Help! In a panic!

A doctor told me that CBC is never a good indication for HIV. Symptoms are not either, since a lot of people do not have symptoms of ARS and are HIV+, while some experience ARS symptoms but they are caused by something else. I would say definitely invest money in the expensive RNA test and have a peace of mind, because obviously you are going to spend much more living with this stress.

Get tested because your risk was very high. I hope your results are good and wish you the best.

worried826

May 09, 2008

Why not just have your partner and yourself go and get tested, that would clear this up really quick?

ECN44120

May 09, 2008

a 45 days test is 95% accurate, the odds are in your favor just take the test 3 months after the last exposure, the syumptoms like said thousands times are useless and meaninless, so dont worry about them.

Good luck

regularjoey

May 09, 2008

To: lookin4

Forget the RNA and CBC tests. Simply take a regular HIV test sometime in July, it will be accurate. Obviously do not repeat this mistake in the future, whether you're positive or negative

lookin4answers80

May 09, 2008

To: regularjoey

Thanks for the advice. However, waiting until July for any additional work seems very foolish. First, because I am a nervous wreck, and I really don't want to stay a nervous wreck until July. Second, and more importantly, if I would turn out to be positive, it's better to get an early diagnosis, during the the primary infection phase, so one can discuss the wisdom of starting anti-retroviral medication.

ECN44120

May 09, 2008

So just take a test at 6 weeks 95% accurate and then at 3 months for a conclusive result

lookin4answers80

May 09, 2008

To: ECN44120

I've already gone to the county health department to get a test done. The state where I live combines the antibody test with an RNA viral load test. If the antibody test is negative, they re-test for the virus itself. So I should know something one way or another in two weeks, once the test results come back. Obviously, an undetectable viral load during primary infection would tend to indicate that I was not infected, since viral load is always through the roof during primary infection. Thanks for the advice.

regularjoey

May 09, 2008

To: lookin

In terms of early diagnosis and treatment it makes very little difference if one is diagnosed at 2 months or 3 months. If your anxiety is getting to you - like ECN said, you can test a couple of weeks from now and get a pretty reliable result. PCR is also an option as you already know, but is overkill in my opinion.

lookin4answers80

May 09, 2008

To: regularjoey

Thanks, and I'm sure you're right. Really, I know my symptoms could be caused by a thousand other things, as could the CBC blood test results. And I know that even the behavior I engaged in is not a guarantee for HIV transmission, especially since the riskiest encounter was 45 days before my last test. My problem is that I start with the symptoms and conclude, based on them, that it must be HIV. And I know it's not a smart thing to do, but I also find myself doing it pretty compulsively.

worried826

May 09, 2008

PCR's are kind of flaky too, should have just waited it out for an antibody test.

regularjoey

May 09, 2008

To: lookin

I think you are overanalyzing a little bit. The point is that you had receptive anal intercourse and a bad viral infection 4 weeks later. That's not good, whichever way you try to analyze it. Since you can't change the past, the only thing to do now is wait and get tested. If you test negative, try to stay negative: always use condoms. I wish you all the best.

lookin4answers80

May 09, 2008

To: regularjoey

Yes, but my receptive anal intercourse four weeks before lasted about 10 seconds before I pushed him out. Not safe, obviously, but not as dangerous as doing it longer or letting him ***. Thanks for the good wishes. I certainly need them.

lookin4answers80

May 14, 2008

Sorry to dredge up an old post, but I'm still kind of freaking out. And constantly researching stuff on the Internet is not helping. My fever and other symptoms have lessened, although I remain fatigued and have an absolutely horrible runny and stopped up nose with tons of sneezing - not allergy-related, I don't think. As of last Friday, my CBC said that my platelet count was only 90 (145 is the low end of normal). I got another CBC done Monday, and they were back up to 140, or almost normal. Some slight lymphocytosis, some slight leukocytosis, but nothing very far at all above normal. And I had a 20-minute rapid test (34 days after my potential exposure), which came back negative.

My doctor let me know today, however, that my most recent blood work also showed elevated liver enzymes - ALT, ALS, and alkaline phosphatase were all high. He said it could be caused by alcohol, mono, or even all the acetaminophen I have been popping over the last week for my fever. So of course I instantly started researching online if elevated liver enzymes are associated with primary HIV infection, and of course I found out that they sometimes are - because basically everything you can think of is sometimes associated with primary HIV infection.

Anyway, this has sent me into freak-out mode again, and I'm trying to figure out if these liver enzyme tests justify my panic. I'm guessing people are going to tell me that elevated liver enzymes, low platelets, and high lymphocytes and white blood cells can all be caused by a thousand other things than HIV, and if I'm gonna be freaked out, it should be over the fact that I had unprotected sex, not over my symptoms.

But I wanted to ask anyway and see if anyone has any input. I'm a nervous wreck, as you can undoubtedly tell. Thanks!

worried826

May 14, 2008

Well your 34 day negative rapid is good news, average time to build detectable antibodies is 25 days. Plus you had a test 45 days prior to sex with the same guy. Seems as though that would be the equivelent of a 79 day negative test which isnt going to change in the future.

Your concerns would appear to be not HIV related.

ECN44120

May 14, 2008

To: lookingforanswers

Relax some studies said that from the 50% porcent of infected people only 14% had some ARS related with liver, thats 7% from the total so is not really an ARS symptom since around 5% of infected people also have Hep B coinfection it almost sure that the liver ARS symptoms are more related to Hep.

gtshubha

May 14, 2008

Your 34 day negative test result is good. Wait for 3 motnhs and ge tested again. Please use condom everythime you are involved in anal/vaginal sex. Wish you all good luck, just try to relax a bit.
And I think ECN is right, please also test for HEP B or C.

lookin4answers80

May 14, 2008

To: gtshubha

I am vaccinated against Hepatitis-B, although there isn't a vaccination for C, I don't think. If I'm too freaked out, my doctor is suggesting I see an infectious disease specialist who can run every possible test you can think of to figure out what (if anything) is wrong with me.

gtshubha

May 14, 2008

Then you are in good shape for HEPB. Try to relax a bit. Wait for 8 weeks and do another blood test to be 98% sure about your status. Once that come negative you will be in much better shape mentally. All the best.

lookin4answers80

May 19, 2008

So I went to see the infectious disease specialist today, who deals frequently with people with HIV, and he kind of freaked me out. He said that all my symptoms and blood work are consistent with primary HIV infection, although antibody tests (today 41 days post-exposure) continue to be negative. He claims that I should not be encouraged by my 41-day negative test today, since he claims that a large number of people seroconvert after six weeks. Most disconcerting of all, he said that he was not willing to say that he thinks I don't have HIV.

On the other hand, based on the risk I described (very brief unprotected anal sex with a male who claimed to be HIV negative and with whom I had had sex many times), as well as receptive oral sex without ejaculation with partners of unknown status, he said that if it does turn out to be HIV, he'll consider me remarkably unlucky, since he does not consider my potential exposure to have been a horribly high risk.

So now I'm just confused, because the doctors on the doctor forum, as well as lots of people on here, all insist that oral transmission is ridiculously rare, especially without ejaculation, and that a six-week (well, in my case, one day less than six weeks) test is 95% accurate. And everyone insists that symptoms are not an accurate way to predict infection. Yet this infectious disease specialist insisted that virtually everyone who comes to see him with my symptoms turns out to be infected - that is, if they make it as far as an infectious disease specialist, other possibilities have often been ruled out. And he claimed my blood work (elevated liver enzymes, low red blood platelets, slightly high lymphocytes) pointed in that direction too. So he was really ambiguous and hard to read, and it wasn't a very satisfying appointment.

I had a combined antibody-viral load test done at the county health center a week and a half ago, and I'll get my results Friday. He told me to call him and come back next week if the results show a viral load (obviously the antibody part will be negative). Of course, I'm busy trying to figure out if maybe I got infected orally more recently. (After all, if the odds are 1/10,000, and if 10,000 HIV-infected people get oral sex in a day - something that seems likely since there are probably 700,000 HIV+ men in this country - that would mean that one of them would probably pass it along every day. Probably with ejaculation rather than without, but hey, it does still happen.)

What do people think of his apparent belief that symptoms, and especially CBC and CMP provide clues to HIV infection? And what about his apparent doubt that a six-week negative Ora-quick result meant anything at all? He told me that the only thing a six-week negative would be good for would be to make me feel better, but that it didn't really mean anything. Is the guy a quack? Unknowledgeable? And finally, what about my fears of oral transmission without ejaculation? Am I a nut too?

Thanks. I promise I won't dredge this up again til I get an antibody/viral load result on Friday. I'm obviously going to be an emotional mess til then.

worried826

May 19, 2008

Although the test was a little bit early, I would highly doubt it will turn positive later. Like Dr HHH and Hook said they never seen a 6 week negative go positive, I would take that for whats its worth, those guys are respected in the field.

lookin4answers80

May 19, 2008

To: worried826

Unless, of course, I somehow managed to catch it after the unprotected anal sex through uprotected oral sex without ejaculation. Doubtful. But I'm paranoid, LOL.

evenflow1121

May 19, 2008

Is he a doctor? HIV transmission if you are the one giving oral is extremely rare, if you have recieved oral, well there are no cases of transmission. If you have a negative in 6 weeks, its extremely hard that this will change to a positive in 12. You are not a nut, you dont have HIV and unfortunately you went to some moron who has a) no idea how to deal with people and b) no idea what in the hell he is talking about. You realize its hard to detect HIV through blood work, the only way to detect it is through an HIV test, that said, if your blood work was pointing in that direction, then you would have tested positive by now. Your anal unprotected is high risk, but if at 6 weeks you tested negative, I highly doubt that will change, though you realize you need to test again at 12 weeks, your test at 6 weeks is a good indication youwill be negative. As if this guy is a quack, I know a lot of people even in the health care field that have no clue as to how HIV is transmitted even. If he is giving you ambigious answers then he can t be much of a specialist can he, you dont see the two guys in the doctor's forums giving people ambigous answers as to this subject.

lookin4answers80

May 19, 2008

See, that's one thing that makes it so tough. This guy is a doctor with an M.D. from the University of Virginia who has been practicing in infectious diseases and internal medicine for nearly twenty years. He has a ton of experience dealing with HIV infection. But I guess none of that is any guarantee that he knows what he is talking about or has read any of the recent research on seroconversion time or the usefulness of blood count and metabolic function testing in indicating HIV infection. I don't know. He just really scared me with his noncommittal attitude and unwillingness to say that I probably don't have it. He seemed to think that I'm very likely screwed. I guess that doesn't mean anything til I have my viral load test back on Friday. But it was still a very troubling meeting, that's for damn sure.

evenflow1121

May 19, 2008

May be he is just being a bit conservative and wants to ensure that you test at the 12 week mark. That too could be a possibility, he does not want to reassure you until you are truly 100% out of the hole.

regularjoey

May 19, 2008

To: lookin

I agree with evenflow - your doctor wants to make sure you take this seriously and follow through. I would be very surprised if you test positive now, it sounds like you had an unrelated infection.

Teak

May 19, 2008

The ID doctor is following the guidelines. 3 months is conclusive.

lookin4answers80

May 19, 2008

Thanks for the input, everyone. I appreciate your patience, and it's been a really horrible last three weeks. As I'm sure many of you can relate to. I just keep trying to figure out if I could have gotten it more recently from giving oral sex, if I could have gotten it back during my brief unprotected anal sex on April 8 and still be testing negative six weeks later. Most of my symptoms (fever of 99.5-101.8 for ten days, chills, slightly-swollen lymph nodes in the neck, very slight sore throat, horribly stuffed up nose, night sweats, some nausea and loss of appetite, low platelet count, high lymphocyte count, high leukocyte count, high liver enzymes) point at ARS. And yes, I know symptoms are not a reliable indicator, but the doctor seemed really concerned by them and really pessimistic about my chances of not having contracted HIV. So I just don't know what to think. If by some remote chance I'm not infected, I've totally learned my lesson about safer sex. I think I'll be scared to even do oral without a condom. Stupid thing is, I should have learned that lesson a long time ago.

neveragain131820

May 20, 2008

Regarding time to wait... a post on HealingWell.com regarding antibody testing states:

"A person who has contracted HIV may show up positive as early as two weeks after the time they were infected. According to page 11 of the Module 6 Training Manual from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vast majority of those who contract HIV will show up positive between 4—6 weeks after infection.

To obtain a reliable test result, it is recommended that you wait at least six weeks after your last exposure. A tiny number of people may not test positive for three months. These are generally people with pre-existing immune disorders such as chemotherapy patients or recent organ transplant recipients who must take immune system-suppressing drugs. For this reason, many agencies will suggest a uniform three month test to cover everyone.

Testing beyond three months is completely unnecessary.
Here is a chart with approximate accuracy of HIV antibody testing:

Time: Accuracy
2 weeks…………………………50%
3 weeks…………………………75%
4 weeks…………………………95%
6 weeks…………………………99%
3 months…………………….100%"

lookin4answers80

May 23, 2008

Went to the county health department for my results today. They had done an antibody test on May 9 (which I knew would be negative, since I've had two subsequent negative antibody tests). However, my state also runs an RNA test on all HIV tests, in addition to the antibody test, in order to catch people in primary infection.

Three weeks after unprotected anal sex (without ejaculation) with a man who said he was negative, I developed a fever of 100-101.8 that lasted for about ten days. I had some muscle soreness (just a little), night sweats, something that looked like maybe it was a small rash, a horribly stopped up and runny nose, and slightly swollen lymph nodes in the neck and groin. My blood work showed low platelets, high lymphocytes, and elevated liver enzymes. In the interim, after the unprotected anal sex, I had also had receptive oral sex with several partners of unknown status, although I'd not let anyone ejaculate in my mouth.

Monday, as I posted above, I saw an HIV specialist who seemed grim about my chances of not being infected. Said everyone who comes to see him with those symptoms after a high risk exposure is generally infected. So that didn't help me this week very much at all.

So I got my results today from the county health department. As expected, the antibody test was negative. The HIV RNA test also detected no HIV RNA in my blood. The counselor claimed that at 4 weeks post-exposure (when I had the test done), with ARS symptoms in full-swing, this test should be considered conclusive. I do not have HIV. I will still test again at 12 weeks, just as a matter of course.

There is a moral to this story. No matter how perfect your symptoms seem, no matter in what time period they appear after a suspected exposure, no matter what your platelets and lymphocytes and whatever else look like, there is no guarantee that you are in fact infected with HIV. My exposure was relatively high risk (although the brief duration and the lack of ejaculation lowered it a lot), I had many of the symptoms, which persisted for just the right amount of time, and my antibody and RNA tests continue to come back negative. The only way to find out if you are infected is through testing that is specific for HIV - preferably antibody testing at 6 and 12 weeks, and, if you are extra freaked out, perhaps through an RNA test, viral load test, or something designed to catch HIV itself before the antibodies appear (although these tests have some problems with false negatives).

Be safe, everyone, and realize that virtually every time, your phobias, panics, and freak-outs will turn out to be unfounded. But the most important thing is to be safe. My few seconds of carefree unprotected sex were not worth the **** I have been through these last three weeks, and they would certainly not have been worth a lifetime with HIV. Just put on a damn condom, or make him put one on. It simplifies matters greatly.

Brad_

May 23, 2008

Congrats on the negative test results. Now be sure to foillow up at 12 weeks with an antibody test and put it all behind you.

lookin4answers80

May 23, 2008

Why do you say that? My state's health system has been using the RNA test for three years to identify people with acute HIV infection, and the program has been very positively received by the medical community and begun to be implemented in other areas. If the viral RNA is not there, then neither is the virus, unless I'm missing something. Why would the PCR proviral test be any more trustworthy than the RNA test?

lookin4answers80

May 23, 2008

Well, I'm also fairly confident in the RNA test, since I had it four weeks after my potential exposure, so I think I'm OK. And as expensive as the DNA proviral test is, I'll probably just wait it out til 12 weeks, although I think I'm mostly out of the woods now.

lookin4answers80

May 23, 2008

No, and what do blisters have to do with HIV infection?

ECN44120

May 23, 2008

Your PCR-DNA confirms tha you are negative, a negative PCR after 3 weeks is considered conclusive, the only thing about this test that prevent them in using as a diagnostig tool is becouse they have a 2-8% false positive rate, in your case it doesnt matter what the infectious disease dr said, dont worry about it you are negative, move on and keep it safe always use condoms

Brad_

May 23, 2008

Blisters have nothing to do with HIV infection, HIVposiuivity is likely just another troll stirring the pot.

Brad_

May 23, 2008

Uh huh, sure they are. Ive gotten small blisters on my feet for a few years and I dont have HIV. Go away with your BS.

lookin4answers80

May 23, 2008

Can you provide a link about blisters being an ARS symptom? Oral and genital ulcers yes, blisters, no. They are not a symptom of acute HIV. Even if they were, and even if someone had them, a 30-day negative PCR RNA test, a 34-day negative antibody test, and a 41-day negative antibody test are enough to indicate that someone does not have HIV.

J_friend

May 23, 2008

An HIV specialist is saying that a 41 day test is NOT reliable?  I'm not sure what that guy is smoking ... but my Lord, that is insane.  It's not conclusive, but it's an excellent indication of your true status.  By the way, congrats on your results, and you can be confident in those results.

Regarding the combined Elisa with an PCR RNA test ... if it's negative AND non-detectable at four weeks (I'd even say three weeks, and probably even two weeks) then you're in the clear. The PCR is one of THE most sensitive tests in science - in fact, it's SO sensitive that it sometimes will give false negative.

There is just NO WAY that anyone would have a neg Elisa and an undetectable PCR RNA and be HIV positive 4 weeks after exposure - NO WAY.  The Elisa is considered the gold standard; and sure, if you want to just do it for the sake of doing it, you can collect your 3 month conclusive ... but with your results, there's no way you have contracted HIV.

I know I sound overly confident and cocky ... and I realize that the accepted "100% in the clear" means a negative on the Elisa at 12-13 weeks.  However, from all the research I've done (and it's been exhaustive) over the last 15 years AND from speaking with many HIV specialists ... if you have BOTH the Elisa and PCR taken over two weeks post exposure and they're BOTH negative; well, you're basically in the clear. I'd be willing to bet that there is not ONE human on the planet who's had both tests done at four weeks, had neg results, and then turned out positive (without, of course, a risky episode in the meantime).  I, for one, think (if you have the cash) that taking both tests a few weeks after a risky exposure is VERY wise - especially if you worry and obsess like I do.  Congrats, my friend ... you're negative!

Teak

May 24, 2008

An ELISA test is a good test done at the appropriate time, which is 3 months post exposure.

lookin4answers80

May 24, 2008

Yes, yes, I am aware of this. And, Teak, the reason PCRs are not diagnostic isn't because they don't pick up the viral RNA - it's because they bring back so many false positives. That is, if they don't find the virus, it ain't there (or it's so low it's undetectable, which is ridiculously unlikely during primary HIV infection). If they do find the virus, it may or may not be HIV, since the test is so sensitive that other things can set it off too.

I had a negative RNA PCR at just over 4 weeks and a negative ELISA at one day under six weeks. I'm moving on. With a final test at three months, of course, as a final precaution. But at least my consuming anxiety has lessened by about 99%.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

Actually, PCR's are done as diagnostic, quite often. How do they check our blood supply? They do it with NAT testing, which is akin to the PCR. Again, on a massive scale, sure the Elisa is the way to go. However, if you're living in America (or any developed nation) where the PCR is available ... and you have the money, then why NOT get a conclusive combination Elisa and PCR done at 28 days? Why is this SO outlandish to suggest. Furthermore, I ask ANYONE out there - no I CHALLENGE anyone - to show me ANY data which suggests (even remotely) that a combo Elisa and PCR 4 weeks post exposure (and, probably even three weeks) is not conclusive. Show me the data. If you have the money and means, AND you're worrying to death about possible HIV infection ... then I'd highly recommend the Elisa and PCR done at 4 weeks - allow yourself to KNOW your status quickly and get on with your life.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

The viral load of someone who is positive will be remarkably high within the first week of HIV infection. Hence, a combination Elisa and PCR will reveal one's status (conclusively) within weeks. I don't wish to argue, but again, I challenge you to show me ANY reliable data which suggests otherwise.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

I like your style - and I love having a good debate with people who don't get personal. Hey, you know your stuff - and we've both done some homework on this. However, once again, I challenge you to provide any reliable data which would reveal ANY person who has had both tests performed (Elisa and PCR) 4 weeks post exposure (or even 2-3) who has turned up positive. Sure, there are doctors out there who question the reliability of the PCR - I won't argue that. However, as I said before, this test is one of THE most sensitive tests in science. It's expensive and is so sensitive that it can sometimes (but not often) give a false positive (and in these cases, it's usually a rather low number which is not indicative of primary infection; hence, raising an eyebrow).

Let's keep it simple: if you've had a risky exposure - let's say unprotected receptive anal intercourse - and you decide to have an Elisa and PCR performed 4 weeks post exposure ... and they are negative/undectable; well, then you're in the clear. Whatever other details you present won't change this fact. That is, unless you provide evidence of people who have done this, received those very results, and then tested positive (without another risky exposure).

J_friend

May 24, 2008

C'mon, my friend - a study from 20 years ago, which STILL doesn't fit with my challenge? Again, show me reliable date of ANY human (and, let's just say in the last 10 years) that has been negative and undetectable on an Elisa and PCR, respectively 28 days post exposure, and THEN tested positive.

We can play google ping-pong all day long. I can cut and paste tons of studies which reveal that the PCR is, indeed, VERY reliable during the window period. So, let's just stick the simple task here - can you provide ANY data which disproves my assertion: That a 28 day Elisa and PCR will provide a conclusive result?

J_friend

May 24, 2008

Let me also add this: Regarding the PCR, I'm talking about an PCR RNA test, which measures the viral load.

Teak

May 24, 2008

PCR-RNA tests are not stand alone tests and have to be followed up with an antibody test. PCR-DNA tests are not approved for diagnostic purposes in the US. J_friend I have news for you bud. You don't know anything about HIV saying that no one turns positive after 28 days.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

To: Teak

I didn't say that no one turns up positive after testing negative at 28 days. What I said, and I challenge you to prove otherwise is this: NO ONE will turn up positive if they have a combination Elisa and PCR RNA performed at 28 days and the tests are negative and undetectable. Now, we can get personal and emotional, angry, etc. However, this doesn't change the facts. Let's just talk about the facts here, Teak. I don't blame you for the advice you give, which is to get an antibody test performed 12 weeks post exposure. I think that's sound advice. However, for those who have the money and are "pulling their hair out" obsessing over a risky exposure, I think it is VERY wise to get the Elisa and PCR viral load done at 28 days. Again, show me the data the disproves this. And, let's not get personal - you're MUCH better than that, Teak.

Teak

May 24, 2008

Viral load? Most people with early HIV infections don't even have a VL. I have AIDS and I have an undectable VL. So VL testing is not the route to take. It is used to monitor those that are positive. The only time a PCR test is approved for diagnostic is for infants up to 15 months of age.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

I hear you, my friend. And again, I don't disagree in regards to the gold standard at 12 weeks post exposure. But, as you know, since HIV has SO many variables which feed the "gray area" (a window period, questions on transmission, politics which make the CDC and the facts world's apart, etc) ... it therefore allows for the "perfect storm", if you will, for those who obsess after a risky encounter. With that said, I think it's wise for someone who has the financial means to get BOTH tests performed at 28 days. I mean, two extra months of pure worry and h e l l may be a mere blip on the space-time continuum, but it is an eternity for someone who's in the window period.

Teak

May 24, 2008

An ELISA test is not an approved antibody test at 28 days.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

To: Teak

Teak - I find it interesting that you’re willing to say that oral sex carries NO risk, while most HIV specialists would actually say that, in theory, it could happen. Not to say I disagree with your stance; but it is nevertheless, a rather bold assertion on your behalf. However, when another bold assertion is made; in this case by me ... it doesn’t seem to fit with what you deem as stamped “official” or approved. I’m just pointing out an inconsistency with your line of reasoning; although, again, I do agree with you that oral sex isn’t a risk. Would you mind responding to this?

lookin4answers80

May 24, 2008

To: Teak

Wow, I didn't mean to start the debate of the century with this.

I don't know where you're getting your information that people don't have a high viral load immediately after infection. Most people immediately after infection have an absolutely massive viral load, in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions. Why? Because the body has not developed any antibodies to fight the virus. You can read this anywhere online, and any doctor will tell you this. Anyone who is in primary infection and experiencing ARS symptoms will have a viral load through the roof.

From the article on the issue from The Body, which I think is a fairly good site.

"Primary HIV Infection

By Dr. Shireesha Dhanireddy

Winter 2002/2003
Primary HIV infection (PHI) refers to the period of time immediately after initial infection, which is characterized by a prolific phase in viral replication (sometimes up to one million copies of virus) and an acute drop in the CD4 count. However, the HIV antibody is negative, because it has not yet had time to develop. (It usually takes 1-3 months for detectable levels of antibody to HIV to develop.) Identifying individuals during this initial phase of infection is important not only to the newly infected person, but to the community as well."

The way I understand that, "prolific phase in viral replication" means that one has an enormous viral load during this period. The fact that you have an undetectable viral load has nothing to do with the matter, as progression to AIDS is determined by the CD4 T-cell count falling below 200 and not by the amount of virus in the blood.

If I become the first person to test positive for antibodies after a negative PCR RNA test at 30 days, a negative antibody test at 34 days, and a negative antibody test at 41 days, I'll be sure to let you all know. I don't think it will happen, but, hey, there's a first time for everything.

Teak

May 24, 2008

Where do I get my information. 1. I've been infected with HIV for 23 years and 2. I've been teaching classes on HIV for 15 years. When one is first infected with HIV they don't have VL. A high VL is later with infection.

J_friend

May 24, 2008

To: Teak

Not true, Teak. During primary infection, it is a fact that the viral load is at one it's highest points (until one actually has AIDS). Primary infection is the time when one is most likely to transmit the virus. If you've been teaching this for 15 years, then surely you already know this.

lookin4answers80

May 24, 2008

To: Teak

So you know more than the CDC and everyone else who claims that viral load is highest at the earliest stages of infection? Viral load is through the roof in the beginning. It then drops rapidly once antibodies are produced. As the disease progresses, without medication, the viral load will go up again. Your viral load is undetectable, presumably, because you are on anti-retroviral medication.

Being infected and teaching the classes, while providing valuable life experience, do not mean that you know what you're talking about when you say that viral load is low in the beginning. If you're telling people in your classes this, I'd be interested to find out what teaching material you're using that tells you that viral load is low during primary HIV infection. That is, what sources are you using, beyond your own personal opinions and own undetectable viral load, for these assertions? I'm not asking how you know this. I'm asking specifically what your sources of information are. I provided a citation from The Body. I could provide hundreds more saying that viral load is incredibly high during primary HIV infection.

J_friend

May 24, 2008