Aa
Yet more reassurance on the 6-week window
Nobody reads my posts, but I don't care, so I'll go ahead and post this anyway. Went to an STD clinic to talk to one of the doctors there -- these guys deal with HIV on a regular basis, as the area the clinic is located in is a pretty high HIV-concentrated area. I spoke to one of the doctors -- a very knowledgable one -- about my fears, Medhelp, the window period, blah blah. I also told her I got a 1-month test, and she looked at me and immediately said "Honestly, if your 1 month came back negative, it's extremely likely that you are negative and that it will not change."
I then went on to quiz her about the 6-week testing procedure that Doc HHH recommends, and she completely agreed with it. When asked about the 3-month window, she ducked the question, but hinted that it was a CYA thing on the behalf of the CDC.
So hopefully that'll give some hope to people out there. 6 weeks is considered pretty solid by many experts, but I guess the 3-month conclusive really isn't going anywhere soon.
I then went on to quiz her about the 6-week testing procedure that Doc HHH recommends, and she completely agreed with it. When asked about the 3-month window, she ducked the question, but hinted that it was a CYA thing on the behalf of the CDC.
So hopefully that'll give some hope to people out there. 6 weeks is considered pretty solid by many experts, but I guess the 3-month conclusive really isn't going anywhere soon.
You make a good point. As i have also said before, listen to Dr.HHH, he is the one and only expert here in these forums. He is an HIV transmission EXPERT. Good for you for being so logical.
Doc says hes never seen anyone seroconvert after 6 weeks... and he has been in the "business" for a long time.
In many European countries 8 weeks is conclusive, regardless of exposure, this is probably a fair amount of time and the statement is more likely to be made without the involvement of lawyers and such.
In many European countries 8 weeks is conclusive, regardless of exposure, this is probably a fair amount of time and the statement is more likely to be made without the involvement of lawyers and such.
That...kind of sucks. I was hoping that I was more or less in the all clear. Any thoughts on how comforting (I guess that's the appropriate term) the 6 week test would be, then, in your opinion? Doc HHH says around 95-99% accurate -- and he seems to know his stuff, too. But the varying information out there is extremely anxiety-inducing.
Mass only uses 6 weeks for low and non risk issues. They recommend 3 months for all unprotected vaginal and anal sex. The normal testing recommendation for Aussies is 12 weeks to receive a conclusive result. We have several people on AidsMeds that are Aussies and they will advise you the same thing.
Like I said, I'm sure Dr. Bob is quite knowledgable (I don't like his cheeky replies, personally, but that's a personal preference kind of thing, I guess). I think what I don't completely get is why Massachusetts and Australia allegedly have the six-week conclusive testing period if so many other areas dispute it. I mean, wouldn't there be legal repercussions if people started testing positive after six weeks despite being told that six weeks was conclusive in these areas? I could envision those people saying "Well, the doctors at the clinics in Aussie said I was fine at six weeks. Because I'm not, I'm going to go ahead and sue the clinics." I mean, lawsuit city.
All of the contradictions on the part of these supposedly licensed/reputable agencies are just...weird, you know?
All of the contradictions on the part of these supposedly licensed/reputable agencies are just...weird, you know?
Don't listen to dumbo, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone that says that HIV doesn't affect heterosexuals are just waiting to contract it. Dr. Bob is an expert in his field. He doesn't use the odds theory, he gives you the facts. The only way to know if you were exposed is by testing, not by someone giving you the odds.
Honestly, though Dr. Bob is likely very knowledgeable on HIV, his posts -- which border on the bizarre in most cases -- annoy the hell out of me. At one point, an Australian man who got tested at the 6-week mark (which the man said was conclusive in Australia) asked Dr. Bob if his test was conclusive. Dr. Bob's response -- rather than saying something like "Yeah, Australia has some of the leading STD clinics in the world, so they probably know what they're talking about" simply responds with "Well, in the States, we have a three-month conclusive window." It's like reading from a script. And then Dr. Bob said something about kookaburras, and how not all areas are as lucky as Australia in having the latest generation of HIV tests. What? Dr. HHH has repeatedly said that generation doesn't make a large difference.
Maybe he's just being conservative. I have no idea.
Maybe he's just being conservative. I have no idea.
I see that some people still have an outdated, 1980's view that HIV is a gay disease. The scientists back in the day thought is it was "gay cancer". ROFLMAO. Just shows the ridiculous and moronic views of MD's back then...that still is perpetuated today.
I remember back in midddle school Health class the homophobic Health/jock teacher (who later got canned for messing around with his female students) had the same jaded view on HIV. He even promoted it. What an idiot!
A risk is a risk.
I do not care if you are gay, breeding CSW's, etc....unprotected sex is just that....unprotected sex.
Get a grip of yourselves and stop projecting your fear of HIV on the gay community.
I remember back in midddle school Health class the homophobic Health/jock teacher (who later got canned for messing around with his female students) had the same jaded view on HIV. He even promoted it. What an idiot!
A risk is a risk.
I do not care if you are gay, breeding CSW's, etc....unprotected sex is just that....unprotected sex.
Get a grip of yourselves and stop projecting your fear of HIV on the gay community.
The bottom line is that there are a host of reliable sources who speak to the validity of a 6-week test. HHH advocates a definitive 3 month test for people with high risk exposure, but if you take a look at some of the threads, he even tells high risk ppl (unprotected anal sex) that their 6 week test is almost certainly conclusive. Even Dr. Bob, who strongly advocates a 3 month period (if I had a nickel for every time I've read 'HIV tests taken prior to the three month mark are not considered definitive or conclusive' on thebody.com from him I'd be a rich man), has been known to say things like "a 6 week test is extremely encouraging as the vast majority of people will have developed detectable antibodies by then." Australian HIV clinics, believed to be the best in the world, advocate 6 week tests even for high risk patients and the tests used in Australia are used by almost all clinics and labs in the U.S. Dr. Judith Feinberg on thebody.com says that 2-8 weeks is the norm for antibody production.
And the biggest piece of evidence that I feel often is overlooked is the average time to seroconversion, often given as 25 days. If this is the AVERAGE, that means there are values both less than and greater than 25 days. You are just as likely to test positive before 25 days as you are after 25 days. That is the statistical meaning of an average! That is why a 6 week is almost 100% conclusive. Doctors will continue to advocate 3-6 months because when it comes to a disease as serious as HIV as it is always better to err on the side of caution.
And the biggest piece of evidence that I feel often is overlooked is the average time to seroconversion, often given as 25 days. If this is the AVERAGE, that means there are values both less than and greater than 25 days. You are just as likely to test positive before 25 days as you are after 25 days. That is the statistical meaning of an average! That is why a 6 week is almost 100% conclusive. Doctors will continue to advocate 3-6 months because when it comes to a disease as serious as HIV as it is always better to err on the side of caution.
This is good news. I have a 6 week negative behind me after a very risky situation. Thanks for posting this misteryos. The people at my infirmery (At a University!) said my 6 week result was useless, and advised me not to take the test at that time. I was very surprised, since they couldn't possibly understand the anxiety I was going through at the time.
YAWN. Again, false claims and lies about me. I have posted many references and will do so again. You however, have not because it would expose you like I am going to do right now...again.
Anyway, is 18.9billion USD (Govt funding only) spending on domestic HIV/AIDS programs not enough for this lifestyle disease? For 2007:
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-03.pdf
Cancer funding:
4.75billion for 2007 (Govt funding only)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
Sure some cancer's are a lifestyle disease but not all, and especially not in children.
Diabetes spending is more than HIV, yes but the largest percentage goes toward the fat lazy people with poor nutrition who have type 2 diabetes who sit at McDonalds waiting for their Big Mac while the govt spends billions needlessly on another totally preventable disease...or lifestyle disease if you will.
Anyway, is 18.9billion USD (Govt funding only) spending on domestic HIV/AIDS programs not enough for this lifestyle disease? For 2007:
http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-03.pdf
Cancer funding:
4.75billion for 2007 (Govt funding only)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
Sure some cancer's are a lifestyle disease but not all, and especially not in children.
Diabetes spending is more than HIV, yes but the largest percentage goes toward the fat lazy people with poor nutrition who have type 2 diabetes who sit at McDonalds waiting for their Big Mac while the govt spends billions needlessly on another totally preventable disease...or lifestyle disease if you will.
Oh give us a break. There is more money spent on cancer, heart disease and diabetes then is spent on HIV a year and I think it should be, because more people suffer with cancer, heart disease and diabetes more so than HIV or AIDS. As for you backing up your claims with references, that's not true at all. Anyone that has spent time on this forum knows that.
The needles are insulin for Type 1 diabetes. I did not get stuck with a needle. thanks though.
The lobbyist angle does exist, nobody will admit it and nobody likes to hear it that's why Teak jumps on me everytime I dispute his claims (with references)...it's typical to deflect, its protection. If the avg person knew the truth about rates of infection in North America funding and researchers would be placed back where it should be such as Cancer.
The lobbyist angle does exist, nobody will admit it and nobody likes to hear it that's why Teak jumps on me everytime I dispute his claims (with references)...it's typical to deflect, its protection. If the avg person knew the truth about rates of infection in North America funding and researchers would be placed back where it should be such as Cancer.
The lobbyist/business angle that you're talking about is actually kind of interesting (and based on my limited understanding of the medical industry, likely true). And yeah, I do agree that many doctors -- i.e. general practitioners who might not have a vested interest in STD research -- don't appear to be well-versed with the newer testing procedures. My GP, when she first tested me (two weeks ago -- at a month, due to anxiety) insisted that I should test out to six months. That really freaked me out and made me question her opinion, because, I mean, what? Six months? When I questioned her on it, she admitted that she hadn't really done any research before my visit. Awesome, doc! Thanks for your due diligence!
On a side note, I read one of your messages about a needle in your belly -- dunno what that means or what it is, but I hope you are doing well.
On a side note, I read one of your messages about a needle in your belly -- dunno what that means or what it is, but I hope you are doing well.
Check out this graph it gives you a good idea when each test becomes positive if infected. This is why Dr.HHH says 6-8 weeks
http://stdweb.com/figure166.gif
http://stdweb.com/figure166.gif
Your doctor is simply wrong. Not all Dr's are up to date in regards to HIV unless they are specializing in something HIV related such as maybe working in an STD clinic or involved in research etc.
For the question of insertive anal, yes alot of guys do this to women. It is a higher risk they say, and mainly because the penis is directly exposed to blood in the anus/rectum. The bum is not meant for inserting items into and is made of thin delicate tissue that easily "tears". So, with blood exposure, the chances are higher for transmission. Still, receptive anal is by far the most efficient method, other than needle sharing, for HIV transmission. This has been known since the 80's.
Vaginal fluids have been shown to contain less infectious concentrations than blood or semen. that combined with the penis is built to keep things out for the most part, and there is a small opening for hiv to get in to, it makes the risks very low. This is not something funding lobbyists want anyone to hear and they certainly do not want to hear that there is no epidemic in north America at all.
It;s all bizness now, not about saving lives and prevention.
For the question of insertive anal, yes alot of guys do this to women. It is a higher risk they say, and mainly because the penis is directly exposed to blood in the anus/rectum. The bum is not meant for inserting items into and is made of thin delicate tissue that easily "tears". So, with blood exposure, the chances are higher for transmission. Still, receptive anal is by far the most efficient method, other than needle sharing, for HIV transmission. This has been known since the 80's.
Vaginal fluids have been shown to contain less infectious concentrations than blood or semen. that combined with the penis is built to keep things out for the most part, and there is a small opening for hiv to get in to, it makes the risks very low. This is not something funding lobbyists want anyone to hear and they certainly do not want to hear that there is no epidemic in north America at all.
It;s all bizness now, not about saving lives and prevention.
If the "average" time to seroconversion is 25 days, that means some people would even seroconvert earlier. HHH has said the earliest possible time to seroconvert is 10 days after exposure. Assuming a normal distribution (bell curve) this means that ~99% of people will seroconvert in the range of 10-40 days.
Hearing this type of information reassures me greatly. I tested negative at 9 weeks, but had my doctor tell me I wasn't officially clear until 6 months test! Thanks you misteryos for the update.
Dumbo said "vaginal sex," dude. And I agree with him that vaginal sex is probably less risky for the male, being the insertive partner. Every single bit of information I've ever read or been told points to that.
A lot of guys do girls in the butt.... why would they be at less risk than homosexuals?
I read your posts. I have also been told the same things by EXPERTS... who deal with it everyday. I have also been told by these EXPERTS on separate individual occasions that they have never seen a pure 100% hetero guy get HIV from vaginal sex. Can it happen? of course...so can many things in our daily life.
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.
