Aids Action Hotline - 6 weeks [I called]

I managed to talk to the councellor at the hotline and she said 6 weeks was definitive if the test was ELISA in the absence of autoimmune diseases, chemotherapy and organ transplant. She said that the window period is constant for all subtypes and is 6 weeks for average/healthy person.

I asked her how do I know if I have some autoimmune disease that I am unaware of and she said I would know had that been the case.

Having talked to her, I feel more at ease. My mind tells me to leave it and move on but I have managed to convince myself of the disease that the fear, anxiety that I could be still having it remains to an extent. I have been talking to my shrink back in states.

I encourage everyone to call:
AIDS Action Hotline is a great resource! The Hotline is open Monday - Thursday: 9:00am - 9:00pm, and Friday: 9:00am - 7:30pm.
To reach the HIV Hotline, call 1-800-235-2331

P.S: Thanks to the person who originally provided this link. I think it was veryworried.

[xworriedx]

Good to hear!

[Johnnycomelate?]

I'd like to clarify the "Autoimmune disease" thing, so people don't start freaking out thinking they may have one.  An autoimmune disease would only cause a false positive result if it did anything at all.  This is because your body would have created antibodies against its own organs and may be picked up by an ELISA test.  It would NOT give you a "false negative" result.  Remember, a negaive result means that NO antibodies to hiv were detected.

[o_g]

You are correct. I misworded the "autoimmune" part. What I meant was that she told me that if immune system is week due to other conditions like cancer. My bad....Thanks for correcting me..

[worried321]

I have had the test by Request a Test..

they call it EIA...is this the same as ELISA

This is from their site:
HIV EIA

Known as: human immunodeficiency virus, HIV-1 antibodies, enzyme immunoassay, ELISA

thanks

[Teak]

That is the Mass. Aids Hotline. Now if you would have taken the time they have the disclaimer also for newly infected. This has nothing to do with anywhere except Mass. if you do not live in Mass. it does not apply. It also states a test taken today, will tell you what your status was six weeks ago.

http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/aids/guide_counsel_test.pdf

[o_g]

I told them that forget massachusettes, i didn't even get tested in US. She said as long as I got an ELISA done, it was OK. I asked her if I needed to re-test after coming back to US and she said "NO". She said ELISA is same everywhere.

[dc man]

Teak, so if we contracted HIV in mass then it would take 6 weeks to turn positive, but in other states it would take my antibodies longer to show up in a test?  Please.  Mass is home to some of the best hospitals and medical centers in the world.  I also notice that Harvard Health Services vouches for the 6 weeks window.  It's just a matter of time for 6 weeks to be the new standard window period.  All the tests have the capability to detect even the smallest amount of antibodies.  If you want to wait for beauracratic laden organization to change their policy to match testing capabilities, you'll have to wait for a while.  There's no reason for most organizations to be so aggresive (aggressive) to change policy from 3 months to 6 weeks.  3 months is more conservative, so why would they want to change to 6 weeks so fast?  ...just so a bunch of us hypochondriacs can get a better night's sleep?  Don't hold your breath - but do rely on your 6 week as conclusive, unless you're walking around with your brother's newly tranplanted kidney or something.

[xworriedx]

Give it up man

[Teak]

I can't help what one posts here, but if I see that it is wrong I'll damn sure do my best to acknowledge it and in what o_g posted it was not correct. The Department of Health of Mass. only has jurisdiction over Mass. It has no other jurisdiction over any other state or government entity.

[o_g]

Guys,
I am not giving any incorrect information. I am just re-iterating what councellorss told me. She said 98% convert by 6 weeks. Those who do not have other conditions as previously mentioned. Do you think she is lying.

Teak, it would be really cool if you could call the toll free number and draw a judgement from the converation you have. It will be good to know your views about it.

[xworriedx]

I dont see any "Incorrect" information being posted by o_g...Infact I see the same information that DR H has posted many many many times on his forum.

With MODERN HIV testing 6 weeks is enough time to test positive unless you have a compromised immune system.

We have argued about this for months, I dont think it will be long till the 12 week window peroid moves to a 6 week.

[dc man]

So everyone in Massachusetts is sleeping soundly after their 6 week negative test, but their coworker in CT will have anxiety until his 3 month test is negative because basically the governement has different policies.  I work in DC with the government and if you think the government or any public service organization has the resources to keep policy up to date, you are wrong.  Don't wait for governments policy change - look towards private organizations and HIV specialists for sound advice; all of which say 6 weeks is conclusive.

[Teak]

It's not going to happen until the manufacture of the tests gets clearence for the FDA and final approval of the CDC. Now you can argue all you want as I pointed out that even the King County Health Department of which Dr. H is a member, states 3 month test is conclusive. I'll ask you to show me one manufacter that states that test at week 6 or earlier is conclusive.

[dc man]

Teak, the manufactures don't dictate window periods, and don't expect them to.  Only pathologists will do that.  My home access test said that six months is conclusive, but state health departments say a 3 month home access test in conclusive.  It's not up to the manufacture to decide window periods - their job is just to produce that is very sensitive to antibodies.

[Teak]

No the pathologist do not make that decision. If you would have taken the time. Home Access states that it is not to be used on persons that are newly infected and goes into that it may take up to 3 months or more to get enough detectable antibodies.

[dc man]

Mass policy says Home Access is just as reliable as antibody test done at the doctors office which they all claim to be conclusive at 6 weeks.

[xworriedx]

No manufacter can do that because of that fact that people with compromised immune systems could take longer then 6 weeks.

So for legal reasons they can't.

You already know all this though

[Johnnycomelate?]

In Mass. I am almost positive that they use the 4th generation test which is a duo P24 angigen/Elisa antibody.  They claim that the test taken within 6 weeks would either pick up the antigens in early infection or the antibodies when they replace the antigens.  And to the person who asked...Yes the EIA is just a shortend name for ELISA...exact same testing procedure.  To be honest though, as promising as a 6 week negative is, I would always go by the CDC guideline of 3 months.  No manufacturer of any test has 6 weeks as an all clear, as antiquated as that may be.  I would rather lean towards the more conservative side just to be absolutely sure, wouldn't you?  

[monkeyflower]

Look. Whether they have official approval or not, and whether you agree or not, the obvious fact is that they are indeed accurate at six weeks. If it helps, think of it like off-label uses of various meds--like SSRIs for rapid ejaculation, amitriptyline for insomnia and neuropathic pain, beta blockers for migraines--I could go on and on. The FDA may not have approved (whatever) for (whatever) reason, but it sure doesn't mean they don't work.

In any case, I find your perspective interesting. I've noticed similar kinds of issues/posters on other boards I've frequented in the past--women who insist on pregnancy tests after (insert absurd situation here), just because it *could* happen, etc. I always wonder why. When you feel THIS STRONGLY about something, I think there's something more behind it. I'd be interested in hearing your view, if you're willing to share. And I don't mean the "it's what the manufacturer says/it's in print/it's what the government says" argument; I mean why this is so important to *you*.

[o_g]

In my original post I mentioned that they user ELISA(standard antibody test) and not a 4th generation DUO test.

[Teak]

My views are based on the facts. All of you have been given the opportunity to show different and not a one of you have. I've showed you what each manufacture said. But you want to go by your own rules. Sorry, I won't buy into your game. If you want to play that little game with your life, fine. But don't give advice that is incorrect to others that come here seeking advice. There is not a one of you qualified to change the testing guidelines as set up by the manufacture.

[o_g]

As I have mentioned a lot of times before, I would like to re-iterate my appericiation of your willingness to help worried folks like us. Can I humbly request you to call the hotline and witness the information posted by me 1st hand so you do not doubt my integrity for providing incorrect and misleading information to everyone.

I am one of the worried people and I just posted this feeling that the information given to me by the lady from the hotline over the phone was encoraging enough to be shared with other worried folks here.

If you get to talk to them, which I really hope that you do, please let me/us know your thoughts. Being a responsible public orgaization, I highly doubt they will give false information.

[monkeyflower]

Yes, I've heard you say that before. What I want to know is, why do you care so much? If actual experts--doctors and researchers, scientists, whatever--generally agree that six weeks is fine, why does that upset you? Why do you hold so rigidly to written documentation that you KNOW is pure legalese? And why is your advice better than anyone else's? We're all equally untrained; so some of us choose to follow expert opinion, and some choose to follow the CYA documentation. Who cares.  Honestly, in the real world, most people couldn't care less either way; they get tested once a year and forget about it. Only on these kinds of boards could this ever be a hotly debated issue, lol. Anyway. I guess I'm still wondering why you feel so defensive and angry about this.

[Johnnycomelate?]

Hey Guys...Again I have to whole heartingly agree with Teak.  Think about it logically for just one second.  If the 6 week window was foolproof we would not be having this discussion...The CDC would have most likely changed its guidelines again by now and there would be one tenth the WW's on this forum as there are now.  Why screw around with this?  Go ahead and take the 6 week test; get your negative result; feel great and relieved about it; then confirm it with your 3 month negative.  It's as simple as that.  The test is not very expensive, in fact there are so many places that it's free.  So until I see an Oraquick Advance or Home Access test, or anything similar and FDA approved test state that 6 weeks is absolutely conclusive and definitive, then I am sticking with the 12/13 weeks or 3 months guideline.  And if you want to get picky, read the directions on the Home Access test.  It says 6 months still.  Let's end this thread...it's a worthless argument.

[ainxtein]

I don't mean to add fuel in the debate.

Teak states correctly that 3 months should give EVERYBODY a peace of mind.  And he is not wrong in adhering to CDC guideline since basically no statistical experiment has been *SERIOUSLY* done to prove that 6 week is definitive for normal people. (Otherwise CDC shall have already changed its policy). From an serioius academic perspective, 3 month should still be the standard.

But fact is that there is not a single reported case that is 6-week-neg then positive later using ELISA third generation or above in China. I believe there is none in MA and none in Dr. H's clinic (except human error and immu-suppressed ppl). So privately (and publicly in MA), let's get rid of anxiety at 6 week mark.

CAUTION!! But there ARE caseS using other method turning poz after 6 week, reported in China. So get an ELISA 3rd-gen/4th-gen test for 6 week window period. I believe that MA use the best testing method around the world and let's do that (method given, it is equally accurate whether a MA hospital does it or a Chinese hospital does it).

[o_g]

15 negative tests over 15 months - I am sure anyone with a sane head will not even be posting in this forum anymore with those results. No wonder you are finding this conversation useless/worthless. Thanks for making fun of concerns of people who really have need for this forum.

[Xhost]

On the link you provided, I did indeed see this statement:

"So, a test today will tell you what your status was 6 weeks ago."

But, the statement preceding it says this:

"It can take up to 6 weeks for the body to produce antibodies to HIV."

Thus, the full statement reads:

"It can take up to 6 weeks for the body to produce antibodies to HIV. It also states a test taken today, will tell you what your status was six weeks ago."

Perhaps I have missed something, but my reading of this excerpt seems to indicate that Mass. does indeed adhere to a definitive 6 week test standard. If this is the case, and Mass. uses the same tests as a majority of the rest of the US, what is the conclusion one may draw from this? Mass. appears to be in conflict with the advice given by both the test manufacturers and the CDC. And they are not the only ones. Dr. H also appears to have unilaterally lowered his own window period (in most cases), as has Australia (if I am not mistaken, and I might be).

First in a wave, or are they seriously misguided. If they are misguided, why are they misguided? I suspect they have based this decision upon something other than an arbitrary notion. Perhaps based on empirical evidence, such as: no one has seen a 6 week test go from negative to positive. This is an observation as reported by the doctor on this site, as well as at least one poster on AidsMeds (Ann, forgive me if I am not spelling her name correctly).

This is a confusing issue, made perhaps more so by a potential shift in the HIV testing paradigm. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area, and perhaps these are just isolated pockets.

In any event, I find this an intriguing topic for debate, given my own confusion about the window period in general when I first started down this road.

[dc man]

I love how Teak will not believe in the 6 week window until the CDC says so.  As if they have a huge inititive to change the window from 3 months to 6 weeks. Right.  I'm a financial consultant for the federal government and can tell you initiative like this would be low priority - there is no pay off and government financial resources are very low right now.  Even if we decided to fund that initative, how long do you think it'd take to change the policy?  The federal government isn't known for their lightning fast decisions.  Besides, what benefit does it provide for them to shorten the window - so us worry warts can sleep at night?  They have everything to gain by keeping the window larger so people wait an additional 6 weeks before they start pimping around again.  How long did it take the government to revise their food pyramid?  that was up for review for about 4 years.  Seriously, look to medical professionals that specialize in HIV testing (like national aids hotline, and others) if you want an acurate picture of what you can expect from the portfolio of modern HIV tests.  Don't wait for CDC to change.  That's like waiting for history books to be written to find out yesterday's news.

[xworriedx]

AMEN

[Teak]

I called the hotline like you requested. Only in the State of Mass., will they declare you conclusive, based on risk assessment. Most of the people that go for testing have not had a risk or they've had a low risk to begin with, she stated. They recommend retesting for anyone with a high risk exposure. She also stated that if we have anyone that is a transplant patient on anti-rejection medication, IV drug abusers, on chemo or immune suppressed, they must test out to 6 months. Anyone who has had an occupational risk must have a baseline, a 6 week test, a three month test and a 6 month test. It will then be decided if it will be necessary to test longer.

[dobber21]

I don't understand why health care workers would have to test out to six months?
You state only people with compromised immune systems would have to do that, yet for an occupational exposure it's still six months. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but surely if a healthy HCW has to test out that long, surely it's the same likelihood for a normal person?

Sorry, I'd just like clarification.
Thanks

[o_g]

Honestly speaking, I can not believe them telling you that. I am high risk(i told them that) as i even got herpes and they never said a word like that to me. If they told you that, then they won't be more than bunch of liars for me.

If they said that to you, I think that you have been successful in discrediting them for me.

[o_g]

teak - how can they tell me that 98% test positive by 6 weeks. Are you calling that a conspiracy theory? Why will they lie about such an important thing???

[Teak]

Sorry bud, I just called like you asked and she was very nice in explaining their reasoning. We talked from 0902-0928. She advised that they do no testing earlier than 6 weeks. I asked how she knows they are telling the truth. She stated that is the first question they ask is when were you exposed and that usually weeds them out and they tell them to come back in six weeks.

[dobber21]

Teak,
Any thoughts on the HCW thing? I know they say it's for insurance purposes, but surely a three month is sufficient for them if it's sufficient for everyone else?

[Teak]

Are you still getting help with your issues of why you don't believe your negative results?

You started your posting in August with a confirmed negative result. Having a possible exposure less than a minute from a broken condom. Here is a copy of your first post in August.

Issue: Condom break(max exposure for a min - should be less)
Symptoms:
      Burning/Aching feet from day 8 onwards
      Stomach pains from ay 15 - day 40 with change in bowel movement
      Lip Irritation(burning sensation on top lip between 14-21 days)
      Mouth ulcers ( 50- 60 days)
      Feet and arms have been falling asleep/numb quite easily (especially in earlier days upon lifting something minimally heavy)
      Lymphocytes count on day14  - 15. 6%    Neutophils - 75.6 %
      Lymphocyte count on day 84 - 18.6%   Neutophils - 77.5 %
      HSV-2 IGG(positive ELISA - reading: 1.3 on 1.0 scale) - day 84(12 weeks)
                                Hep-B [Negative - day 84(12 weeks)]
                            
Currently almost 5 months past exposure. Still feel some hot gushes in feet from time to time and sometimes tingling sensation. Have been getting some acne on face & neck lately as well.

Elisa : 9 days, 80 days, 12 weeks (84 days) -------- Negative
Qualitative DNA PCR: 21 days, 60 days (2 months) -------- Negative


It almost 7 months past your negative test and you are still going over it.

[Teak]

She didn't go through the details on it. But when I worked in a hospital, the protocol was the same and it was mainly a workers comp and insurance deal. Those in labs that multiply HIV to high levels are more at risk. Those levels cannot be achieved anywhere but a lab.

[dumbo]

Kudos for calling.

What did they consider high risk v. low risk?  (i.e. vaginal v. anal)

IV drug use of course being high.

[dobber21]

Thanks Teak.
I second Dumbo's question re: high risk v low risk.
And you, how high risk do you think insertive vaginal sex is in the absence of other stds?
Thanks as always:)

[Teak]

Unprotect anal, vaginal, and IV drug use.

[Johnnycomelate?]

Now that sounds like an anxiety driven reply.  So there's not scientific or logical reasoning behind testing out to 6 months, but do it to relieve the anxiety.  I don't think that's what Dr. Bob is referring to.  Again, I think his reply is based on CDC guidelines.

[Teak]

I did not have symptoms at all, none, notta. Not everyone has symptoms.

[Johnnycomelate?]

Sane?  Hell no...not about this.  Do you think for one minute I would be on these forums if I didn't have these damn symptoms?  Yea 15 times past 15 months.  It looks as if you're on the same path.  By the way, I too had low lymphocytes 14.5% and high Neutrophils 77.3%.  That must mean you and I are in the same boat, huh.  By the way, weren't you banned from Aidsmeds?  I remember your exhaustive questioning.  I, in no way, every made fun of anybody on this forum, particularly in this thread.  And don't you think the whole vagueness the reasons it may take a person longer than 6 weeks or 3 months so serconvert interesting.  Do you ever think that YOU may be one of those immunocompromised individuals who just isn't developing antibodies to HIV?  You must be, or you wouldn't be here either.  I hate being here.  That low lymphocyte / high neutrophils thing must really scare the hell out of you about now.

[Johnnycomelate?]

Hi there...I too have read many of Dr. Bob's answers.  He does state that "in most cases" 3 months is conclusive and definitive.  He, on the other had also states that if you had sex with a known positive person, you need to test out to 6 months.  Why?  If 3 months is Woohooable, and 3 months is conclusive and definitive, what on earth would be the reason to continue testing?  I would love the answer to that one.

[Brian123]

Johnny,

Demonstrating the fact that you are still on a HIV Support Forum 15 months after a "risk", not to mention the countless times you have been tested,  shows many things, ....and it certainly is not HIV.  I think,...no, ....I believe you need to see a shrink at this point. And that was not meant to be sarcastic, but helpful to your emotional and physical well-being.

Teak,

You have mentioned before that you never knew the reason why/how you were infected. That would signal one thing to me, ....you would never have known nor remember when you had symptoms, therefore you are not able to pin point for certain you "never" had symptoms.  As far as I would assume, you could have been ill anytime in your past and never have assumed it was HIV, ...but most people do have symptoms (any of the sort) after being infected with HIV. So to say that you never had symptoms really is not that believable to me.

[Brian123]

That is for obvious reasons. If you slept with someone who was known to have HIV, who would not test out to 6 months for certain? I certainly would.  Does it make the 3 month test less reliable?  NO.

[Brian123]

In case anyone wanted to know...

Just because an "insert" states that someone needs to wait 6 months does not mean diddly.
In fact, Dr. Bob, @ the body stated on Nov. 9th 2006, that a Home Access kit @ 3months is "definitive, conclusive, and "wooh-hooable".  And that is coming from a MD who IS infected with HIV, specializes in it, and does research on it!!  No less, Home Acces has HIM on their website for "how did you find out about our website".  Yet their website states 6 months.  A dichotomy?...hmmm...I think so.

We all have travelled this road before.  If a MD who specializes in HIV/AIDS can rely definitely @ 3 months, there is no doubt that a HIV test @ 6 weeks would pick up something, considering the EIA is VERY sensitive and can be followed up by a WB.

Yet, weird how a "global moderator" from aidsmeds.com, stated just recently that she believed that the window period would change in the near future from 3 mos. to 6 weeks; and that is coming from someone whom is not an expert in the field of HIV, and a website I do not think is all that legitimate and tactful in providing HIV knowledge.

Testing earlier than 3 months does not mean that testing is not reliable, it just gives you a "better" idea on your future 12 week result.  No less, testing is like a bell curve.  The first few weeks are indeed the most important, when the body has a chance to create antibodies to the virus. Again, as I reiterate, ...how many people get exposed to the flu and then get sick and create antibodies 6 weeks later? .....VERY FEW!!
The flu virus is a virus, ....and HIV is a virus, ....a much more virulent virus. I think someone would have some tell tale symptoms to HIV if they indeed were infected...no less the body's immune reaction to the virus.  I still believe, and I say "I", that a 6 week test is an EXCELLENT indicator for knowing someone's HIV status.  AGAIN, 3 months is used for conclusive, LEGAL reasons, to cover the as*es of Health Departments, the CDC, and Physicians' offices across the country.

[o_g]

its none of your freaking business whether i am banned from 1 place or another. But, still I am happy you spend your valuable time looking at my thread at aidsmeds.

2ndly, yes I am concerned about delayed ab response and it confuses me till max 6 months but not till 15 months.

I happen to be stuck in a set of circumstances and my support system is not available in person but via phone so these forums are something I try to come to and re-confirm my belief in 3 months or less for re-assurance every now and then.

Look at your response. Is it meant to confort anyone or to make me even further scared? You are out of your troubles so you want to scare the hell out of everyone else. What are your true intentions. You are nothing more than a trouble maker.

It shows asolute lack of decency to be asking to close a thread which is not even started by you. If you do not want to be involved in it, then freaking don't response. If you are not interested in something, why do you even bother butting in.

I have seen another thread created by you titled "Someone has to leave". Who the hell are you to so rudely ridicule anyone on this forum as you did to bamboosalt(however he/she was creating too many threads and being annoying) but what gives you that right after the kind of results you have had. And, if you want to leave, "LEAVE" - your presenece does not do anything more than bamboosalt's presence on tis forum.

This is it. I have no time to communicate further with asses like you. No more responses from me to you for sure...

[o_g]

You wrote - "Do you ever think that YOU may be one of those immunocompromised individuals who just isn't developing antibodies to HIV? You must be, or you wouldn't be here either. I hate being here. That low lymphocyte / high neutrophils thing must really scare the hell out of you about now."


My respoonse: A.S.S.H.O.L.E - wat the F.U.C.K are your intentions.

[o_g]

Thanks for posting my history so useless fellows like JCL can see and make stupid comments over it. Anyways, I called up the hotline again yesterday and they again told me that they do not refer anyone for 3 or 6 month testing if they are negative at 6 weeks. You might have talked to a different person but I suppose they get trained to say the similar thing so councellors from 1 center do not go contradicting each other.

Anyways, teak, as JCL like a dumb %&*# has brought up the high neutrophils and low lymphocytes issues again, could you please tell me if my numbers would cause a delayed antibody response..

[Xhost]

Personally, I could care less what anyone posts at AidsMeds. That isn't this forum, and it wasn't meant to be this forum. You can post there, and then post here, and why anyone would care is completely beyond me. In fact, who cares where you have posted? You still need someone to talk to, you still need some guidance.

In fact, I hate to read that **** - you posted in such and such forum, you got your answers, so what are you doing here? That's a load of horseshit. No one has the right to tell you where to post, in how many forums to post, or even how many times to post. And if they think they do, they are full of ****. Nothing pisses me off more than to read that BS.

[o_g]

listen man..i understand you are going through and have been through a lot emotionally. Don't you think my fears (however irrational they may be) wouldn't come back to life when u mention things like this.

I started this thread to draw everyone's attention to hotline people calling 6 weeks 99% conclusive for normal people. All of us(at least me) people on this forum live on the hope that we get to see something posted by someone which can make each of us a little relaxed. I try to make sure that the information I am posting is correct. I wanted people to see this and feel happy and probably everybody's happiness gives me enough courage to go about normally the next day. These small things do matter to people in my state of mind.

Now, when you replied the first time, I appericiated your reply but in your second post you pretty much trashed my source of happiness and purpose which I didn't take in a very good way. And, tell me how would you feel that with exact same symptoms as you got the person tested for 30 months when you tested only for 15 months comes and tell you in a sarcastic way bringing all fears back to the forefront of your mind. I know it sounds crazy but for a person like me, I felt provoked that dude there is still a possibility. I am trying to get over it and I did not need it at that point. I apologize for the bad lingo and maybe I should be reported also.

As far as me arguing with Teak goes, I am sure by now even Teak knows that I am not arguing with him but asking for his opionions on things regarding HIV. Sometimes, I disagree and let him know on what basis I am disagreeing with him. Most of the times, he is kind enough to convince me with his logic. Sometimes he is not. But, we all can agree to disagree and that happens between any 2 people.

We have spend long enough time killing ourselves with worry, why would you think this conversation is worthless/futile?

Anyways, I take back my words. I hope you feel better and get over it ASAP. Take care...

[Johnnycomelate?]

It is so ironic that you and I are having difficulties with eachother when, after reading your thread on Aidsmeds, you were just about the only one that had almost exactly the same symptoms as I; all the way down to the lymphocytes and neutrophils.  I was so happy for you when you had your negetive test results.  I was in no way trying to instill fear in you, I was just trying to show you how I could still have doubts after this long.  You are the one who started this thread, arguing with Teak about the 6 week conclusive, yet you have tested negative WAY past that and are still worried like me.  You have ridiculed me for testing out so long, but you have the same concerns, that's why I brought up your lab results, because they are almost exactly like mine.  Yes, I agree, my testing has been quite excessive, but with continuing symptoms, it's really hard not to as you well know.  By the way, I apologized to Bamboosalt for my post after I was set straight by Xhost.  I realize that we're all here for support, and that my post was very insensitive.  If it makes you feel any better, I apologize to you too.  I wish no ill feelings with anyone and I want this anxiety to end just like you and everyone else here.

[dumbo]

So the hotline specifically said Vaginal was high risk and everyone who has had unprotected vaginal sex should be tested and tested at 3 months to be conclusive?

Again, I re-iterate, it would be impossible for the medical system to handle the load this hype would create.   Impossible.!  The whole medical system would be flooded with people day after day after day who have had unprotected vaginal sex. They could never keep up.