hiv test

[patel7]

at six weeks my rapid hiv test was preliminary positive but i didnt do further testing because at that time i chose not too. i have had three more rapid test after that time one at seven weeks, nine weeks, and 11 weeks and all were negative. my question is that if the prelim positive was really a positive then wouldnt the three tests following those test be positive as well. wouldnt i have produced enough antibodies 5 weeks later that the next three test would have shown positive. dont hiv antibodies rapidly produce in the body so at nine and 11 weeks there would be detectable amounts of antibody. also all the tests were done with the same rapid test. was that probably a false positive since the three tests following were negative

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

Makes no difference.  The two tests are equivalent.

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

That's the problem with the rapid HIV tests:  there is a substantial risk of false positive results.  That the subsequent tests were negative is solid evidence you didn't catch HIV.  Almost 100% of newly infected people have positive antibody tests -- both by rapid tests and standard lab-based tests -- by 11 weeks.

You can be sure you don't have HIV.  You don't need any further testing.

Best wishes--  HHH, MD

[patel7]

sorry when looking back at the tests the one at seven and eleven weeks was done with clearview complete hiv test and the one at nine weeks was by oraquick advance- all negative. i dont know if the additional info makes any difference but just checking. is one test better than another?

[H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D.]

corpuz is exactly right.

[corpuz]

The first positive test rapid test was indeed false positive.  HIV is not your problem.  You are NEGATIVE. No additional testing is warranted