Aa
Teak. Where did you get this info?
"Testing out to six months is only an issue when IV drug use or a severely compromised immune system is involved such as with someone being tread for cancer"
I can never find this statement in any medical source. What is your reference? Please tell me, where did you all get this information? Even aidsmeds lessons state that in rare cases antibodies may be produced in 6 months BUT do not mention drug using, tread of cancer nor CDC does.
I am trying to belive but I cannot understand why did CDC says healthy people can produce antibodies after 3 months.
Is this a gossip or did any professional institituon mention this statement?
Thank you Teak.
I can never find this statement in any medical source. What is your reference? Please tell me, where did you all get this information? Even aidsmeds lessons state that in rare cases antibodies may be produced in 6 months BUT do not mention drug using, tread of cancer nor CDC does.
I am trying to belive but I cannot understand why did CDC says healthy people can produce antibodies after 3 months.
Is this a gossip or did any professional institituon mention this statement?
Thank you Teak.
it seems not possible due to CDC. LOL
i am laughing, can't believe myself actually BUT i am the person who will take an extra test at 6 months. i will do it. i hate myself but i will do it. why? because Dr.Bob says if your partner is hiv positive then you should take another test at 6 months. Ok !!! But, how can I know he is positive or negative. A silly approach. People are ready to think the partner is hiv positive. Otherwise, who should they come to forum? Do you get the point..
-Take a 6 month test if your partner is hiv positive if not, don't take a test.
Oh my god. I am here because I do no know his status. Come on.
i am laughing, can't believe myself actually BUT i am the person who will take an extra test at 6 months. i will do it. i hate myself but i will do it. why? because Dr.Bob says if your partner is hiv positive then you should take another test at 6 months. Ok !!! But, how can I know he is positive or negative. A silly approach. People are ready to think the partner is hiv positive. Otherwise, who should they come to forum? Do you get the point..
-Take a 6 month test if your partner is hiv positive if not, don't take a test.
Oh my god. I am here because I do no know his status. Come on.
Thanks for the karma, buddy!
I would much rather be the factor for you abandoning the hiv issue altogether and going back to your normal HIV-negative life!
I would much rather be the factor for you abandoning the hiv issue altogether and going back to your normal HIV-negative life!
regularjoey..you are great..:)))
I think you are the factor that stimulates me to stay in the forum and hiv issue.
Let's see the fight of Dr Bob and Dr. H.
I am sending you my karma joey!
I think you are the factor that stimulates me to stay in the forum and hiv issue.
Let's see the fight of Dr Bob and Dr. H.
I am sending you my karma joey!
I agree Dr.Bob is excellent, even though Dr.H is better, IMO.
You forgot to say woo-hoo )))
You forgot to say woo-hoo )))
Dr. Bob from thebody.com. Here is the source:
Dear Doctor, Thanks in advance for your answers.
1-I have read that 6 month test is required if the person is cancer or IV drug user or real immune system disorder. Otherwise, 3 months is conclusive. Is that true?
2-Does testing time change according to the type of exposure? For instance, is 3 months conclusive for both single oral sex and single receptive anal sex? Shorlty, does risk group change the seroconversion period?
3-Last week, you said 3 months test is conclusive for insertive anal sex. However, in one of your posts, which emerged at the opening page of thebody.com, you said 6 months test required for insertive anal sex. Which one is true? 3 or 6?
1. I would consider a negative FDA HIV-antibody test conclusive at the three-month mark, baring any extenuating circumstances, such as those you mentioned.
2. No, the time to seroconversion does not change with different types of sexual exposure or numbers of exposures.
3. I don't know exactly which post you are referring to, but most likely it was someone who had a documented significant exposure to someone confirmed to be HIV positive. In these situations the CDC recommends that if the person tests negative at three months they get a confirmatory test at the six-month mark as well. You can read more about HIV testing in the archives and also in the chapter, "HIV Testing Basics," which can be easily accessed on The Body's homepage under the heading "Quick Links."
That's it. That's source that I seek for!
Dear Doctor, Thanks in advance for your answers.
1-I have read that 6 month test is required if the person is cancer or IV drug user or real immune system disorder. Otherwise, 3 months is conclusive. Is that true?
2-Does testing time change according to the type of exposure? For instance, is 3 months conclusive for both single oral sex and single receptive anal sex? Shorlty, does risk group change the seroconversion period?
3-Last week, you said 3 months test is conclusive for insertive anal sex. However, in one of your posts, which emerged at the opening page of thebody.com, you said 6 months test required for insertive anal sex. Which one is true? 3 or 6?
1. I would consider a negative FDA HIV-antibody test conclusive at the three-month mark, baring any extenuating circumstances, such as those you mentioned.
2. No, the time to seroconversion does not change with different types of sexual exposure or numbers of exposures.
3. I don't know exactly which post you are referring to, but most likely it was someone who had a documented significant exposure to someone confirmed to be HIV positive. In these situations the CDC recommends that if the person tests negative at three months they get a confirmatory test at the six-month mark as well. You can read more about HIV testing in the archives and also in the chapter, "HIV Testing Basics," which can be easily accessed on The Body's homepage under the heading "Quick Links."
That's it. That's source that I seek for!
You said: "why are you beating up answers to a question that you asked. doesn't make sense. if you know the answers than don't ask. leave and never come backBack pain - low
Back strain treatment. you obviously know it all! good bye. "
Now, here is your duty! Read all the comments and think that yesterday was the day you came here to learn something. Think that you are a new person. You know nothing about hiv and really scared one.
Can you understand the point? After reading all comments under this subject people will get all the information about window period. They do not need to read another post.
Back strain treatment. you obviously know it all! good bye. "
Now, here is your duty! Read all the comments and think that yesterday was the day you came here to learn something. Think that you are a new person. You know nothing about hiv and really scared one.
Can you understand the point? After reading all comments under this subject people will get all the information about window period. They do not need to read another post.
Me too, I was told 3-5 weeks by a few docs but the nurses keep saying 12 weeks. I honestly think it is all legal, because, Dr H said he has never seen a negative result change after 6 weeks - and his clinic sees 14,000 people a year! Also, adding 250 publications on STD's to that list, i'm sure he would have come accross it if it was possible.
I guess it is just an odds game - we have webmd and medhelp BOTH saying that by 4 weeks ~90% will turn positive so for low risk encounters this time frame may be sufficient.
With all these people saying ~90% of people will test positive by 4 weeks, I think those of us with anxiety over low risk situations can take our 4 week test and move on...
I guess it is just an odds game - we have webmd and medhelp BOTH saying that by 4 weeks ~90% will turn positive so for low risk encounters this time frame may be sufficient.
With all these people saying ~90% of people will test positive by 4 weeks, I think those of us with anxiety over low risk situations can take our 4 week test and move on...
In Australia our official window period is 3 months/12 weeks whatever, but the 2 doctors I saw, said 5-6 weeks was adequate the doctor at the clinic I went to told me 3-5 weeks.
I find it odd, but reassuring that the actual doctors are saying that, when they are more likely to be held accountable, as you say, for people who are told they are conclusively negative, and then go on to infect someone, especially when there is an offical guideline stating 3 months.
The wording on the CDC is what is most disheartening, 97% by 3 months, as said above is still 3 in 100 that arent, and that isnt helpful to a worry wart. They could say something like "By 3 months, Most if not all people would have become positive, there are extremely rare cases of people taking up to six months, but these have become almost non-existant in the last decade, and usually always involve other variables affecting immune response" or something along those lines, to be covered but still reassure people.
Oh well, just my 2c.
I find it odd, but reassuring that the actual doctors are saying that, when they are more likely to be held accountable, as you say, for people who are told they are conclusively negative, and then go on to infect someone, especially when there is an offical guideline stating 3 months.
The wording on the CDC is what is most disheartening, 97% by 3 months, as said above is still 3 in 100 that arent, and that isnt helpful to a worry wart. They could say something like "By 3 months, Most if not all people would have become positive, there are extremely rare cases of people taking up to six months, but these have become almost non-existant in the last decade, and usually always involve other variables affecting immune response" or something along those lines, to be covered but still reassure people.
Oh well, just my 2c.
You asked the same question to Andy and I do believe you understood him. He explained it to you very well.
We have people on AidsMeds that work for the clinics in OZ and the conclusive negative test result is 3 months. It hasn't changed in OZ.
Imagine the legal complications of having said 6 weeks is conclusive and then allowing an HIV+ person to infect others - that's all it is. "BUT YOU SAID...."
Anyway, the general view among doctors with whom I have spoken is that the latest technology can detect antibodies from 3 weeks and 6 weeks is considered the "window period". Although, "just to be sure", 8 weeks is stressed.
Anyway, the general view among doctors with whom I have spoken is that the latest technology can detect antibodies from 3 weeks and 6 weeks is considered the "window period". Although, "just to be sure", 8 weeks is stressed.
Same old Teak, aren't you happy guiltnworry is gone!
Go smoke some more crack, buddy.
Go smoke some more crack, buddy.
Yes, CDC is a big organization, but they are also very conservative. They will not change anything unless they get hard evidence that they are wrong.
Here's the point, at least the way I see it: many years ago there were numerous reports of delayed seroconversions, which prompted the original decision to set the window period at 6 months. However, in recent years no such reports have been made. Most likely this is due to newer tests being significantly more sensitive for the antibody detection. But the CDC still has those 10-year old reports and they can not say for sure that if those people were tested today they would have been positive earlier - even though many people think that they would. So they are playing it safe.
But you have got to be reasonable - look at that PDF for the rapid test that somebody posted here a month ago: everybody tests positive by 8 weeks these days. There is nothing for you to worry about at this point.
Here's the point, at least the way I see it: many years ago there were numerous reports of delayed seroconversions, which prompted the original decision to set the window period at 6 months. However, in recent years no such reports have been made. Most likely this is due to newer tests being significantly more sensitive for the antibody detection. But the CDC still has those 10-year old reports and they can not say for sure that if those people were tested today they would have been positive earlier - even though many people think that they would. So they are playing it safe.
But you have got to be reasonable - look at that PDF for the rapid test that somebody posted here a month ago: everybody tests positive by 8 weeks these days. There is nothing for you to worry about at this point.
This makes me wonder.... Does someone with a stronger immune system then show antibodies earlier due to the fact that their immune system begins attacking the virus earlier? Meaning, could such a person show antibodies and test positive at 4 weeks post exposure? Or is a 4 week positive that rare?
Mr. Know it all that doesn't know anything about HIV except that he was a WW. The WW at AidsMeds knows more about HIV than you do.
It would be because a patient could be immuno compromised already with a poor immune response, therefore the body's antibody response would be somewhat less. It can also happen with patients taken cyclosporin or oral steroids. When testing for other "opportunistic" infections like a TB, they would actually account for this with a lessened zone of response.
Good point Rae 1. It would not take longer than 3 months for your body to recognize an infection. HIV Directly attack the cells of the immune system. If your system is healthy enough to fight back, it will do so sooner rather than allowing an alien virus to reak havoc on its system.
no you cannot find an article that says that directly, and the CDC leaves it open on purpose, in my opinion. The CDC will NOT directly state that there is a specific cuttoff point for when you develop antibodies, ever. Even if our technology allows us to tell if we have hiv 5 minutes after exposure, its not going to happen.
The CDC is a governmental organization, it is there responsibility to supply you with worst case scenario examples. The CDC has stated numerous times that three months is conclusive in healthy people. Can it take up to 6 months to develop antibodies in a healthy person? Sure, anything can happen. Are the operators you talked with at the CDC experts on HIV, heck no they aren't.
I called the CDC and the lady I spoke with was blatantly reading off of information in front of her. "It may take up to 6 months" etc. etc. Consult with your doctor to be sure, etc. etc.
They will NOT give you a straight answer and thus will continue to confuse you if you dwell on it. Have comfort in the fact that they do indeed support the claim that an HIV test at 3 months is conclusive.
Can it take 6 months in a healthy person? Sure. What are the chances? Slim to none. There is a reason the average time to conversion is 22 days. 50% at 3 weeks is already a good start. At LEAST 97-99% by 3 months.
The CDC isnt going to comment on the .04% left over after three months because these are specific anomalies, which of the majority are iv drug users, cancer patients on immunosuppressant drugs such as chemotherapy.
Think of it this way, if you had a stable immune system, would it really take more than 3 months to start fighting an infection? No, it never, ever does.
The CDC is a governmental organization, it is there responsibility to supply you with worst case scenario examples. The CDC has stated numerous times that three months is conclusive in healthy people. Can it take up to 6 months to develop antibodies in a healthy person? Sure, anything can happen. Are the operators you talked with at the CDC experts on HIV, heck no they aren't.
I called the CDC and the lady I spoke with was blatantly reading off of information in front of her. "It may take up to 6 months" etc. etc. Consult with your doctor to be sure, etc. etc.
They will NOT give you a straight answer and thus will continue to confuse you if you dwell on it. Have comfort in the fact that they do indeed support the claim that an HIV test at 3 months is conclusive.
Can it take 6 months in a healthy person? Sure. What are the chances? Slim to none. There is a reason the average time to conversion is 22 days. 50% at 3 weeks is already a good start. At LEAST 97-99% by 3 months.
The CDC isnt going to comment on the .04% left over after three months because these are specific anomalies, which of the majority are iv drug users, cancer patients on immunosuppressant drugs such as chemotherapy.
Think of it this way, if you had a stable immune system, would it really take more than 3 months to start fighting an infection? No, it never, ever does.
why are you beating up answers to a question that you asked. doesn't make sense. if you know the answers than don't ask. leave and never come back. you obviously know it all! good bye.
But regularjoey how can I reject CDC. This is very big organization. You say outdated but the articles in CDC were written by famous professors. On the other side, we are talking about amateur groups such as aidsmeds etc..Thebody.com also supports 6 month test for some situations. How can I compare thebody.com and aidsmeds. Thebody.com is much much professional. So normally, my anxieties come back. I am sorry but weak immune system, drug using cases etc are gossips. Show me a single scientific article that says: "Healthy people produce antibodies at 3 months but drug users, severely compromised immune system owners produce at 6 months." You can not find!
Note: Actually, while posting new comments I am thinking new people also. I see this subject important.
Note: Actually, while posting new comments I am thinking new people also. I see this subject important.
There is no reference, the aidsmeds crew does not give out factual information - that's not what they are there for.
Nobody needs a test beyond the 3 months, the CDC guidelines are outdated. You're wasting your time, man.
Nobody needs a test beyond the 3 months, the CDC guidelines are outdated. You're wasting your time, man.
I'm sorry rae but we share the same situation.
We are talking about Centers for Diseases Control not about small clinic.
One side: CDC
The other side: aidsmeds moderators, Doctor HHH, teak etc..
The most important part is; CDC absolutely rejects that only drug users, severely compromised immune system take the test at 6 months.
When I asked, the consultant told me this: Healthy people can produce antibodies after 3 months.
The latter approach seems meaningful but there is no resource for this. Andy, Teak, Ann repeat the same statement. But when I ask, they never answer.. Show the reference please.
We are talking about Centers for Diseases Control not about small clinic.
One side: CDC
The other side: aidsmeds moderators, Doctor HHH, teak etc..
The most important part is; CDC absolutely rejects that only drug users, severely compromised immune system take the test at 6 months.
When I asked, the consultant told me this: Healthy people can produce antibodies after 3 months.
The latter approach seems meaningful but there is no resource for this. Andy, Teak, Ann repeat the same statement. But when I ask, they never answer.. Show the reference please.
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.
