Re: Possible??

I had what doctors would call a 'low-risk' exposure. Long story short, I met with a prostitute and I attempted to penetrate her (with a condom) but could not fully erect. That act doesn't concern me becuase I used a condom, what does is that I, in the heat of the moment, foolishly pressed my face into her buttocks and touched the exterior of her anus! Very stupid. But anyway, I of course had what seemed like ARS symptoms 2-3 weeks later and odd symptoms that continue even today, Gastro issues, canker sores, oral thrush, etc. I tested 7 times up to 24 weeks post exposure. I also had a PCR done at 14 weeks and a CBC blood test - all fine. So what's the possibility of me having HIV with having a 'low-risk' exposure and testing to 24 weeks? Should I continue to test at the 1-year mark? Thank you for your time!

[Heuristics]

low-risk ? no risk ... all the tests have proved this to you , please stop this or you will be having to deal with shrinks ... please stop you fine , be gentle with yourself forget this whole incident put it behind you and move on !!!

[9seven3]

I thought I was going to be able to move on with the 6 month test, but there is just so much uncertainty in HIV testing.  There has been so many advances in treatment, but nothing significant in testing. I mean its 2012 and doctors can't decide on the 'window period'. Some doctors say 6 weeks-12 weeks, others say 6 months, and a few say 1 year or 2 years!! It is enough to drive anyone crazy!

[Teak]

http://www.cdc.gov/globalaids/Resources/pmtct-care/docs/TM/Module_6TM.pdf
Page 11
#4
  In an adult, a positive HIV antibody test result means that the person is infected, a person with a negative or inconclusive result may be in the “window for 4 to 6 weeks but occasionally up to 3 months after HIV exposure. Persons at high risk who initially test negative should be retested 3 months after exposure to confirm results

[9seven3]

Okay, I see. Can't really go wrong with the CDC, they are the authority on HIV. But why were there people seroconverting beyond 6 months in the 90's? I used Google Books to read up on delayed seroconverting and there a lot of cases of people seroconverting past 6 months... Like 2-3 years... Crazy...

[Teak]

No there are not cases of people seroconverting at 2-3 years.

[nursegirl6572]

No advances in testing???  HUH?

The advances in testing are the EXACT reason you see some doctors state that 8 weeks is sufficient.  With the newer tests, people are testing positive very early.  THREE MONTHS is when a person can obtain a conclusive result.  6 months is the old, outdated guideline.  And the other info (delayed seroconversion) is a bunch of BS.  You are very uninformed about HIV...which leads me to my next request...PLEASE refrain from trying to advise people on this forum.  You are posting a lot of inaccurate info and that is not fair to the posters coming here looking for reliable answers!!

You had NO risk at all, you don't even need testing.

[9seven3]

Teak, as a 'worried well' trust me I don't want to believe people seroconverted 2-3 years from exposure, but I did see a lot of books and/or studies referring to these cases. They are rare, but they do exist. I read in one book (don't recall the name) that a Los Angeles clinic in the 90's reported a group of homosexual men that seroconverted 1-2 years later. There is just so much uncertainty in HIV testing. Every other disease has exact diagnostic guidelines, but HIV is the only disease that testing is a 'crap shoot'... 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 years, 2 years? Who knows!

[nursegirl6572]

I don't know what books you're reading, but you are very misinformed.  I does NOT take ANYONE 2-3 years to produce detectable antibodies.  Read through the expert forum using the search phrase "delayed seroconversion".  These are specialists with DECADES of experience treating HIV.  They will tell you flat out that "delayed seroconversion" is basically an urban myth.  The ONLY people that THEORECTICALLY ciuld take up to 6 months are people with severely compromised immune systems...as in chemo patients, people taking anti-rejection meds after an organ transplant, chronic IV drug abusers.  And even MOST of that population still tests positive within the 3 month window period.

There is no uncertaintly in HIV testing at all.  3 months is plenty of time for people to produce antibodies that would make an HIV test positive.  

To be frank, you are completely wrong.

All of this worrying you are doing is for nothing anyway, you NEVER had a risk!!!!

[9seven3]

Nursegirl, I know the idea of people seroconverting 1-3 years after exposure is a little unsettleing, but it is true. I read it online using Google Books and Scholar (Great research tools by the way). I should mention that the cases I read about were in the 90's so hopefully the advances in testing that you stated will make cases like those a thing of the past.

[Teak]

Then the book was fiction or you didn't understand what you read.

[9seven3]

And although you and other people have said that my incident was 'low-risk' or 'no-risk' and that my 24 week test is conclusive, my symptoms tell a diffrent story. Recurring Oral Thrush, Canker Sores, Diarhea (diarrhea), Swollen Glands, etc. My symptoms are indicative of HIV and other diseases too, but I'm taking precaution by testing past the most conservative window to rule out HIV. Btw, I did take antibiotics for almost two months in August so that may explain the oral thrush, but don't know why I'm still battling it 5 months later!

[cannotstopworried]

Friend, we have a same , we are in "low risk or no risk line", but in my case I had brief insertive oral sex...
After I read almost post here, the very Anxious person if there is ARS alike...
But can anyone give me an answer HOW TO EXPLAIN no risk infection with Swollen Gland,Diarrhea,etc?
The answer will be "drug'" for the anxiety...
Thanks.... :)

[nursegirl6572]

Symptoms NEVER tell your status, and those symptoms are not indicative of HIV anyway!

You need to let this go.  We've advised you, there isn't anything else we can do for you.

[9seven3]

Boy, if those symptoms aren't indicative of HIV, I don't know what is. But okay, I'll try to move on. Thank you all for your comments.