Need your adivce - 04/SEP

[radiovideo]

Dear Doctor

I want to get your advice about my test. [ I'm Asian 29years Man ]
I had unprotected sex around 2 mins with streetgirl. And I had several HIV test.

1) 2 weeks Antibody test - Negative
2) 3 weeks Antigen test (RT-PCR) - Nagative
3) 4 weeks Antibody test - Negative
4) 5 weeks Antibody test - Negative

I knew 3 month test conclusion.
but I want to know about my situation. Is it still anxious ? or it's very affirmative now.

Thank you so much

[Rob73!]

Nothing you have posted above has changed my advice; you need one single HIV antibody taken at three months post expsoure to know your HIV status.

You do not need to re-test at six months.

[radiovideo]

Yes, I agree 3 months(84days) test. but I saw below comments of Dr.HHH.
so, I want to know my situation.


1--The Legal Part Is:All tests in this country must be certified by the FDA. All manufacturers work in concert with the FDA and also the CDC. The CDC is a massive organization who's views are taken seriously by world wide health organizations. It tries to cover all possible scenarios and therefore is very conservative in its recommendations. When HIV came on the scene, the health industry rushed to perfectPerfect choice a screening tool i.e. an antibody test. This type of test was not new but they did not have one for the HIV virus.  Anyway, at firstFirst   [the tests] were not that sensitive thus the CDC stated it could take up to 6 months to detect antibodies. Your body was producing antibodies from the start but the tests were not sensitive enough to detect them. As the years rolled on the industry has made these tests much more sensitive and they now can detect the antibodies much sooner which leadsLead poisoning to part two.

2—THE REAL WORLD:  As stated the tests of today are very sensitive, however the CDC and the manufacturers still want to be super conservative and although they have reduced the time for antibody detection in their literature, their official policy of detecting time really has not changed. Why should they? Why should they subject themselves to all the legal ramifications of blame and law suits. They have no competition so there is no incentive for them to change.
Now in the real world after ten years working with these new more sensitive tests Doctors and health care providers now know these new test are almost 100% reliable in a 6/8 week time frame. Some who have done studies on testing techniques even say MOST people will have produced enough antibodies to be detected within a 3/5 week time frame.
So now knowing this it is really up to the individual as to what he/she feels comfortable with. Some will accept the 6-week time frame, some will only accept the 3-month time frame and other will never accept any time frame and will always doubt the results.

For those who doubt the results it’s a sad thing and most should seek mental counseling.  I always am amazed at this because the same people will go and get numerous other tests in their life i.e. cancer, blood work [cbc] and the like and believe all the results.  Anyway hope this helps. Have a good day


Longone's analysis is very good.  In addition, as I have said many times, precise data simply are not available on seroconversion times.  Estimates of serconversion time are based on improving technology to detect antibody earlier, scattered reports based on when people say or think they were infected (which often is wrong), plus expert opinion.  The research necessary to get more precise data would be much more expensive than could be justified.  Twenty years from now, the data are not likely to be any more precise than now.  

All this cannot be re-explained for every new question on seroconversion time.  Therefore, our responses may seem more precise than the data support, and forum users who look for differences between responses will find plenty of them.  With 2 of us now involved in the forum, probably there will be even more difference than before.  Suck it up and don't read so much into it!

And to repeat another principle yet again:  Dr. Hook's and my assessments of the chance someone is infected are based not only on test performance.  They are based just as much (often more) on the likelihood of infection based on the exposure event and overall risk context, and those vary all over the map.

So the bottom line is that nothing has changed.  As a rough ballpark, I base my responses on the approximation that with modern HIV antibody tests, among newly infected persons roughly 85-90% will be positive by 4 weeks, 95% by 6 weeks, 98-99% by 8 weeks, and over 99% at 3 months.   Dr. Hook might use slightly different assumptions.  These are for antibody tests, not P24 antigen (a component of the DUO test) or PCR.  There are even fewer data on the performance of those tests.

Finally, I do not know the trade names for most of the many HIV test kits on the market, even in the US, let alone other countries.  Nobody will ever get anywhere by asking us whether antibody test A is different or better (or becomes more positive sooner) than test B.

HHH, MD

[Rob73!]

As per previous answers; a clonclusive HIV test can be taken at the three month mark and not before.

No need to re-test at six months. That advise is out of date and no longer relevant.

[radiovideo]

'CDC' said that 12 weeks are conclusive result. but they ask repect testing 6 months.
so, I confused...
Moreover, I want to know about my 3 weeks Antigen test + 5 weeks Antibody test.
I think that they're high confidence...isn't it ???

[joggen]

This forum goes by the CDC & FDA: 3 months is conclusive.

Your five week result is encouraging, but not definitive.

[radiovideo]

but I don't know how to pay a fee... here is not America..
And I heard that doctor suggest 6 weeks test. so, it's very close to conclusive test?? no..

[jstupid]

if you want an opinion from a doctor, please go to the expert forum, you pay a fee and then the doctor will respond.
but for your information 5 weeks is very reassuring, but we suggest a conclusive test at the 3 months mark.