Aa
HIV testing 3 months onwards
i tested at 7th, 11th, 14th, and 22nd week after exposure.. all test came negative, does it mean that idont have it at all? and its conclusive already? tnx guys, hope 4 ur replys.
COMMUNITY LEADER
The above post was a general discussion
CDC might say that getting a BJ is a risk however we also have to understand the difference between a theoretical and a practical risk and the way we understand that is by applying simple logic and common sense, it needs no rocket science for sure, now I can bet my house over your result never changing ahead until you have a REAL exposure, you can keep continuing to speculate but your result won't change. I'm done here.
CDC might say that getting a BJ is a risk however we also have to understand the difference between a theoretical and a practical risk and the way we understand that is by applying simple logic and common sense, it needs no rocket science for sure, now I can bet my house over your result never changing ahead until you have a REAL exposure, you can keep continuing to speculate but your result won't change. I'm done here.
that's my point. And there are magnitudes of risk from theoretical to high risk and the testing guidelines do vary. no risk/theoretical: test for peace of mind, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, whatever. Real/high risk test at 6 weeks is a real good sign, but to be sure, test out to 12 weeks. Any yes, we are not experts here I agree..(but now you are second guessing CDC, and you say that you are not an expert.) Bottomline: I don't disagree with you. Is a 6 week test a good indicator of a person's result? yes. Is it absolutely conclusive? NO. And with a real/high risk, you do want to know your status conclusively so twelve weeks remains the standard until the collective experts say differently.
As risk is not a risk and there are magnitudes. And, no we are not experts, that's the point. if someone is worried over getting a BJ (which some consider no risk, but which is identified by CDC as risk) and they test at six weeks for their peace of mind and receive a negative, I would say that no further testing is necessary. if someone had unprotected vaginal sex or anal sex, I would say that six weeks negative is comforting but a test at 12 weeks is necessary for conclusive. Dr. H pretty much says the same thing. There is a difference based on the risk.
yeah 6 weeks is mostly 80-95% but since u develop symptom or ARS it wil be 99% that onli rare case. my doctor said mostly 80-95%
COMMUNITY LEADER
A risk is a risk, what's high risk / low risk ?
6 weeks negative is a great indicator of what your result is going to be at the 12 th week, we are not experts here so lets not even discuss magnitudes.
6 weeks negative changing ahead is almost unheard
6 weeks negative is a great indicator of what your result is going to be at the 12 th week, we are not experts here so lets not even discuss magnitudes.
6 weeks negative changing ahead is almost unheard
yes, understand that a 6 week test is not conclusive and that Dr H would tell someone with a high rish to test out to 12 weeks.
That doesnt mean that a 6 week test is not 99% accurate, there are always exceptions.
That doesnt mean that a 6 week test is not 99% accurate, there are always exceptions.
here is another good one...
I'm sorry, I simply cannot keep answering the same question in detail. The range of time when antibody develops is 3 weeks to 3 months; extremely rarely it takes 4 or even 6 months. Over 95% (probably closer to 99%) of people are positive within 6-8 weeks. Part of the uncertainty relates to the fact that in most infected people it is impossible to know exactly when they were exposed,* and without that, any estimate of the time to postive test is difficult to calculate with certainty. In view of the uncertainty, many counseling agencies and websites use the more conservative (longer) figures when they counsel people, partly a legally driven CYA approach. You can expect "conflicting information like this" to persiste forever; 20 years from now it will still be there. Live with it. For 99% of people tested it makes zero difference in interpretation or advice.
* This is because almost nobody like you, or like most of the people who post such questions on this forum, ever has a positive result. People at low risk often know exactly when their supposedly risky event took place. But the vast majority of new infections occur in people who have multiple, repeated risky exposures. When they develop a positive test, they have no clue which exposure was the source of infection. That makes it nearly impossible to have accurate data on time to seroconversion.
HHH, MD
I'm sorry, I simply cannot keep answering the same question in detail. The range of time when antibody develops is 3 weeks to 3 months; extremely rarely it takes 4 or even 6 months. Over 95% (probably closer to 99%) of people are positive within 6-8 weeks. Part of the uncertainty relates to the fact that in most infected people it is impossible to know exactly when they were exposed,* and without that, any estimate of the time to postive test is difficult to calculate with certainty. In view of the uncertainty, many counseling agencies and websites use the more conservative (longer) figures when they counsel people, partly a legally driven CYA approach. You can expect "conflicting information like this" to persiste forever; 20 years from now it will still be there. Live with it. For 99% of people tested it makes zero difference in interpretation or advice.
* This is because almost nobody like you, or like most of the people who post such questions on this forum, ever has a positive result. People at low risk often know exactly when their supposedly risky event took place. But the vast majority of new infections occur in people who have multiple, repeated risky exposures. When they develop a positive test, they have no clue which exposure was the source of infection. That makes it nearly impossible to have accurate data on time to seroconversion.
HHH, MD
yuo're taking him out of context...it depends on the risk, etc. I think even the veneable Dr. H would say that someone who had unprotected anal would have to wait for 12 weeks for a conclusive and should test out to that period in order to be sure. And Dr. H is one person.....he is not the be all and end all of HIV testing. Many other sources, just as expert if not more, say otherwise. Bottom line do what you feel comfortable with. If I had a real risk (unlike the majority of people here) I certainly would not rely on just a 6 week test. I would be very comforted by a negative result but would not rely on it being conclusive. Not debating further.
Here is just one thread I found by doing a quick search where he says a 4 week test is 95% accurate.
A negative result at 4 weeks probably is closer to 95% accurate. Your symptoms don't suggest HIV.
Best wishes-- HHH, MD
there are many others ....check it out for yourself.
A negative result at 4 weeks probably is closer to 95% accurate. Your symptoms don't suggest HIV.
Best wishes-- HHH, MD
there are many others ....check it out for yourself.
No im not wrong, Dr H has said a million times that a 6-8 week test is 95% (probably closer to 99% accurate) *his words not mine*
Ask him yourself if you dont believe me newbie.
Ask him yourself if you dont believe me newbie.
You are WRONG. Who said 99%...show me something that says that? you're pulling that out of your head. What I have seen is that the majority of people who will test positive will do so by six weeks....that is vastly, vastly different than assigning a percentage to it like 99%. Where are you getting your information? Standard of care is still 12/13 weeks for a conclusive result unless you have an extenuating circumstance such as immunosuppressive medications, etc.
Yes, I understand that they both dont have anything to worry about, but 6 weeks being 80% is not even close.
who cares....its irrelevant because Bryanle had protected sex and mymymy, whatever his risk has tested out to 22 weeks. They both need to move on with their and forget this. If they can't then they need to see mental health professionals because their isses are not HIV related.
what's the point???? mymymy has already tested 22 weeks out. He's fine. No need to go worrying about six weeks or not. Move on.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
