Window Period, for Worried Wells

[ainxtein]

Just want to summarize the window period stuff, which is of the most concern of the worried wells.  There are different versions beginning from the most conservative (and probably outdated) 6-month thing, to the most aggressive 6 week (e.g. MA). (Confusing!) The window periods are different for various reasons, one being that the testing methods used by different clinics are different.  For this post, I am discussing up-to-date 3rd or 4th generation enzyme-link method tests that use your blood drawn from vein (I believe ELISA should be one). Quick test methods that can show results in 20 minutes are excluded.

Here is the schedule:
22.6% - 1week
53.775% - 2week
84.1% - 3week
98.4% - 4week
99.45% - 5week
99.994% - 6 week
99.99986% - 7week
99.99999*% - 8week

[TO BE CONTINUED]

[lantongblack]

worriedsick, will u believe in some1 who has been there since the beginning of the discovery of HIV/AIDS? That's Ms Cao, i think she aged 50+. And she had been in public for HIV awareness giving speech and answering question as THE HEAD OF CHINA HEALTH DEPARTMENT/DISEASE CONTROL. And she has been consistantly confirming that the latest window period is 2-6 weeks. WILL U BELIEVE IN HER? if u do, then u should believe in the statistic posted above. If u don't u can always choose to believe in CDC and FDA approved test's window period.

[worried scik]

Are the statistics noted above from Ms Cao and do you have the link or was this just made up by the original poster

[lantongblack]

anybody has any idea who this CONSTANTINE (in the above artickle from aegis) is?

Ms Cao is a SCIENTIST and HEAD OF CHINA DISEASE CONTROL DEPARTMENT (smth like CDC) specialized in HIV if i'm not mistaken...

we are now talking about the statistics and opinions on window period from EXPERIENCED world leader in HIV field (including Dr HHH)... and many of ppl believe in them because this is the matter of life and death and those world HIV leader wouldn't be simply giv out wrong info...

as for TEAK, he is believe in FDA and CDC guideline...there's nothing wrong with that...just that the guidelines are like wat Doc HHH said, CYA stuff. Its not based on scientific reasearch( at least not RECENT scientific reseacrh and discovery)

[worried scik]

Can any one answer the question I posted.  How reliable is the source for the statistics noted above.  And to David- there will always be outliers for everything in life.  You cant worry about that!  You can be hit be a metorite tomorrow too.  I would go outside if I were you.

[lantongblack]

One major drawback of antibody tests is the "window" period: the time it takes the body to produce antibodies after infection has begun. The standard tests for HIV do not detect the virus itself, but the antibodies that the body produces in response. During the period before the antibodies are produced, a person can be infected with HIV and can infect others, but still test negative on the HIV antibody test.

For the first tests licensed, this window period ranged from six to 12 weeks, but improved technology has allowed the detection of lower levels of antibodies, making it possible to identify them earlier. "Currently used tests can detect HIV infection between three and five weeks in most individuals," Constantine says. "This is true of just about all of the ELISAs and the rapid tests [discussed further below]. Some tests are a little more consistent in detecting at the three week period, but in general they are all equivalent." To some degree, he explains, "it also depends on the individual (who may not produce antibodies as fast as another)."

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/2001/ATN37405.html

[lantongblack]

hello