Need clarification please

[cp22worried]

Well let me just say that i have done plenty of research on here listening to the docs and posters and im still a little confused about something.
I always see (even very recently) the doctors say that 6 week hiv antibody test is almost 100 percent reliable because most show positive within that time span. Why is it that someone might take longer and be apart of that small percentage? Is it because people with weak immune systems etc. ?

My case was of oral nature (giving oral), ya i know most say on this free forum that it is zero risk cuts or not etc. but doctors say there is a very tiny chance, given my situation...giving oral, knowing the precise date and getting tested exactly at 6 weeks and not having any weaken immune/underlying sicknesses and no other sexual contact in between  initial contact and testing date. Does this mean im safe then...I hope someone can explain this. Thanks for the future help!

[Teak]

I can't answer for the doctors you'll have to ask them yourself. We use the US and UK testing guidelines in this forum and we also go by the maufactures approvals in this forum. There are no approved tests to give a conclusive negative result earlier than 3 months.

http://www.bhiva.org/files/file1031097.pdf   UK Testing Guideline

Post-test discussion for individuals who test HIV negative

The need for a repeat HIV test if still within the window period after a specific exposure should be
discussed. Although fourth generation tests shorten the time from exposure to seroconversion a repeat test
at three months is still recommended to definitively exclude HIV infection.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/gap/pmtct/Trainer%20Manual/Adobe/Module_6TM.pdf  US Testing Guidelines.

Page 11 Number 4

[cp22worried]

i understand what you are saying about the 3month, i just dont know why the docs state that the 6 weeks is conclusive for that post. Is it another theoretical risk of someone actually being positive after a the 6 week period mixed with oral sex. Is that why he states it is conclusive.

[Teak]

You don't need testing you were never at risk and anyone that has had a risk the guidelines per the manufacture and the FDA is 3 months post exposure.

[cp22worried]

Last question about this, i read this post in doc forum

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/HIV-Prevention/6-week-test/show/939440

Doc says that 6 week almost 100 percent reliable and both go on to say that it was conclusive and didnt need testing? Why is this if 3 months is timeline, Who is correct?

[cp22worried]

oh i see, so there is just no particular reason then for people just taking a little longer than 6 weeks or so. So regardless if you say there is no risk of Hiv via Oral my 6 week is reassuring to say the least.

[Teak]

What would be longer is someone that tested out longer than 3 months. Those are people on chemo, antirejection drugs for transplants and chronic IV drug abusers.

[cp22worried]

Ok...but that doesnt answer my abover question

"I always see (even very recently) the doctors say that 6 week hiv antibody test is almost 100 percent reliable because most show positive within that time span. Why is it that someone might take longer and be apart of that small percentage? Is it because people with weak immune systems etc. ? "

[Teak]

You didn't have a risk and had you had a risk a conclusive test is 3 months post exposure.