For the 3 month doubters

This is especially for canimoveon, There was a recent post to Doctor H, by someone who had unprotected sex with someone who was CONFIRMED to be HIV POSITIVE. This person developed all the classic symptoms, some of them severe, however they had a negative test at 13 weeks, so Doc H said it could not possibly be HIV. I think Doctor H would not take the risk of saying this if there were any doubt in his mind about a negative at 13 weeks, especially when his exposure was unprotected to a CONFIRMED POSITIVE! check it out if you want to.
http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/939.html

[WorriedT]

In the end, people have to decide themselves what will convince that they are HIV negative. There is very little that we can be totally sure of in life - probably the only 2 things are the passing of time and that we all eventually die, so yes, there may be a chance that some-one doesn't seroconvert at 3 months, but then there is also a chance that a meteor detroys the planet that we know tomorrow (by the way, I'm not saying that the chances are the same). I'm not quite sure why you are trying to propose a 6 month testing regime when even the CDC and official UK (and most of the health agencies controlling the Western world)guidelines say that 3 months is conclusive. Different doctors may prefer to be more or less conservative, but in the end, that is up to them, what they have read, what their experience is and whether their patients trust them to follow their advice.

[mike_no]

Stop it dude, that's what YOU think, you just shouldn't read between the lines and judge an expert's opinion.

You can keep that opinion for your self, if you don't believe what the doc here has to say I'd say you should leave this board and follow what your doc says

please understand, this forum has individuals with great amount of HIV anxiety and your INACCURATE analysis would help nobody

Mike  

[mike_no]

I think WorriedT just addresed your concern

WRONG ANALYSIS ! is your problem

[worriedmang]

The CDC only has 2 reports of seroconversion beyond 3 months, TWO!! Out of hundreds of thousands. These cases are always in people who have recently undergone chemotherapy, or who have hep C or leukemia. Also, again, Over 300 hiv experts, who deal with h.i.v. patients every day, have not seen someone test negative at 8 weeks, and then go on to test positive in the last 5 YEARS!! Even Doctor Bob, whos advice is much more conservative than doctor H, said that it has been MANY YEARS, since he has seen a negative at 3 months turn to positive, and even doctor bob said that 3 months is 99+% accurate, in other words, conclusive (you can never have 100%)

[worriedmang]

Another example, Doctor Bob, who again, gives very conservative advice, recently had a question from someone who had a condom break in UGANDA, In Africa there is obviously way more people infected with h.i.v. than here, (I believe in Northern Africa 30% of adults are infected) The man had told Doctor Bob that the woman had slept with many men. What was Doctor Bob's advice?? A 3 month antibody test, that was it. I don't think Ultra conservative Doc Bob would take a chance on that one if he doubted the 3 month test.

[mike_no]

Another Albert Einstein in making!

I think once you go to the CDC website apart from all the HIV blah blah, you also have one more thing called as 'career', I think thats where you should be !

[WorriedT]

Just thought you should check the date on the post of the individual who tested positive after a 7 week negative. It's July 2001.... Dr H and the  300 other HIV specialists said "in the last 5 years".

Canimoveon - it's obvious that for you, you will only accept 6 months, but there are early reported cases out there of seroconversion taking years, though those cases have question marks over validity. Are you going to extend testing out to years when you find those or will you believe that those people had other risks?

A quote from your post...

"Because the majority of people who get tested do not have a specific exposure they are testing for, and when they get a positive result, they do not know which exposure infected them."

Actually, most people on here seem to know the exact date they were exposed. For those cases that you describe, the majority of seroconversions relate to lifestyle/behaviour. I suspect anyone who has multiple high risk exposures should take the time as the last such exposure...

"OK....your going to put your life on the line just because a doctor who has no legal responsibilities for giving out incorrect information, says 3 month is good?"

I'm not sure what "legal responsibility" any healthcare provider has with a patient who has put him- or herself at risk from HIV. Are you saying that a 3 month negative followed by a 6 month positive would result in legal action? On top of that, if the "incorrect information" is given out by the CDC, do you really think that there's going to be a legal case? I don't think any of the doctors advising 3 months have anythnig to worry about.

[dumbo]

WTF are you here for goof?  Are you sitting there jerking off waiting  for WW"s to reply to your stupid useless and totally incorrect fearmongering posts?

[monkeyflower]

Know how many people have tested positive after a negative three month test? A FEW. Out of millions and millions of people, over years and years. If you honestly think that's worth worrying about, I suggest counseling to help you deal with your irrational fears of HIV.

Also, Dr. Handsfield has said that he isn't an expert in HIV *treatment*, not transmission or testing. Know who wrote the guidelines for testing? Why, that would be Dr. Handsfield...

And fyi, I'm not blindly following anyone. I'm perfectly capable of reading, interpreting, and thinking for myself. I choose to believe reputable scientists and researchers, rather than anonymous posters with their (usually uninformed) personal beliefs and agendas.

Either way, testing windows, technology, etc. doesn't interest me. I don't personally fall into the worried well category, although I find the phenomenon fascinating. I get tested once a year, and don't give it another thought :-)

(...are you teak, by any chance?)

[monkeyflower]

Canimoveon, I've read several of your posts, and I can only conclude one of three things: 1. you mean well, but honestly don't know or understand how HIV/testing works, 2. you're willing to believe anything you read (that confirms what you *believe*, that is, not what is actual scientific, medical fact), or 3. you are a troll, here just to stir up more trouble among some already freaked out, paranoid, anxious folks. I don't know which it is, and I don't really care. But I do care that you're posting incorrect information.

EVERYONE: You have to read and think critically, especially on the internet. Just because some anonymous person--your peer, btw--says he believes something, doesn't make it true. Think it through. Who are you going to believe: someone with medical/scientific training and experience, or some guy with his own paranoia-driven erroneous beliefs about HIV?

[Teak]

Now here is someone that doesn't know a thing about HIV or transmission. More than likely he's a denialist. You have to just let him pass his hot air.

canimoveon, just to let you know. I forwarded your little post to Ann, Andy and Peter. You definitely don't want to know what they said about your little post. For your added info, I

[WorriedT]

Hi canimoveon. It's like I said before - in the end, we all have to decide what we feel is a testing period that we can accept. My reaction was not to the fact that you feel that 6 months is the safe bet. However, I do feel (and I'm sorry if I've interpreted this wrong) that you have something against Dr H because you've said: 1. that you should not believe him because he has no legal responsibility; 2. that you found an example on the Net that goes against his 6-8 week negative, 3 month positive scenario.

All I say is that Dr H said "in the last 5 years" which means your example falls out of that category and that Dr H follows national CDC guidelines for high risk cases....

[mike_no]

I've been reading this from the past couple of days, initially I tried telling 'canimoveon' that his facts are nothing but flying rat's ass farts, the problem is he's tryin to be a scientist (but who cares) he is trying to bring about Rennaisance in the subject of HIV testing (I wish.... if only somebody cared) the only thing that we could do now is ignore him, since he's got no respect for the doc & people who keep a complete know how of the disease, the reason I said ' ignore him' cuz I really really doubt even if a counsellor could help him, probably he'd end up counselling the guy with all his fairy tales

Phew............He only somebody could help him

[Teak]

It's sad, that you have nothing better to do with your life than to post your lies and asinine remarks on a support forum for HIV. You really should seek out the help of a mental health professional.

[dumbo]

Listen you little piece of ****, get the fck off of this site or we will tell your mommy.  For once I agree with Teak.  I feel bad too, not because you are a stupid punk teenage troll, but because your parents decided to keep you after you were born.  

[Xhost]

Not sure I want to do this, as this particular "debate" has gotten quite spirited, but I will say one thing: given that 3 months is the accepted and "official" guideline in the United States, I think I would rest easy after having that 3 month test and finding out I was negative.

I say this for the simple reason that if someone has tested positive after 3 months (and, just to point out, the examples given by the original poster are anecdotal, so not sure I believe them), it is the exception to the rule. In other words, as MonkeyFlower pointed out, it seems to happen very rarely, if at all. At some point I, along with everyone else, will have to determine the point at which they feel comfortable calling it a day in terms of testing. For me, in most cases, that is most likely 6 weeks (and believe me, I know that some here will disagree with that). For others, that will be 3 months. For still others, it will be a longer period of time.

In this forum, the majority of posts are written by those who have had little to no risk. And, not only that, they have a level of anxiety that is disproportionate to that risk. To these people, it is a hell of agony to wait out that 6 weeks, or 3 months. Never mind that they had little to no risk to begin with - logic and rationality have very little to do with it. So, in a very real sense, this forum is at least a little about education, and even more so about helping manage their anxiety (which, in most cases, as said earlier, is unwarranted).

For that reason, it is often unwise to dwell on the extreme statistical outliers. For instance, many posters write about high anxiety levels after french kissing. What should we do, as responsible people here, in that case? Point out that of all the millions of reported HIV infections, one came from a kissing incident. Further, should we then say: by all means, go get a test, because, you know, two people out of millions did get it this way! And oh, by the way, some minute percentage of people may, based on anecdotal evidence, test positive after 3 months, so not only should you test, you should continue to test and live in mortal fear for the next, oh, say, year of your life.

Not only is this irresponsible, it is also bad advice. Should we all stop kissing because 2 out of 25 million contracted HIV in this manner? Should we stop having any type of human contact because someone's cousin from around the way claimed to have gotten HIV from shaking someone's hand? If that's the case, perhaps we should, being caring (if slightly hysterical) adults, tell people to stay out of automobiles, or out of rain showers. Perhaps then it is safer and more compassionate to advise people to tape nerf balls all over their bodies and to live in a padded room.

In other words, are we giving bad advice when we say that kissing is not a risk, nor is mutual masturbation, or even unprotected oral sex, because, in the history of this epidemic, a handful of people may have caught the disease in this way? I do not believe so, because, based on the number of cases that have occured in this manner, the odds of it happening are so minute as to be not worth thinking about, in the same way that I do not cower in my house on the off chance that a chunk of ice may fall from a passing plane and drill me through the noggin (it's happened, but not often). I submit the same is true of the 3 month testing window. Sure, one person out of a million may test negative at 3 months and then positive at 6 (and still not sure I believe this is the case with modern testing), but it is so rare as to be the exception to the rule. And, thus, not worth worrying oneself about, unless one also worries about that odd chunk of ice.

Of course, I am not suggesting that anyone stop speaking their conscience. If you believe that a 6 month test is really *the* conclusive test, by all means, speak your mind. Along those lines, you mention source materials on which you have based your opinions. I am curious to read them for myself. Would you post the links to your reference materials so that we can read them for ourselves and then come to our own conclusions?

[BadDay1972]

Can somebody please tell me what you would do if you were in my situation...

1 or 2 proven cases of HIV through deep kissing...who knows if there have been more considering most people "kiss" when having sex and HIV is transmitted - so technically it could have been transmitted through KISSING or the SEXUAL ACT itself.

Ok...back to my situation.

1/25/07 - make out and grind GENITAL to GENITAL with Czech Republic Female Stripper for about 5 minutes - She tells me she can't do this anymore has to stop leaves abruptly and tells me to have a good life. Next night - make out and naked grind with different girl (not a stripper) - NEVER ANY PENETRATION OR ORAL SEX - AND I MEAN NEVER - CONDOM ACTUALLY ON BUT DECIDED TO STOP!

2/14/07 - 2/19/07 - worst virus of my life that HITS me while sleeping resembles HIV ARS to the T! Every single symptom! 104 Fever, night sweats, very sore muscles and joints, swollen lymph nodes, puss filled and very very swollen tonsils, swollen lymph nodes especially in neck, vomiting, diarrhea, absolutely no appetite, lost 12 lbs in 1 week.

2/19/07 - Tonsils so swollen that I can't sleep as I start choking so I go to the ER - Tested for flu, strep and mono - ALL NEGATIVE. Doc says "maybe" PNEUMONIA as she maybe saw some "streaks" on my x-ray. Keep in my I had ZERO COUGH the entire time I was sick which is pretty much the main symptom of pneumonia. Also, absolutely NOBODY around me - my family, friends, coworkers, etc picked up my illness. Doc ASKS me if I'm 1) GAY 2) AN INJECTION DRUG USER 3) IF I'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO HIV RECENTLY...I tell her no as I didn't even think of this as an exposure. She said she wanted to make sure because it resembled HIV ARS and they really didn't know what I had but I was considered a "low risk group" - that really made me feel better - NOT!!! Given some sort of ANTIBIOTICS and fever goes down to about 99 after a few hours...Levaquin also given and taken for ONE week after leaving ER.

2/20/07 -  Still a little feverish and not hungry - go to PCP. He orders HIV blood test which is only about almost 4 weeks post exposure - comes back NEGATIVE - Doc orders all types of blood work - only thing that came back abnormal in HIGH TRIGLYCERIDES which I researched when one has a high viral load they have High triglycerides which makes me even more nervous.

2/26/07 - I develop nonstop burning and tinging in hands and feet and random burning feeling throughout my body. Also, my legs are numb from my knees down - PCP thinks it's anxiety but it DOESN'T come and go...it's always there to the point where I have to take my shoes off.

3/2/07 - I go to neurologist who says I have "post infectious neuropathy" which he says is NOT common at all - only seen in about 1-2% of people who had a virus. Everyone here tells me PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY is only a symptom of LATE HIV but if they did some "research" they would quickly find out that it can also be a symptom of HIV seroconversion - this has me convinced I am went through ARS and will soon test positive.

3/6/07 - Doc orders another HIV BLOOD test - 40 DAYS post exposure - comes back negative

3/12/07 - Go to Planned Parenthood and do Oraquick Oral HIV 1/2 test - comes back negative

3/20/07 - Go to Infectious Disease/HIV clinic - do RAPID FINGER ***** unigold test - 54 days or about 8 weeks post exposure - test again comes back NEGATIVE for HIV.

Keep in mind I have now been visiting a SHRINK for about 4-5 weeks since DOC at ER got me worked up about HIV. Been on Prozac and anxiety has subsided A TON but still very concerned about this because of my symptoms and that NOBODY around me picked up my illness. Everyone thinks I'm crazy here or am "LYING" about my exposure - why in God's name would I do that? I want to know MY REAL chances based on my exposure and symptoms.

So...you tell me people. If you were in my shoes what would you do? I understand the odds of contracting HIV through my acts but with having IDENTICAL HIV ARS symptoms at the EXACT time they usually happen - 3 weeks post exposure wouldn't you be just "slightly" worried?

I just want to know...what would you do? How would you react? How far out would you test?

I'm 4 weeks away from taking a 3 month test but now I'm feeling that a 3 month negative won't even convince me.

What would it take to convince YOU if YOU were in my situation that YOU were indeed HIV NEGATIVE?

Thoughts please....

[Teak]

You didn't have a risk and you didn't need to test. What should you do because you can't believe your tests? Seek the help of a mental health professional.

[Xhost]

BadDay,

Literally everyone and their brother has told you what they would do in your situation, yet you cannot or will not listen. Stop jumping into other people's threads with your own concerns - it is rude and, at the very least, indicates a certain preoccupation with yourself to the exclusion of allowing others their own space in the forum. In other words, it seems a bit selfish.

You've been told your problem, yet you still cannot see. OK, you had a scare. You aren't the first one, and you won't be the last. Time to man up and start dealing with your issues, whatever they are. Or, would you rather live this way for the rest of your life? If I have a vote, I'd prefer you not, as seeing you posting the same thing, over and over, soliciting advice that you ultimately do not even read or comprehend, is getting a bit tiresome.

If you want to believe that you have HIV, then fine, believe you have it. No way is it true, but as you cannot seem to be dissuaded from your erroneous viewpoint, more power to you.