Aa
Where we stand? How we evaluate?
Dear Dr. Handsfield,
Dear Dr. Edward,
Thanks for all you provide in this forum.
There are five main categories of questions about HIV transmission and testing in this forum:
1) The exposure
2) Symptoms
3) Condoms
4) Window Period
5) Testing accuracy
The most important difference between the first 4 and the 5th is that **The first 4 are a matter of past but the 5th is the matter of present and future**.
When all hopes diminished, the last shield is testing. It is said that regardless of status of first 3 and after the window period we can rely on testing.
After that it is said that one can not rely on testing 100%.This would really frighten people.
After frightened people refer again, it is said that the probability of false negative is too low like to be struck by light or a meteor, you should believe your tests and if you continue to fear just go for counselling.
When somebody asks are you frighten to be struck by a meteor, I say no because I wont see
lots of people are killed by meteors even in 100 years. Meteors are known objects that we can
observe them and of course people who are killed.
But in case of HIV, people can not observe anything. They do not have enough data to judge. This is why they
are frightened. The main problem is due to the lack of feeling. How they can believe something they do not know about?
If you Drs. could tell us more that exactly why it is said that a test could not be relied 100%,
what are the sources of false negatives, what is the background and what is the perspective with figures, then lots of questions would be answered because we would have feeling then. Then no counselling needed anymore.
Dr. Handsfield has done this for window period greatly.
We all appreciate if you could put some more time on this issue and open it for us. We all know that this takes time but it would be really precious.
Thank you.
Dear Dr. Edward,
Thanks for all you provide in this forum.
There are five main categories of questions about HIV transmission and testing in this forum:
1) The exposure
2) Symptoms
3) Condoms
4) Window Period
5) Testing accuracy
The most important difference between the first 4 and the 5th is that **The first 4 are a matter of past but the 5th is the matter of present and future**.
When all hopes diminished, the last shield is testing. It is said that regardless of status of first 3 and after the window period we can rely on testing.
After that it is said that one can not rely on testing 100%.This would really frighten people.
After frightened people refer again, it is said that the probability of false negative is too low like to be struck by light or a meteor, you should believe your tests and if you continue to fear just go for counselling.
When somebody asks are you frighten to be struck by a meteor, I say no because I wont see
lots of people are killed by meteors even in 100 years. Meteors are known objects that we can
observe them and of course people who are killed.
But in case of HIV, people can not observe anything. They do not have enough data to judge. This is why they
are frightened. The main problem is due to the lack of feeling. How they can believe something they do not know about?
If you Drs. could tell us more that exactly why it is said that a test could not be relied 100%,
what are the sources of false negatives, what is the background and what is the perspective with figures, then lots of questions would be answered because we would have feeling then. Then no counselling needed anymore.
Dr. Handsfield has done this for window period greatly.
We all appreciate if you could put some more time on this issue and open it for us. We all know that this takes time but it would be really precious.
Thank you.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
With the modern HIV tests in current use, false negative results do not occur. You are asking questions about past history, with the kinds of HIV tests that have not been used for the past 15 years or more.
The rest of your questions are not about HIV, but about human psychology and how people respond to risk, or perceptions of risk in their lives. This is not a psychology forum, and I have neither the expertise nor the interest in responding.
That will end this thread. Do your best to move on.
The rest of your questions are not about HIV, but about human psychology and how people respond to risk, or perceptions of risk in their lives. This is not a psychology forum, and I have neither the expertise nor the interest in responding.
That will end this thread. Do your best to move on.
Dear Dr. Handsfield,
Have you closed this thread or I need to wait for answers?
Thank You.
Have you closed this thread or I need to wait for answers?
Thank You.
Dear Dr. Handsfield,
Thank you for your reply.
You commented: "how people respond to different risks . . . is psychologically complex"
My main idea is: Where this complexity comes from? If false negatives in tests are like to be struck by meteor,
(1) why nobody in the world is not anxious about meteors?
BUT
(2) Why most people are anxious about HIV?
I think the answer for (1) is that people can see the physically huge meteors by their eyes and never have heard that meteors killed even one people in last 100 years. And of course they understand the logic of bumping two things to each other.
In the other hand, the answer for (2) is that nobody have seen hiv virus, nobody have ever seen antibodies, nobody knows how tests acts and nobody knows what had been the statistics for your quote: "false negative tests occur so rarely".
My main idea in my post is:
Please focus more on this "false negative tests occur so rarely".
(1) How many of them (figures) had happened in the history and what had been the roots?
(2) Could these roots cause the false negatives reoccur and what is the perspective for this (In terms of figures and possibilities)?
If one could find out exactly that what are we talking about when the subject is "hiv test false negatives", then the result is fantastic.
The more you would be specific the more diminish concerns.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for your reply.
You commented: "how people respond to different risks . . . is psychologically complex"
My main idea is: Where this complexity comes from? If false negatives in tests are like to be struck by meteor,
(1) why nobody in the world is not anxious about meteors?
BUT
(2) Why most people are anxious about HIV?
I think the answer for (1) is that people can see the physically huge meteors by their eyes and never have heard that meteors killed even one people in last 100 years. And of course they understand the logic of bumping two things to each other.
In the other hand, the answer for (2) is that nobody have seen hiv virus, nobody have ever seen antibodies, nobody knows how tests acts and nobody knows what had been the statistics for your quote: "false negative tests occur so rarely".
My main idea in my post is:
Please focus more on this "false negative tests occur so rarely".
(1) How many of them (figures) had happened in the history and what had been the roots?
(2) Could these roots cause the false negatives reoccur and what is the perspective for this (In terms of figures and possibilities)?
If one could find out exactly that what are we talking about when the subject is "hiv test false negatives", then the result is fantastic.
The more you would be specific the more diminish concerns.
Thank you so much.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Welcome to the forum. However, I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
You have nicely summarized the main factors that contribue to Dr. Hook's and my risk assessments in response to most questions on this forum, except one: you don't mention the probability that a partner has HIV (or other STD), which of course is always part of the analysis.
Your comments about how people respond to different risks show you understand that people's perceptions of risk, and the preventive actions they may desire, is psychologically complex. I agree. But there is nothing in your comments that suggests we should change the advice we give to persons asking about STD/HIV risk on this forum.
"If you Drs. could tell us more that exactly why it is said that a test could not be relied 100%." The only such circumstance is if HIV testing is done too early after exposure. With the standard tests (and combinations of tests) currently in routine use, done sufficiently long after the last exposure, false negative tests occur so rarely that the possibility of it generally can and should be ignored.
Best wishes-- HHH, MD
You have nicely summarized the main factors that contribue to Dr. Hook's and my risk assessments in response to most questions on this forum, except one: you don't mention the probability that a partner has HIV (or other STD), which of course is always part of the analysis.
Your comments about how people respond to different risks show you understand that people's perceptions of risk, and the preventive actions they may desire, is psychologically complex. I agree. But there is nothing in your comments that suggests we should change the advice we give to persons asking about STD/HIV risk on this forum.
"If you Drs. could tell us more that exactly why it is said that a test could not be relied 100%." The only such circumstance is if HIV testing is done too early after exposure. With the standard tests (and combinations of tests) currently in routine use, done sufficiently long after the last exposure, false negative tests occur so rarely that the possibility of it generally can and should be ignored.
Best wishes-- HHH, MD
You are reading content posted in the HIV - Prevention Forum
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.
