Could I please have your opinion on my test result ?

[danibelg]

Hello,
I am a 39 hetrosexual male.
I had an HIV test 6 weeks after having unprotected vaginal sex with a woman.
My test was negative!!! Can I be 100% reassured? Normally, how long does it take for the anibodies to be detected? Thank you in advance for your responce.
Danibelg

[johnnyboy12]

As many people will tell you 6 weeks is not likely to change BUT if you are obsessed with HIV like many on this forum do the 12 week to be conclusive..then move on.  Personnaly it is tough to decide because on one hand you have DR HHH say 6 weeks in conclusive but on the other hand other experts say 12 weeks,  technically speaking I think 6 weeks is as accurate as you will get but the CDC is cautious to say 12 weeks.  I have read studies from rapid test and the studies show detection as early as 3 weeks.  Another thing is that there is no way to tell wheat the real window period is as Dr HHH has said many times, there has and will never be a study that can prove this 3 month window, my suggestion is....do a 12 week BUT be certain it will not change.

[Serge1975]

Hi, your test result is reassuring but given the high-risk nature of your episode a 3-month test is recommended. It will be definitive.

[regularjoey]

The vast majority of infected people will test positive within the first month.  And your risk was very very low, most likely zero, you didn't need to test in the first place.  I'm absolutely confident that you're negative, if you decide to test again expect only a negative result.

I recommend browsing the parallel Doctor's forum for similar questions

[Teak]

No, your 6 week test is not conclusive. A conclusive test is 12/13 weeks post exposure. There are no tests that will give a  conclusive test earlier that 12/13 weeks.

[Serge1975]

Unprotected vaginal sex IS considered a high-risk episode. For men the risk is slightly lower than for women. Still, millions of men in Africa acquired HIV through unprotected vaginal intercourse. With a 6-week negative most likely you will stay negative, however, for a conslusive result a 3-month test is warranted.

[regularjoey]

considered by who?  we are not in africa

[regularjoey]

warranted by who? a normal doctor doesn't warrant any testing over any particular single low risk events at all

[Serge1975]

Considered by all HIV-competent people. Read the CDC and thebody.com. The virus is present in female vaginal fluids, not only in male semen. There are tons of individual case descriptions on the Web where men contract HIV from women. And physiological (not statistical, mind you) risks are the same with people of all countries and races, no matter US or Africa. In my country heterosexual sex is the main way of HIV transmission. It's a well-established medical fact. It won't change whether you argue it or not.

[Teak]

regularjoey doesn't know what he's talking about. You just have to ignore him. He thinks HIV is only spread by homosexuals.

[regularjoey]

Where are you from, Serge?  As you can probably imagine, I realize very well that HIV can be spread by vaginal sex.  Nonetheless, the risk from any single episode with an unknown status partner is extremely low, especially if you are male and especially in the industrialized world.  It is almost unheard of to get infected in this way.  In my 10 years of studying HIV, I saw only 3 or 4 such reports.  It just doesn't happen.  When heterosexual men do contract HIV it is usually after dozens of exposures.

I saw your story by the way.  You tested for a whole year, because you thought your wife infected you?  May I ask why did not you just take the little lady to get tested?  Stay well!

[regularjoey]

Didn't you get a warning from MedHelp?  I really don't want to report you, I don't want you to get banned, I know how much this forum means to you.  Why are you provoking me?

[Teak]

Wrong, You don't know what you are talking about. PERIOD!!!!!! 10 years of study and you haven't learned a dam n thing.

[regularjoey]

I'm right.  Browse the parallel Doctor's forum for similar answers if you don't believe me.

[freak_2007]

Hey regs, i am very delighted to see you have been studying HIV for 10 years and you have just so emphatically mentioned that heterosexual contract HIV only after dozens and dozens of exposures. My simple question, if you can answer, is
why is that so? Why do you think it takes so many attempts for the virus enter into a male's body from a female's body?

does that mean it takes quite a few exposures (if so, minimium how many) before the virus can make a jump?

would appreciate some reasonable answer
cheers

[freak_2007]

[regularjoey]

No, it doesn't mean that at all.  It is just that it is a VERY unlikely event.  Let's say you try a halfcourt basketball shot.  Are you going to make it?  It's possible, but you won't.  Now take a hundred shots - pretty good odds that one of them will fall.  Sorry to disappoint you, but for a large part of HIV transmission science is just cr@pshootology.  

[freak_2007]

That was the most unscientific explanation i have ever heard, that too coming from a phd who studied HIV for 10 years.

I would have really appreciated a scientific answer. i can see what you are trying to say with the basketball analogy but the truth is HIV virus is no basketball player.
In that case, lets assume the player has been practicing for along long time now (is it 30 years?) so he has become a very good player, then wouldn't you be scared he might just get the half-court shot in the first go??? Looks like a silliest analogy i have ever made.

Anyone, any scientific answers please? like in real terminology without analogies?

and anyone without PhD in cr@pshootolgy is welcome.
thank you

[Marksconcerned]

Keep in mind that in Africa heterosexual anal intercourse is the rule.

[Teak]

US HIV Surveillance Report Updated June 2007

http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2005report/table3.htm

High-risk heterosexual contactb 6,730 6,895 7,501 7,447 7,591 102,171

Totals for 2001-2005 that is not even counting IV drug useage.

Now you want to call that RARE. Give us a break.

[Marksconcerned]

And the rectal fluid has more viral load than BLOOD. This explain, for me, why in Africa and among the gays of USA HIV is a not a too rare disease.

[Teak]

For your information, I did not get a warning from Medhelp. :)

[regularjoey]

Mark makes a good point by the way.

Freak, you can ask other experts as well - they will give you the same answer as I did.  A cr@pshoot is all it is.  There are many factors that affect the odds, but in the end it is still a cr@pshoot.  You'll miss the 67 shots, but nail the 68th.  I know basketball is a poor analogy, yes it takes practice (unlike HIV), but I can't think of another one right now.

[Marksconcerned]

Dear Teak,
The problem is that study don't makes distinction between anal heterosexual and vaginal heterosexual. Because if people became infectede had anal heterosexual then it's like a gay risk for the existence of rectal fluid.

[regularjoey]

Well, that's a nice table.  What does it tell you that you don't already know?  Since the start of the epidemic, gay men have accounted for over 500 000 of HIV infections in the US.  In contrast, men that claim to be heterosexual account for only 60 000 of HIV infections - that's over 25 years of epidemic.  In the US, HIV is very common in gay men, but rare in the general population.

[regularjoey]

And Mark makes another valid point.

[Teak]

That was five years of computations, 2001-2005, ~102,171 new cases, not the total number heterosexuals infected. I take it you have trouble reading or should I say comprehending what you've read.

[Serge1975]

Joey, nobody's picking a fight here but it is just very wrong to say that if a man has unprotected sex with a female he is not at risk! He may be infected and may transmit the virus to others! I'll quote Gerald Perone, one of the leading HIV specialists in the US, who leads an HIV forum on thebody.com, MD, AIDS Research and Treatment Centre of the Treasury Coast: "Bi-directional transmission of HIV infection between men and women has been established based on a mountain of observational data. Heterosexual men are at risk for acquiring STDs and HIV in both the developed and developing world. Granted, men do transmit HIV infection more efficiently to women than the converse. I thought this nonsense had stopped at least a decade ago. In the early days of HIV this argument that women really did not transmit infection to men was believed by some. Then in the face of mounting evidence, the argument was changed to "HIV is not transmitted from women to men in America, just in the third world". In fact, there was a publication from that era called "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" by Michael Furmato. This genius now is one of resident fellows at the Hudson Institute, a neoconservative organization that appears to be committed to prevent global implementation of generic HIV medication programs. It is time to move on.". End of quote. It's really time to move on, Joey. We are talking about physiological risks (not statistical, try to understand the difference) and they are the same all over the world, or do you think that viral load in vaginal fluids is lower just because you live in an industrialized country? If you do, there's no point in going further. Go beyond this site and consult the CDC guidelines on this, which are basically the same all over the world. Referring to this site is not good enough for the sake of this argument. Dr. HHH is not a specialist in HIV care, as he stated himself, and still he will completely agree with Teak and myself that men should get tested after unprotected vaginal intercourse with a partner of unknown status as opposed to what you say - just read his comments carefully. As for dozens of exposures, there are lots of cases when men contracted HIV from a single exposure with a prostitute, for instance. Do not forget: transmissibility depends on important individual factors, incl. viral load of the HIV+ female, state of uretra of the HIV- male, etc, so there is definitely no one single risk estimate for everybody here. As Perone says, no convincing study has been undertaken so far to claim risk percentages with full certainty.
Bottomline: unprotected vaginal intercourse with a partner of unknown HIV status warrants HIV testing. It's a wrong subject to have an ego ****-fight on.
As for myself, I tested just three times: at 3, 5, 11 months. I am a sensible guy and my test at 11 months was just to be on the safe side before conceiving a child. With regard to my wife, I decided not to spoil our romantic relationship and put her through the stress of an HIV test, so I waited it out myself. It was a bit stressful before 3 months but I am still glad I took this decision. Take it easy.

[regularjoey]

You are wrong again.  That number is cumulative from the beginning of epidemic.  It says it right there - yes I can read, while we already know that you have a deficiency with that.  That is why I do what I do - and you do what you do.

[regularjoey]

I do agree with you and with Dr.Perone.  However, the point still remains that the statistical risk from a single hetero exposure is very very low, especially in the developed world.  It is impractical to test for such a low risk, that's all, it's not recommended.  But that's a personal decision, people test when they want to.  All I can do is tell them what are the odds that they will get a positive result - and in the case of danibelg it is close to zero.  End of story.  

[sparkley]

you seem like the little boy that always needs to get his way.
Were you an only child? I hope so.

You always have to argue to the point that you NEED to believe you are ALWAYS right.....why is that?

[Teak]

I stand corrected. But again it's not rare by the number of people that have tested and tested positive.That is not the ones that have no clue that they are infected because people like you tell them there is no need to test because they are heterosexual. .

[Jaguar83]

No, he's like a couple kids I knew way back in high school. They always had to argue, no matter what the point was. It's an obsession with arguing, I've seen it repeatedly. I mean, there's an underlying cause, of course. I can't figure it out though.


Who are you regularjoey? Who is on in the inside? Are you in touch with your chi?

[regularjoey]

I am an international man of mystery....

Hey, I hate arguing myself - I wish I could be like Dr.H. and just delete the comments I don't like )))
But I can't, so if I see that people are wrong, I correct them - what else can I do?

[sparkley]

wow....

someone has more issues than Newsweek.

[Teak]

That is few and far between when you are able to correct someone. I at least admit my mistakes. Big difference.

[Serge1975]

Joey, statistical risk may be low in your country - no arguing here. In my country it is a different story. However, even for your country make a simple calculation from the CDC figures quoted above for the US. If we follow your recommendations and not test heterosexual males, tens of thousands of people will not know their status until they develop AIDS and will continue to pass on the virus to other thousands of people in the meantime. Those people in their turn would pass on the virus to other people, etc. Is it impractical as you put it to save tens of thousands of people from HIV???  Give us a break, champ. You are giving a recipe for spreading the HIV epidemic further. danibelg should be alright but thousands of others will be positive, that's a fact and they MUST know their status to take care of their health and not to spread HIV further. You are wrong, Joey, very wrong, that's exactly why the CDC does it the opposite way.
No more debates, the point is absolutely clear.

[regularjoey]

Whoa, hold on buddy.  That is NOT what I said!  It's probably a language barrier, I'm guessing english is not your first language - it's not for me either by the way.  Let me spell it out, since there clearly is a misunderstanding here.

1.  EVERY sexually active person should be REGULARLY tested for HIV - gay, straight, male, female, monogamous, polygamous, safe, unsafe, whatever.  EVERYONE!

2.  EVERYONE should practice safe sex!  Safe sex means careful choice of partners + condoms!  The safest way is to have both, but clearly you use your own judgement.

3.  NOBODY needs HIV testing over a specific event - unless it is a high-risk exposure.  All single time low risks (blowjobs, hetero etc.) ALWAYS test negative.  The rare positives are usually false positives.  It's a big waste of money for everyone.

I hope this is clearer now.

[regularjoey]

OK, I didn't have time earlier, but I do have a minute now, since you are clearly not satisfied with my short answer:

There are many many factors influencing HIV transmission:  viral load, viral genetics, host genetics, presence of STDs, mucosal integrity, circumcision, duration of intercourse, abrasion of intercourse etc etc.  There are many more that I'm forgetting right now and many that we don't know about.  I mean recently a study came saying that washing your member afterwards increases the risk!  When women use spermicidal cream that increases the risk - as we learned the hard way!  It is the combination of those factors that determines whether someone gets infected or not, no one factor alone is enough.  Therefore, doctors usually just use the overall odds to estimate the risk - it is virtually impossible to predict or explain why 136 exposures were fine, but the 137th resulted in transmission.

On a more microscopic scale, the trick is that HIV infects only certain types of cells, which are generally not very abundant at the site where the HIV is deposited.  How do you know when the virus just happens to "bump" into a cell that it needs?  You don't!  If you're lucky, they will not meet, but if you're not they just might.  There is no way to predict when it happens.  Here is an analogy - many celebrities live close to where I live, so I bump into them in the street every now and again.  Can I predict when will I bump into the next one?  No!  I can only estimate my odds.  If I approached this scientifically I could calculate that, for example, for every 50 trips I take to the liquor store I meet one celebrity.  It's really random!

I hope this helps a little.

[freak_2007]

Dude, so according to your own words, it is paractically impossible to predict when a hetero guy could be infected right? Given so many parameters that govern the whole process, which one would you place your bet on? Doctors don't use odds, only epidemiologists do.Every doctor i have met, told me first up, to test after my exposure.Those who mentioned the odds also mentioned its a russian roulette, that one bullet could be the first one. Not one said i had a minimal risk and i shouldn't test. so, do you think it is safe to assume, especially if someone has doubt for whatever reason, that no one could ever get infected the first time? or is it prudent to assume that there is every bit of a chance for someone to get infected the first time?

Please refrain from making insulting comments like the one you made to Serge about his english. As far as i can see, his/her english is perfectly fine. You always say that the other person is not understanding you even though u made it clear, but quite a few people including me seem to not get what you are trying to say. So, where do you think the problem is? please keep the debate rational, scientific and non-denegrating.
thank you

[freak_2007]

So, you said you have been studying HIV for 10 years. May I ask what your speciality is? e.g. transmisssion, epidemiology, treatment etc. I totally understand if you don't want to divulge your details on an internet forum. but i am still curious.
cheers

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

As for me...  condom please, or manogomy, or selabacy...  but that is the only way for me. Aint willing to throw the dice. I wear a seat belt, not because of the law....

[Marksconcerned]

I know that teliing particular cases doesn't has cientific validate. But the all cases that i heard, the only case when i a man heterosexual become infected was this: He have a anal intercourse with a CSW. He uses condom, but simply don't work. He thinks that the condom break, because the female take off the condom of him, so he doesn't see if condom are ok. And this CSW works in a street, and them made sex in a car, only anal sex. I think if you ALWAYS use condom condom properly and avoid anal heterosexual sex, you are pretty safe. One more time, i'm not a doctor. Just a gay who reads a lot about the matter and know much people who are addicted in pay sex, and them just doesn't have HIV (they always get tested) - a strong evident that condom 99.999% works.

[Teak]

If you use a condom consistently and correctly condoms are safe with anal or vaginal sex.

[regularjoey]

I try not to insult people here, unless they are really being stubborn and wacko.  I definitely did not insult Serge!  He said he was from another country, he did not understand what I said, so I guessed that it was a language barrier.  And as I said, I am not a native English-speaker either, so according to you, I insulted myself too...

As per your question - as I said numerous times, including this thread, everybody should get a routine HIV test.  HIV is not a disease to guess about or to play the odds with.  BUT - testing after specific individual exposures is IMPRACTICAL, unless they are of the highest risk type.  It is much more practical to test once a year.  This way we wouldn't have these endless discussions of anxiety, window periods, false positives etc etc.  I don't object to people getting tested because they are nervous and anxious - I just don't recommend it.

As far as what my interests are - I'm primarily interested in HIV cell entry.  It's a broad subject, encompassing pathogenesis, epidemiology, treatment, transmission, immune response, vaccines etc. etc.  I feel comfortable talking about any of the above subjects, because I know them all pretty well.  

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

So is this why u studied HIV for the last 10 yrs, as u stated?

I mean for me I had a crash course like probably like most people here, learning in panic mode of not in hystirical mode.

[regularjoey]

Is what why?  Sorry, I don't get it.

I was always fascinated with viruses in general, especially HIV.  There are so many secrets still, we are just scratching the surface...

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

Sorry, not clear.

I was wondering if the study of HIV was related to you occupation. I can't imagine studdying HIV for a hobby activity.

But hey, if folks knew my hobby, they would think that is a pretty weird one too..

Aquaculture if you want to know.

[regularjoey]

Oh yes, that is what I get paid for.  I wouldn't be saying that I've been studying HIV if all I did was browse the internet for 10 years!  No, it's a full-time hobby for me.

I don't even know what aquaculture is.  I didn't know fish had any culture!

[Wear/a/Jimmy]

Feed to meat ratio, fish can not be beat.....  HANDS DOWN

Funny thing is, I don't even like to eat fish.

Really what I am in to is crustacean aquaculture. Crawfish to be exact.

So I guess then you would be considered an "expert" in your field. Like, you have a dAgee or somt'n like tat.

Ahh such is life.

take care, the hobby is calling me.

[regularjoey]

Fish is cool, I love fish, especially "Finding Nemo".

HIV is a huge subject.  I'm an expert in some areas, less so in others.  I must admit that there are some things about HIV I know almost nothing about - even though I probably should...

[regularjoey]

I looked up aquaculture, that stuff looks really cool!  I'm not a big lobster fan, but it does go well with beer...

[Popcornguy]

Lol. There is just never no agreement in this forum. Dr. HHH who seems to be the main HIV expert says that any 1 risk for a man who has vaginal sex with a HIV positive female is 1 in 2000. I do not understand how you can call that high risk activity. I aint bashing anyone who said it was high risk activity either cause you all know more than me, but going by what Dr. HHH said, I dont get where this high risk comes from. Of course 1 in 2000 or not, its not a chance im willing to take.  So I dont know really what to believe anymore.

[mike_no]

In India, majority of HIV transmission is due to heterosexual events and the HIV subtype C accounts for 84% of HIV strains in India. India has 3.8 million people infected with HIV.

*The HIV subtype C is observed predominantly in the affected heterosexual community and subtype B in the homosexual community.

Hence, HIV is no guessing work.

[mike_no]

Soap Opera ...huh !

[Brian123]

"Hence, HIV is no guessing work."

Love that comment.


And true,....no matter the risk.....it is still  a "risk", despite the "probability".
After all,....who really wants to play the probability game with their life/health?

Certainly not me.

B.

[mike_no]

Exactly thats my point, one should get tested if suspected a risk however kissing, oral (giving/receiving) etc is not a risk and that has been proved through the recent studies.

[Popcornguy]

No **** its a risk, and no doubt anyone exposed in that way should be tested. But the point is, 1 in 2000 is .05 percent chance.....realistically its a really small risk. But because so many people are stupid, yes, still many people will get HIV that way.  And certainly the more times you do it, the more of chance your likely to pick it up. Maybe its "high risk" activity compared to other sexual activity, but in its own right, it dont seem like high risk,

[mike_no]

Get your facts right and take your time to analyze rationally, for any risk to be associated with oral sex;

1. One needs to have a bleeding wound in the mouth / severely compromised oral condition that is bleeding all the time and that has to come in contact with the infectious fluid

2. Consumption of semen is not a risk for HIV, since the gastric acid present in the stomach inhibits the virus

Hence, receiving oral is no risk with out any shadow of doubt (No documented case) and giving also is practically no risk but a theoretical risk (possible only in certain prevailing criterion which is almost impossible)

[mike_no]

Also, testing is not warranted for such incidences

[Popcornguy]

No, I was talking about unprotected Vaginal sex, I know oral sex opposes almost no risk.

[mike_no]

I see, I got it wrong, my bad !
unprotected vaginal is risk.