BOGUS 3 MONTH RULE!!!

Ok, I'm a little frustrated with a lot of these one sentence replies of "No risk, move on" or "Testing isn't required, you're negative". ARE YOU GUYS DOCTORS??? RESEARCHERS??? LAB TECHS??? DO YOU WORK FOR THESE TESTING MFG'S??? NO!!!! YOU DON'T!!!! Listen, people should be advised to be tested UP TO 6 MONTHS!!! AT LEAST!!! I don't care if the CDC says 3 months, nor Dr. HHH saying 6 months, who the hell is going to take care of that one girl or guy who seroconverts at 3 months, 1 week???? WHO!!!??? I'd cover your a$$ a little bit before ranting and raving about this 3 month rule. Maybe if people realize within 6 months that safe sex IS IMPORTANT they won't be on this forum going crazy.

1) Oral sex carries no risk??? That's a load of BS. Ok, so the assumed risk statistic is 1/10000 with an HIV infected person....So let me get this straight, someone who has oral sex with an HIV infected partner has a 1/10000, ok no, say 1/100000000000000 chance of catching HIV...Who's to say THEY AREN'T THAT 1/1000000000 PERSON??? Honestly, ask yourself, does having ANY type of sexual intercourse with an HIV infected person make you any less worried about testing if the odds are in your favor? Think about it. An HIV infected partner gives you a BJ, are you going to sit back and say "Oh, i have 1/1000000000 chance of being infected, testing isn't necessary"???? The HELL YOU AREN'T, YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR A$$ AND GET TESTED, PERIOD!!! Enough with these 1 sentence replies of "You're negative, move on". Enough is enough. You need to start encouraging testing. You can't account for that 1/100000 person not being infected - period. IT CAN BE YOU, GET TESTED FOR THE SAKE OF YOURSELF AND FUTURE PARTNERS!!!!!!

2) Finding proof of this 3 month window period are positive in a sense that, if you test negative at 3 months then your 6 month should hopefully be negative - period. WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL!!?? TEST AT 6 MONTHS, IT TAKES 20 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME!!! IS YOUR LIFE NOT WORTH 20 MINUTES AT 6 MONTHS!!!??? Jeez, what part of 99% of people don't you understand?? 99% and 100% is a HUGE difference. Just imagine all of the people who come to this website for information. Just imagine how many read the forums and are not members. C'mon now guys, have a little common sense. If 100 people read this 3 month rule, we can expect to see 1 out the 100 test positive after 3 months. This one person then will infect another person, who will infect another person, who will infect another person....What part of that is so difficult to understand.

YOU NEED TESTING AT 3 MONTHS, 6 MONTHS, AND IF POSSIBLE 12 MONTHS TO BE AS DEFINITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE AS POSSIBLE. What's wrong with that? If people test negative at 3 months, what do they have to be worried about at 6 months, god forbid if the turn positive and it's confirmed, at least you know your status and have a better chance of living a healthier life and protecting those around you. I just don't understand, you guys need to take some time to actually reply to people. If you want to make a difference in the whole HIV community you need to advise safe sex, get tested regularly, and always ALWAYS test before you change partners. You guys just don't understand. If 1/4 HIV positive individuals don't know about their status and there are still thousands upon thousands of individuals who are positive yet DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WERE INFECTED.

Think about it. BTW, there was a guy on thebody.com who tested POSITIVE at 5 months. He had oral sex unprotected. What he didn't know was that he had a small cut on his penis, small enough to be infected. Go ask Dr.Bob, look through his archives and find it, it's recent. I think Jan 4th? Anyhow with that said....

IF YOU'RE HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT CONSTITUTES AS (ORAL, VAGINAL, HAND....WHATEVER) YOU NEED TESTING AT 3, 6, AND 12 MONTHS, PERIOD!! IT'S YOUR DECISION, AND IT'S YOUR DECISION TO BE PROPERLY INFORMED RATHER THAN THESE SIMPLE "YOU'RE NEGATIVE MOVE ON" STATEMENTS. GET TESTED, PLEASE!!!! Teak and the other guys who say all these "You're negative, move on" statements, I hope you're willing to bear the burden on your shoulders when someone comes to you and says "I'm positive...I thought you guys said I was negative, there was no risk, 3 months was suppose to be enough time"....Think about that, then try to sleep at night.

[alienshadow]

look who cares what you are tried of start a band or something your just jealous that we told you so

[Pecha1230]

Wow, theres a lot of hostility, Where i live here in Arizona they go by 60 days as being conclusive, but overall the window period is 3 months. It even says it on the brochure that you get when you get tested with the oraquick test.  It says it on the CDC website, Dr. Bob says 3 months. PERIOD

[tacotrd06]

Jealous of what? You know what shadow, are you willing to become HIV positive at the sake of your replies? If someone seroconverts late, and finds out waaaay down the road that they're positive, are you willing to become positive just because you advised against an additional 20 minute test. I didn't think so.

[Pecha1230]

I think your missing the point, Your making it sound like no one wants to test at 6 months because they cant bare to go through 20 minutes of hell waiting for there results. The problem that people have at testing at 6 months is waiting for 6 months to come. Thats why people dont want to go for the whole 6 months thing when its written all over the place that the window period is 3 months

[tacotrd06]

PS, at the clinic, they told me 6 months is necessary. BTW, the research University I attend, yeah, the one with a $21 million dollar grant donated towards their latest HIV research/vaccine project, yeah that one, of whom AN ACTUAL HIV SPECIALIST noted that the 6 month rule is definitely more definitive and conclusive than the 3 month doesn't have a clue what he's talking about right? Let's all listen to shadow now because he's fighting to stop the spread of HIV, BRAVO shadow, BRAVO, let's assume everyone has an identical immune system.

[tacotrd06]

Well if the 3 months is definitive and conclusive, what's wrong with testing at 6 months. If you can't test at 6 months, then I think you have doubts regarding the test. I mean, it's suppose to be negative, right? Hearing the words "you're negative" at 3 months is nothing but a verbal utterance. The testing advisor isn't going to have to live with HIV if you turn positive later on, is he/she?

[alienshadow]

guess what news flash  i tested at 84 days negative told by 5 drs no need for more testing so who you think i believe you are my dr quit posting your nonsense 3 months is conclusive dummy and dont call me out again

[worried scik]

You are an idiot.  Every organzization and HIV expert says that 3 months is conclusive.  Pecha1230 has it exactly right.  The majority of people will continue to be extremely stressed for 6 months and 12 months which will cause more harm than good.  Keep your mouth shut and do some research.  3 months is conclusive. Period.  You should be worried about be struck by lightning on a clear day because that can happen to.  Should we stay in doors for the rest of our lives because of the real possibility of that happening. I think not.  

[alienshadow]

thank you end of story

[Pecha1230]

Yeah i tested at 6 weeks and i felt good by then, then i got a conclusive one at 12 so i dont need anymore. 3 Months is the conclusive time. Of course your gonna have other Doctors who will still say 6 months, there is always going to be that debate. If you want to test at 6 months thats your business. If i want to test at 3 thats mine.

[tacotrd06]

Well, if you guys are so confident with your 3 month test, more power to you. Because 100% of all individuals turn positive in 3 months correct? And in the future, if you have to take an HIV test, you have no doubts about it, right? Just making sure.

[worried scik]

Furthermore, when you do you research, you will even find multiple experts who state that with modern testing, 8 weeks is most likely sufficient.  At a recent conference with over 200 HIV experts who treat patients, a question was asked if anyone had seen a case of someone who tested negative at 8 weeks turn positive later. Guess what the answer was.  ZERO!

[tacotrd06]

Exactly. I agree with Pecha, 6 months is a personal choice. The majority of you guys who advocate the 3 month rule do it out of personal choice and not compassion. You don't know this persons history and medical record, therefore the 3 month rule should only apply to YOU. Simple as that. What works for some people may not work for others. I don't see the problem with advocating a 3 and 6 month rule. Just say, 3 months is considered def. and conclusive and many doctors still suggest a 6 mo rule, leave it up to the person to make the decision, don't force people. I agree with Pecha.

[alienshadow]

look what about this dr h and hook say 6 weeks and 8 weeks test proves you dont have hiv get educated you dummy dont bring your fear here for others to read

[tacotrd06]

Can you live with 'most likely sufficient'. To me, 99.99% is still 99.99%, it's not 100%. I know, that's the way science works, but 99.99 and 99.9999% are different. I'd go with the latter if you ask me.

[worried scik]

NOTHING IS 100% IN MEDICINE IDIOT!  WHY WOULDNT YOU TAKE THE SAME POSITION WITH EVERYTHING YOU DO IN LIFE.  WHEN YOU GET A CHECK UP AND THE DOCTOR SAYS YOUR HEALTHY DO YOU THINK THATS 100%.  WHY NOT GO GET MULTIPLE BLOOD TESTS, MRI'S TO TEST FOR BRAIN CANCER, ETC. OTHER INVASIVE TESTS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DONT HAVE SOME DISEASE.  YOU MAY HAVE BRAIN CANCER RIGHT NOW - NO DOCTOR CAN TELL YOU 100% THAT YOU DONT.  WHERE DO YOU STOP.  NOTHING IS 100% PERIOD

[alienshadow]

uh oh  taco i am known here now we see who has whos back when needed i will remember that WORRIED SICK  i am a regular here that talks to people to help calm there fears remember i have been there

[Teak]

He's been reported. Just ignore him.

[tacotrd06]

NO SH*T!!! WHY DO YOU THINK I KEEP IMPLYING THE 6 MONTH RULE!!!! IT'S MORE CONCLUSIVE THAN A 3 MONTH, RIGHT???? STUPID A$$

[tacotrd06]

Nvm, I'm signing off. Forget it.

[troggs]

I've been on this forum for almost six months and i'm here to tell you that whether or not you dislike what Teak, Chris needs Help and other have to say -or- there short form answers, never have i seen anyone return to cast blame or state they turned out to be positive. BTW, nobody needs to test after a handjob unless they got a handjob from bloody Mary herself or something, there's no chance at all, period. What makes you so angry at this forum? This is probably the best forum to go through a tough time after an exposure out there. Have you see the other forums Tacotrdo6? I'm sure you found yourself right back on Medhelp shortly afterwards. I think your being hard on us without merit, i'm skeptical about the advice regarding unprotected oral, but i have not seen a post that i came here and tested positive after oral sex. I would never engage in unprotected sex in any of the situations most state, but as it stands-not a one. People can draw there own conclusions as well Tacotrd06, i for one believe if you go looking for trouble you will find it, that's life right. Most people are very capable of making the right choices for themselves. Never seen anyone come on this forum after 3 months negative either my friend, so ...until then....

[tacotrd06]

I never said I disliked anyone. I just don't see how "move on, you're negative" helps anyone. If it did, you'd only see one question, and one reply. But honestly look, the same people are always on here with concerns and questions. You need to either help people or direct them to other sources. I've thanks teak and chris and other hundred's of times, unfortunately yesterday, I came to the conclusion that, the more I heard "you're negative, move on" the more I questioned the tests integrity. Teak is over here reporting me after everyone's ganging up against me? I think I have a right to my own opinion just like everyone else. Teak, chris, and whoever have equal rights on this board.

[tacotrd06]

All I did was post an opinion. Everyone over here is calling me an idiot, harassing me, and not once did I even go out and point out who was doing what. If people are interested in my topic, then let them be, but I think I have a right to post an opinion. They all came in here and started harassing ME. I didn't go into their posts and start harassing them. Look, honestly. Pecha replied. I replied back with respect and good manners. What did I do wrong? Nothing until shadow came running around with his mouth saying i'm "Starting a band" or what not.

[worried scik]

Do you have any idea what comments like yours do to most of the worried wells who read this forum. The readers on this forum are more anxious than the general population at large and when people like you state they should get tested at 6 months and then 12 it creates more anxiety unnecessarily.  Every HIV expert says 3 months so who are you to say people should get tested out to 6 months and maybe 12.  People need to understand that 3 months is as conclusive as it gets.  It doesnt get any more reliable at 6, 12, 24 or 36.  It will still be 99.9999% because you know what it could have been a false negative.  Thats because nothing is 100%.  So keep your mouth shut!

[Teak]

Opinions are not facts. So it would be helpful for you to keep your opinions to yourself.

[troggs]

I'll agree with you that nobody has the right to dismiss another person who finds themselves on this forum by stating that they should move on..it's a cold power move, but there comes a point when we do have to move on- each of our choosing, there's no reason to ban you from i've seen, just tone down the yeling/caps and maybe get a handle on some o the facts before going after Medhelp vets..

[alienshadow]

thanks to all that has my back here all im saying is yes he posted his nonsense here i stood up to him and he tryed his best to break me that wont happen not today i have been here for many and not one time have i tried to put fear in some one like this guy has but anyway thats all i have to say

[troggs]

Anytime you make a unsubstantiated statement expect to be challenged. If your uncertain post it as a question, not a fact and gather info beforehand is all..

[troggs]

Don't forget, if you put something out in left field  behind some newbies posted question it's only going to do them harm and cause undue worry..

[tacotrd06]

You've just been reported. I never said anything derogatory towards you. That's just crossing the line.

[tacotrd06]

The same goes for you Teak. I never said anything derogatory towards you either, and now you "reported" me. The last time I checked, this was medhelp.org not "I AM TEAK, I RUN THE SHOW HERE". I never said harassed anyone on this site. BTW, good for you shadow, I'm glad trying to be an e-thug makes you happy.

[tacotrd06]

The problem I'm having is, many people are implementing this 3 month rule, I agree with it, but I also still agree with the 6 month rule just for the sake of safety. I don't know what "you're negative, move on" does for people. If that's the case, have someone get tested twice, there's nothing wrong with that is there. Do you guys really think those 4 little words are going to make the lives of people better. Whether or not they had a high or low risk encounter, you should encourage testing, moral support, and the idea of "no risk, you don't need testing" are misleading. Now this person thinks whoever he or she has oral sex with, he's immune to catching the virus as long as he has oral sex - this isn't true. Period. You guys need to consider other's actions based on your replies. Honestly, do you know how many people turn to you for help? When they see "no risk" what do you think comes to mind. If you're looking to get a little medhelp click going, good for you guys, but this site isn't intended for that.

[tacotrd06]

BTW, you guys are morally obligated to provide good information to people. When someone says "I had oral sex" and then reply with "No risk, move on" - how do you justify that? Honestly, you're not there doctor, you weren't there witnessing the act taking place. Let's get one last thing straight, if you guys have nothing better to say than "no risk, move on" then I suggest going to another forum. And Teak, you never had to report me, let alone read my posting, and that goes for anyone else. I never made a derogatory, hate, or negative post towards anyone on this site. I don't care what people think about it either, my clinic, hiv specialist AND the rep. from orasure told me that 6 mo. is as close as it gets to conclusive and definitive results. It's a free country, you can test whenever you like, but from my understanding, Teak, Chris and whoever else, you guys got your info from the CDC's website and other sources as well, so what makes you guys more credible than me? We're not doctors, I have my source of info, you have yours, I don't see a problem, do you?

[Orillion]

would you consider me conclusive at 8 months? :)

[troggs]

Do you know what CDC stands for mate? Centers For Disease Control, they disseminate information to the general public to help stem the spread of disease(s). I think you really need to re-evaluate your position here on this forum my friend, it's a small community of posters that exsist here, and you've manage to get on the bad side of a lot of forum regulars Tacotrd06. At this point i'd suggest decide what you want to get out if the forum, maybe getting off on the wrong foot based on your frustration with the situation you've found yourself here under, you should try another approach. Just a suggestion...

[troggs]

Teak / Chris / Shadow, ect, maybe we should all make an effort to make amends here as well, it's getting a little out of hand. All sides can probably agree that regretful statements have been made, no?

[tacotrd06]

Orillion: 8 mo's....how can I say this tactfully....Well, that's up to you, I can't make that decision for you, but let's just say, if you decide to test again, I think you'll more than happy with the results.

Chapeau: I'm more than willing to make amends with Teak, Chris, Shadow, Etc....All I'm saying is, I'd like to see a little more compassion go into responses. Maybe just explain a little more to people. Short hand responses may very well be assuring in your eyes, but remember, you guys all make the time to be here, so put a little thought and effort into responding to people. I mean, remember, these people come here to find info, comfort, etc., and if you can't provide that, than I don't know what to tell you. I mean, one statement isn't going to help anyone out, maybe a few, but from what I've seen, not many.

Chris: About that 21 million dollar college grant statement, may I remind you that it's funds like this that are leading researchers closer and closer to answers to finding a cure. So show a little respect, eh?

[troggs]

You really make yourself difficult to like my friend. Site a shorthand answer you've seen me post...right..that's your problem (sweeping generalizations). If you don't like what;s being offered here your free to pass along FACTS on any post and express any THOUGHTS within that response you want. You skipped everything else i've mentioned in my prior responses to you, your keen on venting but not on taking things into account my friend.

[tacotrd06]

No no no...I'm not referring to you by any means Chapeau. I'm speaking in general - I read your last post, I thought it was quite warm. I was referring ONLY to those who post with the one sentence statement not you, at all.

[Torontoindie]

Whats wron with you, mate?

you are freaking out everyone.... you have collected some info on the net and posting all this useless ****.  

you are not a doctor, are u?  read Dr. HHH answers, he is the expert.
everyone goes for the test at >3 months. teak had told me many times I'm not at risk. but I got tested at 6.5 weeks and I will at 3 months. So is chapeau.

you are neither a doctor nor a patient, so dont pretend to be one.

[tacotrd06]

I'm leaving for good. I don't want to be banned because some people get mad at me for speaking my mind and experience, I guess that makes everyone else better than me. In that case, I wish you all the best in health, may all your negatives be negative, and may your worries be gone. Good luck to you all. Take care.

[alienshadow]

LIKE AOL SAYS
                       GOODBYE

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

This reminds me of an issue that occured today. An employee of mine performed a diagnostic test, and informed the patient's mother that the test results were normal.

Next thing I know I get an irate e-mail regarding my employees poor bed side skills, because she did not go into a detailed explanation of the results... blah blah blah.....

Normal is normal, what more can be said or done? You would think a person would be happy and move on?

I could not imagine living life in fear for 6 months or out to a year. It was hard enough for 3 months. In fact I did even make it to 3 months, I had DNA PCR tests done, maybe 3 for one exposure etc.  

I was falling apart, stress etc.  

I would prefer to see the window period shrink due to better research, and better testing methods, rather than prolonging the whole experience.

BTW research the odds for heart disease, prostate cancer etc...  Then go and freak out about that on other forums.

Not that you are not welcome to come here, my point is.... there are many other things that one can freak out about just as well and probably carry higher odds of contracting.

Good luck

[alienshadow]

taco just wanted to put fear in peoples minds thats all you dont have to explain nothing to him

[william1980]

my doctor at gum clinic says 3 months is conclusive

[alienshadow]

and i AGREE chris

[jon33070]

six month is correct. it's about time .

[mike_no]

6 Months....LOL ! Can some one tell me if it's the year 2008, we're in to?

[jon33070]

yeah no one can test after three months . no one. hell no

[mike_no]

So true, I second Jon. Actually one needs to test till 16 years post exposure, in fact even that would be inadequate, it's advisable to test after 50 years from the date of exposure.