FOR everyone is worried about WINDOW period.

[qhss81]

Hi!
Everyone can check that from CDC "Update on hiv testing"on:

http://wwwn.cdc.gov/dls/ila/cd/cambodia0704/day1/3-UpdateOnHivTesting.ppt#4

The window period for HIV is just 21-25 days. just and maximum 6 -8weeks as MASS said and DR.HHH and HOOK also.
Thanks.
HOPE that help us even I.

[Warren888]

ghss81: My comment was about what tests are done on blood donated, not on general testing.

[qhss81]

Dear ,
I adoubt about what have you said because you can recveived the result after one or three days so that doesn't mean PCR will be done or even P24.
Thanks.

[Warren888]

When blood is donated it is tested on a pooled sample and both pcr DNA testing and antigen testing is done on the blood. They pool the blood to lower the expense.

[Frank303]

The difference with screening is that the questionnaire is there to eliminate high rish individuals' blood.
There is a different test algorithm too. One +ve on ELISA the blood is discarded with no confirmatory WB.
National blood banks use different tests, I think some use antigen testing.

There were recent infections of British servicemen in Iraq who received blood from American servicemen. I guess recent infections were to blame.

[qhss81]

Dear teak,
Could you tell us what is the different?

[needhonesthelp]

are they using pcr (VL) test for donated blood at this time.  i know some may say these aren't diagnostic tests, but it seems like it would be appropriate.  if someone has a neg VL and neg antibody, they are absolutely neg right?  if not, how is this possible?  where is the virus or anitbody hiding.  i would like to think they are using all the best tests to make sure blood is safe.

[qhss81]

Dear friend,
Could you tell me  what the different between them please?
As I understood if someone was stocked with an infected blood so a negative test at 3 month is conclusive as you have said before ...ok.
But as i understood from what you have already posted which there is a different btween Donor screening and diagnostic testing .I understood :(i.e  someone was stocked with an infected blood so if he donate in the government hospital at 2 month =8weeks and was -ve so that is mean = nearly -ve at 3 months )..is it?
Thanks

[manono]

what do you mean by that?how they are different?when you donate blood they will screen it right?then they will do confirmatory test for the blood so they will be sure there is no hiv?because i donated blood at 8wks so i can see if i am clean or not..

[Teak]

Donor screening and diagnostic testing is two different things.

[qhss81]

Dear all,
Just a quick commet to say car you read this? just to be more relaxe when FDA say the window period UP to 2 month no more.Ok.

http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/02/gay_men_blood_d.html
                                                                
                                                          OR you can read it here

The FDA says:

Studies have shown that up to 2 months may elapse between the time of infection and the time the HIV antibody test is reactive. This period of time is often referred to as the "window period." Accepting men who have had sex with other men since 1977 as blood donors increases the likelihood for the collection of HIV-positive window period blood, because epidemiologic studies have documented higher incidence and prevalence rates in these populations. On March 14, 1996, FDA recommended donor screening with a licensed test for HIV-1 antigen, which has succeeded in further reducing the window period.




I hope this help all.

[Warren888]

Lizzie Loe: The question related to infection rates, not testing so the 2004 date has no bearing. The testing used in that industry is not what was discussed. Read on.

[LIZZIE LOU]

seeing the date "2004" stopped me from reading any further.

[Warren888]

The link below discusses the example I mentioned, as per your request for a link..

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/510487

[Frank303]

I'll stick with the 3 month / 13 weeks / 90 days orthodoxy. It's safer to take worst case scenarios and assume an older generation test is being used.
Though my 9 week NEG is encouraging it's not conclusive.
The nurse I saw said he had seen people seroconvert between 9 and 12 weeks and he's the one who actually does the tests and has to tell people their results.

[Teak]

Yes, you were never at risk and yes, you can rest your case, because, you, nor I, nor anyone else can change the fact that a conclusive negative test result is 3 months.

[manny1980]

I know this is a hard-to-let-go subject for all of us but this thread is wandering off for what I see.

Have any of you spent the time to check, let's say, Dr. Hook's profile? Have any of you googled him and made some research on him?

Everybody, including myself, get crazy about the famous 3+ months mark (some others for the 6+ mos mark) because de CDC and the tests manufacturers say so. Guess what? Go to the following link and make your own opinion out of it:

http://www.uabhealth.org/17527/

Yes... the very same Dr Hook from this forum was named to be a part of the National CDC HIV Committee last year. Remember? The CDC that states that an HIV test to be conclusive has to be taken at 3+ mos!!! This being said, would any of you put at stake the ETHIC of such a respectable professional? Would any of you think or barely conceive the vague idea that he would put people's life at risk? Would the CDC name someone with no ethics to be a part of their team? He has way too much to lose by publically giving out false information, instead he tries with his work to help others (US!!!). And him being a part of the CDC National Committee for HIV is just a microscopic part of what you will find under this doc's resume.

Check at the bottom of this following post what Dr. Handsfield (google him up... another WORLD leading researcher of the HIV virus with 20+ years of experience on hiv testing) has to say regarding no test claiming they give accurate results before 3 months. In that very same post carefully read the position of most (not all) people infected with HIV or under other medical condition.

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/256201

I am not saying people that have the virus are giving out false info... I know they mean their best, but their position might be affected by their condition. Not only by Dr. Handsfield's words but also from my own perspective I think it is possible even in a very slight way. As always, I don't mean to offend anyone who could set eyes on this forum. I am just stating my point of view of the issue after researching very little, selecting RELIABLE information and building up my own criteria.

Hippocratic Oath Par. 3

"I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice"

Every doctor in the world takes this oath. Ethical oath.

I dare anyone to find a proof of Dr. Hook's or Dr. Handsfield's surpassing their ethics on any way. If there is (which I am positive that there is not), I will post it in the doctor's forum and see what they have to say about it. Why would such a respectable web site like medhelp (15 years in the field) have in their cast two non-ethical doctors?

Above (my previous posts under this thread) you will find what the AIDS Action Committee for Massachussetts have to say for testing. Another non-ethical institution?

Huh... too many unethical PUBLIC AND WELL RENONWED figures in the world nowadays, isn't there?

Sorry for the sarcasm but I am getting sick of non-professional people trying to know more than the real ones who, by the way, happen to have OVER 20 YEARS of experience in the HIV testing field.

This isn't really about my case (because I was never at risk to begin with, right Teak?), it has become now more of a knowledge thing and has turned into a great learning experience. So in case someone wonders why I keep hanging around these forums, is because I feel very comfortable learning about such an important subject as HIV. Not for any other reason. Days ago I was relieved about my possible exposure but not convinced. Now I am conviced and will try to help others with my everyday-growing knowledges so they can feel better and know how to protect themselves. Not only in this forum but out of it.

I rest my case.

My regards to you all! Have a nice weekend!

[troggs]

  please name the internet source of the adult movie outbreak. Even if this rap is true i'm deff too paranoid to buy into it man...it does give me some added comfort when i think that the old guidelines were cut in half so maybe the new ones are equally conservative and can be halved as well-unofficially though. When the cdc posts it up-i'm in, but i'll know where i stand before that happens.

306595
-30,000,000.
-300,000.
-Thats actually quite low man-considering that those numbers probably constitute the number of people suffer from some misc. underlying circumstances-cancer / drug users, ect...

[manono]

Wow! so it means i can relax now???because i donated a blood @ 8wks post exposure... and nobody called me..its been 2wks now and nobdy is notifying me...well i guess i dont have this virus??

[Warren888]

People need to understand that everyone's body is different. The three month statistic is very conservative, but is still the standard as I read it. Many "experts" cite statistics, but real evidence is harder to come by. For example some cite the chance of being infected after one exposure as 1 in the tens of thousands, but that is misleading. For example if the sex partner recently was infected with HIV, the chances are much higher. An interesting read is the US pornography industry outbreak a few years back where a man was infected and infected about a quarter of his subsequent female sex partners within a month of his infection.

[306595]

I have problems accepting the percentages as rare enough not to worry anymore. If you put the percentages into perspective, there are estimated more than 30 million with HIV/AIDS in the world and a 1 percent figure would mean that out of the 30 million, 300,000 people would test positive after 3 months. I do not see how 300,000 can be considered a rare case. It is a population size of a city.

With the figure given by the CDC, that is  97% after 3 months, the figure goes up 900,000.

I do know that its really difficult to put a number into this. But I just want to know is when do you consider it rare case. Is 300,000 cases rare enough? If so, I would still be scared now even after a negative result at 95th day.

I hope someone can give light of the definition of a "rare" case. thanks

[needhonesthelp]

As I read this info, I have to wonder why some say 6 mos...it does seem a little odd.  Who tests positive after 3 months then?  Does anyone know of anyone that has tested pos after 3 mos...

Teak- have you heard of anyone testing pos after 12/13 weeks?  if so, why?

It just seems like 6 mos still comes up as a 100% conclusive test.  There is so much conflicting info.  I have read some posts on the thebody.com and there are some docs that will say test at 6 mos.  aren't they educated on this topic, if not why in the heck are they pretending to be experts.

I certainly hope 6 wks is fairly conclusive...as Dr. HHH and Hook Say - 95% and 12-13 wks is conclusive ( i guess this would mean 99+%).

[qhss81]

Dear friend,
I agree with manny this a real life not game.
However, just to be more friendly we should work together and we must put everything is an accurate and good news for other not confusing things.
Teak you always was and still the good friend I have known here.
And you all my favourat friends.
Agian GOOD nite for all.

[manny1980]

Teak,

This is the second time that I try to engage into a conversation on a specific HIV subject (window period) and you try to turn it around by bringing up my case. Did I have a real risk? You tell me. You don't seem to be ever wrong... tell me... did I?

Back to the subject. If I walked into the AIDS Action Comittee of Massachussetts Office looking for counseling and they told me face-to-face the very same information they gave me on the phone that my 6 weeks test is conclusive, could you please tell me where can I read the disclaimer for that? This is a life threatening virus we are talking about. It doesn't make any sense to even conceive the idea that any HIV related Organization in the US would be giving out false information.

If you don't want to take it to the legal part, fine. What about the ethic side of it? Would they play with people's lifes?

This, not to mention that Dr. Handsfield has an STD clinic where HE TELLS PEOPLE that a 6 weeks test is conclusive. Not convinced yet? Well I wasn't either... fortunately for me now I AM.

I'm going to bed too. Later folks.

[Teak]

I'm positive of Mass. Dept of Health policies on testing. So good nite.