Conclusive?

[Anxiety_Kills]

Dr, thank you for such a great service. First off, I am a heterosexual male. Never have used IV drugs, never have had sex with a man. Since my first HIV test years ago (negative), I have had a few relationships which consisted of some unprotected vaginal sex. A couple of instances were just "one off" episodes. I had an HIV test approximately 34 days (5 weeks) after my last unprotected experience. When I visited the clinic and took the test (this was early December 06'), the clinic had told me that this test would only test me from the day I was born up until 6 months before I came in for the test (would have meant only up to June 06'). Would you say that this would be ultraconservative or true? Is there a chance that the test was taken too early even considering the level of the risk I was at? HIV status of my partners was unknown. As far as I know, no one was a drug user. I have read a lot here on the forum of risks and what not of this type of exposure. Just wanted a little of my own reasurrance. Again, thank you so much.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

It seems you already know my view, based on reading the forum.  I haven't changed my mind:  modern HIV tests virtually always are positive within 6 weeks of infection, and few if any responsible authorities say it takes longer than 3 months. So it seems your clinic advisor is either behind the times or being ultraconservative.

Good luck--  HHH, MD

[johnyq]

I think he will tell you that the test is pretty conclusive after two months - and pretty reassuring after one. He will tell you that your encounter was low risk and that it that the percentages are in your favor. But hell he told me there was zero risk after I stuck a finger that was completely missing the first layer of skin after a severe second degree burn into a prostitute in guatemala where about 4 percent are infected with hiv. So I get the impression he pretty much says the same thing to everybody unless you are shooting needles or taking it up the *** - Don't worry but get tested again if it reduces stress.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

"...he told me there was zero risk after I stuck a finger that was completely missing the first layer of skin after a severe second degree burn.... So I get the impression he pretty much says the same thing to everybody unless you are shooting needles or taking it up the ***".

False.  Given the frequency of fingering, the frequency with which people have cuts or other lesions on their fingers, and the complete absence of even a single report of someone acquring HIV that way (millions of infecte people over a quarter century!), it is obvious that fingering carries no measurable risk of HIV, regardless of cuts or wounds.  Theoretical possibilities mean nothing in relation to my responses on this forum; data means everything.

HHH, MD

[Anxiety_Kills]

Dr.....so you would not recommend any further testing? Thanks again.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Sorry, that's up to you.  I told you "modern HIV tests virtually always are positive within 6 weeks of infection, and few if any responsible authorities say it takes longer than 3 months". Use that information to make your own decision.

[johnyq]

Thank you for for a more detailed answer on my question- good to hear. And for Anxiety you might replace "positive" with "correct" from your last post to avoid any confusion. Modern hiv tests after six weeks are almost always correct.

[Anxious and Worried]

Would you consider the OraQuick Rapid Advance HIV 1/2 test modern?

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

I'm semi-seriously thinking of starting an entirely separate forum for anybody who uses "anxious", "anxiety", "stressed", or similar words in their usernames.

Seriously, some of the comments here are getting pretty ridiculous.  Ones like this one belong in the HIV Support Forum, and I'm going to start routinely deleting them from this one.

"Modern" means any test currently on the market.