines?  What was their exposure?  Again, I'm just searching for Facts, as most are.  The more details you can provide the better.  I think we're all looking to make the most educated decision for our personal situations, and the only way to do that is to gather the best data available...objective & subjective.  Thanks - ImStupid.

[Alex_Nobody]

the result after 6 weeks is highly credible. i am from China, more and more drs here believe 6-8weeks now. Trust me, i ask many drs in China and what they told me is u are expeled. u should know that 6 weeks in China is from USA!

[ImStupid]

Great post by the way. Appreciate you gathering that data from HHH.  It helped with confusion.

[guiltnworry]

Like I have told several other people on this forum, ignore Teak.  He is a bitter old man who wants everyone to believe they have HIV like him when they don't.  Any real doctor (which Teak is not) will tell you that your 45 day test, or over 6 weeks, is completely reliable.  Don't go back to being a worried well because Teak claims to have seen people seroconvert past 8 weeks.  If you asked, he would probably tell you he has seen people convert years later just to make you worry.  Congrats on your negative test result.

[ImStupid]

So no need for further test?  My body still doesn't feel right.  I wonder if the anxiety has thrown my whole internal nervous system off.  I feel like a big pansy right now, despite my negative result.  One of two things...either  a the outlier, or my mental state is causing continued physical issues.  How long will it take for my bod to get back on track.

[longone]

Hey don''t worry about it. I just took a 46 day test an of course it is the same[ NEG] as my 28 day test. All others I take will also be NEG. Don't go nuts, there is no answer to your question YOU have to be satified with it as I said in my post. You are neg now and will be in all tests as well. Good luck

[guiltnworry]

No, I dont think you need to test again at all.  Once you get over your anxiety I think you will start to feel normal again.  Don't feel like a pansy either, HIV is a big thing, it's ok to be worried about it before you test, but you tested, and you are fine!  Start working out and doing normal things again and you will be fine again in no time!

[Alex_Nobody]

symptom is nothing, almost everyone who cares about hiv got different symptom. 6 weeks' NEG is highly credible ,dont worry, u will be always NEG.

[regularjoey]

Whatever, the point is that you can't say that "you see people seroconvert after 6 weeks" - you're not a clinical researcher.  The fact that some people make that claim on your other forum doesn't mean very much.  You have no way to know if their claims are correct.  

[Teak]

Give it up, Dork. People do seroconvert later than six weeks. That's the reason for the three month conclusive result on all tests, that's the reason for the warning that one could get a negative result, but if the test was done earlier than three months, the test must be retaken due to the fact it may be a false negative.

New York Health Department (http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/aids/facts/questions/testing.htm)

How soon after exposure can HIV infection be detected?
So, if you HIV antibody test is negative, you can be sure that you do not have HIV only if you have not engaged in any HIV risk behaviors (such as having unprotected sex or sharing needles) during the past three months.

[guiltnworry]

Teak, get over yourself.  Come out of your tiny bone lacerated, HIV cadaver, always later than 6 week converter town.  Get real.

[Teak]

Oh, not only are you stupid you can read. LOL

[guiltnworry]

?  Can you make a coherent sentence so I can possibly understand what you are saying?

[Teak]

You can't understand anything anyways. I guess what NYHD says is just over your head about testing.

[nick74]

Is it just me or is this "Teak" fellow is not very bright?  Ever other sentence he writes is grammatically incorrect, and some elementary words are often misspelled.  I realize this forum is not on English spelling or grammar but the butchering of the English language shows his profound lack of intelligence.  Just read and compare his and guiltworry posts.  Want to guess whose IQ is (significantly) higher?

By the way, the link you provided says that "virtually all people who are infected will test positive within one month of being infected."  They don't even say 6 weeks!  Which part of "virtually all" don't you understand?

[Teak]

Do you know of any tests approved for use to give a conclusive result of less than 3 months. Did NYHD say what I posted or did it not?

So, if you HIV antibody test is negative, you can be sure that you do not have HIV only if you have not engaged in any HIV risk behaviors (such as having unprotected sex or sharing needles) during the past three months.

Is that what it says? If, your test is negative, you can be sue that you DO NOT have HIV ONLY IF you have NOT ENGAGED in any HIV risk behaviors (such as having unproted sex or sharing needles) DURING THE PAST 3 MONTHS.  

[mike_no]

Don't you think that you're trying to help a few out here who don't deserve it ?

If they enjoy living their lives by hiding from REAL FACTS better be it. You don't deserve to be disrespected. I'd request you to refrain writing to these idiots.

Nick: What are you trying to prove ? I understand that you might follow the language better than any one else here in the forum however does that matter to me or any one else in here ? You can go to some "English Grammar & Composition" forum and display your skills there.

This is HIV support forum and the amount of contribution that Teak has made to this forum and the users that come in here is substantial, if you disagree to some thing that Teak has told you should be your problem and PERSONAL REMARKS against some one would be uncalled for, now that shows where you belong to and the level of intelligence you poses.

Grow up.

Mike

[nick74]

Yes, they say three months to cover those rare individuals who may take longer than 4-6 weeks to produce antibodies.  When in the same section they say that virtually all will test positive within four weeks, to me it means 99%+ will.  So unless one's risk is extremely high, 6 weeks is more than enough time.

As far as your advice to anxious people, it's fine that you tell them to test at 3 months, but it would be prudent to add that a negative test at 6 weeks is extremely unlikely to change. That would be a correct statement, no?

[mike_no]

I must tell you that 6 week's encouraging but not conclusive and no percentage of conclusiveness can be attributed to a 6 week negative (even an HIV expert would shy to call a percentage at the 6 weeks negative)

Why ?
Because every individual is not the same, different bodies will take differnt time to show up DETECTABLE amount of antibodies. It's a concensus that majority would take 6 weeks to yeild detectable amount of antibodies however what about the minority associated ? Did you think about it ?

High risk / Low risk ?
Well, if you look at it logically, either a risk or simply no risk, there's nothing called as high risk/low risk - A risk is a risk that is subjected to cause a threat.

No test manufacturers claim that their test is conclusive at 6 weeks if they don't do it who are we to decide that ?

[guiltnworry]

It appears you have fallen victim to Teak and you only selectively read what you cite.  Nick is more than right on this subject.  Teak conventiently left out the sentence about how virtually all people will have developed detectable antibodies within 25 days.  No test manufacturers claim that their test works at 6 weeks because they want to fully cover their ***** in case that .01% comes in.  Contrary to your statement, most knowledgeable HIV docs, including Dr. HHH will say that 6 weeks is conclusive.  All of my professors in medical school acknowledge that a 6 week test is reliable and accurate.  Don't infer the wrong information from Teak, he is worthless. Perhaps you should look at Teaks other posts before you tell anyone else to grow up.  Every other post he is wrong about something and calling someone a dork or a troll.  Who needs to grow up?

[Daveansh]

Its sad that a good post put in Imstupid..turn into a no nonsense debate...its true that all of us who tested negative at 6 weeks (including me who tested neg at 7 weeks) have a very good hope of testing neg at 3 months..anyway thats what keeping us going till the 3 months test...but for sure we need that test at 3 months to conclude...we should not hide behind the truth or reality...only a test at 3 month is conclusive...and that too i am talking bout people who had real risk...and not those who come here with their non existant risk...myself i am seen by two specialists..one private and one from the main Aids Unit of my country..where i believe 90 - 95 % of peole with hiv in my country turns to..(the % of hiv people in my country is 0.2%)..the doc from the aids unit told me that my results at 7 weeks is 98% conclusive but that i still need that 2% to make it a whole...and thats why he called me for another test which i am going to do on 7 Nov..which is way past my 3 months gap (on 22 Oct i completed 3 months)..my private doc also has the same say..though according to him i am safe...i have also acquainted myself with the doc assistant at the aids unit and he told me that himself has never seen anyone turns positive after a  6 weeks negative..but he also said i sud do that 3 months test..so bottom line...the test at 3 months is the only result that is reliable...

[ImStupid]

I agree with many that the CDC and Test Manufacturers are taking a conservative approach for obvious reasons....but I am also not arguing that ONLY a 3 month negative can be taken as conclusive.  Again, I'm just searching for facts...
Teak - It would be helpful if you could please elaborate on the cases you've seen past 6 weeks...were they at 8 weeks or 11 weeks?  These details will help people (at least me).  I think there would be less resistance if you can provide insght to such a general statement.  Appreciate everything you and everybody else is doing for forum users.

The debate back and forth is good as it generates discussion and provides info and different view points.  My only suggestion as I move on (I think I'm ready) is to keep the personal attacks to a minimal.  I believe everybody's intentions to be good.
(Thanks Mike-No, Teak, RegJoe, GuiltnWorry, Daveansh, Extreme, Chris, Ausguy, Longone, etc)

[longone]

As I posted and as Dr HHH replies there is no answer to this endless debate. I think my post say's it all, it's up to the individual.

There are simply two parts to this quesion, the LEGAL part which Teak and others believe  and the REAL WORLD part which I and other believe. Bottom line for me : why not believe in the 6 week results there is no down side.  Stats are on your side, all will practice safe sex till 12 weeks, most everybody will still get a 12 week test [even though not needed]  for peace of mind. So why suffer for 12 weeks when you can believe with just about 100% that your six week correct. Make life easy for youself, sweat 6 and be done with it till 12.

[regularjoey]

Give what up?  I know that some people seroconvert later than 6 weeks.  But it happens so rarely that many doctors consider a 6 week result conclusive.  Sometimes, when the risk is very high a longer waiting period is recommended, usually 3 months.  Many experts don't accept even a 3 month test as a conclusive result, recommending to wait 6 months, if the risk was high.  Blood banks ask to wait a full year, being ultraconservative of course.  This has to do with the calculation of the predictive value of the test, in other words, which odds you are happy with.

Bottom line is that you have never seen anyone seroconvert later than 6 weeks - you only heard people claim that they did, which is not the same thing.  An HIV test at 6 weeks is very reliable and we have plenty of clinical data to prove that.    

[regularjoey]

You are a 100% correct on everything.

[ImStupid]

Quesion- Why does Massachusetts recognize 6 weeks as conclusive?  Is this just their approach based on data, or do they have more advanced testing then other states do?  Also, not to go off the thread topic, but I've heard that coinfection can delay seroconversion.  I beleive there was a case with Hep/HIV....would the same apply to HSV and HIV coinfection?

[regularjoey]

Mass recognizes 6 weeks as conclusive (so I heard) for the reasons I stated above - these days almost everyone tests positive by 6 weeks.  The tests are more sensitive now than they were 5 years ago.  Sure there are outliers, but the recommendations are never based on outliers, not for any medical test and not for an HIV test.

As far as coinfections, that is generally not thought to be correct.  This whole theory is based on ONE case 10 years ago in which one nurse got exposed to tainted blood and contracted both HepC and HIV.  She seroconverted only after 9 months, so people hypothesized that maybe it was the HepC coinfection.  I wouldn't say that one freaky case is enough to make any conclusions about delayed seroconversion.  There is no other evidence supporting that hypothesis to my knowledge and plenty of evidence against it, so in my opinion co-infections do not delay seroconversion to HIV.  

[guiltnworry]

Good points and correct based on all the research I have done and lectures I have attended.

[misteryos]

6 weeks is conclusive for the majority of the population. I've accepted that. The people who deny it and say that it's "encouraging" can argue all you want and point the entire frigging planet to the CDC web page where they can read about 3 months as the magic number. In fact, I'm going for my idiotic "3-month conclusive" tomorrow, and it'll be a waste of my time, because I tested negative at 6 weeks and it's going to stay that way. There are about a zillion other things I could be doing tomorrow that would be a better use of my time than going to get a test that I know will be negative, just because a test "has to be confirmed."

I wish the CDC would get their act together.

[guiltnworry]

The CDC does a great job tracking research, but they are a government organization like all of the others.  They rarely say that anything is conclusive at any particular date, so you are right, the 3 months is nothing to worry about.  3 months is considered the magic number because it is appropriately far enough past the real time most people seroconvert for them to cover their as*es.  Usually, the CDC will look at the time for seroconversion for 99.9% of the population and then add a few weeks just to make sure they cover absolutely everyone.  Good point, but why are you even going for the 3 month test knowing what you know?

[misteryos]

Mostly because I'm not nearly as strong-willed as my post implies. The 3-month time period has been drilled mercilessly into my psyche by countless web pages, certain users on various message boards, and dated, overconservative guidelines from official agencies. That, coupled with my initial anxiety after my incredibly low-risk event (and the anxiety was *quite* bad, which to me demonstrates how powerful a mind really can be), is telling one part of my brain to go through with the 3-month "conclusive" test, even as the other part of my brain is screaming at me that I'm really wasting my time.

In other words, peace of mind.

[guiltnworry]

I understand totally.  Good luck going to get your negative.  

[misteryos]

Thanks, GnW -- and good luck trying to post your completely and totally sound, logical, and rational viewpoints on this forum without getting flamed by some of the posters here. Sometimes I think the HIV Support forum does more harm than good.

[guiltnworry]

I agree with that and with support from people like you, it is much easier to continue posting in the sometimes hostile environment of the forum.  It doesn't bother me much, I am confident in my knowledge as I have learned from the best.  Good luck in relaxing after your test!  You will be fine!

[dumbo]

Maybe someone should report teak for posting links to ohter websites in this thread.  I mean he did it to me numerous times because they exposed his lies time and time again.  

Teak is adamant on going with the CDC for testing, but because he likes blowjobs, he says oral is no risk.  The CDC says it is.  Period.  Teak should be recommending a test after oral as well.  I mean, it is the CDC right?

Good posts from everyone except teak of course.  Mike_no, not sure on you.  When you first came here you were all over the 6 week test as conclusive if I remember right.  But Teak's repetitive postings on the 3 months timeline and how he has seen many people test positive after 6 weeks in his small town of hiv infected cadavers, has caused you to not be able to question yourself and think for yourself.  It's a bit disappointing.

NICK: "Ever other sentence he writes is grammatically incorrect, and some elementary words are often misspelled"

They are only grammatically incorrect until he pastes copyrighted material into his posts to make it look like he knows what he is talking about.  Look at many of his posts.  Sometimes he can barely spell in the first part of his reply, then as you read further the tone, grammar, and technical content completely changes.  It's obvious to me and I made a post on this very subject this morning.

[misteryos]

"But Teak's repetitive postings on the 3 months timeline and how he has seen many people test positive after 6 weeks in his small town of hiv infected cadavers"

This line, dumbo, was the best thing I have ever seen on MedHelp, period.

But you brings up a good point, one that has been made many, many times (by you a few times, I think). Not a single reliable source -- neither anyone I've deemed a reliable online source nor any expert (yes, expert) I've spoken to in person -- has seen a 6-week negative turn positive using recent tests. One had never seen a 4-week negative turn positive using today's modern tests. This is the utter, complete, and unfabricated truth. In fact, I've been told *other* things by experts about why certain testing complexes have to adhere to the 3-month rule, and yes, it has to do with the CDC and CYA policies.

I'll paraphrase what one tester told me: "You got a 4-week negative? Odds are it'll stay negative." But people'll still wait out the 3 months, because the CDC says so. That's unfortunate.

[guiltnworry]

I like you and your posts a lot, but can I just ask why you are such a Teak supporter.  I don't even know him obviously since we are all online, but simply based on his posts, I gather that he is completely unreliable.  What makes you like him so much when even your own information and advice is far superior to his?

[Teak]

Guess you and dumbo didn't take heed to what Cindy posted so when you're banned you both only have yourselves to blame. Just keep it up.

[dumbo]

And what post is this teak?  Please show me what you complained about this time.

thanks

[Isaac Argan]

Chris, This Forum is Fast decending into a Version of "Lord of the Flies"
Everyone Should be Entitled to Their Opinion.
I suggest staying off the Net and Liasing with the Doctors.
Let us Know About this New Virus, I would Be interested.

[dumbo]

"I just think it take allot of colors to make a rainbow "

Of course.  There's nothing wrong with differing opinions at all. I just can't figure out why some want only one color in that rainbow.

[dumbo]

Obviously you didn't either, still calling peoplle dorks I see.  I see however they did remove the posts you made where you were kindly pointing out guiltnworry's original question to Dr.HHH.  Maybe it goes both ways then?

[Teak]

Well like normal you don't listen. So when you can't get back on the forum you'll only have yourself to blame.

[guiltnworry]

Thanks, I will look that up for my own reference.  

[MauMau8]

People this is supposed to be a support forum!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I had unprotected sex with a Thai sex worker and a week later I went and had protected sex with another sex worker I reckon was HIV positive....2 weeks later my groing lymph nodes swelled!......9 weeks later (after the latter encounter)... I tested negative! Will my negative remain the same? Frm wht I gather here, it will.

I previously used steriods....wld tht b attributed to the lymph nodes swelling?

[LIZZIE LOU]

hhhhuuuummmmm...

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.
Post a Question View community archives