Aa
ok really confused
i went to the doctor two days ago and the doctor told me that my six week test isnt conclusive but he can garantee that i dont have hiv...whats up with that? i seen many post up on this site also stating that six weeks is well enough to detect antibodies. I also seen that Dr.h also believes in a six week negative as weel.....my doctor told me that the cdc has to say three months to account for ANY possible situation that can accur but being that im not immune compromised (and i think he would know being hes a doctor ) he says that he guarantees that i will be negative if i test at 12 weeks and said the decision is up to me...So WHY do some posters insist on telling people that theres a possibility our test can change when if we are healthy it won't? this really puts stress on people a response would be appreciated thanks.
read my answer in just a thought i am sure it will help...u understand very clearly
i think we all have points that are right. i't;s just so confusing thats why i thin even the cdc adds some qiggle room just like anyone esle
take a 8 and 12 weeks gurl and leave it behind you.
send me a freind request if you would like to chat about this further.
take a 8 and 12 weeks gurl and leave it behind you.
send me a freind request if you would like to chat about this further.
6 weeks as a REALLY good sign. I would also trust what my own doctor was saying and take comfort in the relaxed guidelines of other countries. If I were you I would schedule a test at 3 months just to be able to forget about this whole thing. I would only engage in protected sex (which everyone should) and then forget about this whole thing in the meantime and think of myself as negative and enjoy life :) Then at the 3 month mark you can pick up your conclusively, negative result.
i got a best answer
To: kenz
so when do you beleive a test in conclusive? your own veiw
To: kenz
so when do you beleive a test in conclusive? your own veiw
I understand how you are feeling - the test should be objective and independent of risk. Which it is after the window period. However, a doctor typically takes everything into account when evaluating a patient. If a person has unprotected anal sex with a known HIV+, developed all ARS symptoms and was negative at 6 weeks, any doctor would certainly recommend testing at 3 months. If a girl presents because she gave her boyfriend who is neither bisexual/gay or an IV drug user a blowjob for 1 minute without ejaculation and tests negative after the same period of time, he will be inclined to say that this is enough testing - because he believe there wasn't a risk to begin with and because it is so improbable the same person would get HIV through this unlikely route AND be a late seroconverter.
" if there were symptoms" the doc on this forum and my doc says that symptoms mean nothing but now they do when it comes to testing at three months or earlier. nothing makes sense. i was told that if the symptoms i had were from ars or hiv wateva you want to call it then i would have tested positive by now giving that my symptoms started two days after.
i meant get one at 8 weeks then at 12 weeks but i didnt understand that either a risk is a risk and if the the person had a low low risk from the begining WHY test. the statistic are based on people actuall aquiring the disease and hopefully those with high risk. so if the test is relaible at six weeks for low then it should be for high risk too
Some authorities may be taking differences in local HIV prevalence into account. Further there might be differences in how conservative they are and what emphasis they are putting on older case reports of longer seroconversion.
Even if they agree on all the fact, there's still some politics in it whih can affect the guidelines used in each country. It is kind a trade off: Even if there are some rare cases where it really takes the full 3 months some people in the profession think the "3 month rule" does more harm than good since it delays testing. Studies show many people don't show for testing at the 3 month mark. Hence it seems better to test immediately, since a lot of people can be caught that way. Furthermore the 3 month rule is making a lof people worried for a long time. In light of this, some health authorities are inclined to focus on the vast majority of cases and suggest a very short window. Often they do a combination where they recommend an immediate test and then a follow-up test at the 3 month mark, sometimes depending on the risk of exposure and/or if there were symptoms, as I explained in the response above. However, the CDC 'golden standard' requirement remains 3 months.
Even if they agree on all the fact, there's still some politics in it whih can affect the guidelines used in each country. It is kind a trade off: Even if there are some rare cases where it really takes the full 3 months some people in the profession think the "3 month rule" does more harm than good since it delays testing. Studies show many people don't show for testing at the 3 month mark. Hence it seems better to test immediately, since a lot of people can be caught that way. Furthermore the 3 month rule is making a lof people worried for a long time. In light of this, some health authorities are inclined to focus on the vast majority of cases and suggest a very short window. Often they do a combination where they recommend an immediate test and then a follow-up test at the 3 month mark, sometimes depending on the risk of exposure and/or if there were symptoms, as I explained in the response above. However, the CDC 'golden standard' requirement remains 3 months.
just cause you have a low risk an get hiv or a high risk and get it testing should be the same once you have it no matter wwhat the risk was.
kenz fianaly someone give a decent aswer thanks.
kenz fianaly someone give a decent aswer thanks.
yes i will be going for an 12/13 week test but now looking at what lizzie and teak post i feel i shud get a test at six weeks and also at 12 weeks.. what do you think?
everyone who post here knows that but we come here for the answer as to why...no one can seem to answer the why about this particular subject. i dont understand why massechusets sorry for spelling and the uk and newyork and my doctor are saying that six weeks are good enough. correct me but newyork and the uk say its conclusive and they use the same test as we do.
There's no doubt that the gudelines in many countries are saying 3 months. The reason for that is (I've read this specific reason given as for the UK guidelines) that over 10 years they have never received a complaint about it and hence are very careful about changing something that works. The extra period of time is also there to take into account the natural variation there is in all individuals and also special cases with immunosuppression etc. as you mention. On the other hand, your doctor may have thought that in your specific situation 6 weeks is enough. This may be based on details of the risk you have described to him, HIV prevalence, your symptoms and of course on the outcome of this test, taking the high reliability at 6 weeks into account. Dr. H on this site always take all factors into account so you can't take one piece of his advice given in one context and apply it to another. Remember that low probabilities multipled together yield VERY low probabilities. So if your doctor think your risk is low, and if the risk of a false-negative at 6 weeks is low the combined probability is really low. That seems to be the type of reasoning Dr. H is making and probably the same as your doctor did in your case. If in doubt, why don't you task him?`:)
this is what the expert docs told me.
In getting tested to reassure yourself that you did not get infected, you can stop at this time. You have been tested with both antibody tests and with a test for the virus itself. Your antibody tests at 11 weeks are conclusive by themselves. Neither of us on the site have been able to find anyone who has not been taking anti-HIV therapy who has taken more than 8 weeks to develop a positive test in more than 3 years. In addition to this definitive answer, you also have a negative HIV PCR which would most likely have been positive at 6 weeks. The two test results taken together essentially guarantee that you did not get HIV
feel good about your test. i would still go at 12/13 weeks just to ease your mind.I don't know why some of these people can't give anything but a generic answer. you should read my post below this one called any thoughts.
where is your doctor from. he seems to have done some real reaserch.
In getting tested to reassure yourself that you did not get infected, you can stop at this time. You have been tested with both antibody tests and with a test for the virus itself. Your antibody tests at 11 weeks are conclusive by themselves. Neither of us on the site have been able to find anyone who has not been taking anti-HIV therapy who has taken more than 8 weeks to develop a positive test in more than 3 years. In addition to this definitive answer, you also have a negative HIV PCR which would most likely have been positive at 6 weeks. The two test results taken together essentially guarantee that you did not get HIV
feel good about your test. i would still go at 12/13 weeks just to ease your mind.I don't know why some of these people can't give anything but a generic answer. you should read my post below this one called any thoughts.
where is your doctor from. he seems to have done some real reaserch.
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.
the state of mass an NY also say 6 wekks is 99% but should still test at 12/13 weeks becuse cdc says. when was the last time the goverment was right about anything.