Aa
Take a look at this...
I was browsing aidsmed.org and found this. It is a discussion about the different info in HIV window period."I talked to a doctor who leads the state in HIV testing in Massachussetts about how they came up with 6 weeks as a conclusive test. He said the state conducted a huge study following a very large group of MSM participants. The study concluded that ALL men who seroconverted during this test did so within 6 weeks using modern assays AKA 3rd gen or higher. Also, the public health dept of Mass is funded by the CDC and I assure you if the CDC had proof that what they were saying was incorrect they would say something about it. More importantly, if people were coming back positive after a 6 week neg, we'd hear about it. In the medical field there is acceptions to everything. Nothing is 100%, but for all general purposes it is accurate. I would say thay most of the leading researchers/doctors conclude that 6 weeks is accurate:
"Not only have I never had a case, I have never heard a story from any of my many colleagues (who have much greater experience than I do) having a patient who was HIV negative 6 weeks after exposure and positive later. Unless, of course, there were new exposures in the meantime."
- H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Senior Health Research Leader at the Battelle Center for Public Health Research "The AIDS virus replicates (reproduces itself) very quickly: minutes. But, the tests to detect whether someone has been infected with the virus after exposure take much longer to be accurate. The standared HIV test is positive within 3-4 weeks of exposure (the older HIV antibody tests took 2-3 months). In situations where someone has symptoms of acute HIV infection (high fever, swollen glands, rash) we use a test to look for the virus itself, the HIV viral load test. This test detects HIV within 2-3 weeks of exposure and is used in cases where people have symptoms of ACUTE HIV infection. In your case, assuming you are feeling well, you should get a HIV antibody test four weeks after your potential exposure."
"Not only have I never had a case, I have never heard a story from any of my many colleagues (who have much greater experience than I do) having a patient who was HIV negative 6 weeks after exposure and positive later. Unless, of course, there were new exposures in the meantime."
- H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Senior Health Research Leader at the Battelle Center for Public Health Research "The AIDS virus replicates (reproduces itself) very quickly: minutes. But, the tests to detect whether someone has been infected with the virus after exposure take much longer to be accurate. The standared HIV test is positive within 3-4 weeks of exposure (the older HIV antibody tests took 2-3 months). In situations where someone has symptoms of acute HIV infection (high fever, swollen glands, rash) we use a test to look for the virus itself, the HIV viral load test. This test detects HIV within 2-3 weeks of exposure and is used in cases where people have symptoms of ACUTE HIV infection. In your case, assuming you are feeling well, you should get a HIV antibody test four weeks after your potential exposure."
Wrong forum to get any of the doctors to respond. You need to post in the Related Expert
Forum, "HIV Prevention".
Forum, "HIV Prevention".
Hi Joan,
Thanks for the comment! Yes, I am starting to believe my own results.
The window period is a personal thing. You are more likely to be the next person to land on the moon than you are to test positive after a six week negative. It really is as simple as that. But it's up to the person what level of assurance they need. For me it was six months. For some it is four weeks. That doesn't change the biology of seroconversion.
When I went for my six month test, I wasn't even nervous. I was beyond certain that my results wouldn't change. It was just that final reassurance that I'd been extremely lucky. If I see someone on here who had a real risk, I would recommend testing at 6 weeks. If that's negative, then you are 99% sure to be home free. With that under your belt, just go back and test at 12 weeks, for total assurance.
The first testing centre I went to told me that it can take up to six months. That thought mushroomed in my head, and it nearly drove me insane. If they'd said, 'test at six weeks, if that's negative you are more than likely negative', I would have been far more relaxed.
Bottom line; test out to as far as you feel comfortable with. If that's six weeks, fine, if that's six months, or even a year, that's fine too. Just realise if you're still worrying about HIV after a three month negative, you are being irrational:)
Thanks for the comment! Yes, I am starting to believe my own results.
The window period is a personal thing. You are more likely to be the next person to land on the moon than you are to test positive after a six week negative. It really is as simple as that. But it's up to the person what level of assurance they need. For me it was six months. For some it is four weeks. That doesn't change the biology of seroconversion.
When I went for my six month test, I wasn't even nervous. I was beyond certain that my results wouldn't change. It was just that final reassurance that I'd been extremely lucky. If I see someone on here who had a real risk, I would recommend testing at 6 weeks. If that's negative, then you are 99% sure to be home free. With that under your belt, just go back and test at 12 weeks, for total assurance.
The first testing centre I went to told me that it can take up to six months. That thought mushroomed in my head, and it nearly drove me insane. If they'd said, 'test at six weeks, if that's negative you are more than likely negative', I would have been far more relaxed.
Bottom line; test out to as far as you feel comfortable with. If that's six weeks, fine, if that's six months, or even a year, that's fine too. Just realise if you're still worrying about HIV after a three month negative, you are being irrational:)
Thanks to everyone for a very good thread here. Lot's of very good information. Anyway, could someone please explain to me this business of the different "generations" of tests. I have had the Oracheck Oral Swap test done at both 4 and 5.5 weeks. What generation is the Oracheck test? Thanks.
Teak - I understand you don't abide or believe in a 6 week test - nor do you probably even believe in its usefullness. Here's the rub mate...are you a DR? I dont believe you are...and the Mass DEPT OF HEALTH - a team of DRs support a 6 week test...futhermore....an esteemed DR - DR HHH- who has WRITTEN CDC POLICY....AGREES.....i dont want to change your mind - because that is not my problem....but the stigma over this disease and the need to help people cope is what drives me....and sadly you wont accept what seems to be a sea change in thinking.
At the end of the day - if you want to help -you take all your knowledge and you try to help as best you can....sometimes i think you just want to reit you stances....again thats fine - but realize that while you may not be a DR - your opinion means alot to people and perhaps your unwillingness to accept data from other sources is greatly frustrating.......
At the end of the day - if you want to help -you take all your knowledge and you try to help as best you can....sometimes i think you just want to reit you stances....again thats fine - but realize that while you may not be a DR - your opinion means alot to people and perhaps your unwillingness to accept data from other sources is greatly frustrating.......
I agree with Teak on 100% wait 3 months. If you want to be more statistical and play very good odds then 6 weeks for ~90%. That is just my take on it...
But I talked with Mass. and Home Access for example and they said any Generation (2nd and above) test after 6 weeks will be just as accurate. Do we now think this not to be true? I am just looking for opinions.
But I talked with Mass. and Home Access for example and they said any Generation (2nd and above) test after 6 weeks will be just as accurate. Do we now think this not to be true? I am just looking for opinions.
Why in heavens earth would Dr. HHH give such a resounding endorsement of a 6 week test if he didnt actually believe it. I know there are different degrees of risk - and of course the greater the risk - the more imp. it is to test out accordingly....but frankly its a tiresome subject regarding the window period - in low risk settings - it is becoming glaringly obvious that a 6 week test is sufficient.....i know Teak will not agree with this until the CDC abides by a lower window period - which may or may not happen.
He doesn't follow the guideline of the Health Deptment he's a member of which states 3 months. http://www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/apu/infograms/testing.htm
Just reading the info and the replies it seems a bit contradictory.
If the state of Mass. lowered the window period to six weeks based on a study of MSM - common sense would dictate most or perhaps all of the seroconversions from this goup were from high risk exposures - yet they were confident enough to declare six weeks conclusive.
Why would they feel comfortable lowering their window period then caution everyone else to test out to three months for high risk exposures.
Somenting is missing?
RB
I agree. I think Mass. they take a probability stance like Dr. HHH, coupled with testing statistics to say unless you had a high risk exposure
I understand ur confusion but keep in mine that dr. hhh i think has mention in some of his responses that the mass clinic as well as the new york clinics are standing by a 6 week to be conclusive.
what i'm trying to say is that i trust dr. hhh 100% and if we r not then we r wasting our time in this forum.
First, excuse my English.It's not very good. I've read a lot about this window period and for all I've learn nobody really has a conclusive answer. I just don't believe that Mass. Department of Health would dare to say the window period is 6 weeks for MOST of people if it wasn't really true. That would be very irresponsible. They must base this assumption (6 weeks) on something, for sure.
Dr. HHH wouldn't be telling people that 4-6 weeks or 6-8 weeks test was pretty much conclusive (for low risks exposures) if he thought it wasn't true.
I think a 6 week negative result is indeed a good indicator that a person do not have HIV. Of course, there are exceptions, as you know, people with debilitate immune system, etc...This is possible, but rare. Remember that with the new generations tests is also much difficult to miss a positive result at that stage. Dr. HHH himself and other doctors that work in the area haven't seen anybody turning positive at 3 months after a 6 week negative in the last few years. That pretty much tells me, cases like late seroconversion are, again, possible, but very rare.
I myself again believe that a 6 week negative result is a good indicator of your status and very reassuring, but for a high risk I would say a 3 month test for a piece of mind. Especially because someone with a high risk wouldn't rest until 6 weeks later. You know, sometimes at night before you go to bed, when you are about to lay down and you start to think if you lock the front door or not. You are almost sure you did, but you know if you don't go there and check again, you won't be able to sleep well.
Dr. HHH wouldn't be telling people that 4-6 weeks or 6-8 weeks test was pretty much conclusive (for low risks exposures) if he thought it wasn't true.
I think a 6 week negative result is indeed a good indicator that a person do not have HIV. Of course, there are exceptions, as you know, people with debilitate immune system, etc...This is possible, but rare. Remember that with the new generations tests is also much difficult to miss a positive result at that stage. Dr. HHH himself and other doctors that work in the area haven't seen anybody turning positive at 3 months after a 6 week negative in the last few years. That pretty much tells me, cases like late seroconversion are, again, possible, but very rare.
I myself again believe that a 6 week negative result is a good indicator of your status and very reassuring, but for a high risk I would say a 3 month test for a piece of mind. Especially because someone with a high risk wouldn't rest until 6 weeks later. You know, sometimes at night before you go to bed, when you are about to lay down and you start to think if you lock the front door or not. You are almost sure you did, but you know if you don't go there and check again, you won't be able to sleep well.
Joan, I think that's a perfect analogy. Both are characteristic of OCD :-)
I never fail to be mystified by why everyone here is so quick to accept Teak's opinion on testing, but completely disregard what people who are actually *experts* believe and experience and know. Anyone with any particular illness (or whatever) is going to have an agenda, and can't be even remotely objective.
But there are people who DON'T have an agenda--they're the people who have studied (whatever) and whose opinions are based purely in fact and research and experience--not to mention basic scientific and medical knowledge. So who are you going to believe?
Ah, critical reading and thinking are invaluable skills...
I never fail to be mystified by why everyone here is so quick to accept Teak's opinion on testing, but completely disregard what people who are actually *experts* believe and experience and know. Anyone with any particular illness (or whatever) is going to have an agenda, and can't be even remotely objective.
But there are people who DON'T have an agenda--they're the people who have studied (whatever) and whose opinions are based purely in fact and research and experience--not to mention basic scientific and medical knowledge. So who are you going to believe?
Ah, critical reading and thinking are invaluable skills...
Joan, I contacted the Mass. Department of Health and posted the comment that I received from them. They suggest testing out to 3 month for all high risk exposures.
Does anybody know what kind of antibody HIV tests have been used in New York? I understand they say the window period is 3 months, but they also say with the HIV antibody tests used in New York State, virtually all people who are infected will test positive within one month of being infected. Most people will test positive even sooner. Are they referring to a standard HIV tests?
Even Anne at aidsmeds said, if she had tested within 6 weeks of her infection, she would have been positive. She did not test until 4 years after infection. Then she remembered when she was infected as she has symptoms. It seems as though she is even saying 6weeks is good for a test too but the CYA statement at the end always says it is not considered conclusive.
Everything points back to the CDC as the problem/confusion with the window period. Go with the experts in the filed and on the front lines, not a government agency with CYA written all over it.
Everything points back to the CDC as the problem/confusion with the window period. Go with the experts in the filed and on the front lines, not a government agency with CYA written all over it.
What continues to scare me is this whole window period. I had what Dr. HHH says and many of you have responded to me as a low risk exposure, (even though it doesn
Dr. HHH himself said that "A negative antibody test at 4 weeks will be highly reassuring (90-95% of infected people would be positive), but not as solid as waiting 6 weeks, when virtually 100% have positive results).
So, I think you are right. And as Doc HHH said probably the majority(~90-95) of people who is really infected would have a positive result at 4 weeks. That is why I think Mass. Department of Health and few others believe in the 6 weeks window period for a reliable result.
And about the tests that New York uses, I think they are using standart tests as you said. I don't think they are referring to those DNA, P24 tests., since they are expensive and not easily availably for the majority of the population.
So, I think you are right. And as Doc HHH said probably the majority(~90-95) of people who is really infected would have a positive result at 4 weeks. That is why I think Mass. Department of Health and few others believe in the 6 weeks window period for a reliable result.
And about the tests that New York uses, I think they are using standart tests as you said. I don't think they are referring to those DNA, P24 tests., since they are expensive and not easily availably for the majority of the population.
Worried,
Do you have any reason to believe that you have a suppressed immune system?
I am not a doctor, but for all that I've read and learned so far, a 9 week negative result is close to 100% accurate, especially after a not high risk exposure.
If you are still worried have another test in 3 weeks just for peace of mind. As far as I know, it is almost unheard that anybody turn out to be positive even after 6 weeks.
Do you have any reason to believe that you have a suppressed immune system?
I am not a doctor, but for all that I've read and learned so far, a 9 week negative result is close to 100% accurate, especially after a not high risk exposure.
If you are still worried have another test in 3 weeks just for peace of mind. As far as I know, it is almost unheard that anybody turn out to be positive even after 6 weeks.
these posts are very interesting and very helpful. I do have a question for someone though, what would be the reasons for you to re test after a negative 12 week antibody test (other than another risky situation) I had a negative 12.5 week test and a month after that, i started having light sweating at night, little red dots on my arms, can someone help? thanks alot guys
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.
