window period

Hello,i would like to ask about the window period..it is so confusing.6 weeks,3 months,6 months?what about the new generation tests..when can we be absolutely confident with our results?

[skerdstraght68]

massachussets calls a 6 week all clear.  With newer tests ie 3rd and 4th generation you can feel rather assured in a 6-8 week neg test.  The 3 month thing is a CYA statement created by test manufacturers.

[scared...]

Thanks,when you say 6-8 weeks,you mean it is the same at 6 and at 8 weeks?i tested at 6 1/2 weeks with the ag/ab test(i think it is 4th generation).Do you think is enough?the biochemical at the hospital told me that i am o.k,but i keep reading all these about the 3 and 6 month period..

[skerdstraght68]

your fine.. Its like a bell curve.  Once you reach 4 weeks your talking about deviding a percent.  THe people that take longer are people with immune disorders which you would be aware of.  I have searched the net more than anyone reguarding HIV and I have yet to see someone say they've seen 6 weeks turn pos later.  All I hear is MD's saying theyve never seen it.  That should tell you something

[scared...]

Hey,you are great!
Do you know if the ag/ab test is always a 4th generation test..the guy at the hospital didnt know about the generation of the tests..just told me it is very accurate since it is a combination with the antigen.
thanks again

[skerdstraght68]

dont wast your time looking for stuff on the net.  I've already sone it for you...

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/STD/messages/524.html

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/HIV/messages/258.html

http://huhs.harvard.edu/HealthInformation/HIVTesting.htm

http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040318.html

http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040617.html

http://www.sfaf.org/aboutsfaf/outreach/index.html?april00/two_tests.html~frontpage

http://peds.wustl.edu/labmed/retrovirus/

http://experts.about.com/q/Immunology-including-AIDS-973/ELiSA-6-Weeks.htm

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Women/Archive/WomenInfected/Q159734.html

http://www.areuatrisk.com/Learn/aids_hiv.php

http://liam.gnn.tv/print/1775/HIV_Antibody_Assays_Overview

http://www.retroconference.org/2001/posters/415.pdf  (Figure1)

http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-814-1753,33966.asp

http://www.aac.org/site/PageServer?pagename=basics_home

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=2523.0

http://www.aegis.com/askdoc/ASKD040318.html

http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/book/03MMHIV1to3.pdf  (page 7)

http://www.unaids.org/en/MediaCentre/References/default.asp#begin (q:32)

http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SideEffects/Archive/Testing/Q142661.html

http://depts.washington.edu/hivaids/initial/case1/discussion.html (figure 7)

http://experts.about.com/q/Immunology-including-AIDS-973/u.htm

[skerdstraght68]

its a 3rd or 4th which are the same when it comes to checking antibodies.

[o_g]

With a 6 week test post possible HIV transmission scare through sexual contect, Doc H. will generally put you in "ALMOST" all clear. Congrats!!!

Skerd: Any comment on this:
http://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=6&m=518837
Note: Maybe the difference was non-sexual transmission.

[o_g]

Trust me...really dont wana...U bet i wana live :)

[mpo131]

You believe everything you read?

[skerdstraght68]

I've read that before and it sounds shady to me.  I dont believe you get HIV from fighting.  It would be way rare.  I do believe you get it from being with another man or woman which would be a more likely senerio.  What else could you tell your GF/Wife?  It just sounds like a wierd post.

[Xhost]

The window period was the most confusing part of my own long journey into HIV madness. Every damned website had something different to say about it, as well as my risks for having caught HIV in the first place (unprotected oral sex, me on her).

Let's see, I started off by going to a doctor and asking him. He said, and I quote: any little cut in my mouth could have given me HIV. If I was in panic mode before, I was in full on desperate, crazy as bat sh*t panic mode after that. Stupid doctor - I don't go to him anymore. He also said I'd have to wait 6 months to get a conclusive test. Now I was really freaked.

Luckily, I just didn't believe him. So, called CDC, who told me my risk for having caught HIV was significant, and that I'd have to wait 6 months. At this point, I was really going nuts. So, kept looking, and eventually found my way here. Doc told me 6 weeks, told me my risk was pretty insignificant and and answered my questions and, after 6 weeks, I began to feel better. I still went and got tested at 9 weeks and again today, the 6 month mark, but I was much less of a basket case than I had been. All my tests negative, and I realize now I could have stopped and been happy at the 6 or 9 week mark.

So, I am glad that I found this place. Still pop in to read some of the posts. Glad they have started up the HIV Support forum. Seemed to me that most of the posters here needed mental and emotional support more than anything else.

[shouldaknownbetter]

I just got my 6 month negative result, today!  I had a known positive high risk exposure, unbeknownst to me at the time.  Had a 6.5 week elisa and a 60 day PCR DNA, both negative.  These results gave me the courage to grind it out another 4 months...

My Doc told me the PCR DNA is solid.

[skerdstraght68]

ELISA

6 week test = very reliable
8 week + =  accurate
10 week + same as above
12 week = same as above
6 month = same as above

[shouldaknownbetter]

Same to you my friend.  This has been 6 months from hell. Time to move forward with my life.  I think Dr. HHH is excellent, by the way.  Compared with the people on The Body.com, he was really the only one out there that attested to a 6 week neg. elisa as being reliable.  Not true with any other website out there.  This also helped carry me thru these many days.  Good luck with you.

[mpo131]

I second the DNA PCR test.  This test is more sensitive than what they test the blood supply with.
From all my research and what I've heard from doctors, this test-when performed at experienced laboratories is 100% sensitive at 2.5 months.  One more time... 100%. Not sure about one month, although they claim >99%, But with the research I've found, after at least 60-70 days it's 100%. There is the real possibility of a false positive, however, probably the MAIN reason this test is not FDA approved.  Another reason, is that this test is considered definitive at one month, about the same time at least 90% turn positive on antibody tests- no real value.   The only reason someone should take this test is if they have a known high risk exposure and suffer symptoms of ARS, and even in that circumstance the RNA PCR would be of more value.  Another reason, if someone has some serious mental health problems and think they are a late seroconverter.  But even then, they would still think that the test was not accurate.  Finally, if you have some serious, serious health issues, negative antibody testsm and the doctor's suspect possible HIV infection.

[shouldaknownbetter]

I did fit in that category of high risk, and at the time did not know about the chance of a false positive.  That 60 day negative result gave me the stamina to stick it out some more just in case. After 6 months, and 5 days, I CAN FINALLY BREATHE RELIEF!!!

[Xhost]

Congrats on your negative test result! I also had a doc that told me that the DNA PCR was fine for testing purposes. Then again, doc here wouldn't recommend it. And, talked to at least one person from here who did it and was sorry that he did.

Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference. I probably wouldn't do it again if I had it to do all over again.

[o_g]

hey,
My understanding suggests that DNA PCR is sensitive when it is optimized for paticular set of strains to which the person has been exposed to. If the person is exposed to a strain not covered by the DNA PCR test, it will not be detected. Proviral DNA PCR tests look out for HIV-1 only and also are not considered good for detecting non-B subtypes.

[mpo131]

First, if you are worried about HIV-2, then you are beyond rational.  I am supremely confident that well less than one percent of individuals infected in the US are HIV-2.  If you desire an HIV-2 DNA PCR test, then get one.  
Second, when you say different strains, I assume you are discussing subtypes.  Today's DNA PCR's include primers for ALL subtypes.  If one is conducting a DNA PCR test on an individual suspected to be infected with HIV, then how could they know what particular strain to test for?  That og, is why experienced laboratories use primers for all subtypes.  
Third, if you are now concerned about recombinant strains and HIV hiding in nervous tissue, you are well beyond any reasonable or rational thinking and you might want to seek help from a mental health professional.  Just saying.

Finally, you can find much research on the extreme sensitivity of this test all over the web.  Also, false negatives on DNA PCR's are so rare today, that if it happens, it gets written up in medical journals.

[mpo131]

For a little assurance, check out the write up on the performance of the DNA PCR at two months detecting subtype A and E.  You can find it on medscape.  [100%]

[o_g]

My exposure was in Italy so that's why I am worried on the strain aspect and with the ongoing symptoms. By DNA PCR, are you referring to the Proviral DNA PCR or bDNA? Anyways, thanks for the enlightenment.

Also, I read Daisey's case at the body bulletin boards and the information she wrote about DNA PCR's so that had an influence on my outlook towards the test.

[mpo131]

Crazy cobal brought Daisy up to me awhile ago.  Here's the thing with that "case."

1.)  If in fact she had a negative DNA PCR, for what reason one was ordered, I do not know, because the bDNA or RNA PCR is the recommended quantitative assay today for primary infection, but it either a)was taken before one month, or b)was a false negative.  Now, there a few reasons for the latter, a. she is not infected-which seems pretty likely considering her posted CD4 count and ratio which she posted after being confronted on that forum.
b. her husband from the army, who I am sure has been deploying to far off lands, acquired HIV from another country resulting in a uncommon strain.  Keep in mind, the DNA PCR when conducted in clinical practice achieves only 96% accuracy.  (For 100% sensitivity you must be sure that the lab you are using is experienced and uses ALL primers.)

2. Now when I further considered that case, there are a number of holes which I would like to share.  First, she claimed to experience a mono like illness(ARS) 2.5 months after her last exposure. Possible but unheard of and very unlikely.  Next, she states she has had a number of false negative oraquicks even well after the window period.  The only way that's possible is if the clinic she goes to got a BAD batch of tests.  Third, she continues to have negative RNA PCR's including one during ARS.  Finally her labs which she posted on that forum illustrated a very normal and healthy immune system consisting of >800 CD4's and descent CD4 ratio.

Put those altogether and you have a case for an interview on 60 minutes, right along with KenpoJohn.

You can read these accounts from numerous individuals all across cyberspace and take away what you will, I on the other hand would much rather listen to organizations such as Hopkins, Harvard, WHO, CDC, New York State Health Department, GMHC and so on.

[o_g]

I agree with you about other things regarding Daisey & ken's stories. But, as far as what you have written about Quantitative RNA PCR as recommeneded test to detect primary infection, I kind of disagree but correct me if I am wrong. In order to establish that infection exists in the 1st place, a DNA PCR is recommended before formation of antibodies. DNA PCR can still be considered a diagnostic test which is often used in finding the virus in infants but RNA PCR is meant to check the viral load for disease progression. RNA PCR is more prone to give false positives as well.

[mpo131]

Okay grasshopper, listen up.

The quantitative RNA PCR is the most desirable viral assay used to diagnose primary infection.  Research proves that once an individual is infected, the virus multiplies rapidly and immediately-sometimes reaching in the millions per mL during Primary infection(2-4 weeks), before the development of antibodies.  So, the RNA PCR would read a very high viral load in the first few weeks of infection prompting the doctor and patient to consider treatment in an effort to halt serious damage to the immune system.  The statistic of false positives can be as high as ten percent, but the doctor can usually recognize these because they mostly display low titers, i.e. < 10000 per mL.

The time delay until a DNA PCR is 96% sensitive is no earlier than one month-at least from what I know.  If you want 100% sensitivity, research shows 2 months.  So what good is a DNA PCR during primary infection? That's right, it isn't.  Remember, antibody tests are virtually all positive within the first month (90-95%) at least the elisa, and greater than 99 percent at two months.

So you see, that is why a DNA PCR is not used very often, unless in the diagnosis of a newborn, where antibody tests are useless for at least a year--or in a case where an individual has multiple indeterminate WB results.  These tests are very difficult to perform, require highly skilled $$technicians$$, and a lot of $$time$$.  Hence the reason they are not recommended for diagnostic purposes in the everyday adult HIV screening.  [Become positive same time as antibody test, higher rate of false positives, raise healthcare costs].

Finally, the RNA PCR might not be used to monitor disease progression anymore.  Recent published research demonstrates that one's viral load does not have much of an affect on the  progression to AIDS as once thought.

[o_g]

Alrite dude...u seem to be know it all. I suppose people working in Adult Industry are considered to be one of the highest risk group. Why would they take DNA PCR and not RNA PCR if RNA PCR is supposed to be the most desiable of the test.

You are right when you are saying -

"Research proves that once an individual is infected, the virus multiplies rapidly and immediately-sometimes reaching in the millions per mL during Primary infection(2-4 weeks)"

When the virus is present in the body & when RNA PCR can quantify it, do you really think DNA PCR will really miss detecting the virus which really is its major purpose. This claim realy don't make any sense.

And lastly, "grasshopper" - I hope calling me that at least brought a smile to your face otherwise it would have been a complete waste of effort;).

[mpo131]

Sorry if i offended you.  Not my intention.

Now, I refer you to the story published by the CDC where an individual in the porn industry was infected, tested negative on the DNA PCR a few weeks afterward, infected several others, and finally after at least one month, tested positive on DNA PCR.  

Why doesn't the DNA PCR pick it up early, don't know.  They call it the eclipse period.  Also, look up the sensitivity for the DNA PCR before one month- you won't find it.

RNA is more effective due to the rapid unchecked replication of viral particles in the blood before antibody production.  Anyone knowledgeable will tell you that a quantitative assay is more valuable in the first few weeks of infection.

Once again, I apologize, no more grasshopper jokes.  Only trying to help.

[Ronnie99]

Between the PCR DNA test and the PCR RNA test, the one used much more often for diagnostic purposes is the PCR DNA test. It is used for newborns at risk for infection, rape victims in many states and in the adult entertainment industry in the US. The PCR RNA test is used in none of these diagnostic situations, but instead is a test used for treating HIV infected patients. While PCR tests are not generally recomended for diagnostic purposes, the DNA test is the more diagnostic of the two tests. The RNA test is prone to higher rates of false positives as well.

[Ronnie99]

mpo: I don't agree with your statement about the RNA test being more accurate early on from what I have read. I have read some of the posts by the doctors on thebody website who say that the vast majority (over 99%) of the virus is in the lymph system and not in the blood. The DNA test does more chain reaction cycles than the RNA test does from what I have read and it can detect much lower levels of virus in the blood than the RNA test can because the RNA test does less replicating cycles. I just don't think your argument jives with most of what I have read. What I have read says that the DNA test can pick up even the very slightest levels of viral content.

[o_g]

Got to agree with Ronnie on that

[mpo131]

Ronnie,

First I want to ask how you are doing?  I have followed your posts for awhile and certainly sympathized with you and that harrowing experience.  I am glad to have learned that you finally tested negative. Congratulations!

Now, I must say that I am bit surprised at your claims after the many extensive hours I am sure you have spent researching this topic.  I can only assume that you have misunderstood something, or did not read all the posts.  Therefore, I will clarify again.

The DNA PCR sensitivity is unknown before one month, and does not exceed 96% at one month in MOST cases.  After or at two months the sensitivity is 100%.  I refer you to an easy to understand published account conducted by the state of New York from 2001-2003.  The state used the DNA PCR in diagnosing newborns.  Over 1000 newborns-strong enough to make a case.  As you will see, there were a considerable amount of false negatives up until six weeks, most occuring in the first 14 days of life.  After I believe 72 days none were noted.  

The RNA PCR is has more diagnostic value in the first few weeks of infection, not after.  After ~25 days, the antibody test or a DNA PCR would be more valuable.  I am sure that you are aware that viremia IN THE BLOOD in MOST cases, somewhere around 95%, skyrockets during primary infection, first three weeks.  Now, thinking as a doctor, knowing these facts-1. a DNA PCR's sensitivity is unknown before one month, can give false positives, and only yeilds a yes or no answer. and 2.  an RNA PCR's sensitivity during primary infection reaches in the 90% range and yeilds a quantitative result, i.e. 750,000 copies per milliliter, which gives 100% specificity.  Which one would you conduct in the first few weeks.  Especially considering the outbreak in the porn industry, where the individual tested negative after being infected.  Neither of these tests rule out infection, they must all be confirmed with an antibody test.  But when using an quantitative assay during primary infection and recieving a result reaching in the hundreds of thousands, certainly one can assume a patient is infected or reasonably rule in HIV infection.  Why use a DNA PCR when the sensitivity before one month is not known and you only recieve a yes or no answer?  Why not use an RNA PCR, which when reaching a result of let's say 1,000,000 copies per mL, you can reasonably rule in HIV infection.  If a DNA PCR test comes back positive, how confident are you with that result compared with the RNA PCR result mentioned above.  I implore you to read the studies conducted on a DNA PCR where they conclude that a positive DNA PCR should be approached with caution.

Granted the false positive rate is high, but they are USUALLY in the very low range.  

I am fully aware that the DNA PCR is overall more diagnostic for newborns, or individuals with indeterminate test results.  However, when initially positive, a second test must always be carried out.  Also, if negative, the test must be confirmed at a later date.  For newborns, one at birth, one at one month, one at four months, before a newborn can be REASONABLY considered HIV negative.  DEFINITIVELY requires a negative antibody test at 18 months.  For an adult with repeat indeterminate results, two negative DNA tests must be used to
diagnose.

[Ronnie99]

Maybe I did not read the earlier posts in this thread so maybe we are talking about two different points. From what I have read, it seems that before one month neither test is particularly proven. All testing sites where a PCR DNA test is offered state that it is not entirely accurate before 4 weeks. That being said it is used to test rape victims around 24 hours after possible exposure or less. If the only point you were making was which test was better before a month's time, then you are that makes some sense from what I have read. After one month, it seems that the PCR DNA test is always the better diagnostic test.

I would wonder though, if your arguments are entirely set in stone why the more expensive DNA test is used in the situations I noted (rape investigations, newborns and adult entertainment industry). Apparently the very learned people and doctors in those relams of expertise made a decision on which test to use, and the decision was not an RNA test for diagnosis but instead the DNA test. I can see with newborn because the month issue is not a factor, but the other two would seem to warrant an RNA test by your arguments, but that is not what is used in practice.

[Ronnie99]

mpo: Thanks for your comments by the way. Regarding these discussions in general, I just find it so frustrating that there is not/are not more definitive tests for this virus in general. There seems to be so much uncertainty with this virus. It is very frustrating and, to be honest, scary for someone who is worried about possible infection.... While I appear to be not infected, every so often I read comments from learned HIV physicians on the web mentioning in passing testing out to long lengths of time (like a year) and it just makes me so worried..... Dr. Daar on thebody for example is an HIV expert who has studied the window period and early infection and he is extremely cautious in his advice about testing guidelines, and he works with this virus every day. Such is life...

[mpo131]

I certainly understand your concern after such an experience.  The DNA PCR test after two months is as close to perfection in the medical community as any test out there.  Evaluating your case, there is just no concievable way you are infected. NONE.
Given the multiple antibody tests out to 6 months, and the multiple DNA tests, and your one SINGLE POSSIBLE exposure to the virus equals 0 chance.  They only thing keeping you hanging on is the symptoms to which you already have an answer. MONO.

As far as Dr. Daar, he is only one doctor that would consider further testing out to six months or a year.  In fact, I believe that suggestion takes into account PEP and does not consider viral assays.  Take Dr. Holidny for example.  He has stated numerous times that the DNA PCR after one month is equivalent to an antibody test at 3 or 6 months.  This is especially before 2003 when he decided that commenting on these tests were actually doing more harm than good--individuals wasting time and resources in turn increasing costs after recieving blow jobs.  Even "doctor bob" who refuses to against the CDC states that false negatives are not a problem with this test and also stated he agrees wholeheartedly with Mass. testing policy.  Also, Dr. HHH and Massachussetts state SIX weeks for heaven's sake.

It's frustrating to you because you are making it that way.  HIV tests are very solid.  Instead of focusing on the invalidated claims from individuals, focus on what the informed doctors and health organizations state.

Take care Ronnie and whatever is ailing you, rejoice in the fact it is not HIV.  PEACE!!!!

[o_g]

Another issue with viral load test.

http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=testpos&Number=172601&page=&view=&sb=5&o=

However, I am not sure if viral load tests are same as DNA/RNA PCR. I assume it is Quantitative RNA PCR.

This pretty much tells that ELISA is truly the gold standard.

[Ronnie99]

Thanks. I am nearly to the point of entirely moving on.......

[o_g]

Best of luck Ronnie...

[mpo131]

I am very glad to hear you say that. The sooner you cease in visiting these forums and typing HIV in the google box, the sooner you will feel better.  In fact, you might just get to the point where the only thing you remember from this 6 months of complete HELL is that condoms must always be used.

Good luck in whatever you do, and ENJOY every waking minute of your new lease on life.

[mpo131]

The DNA PCR is used right away during rape investigations because viral replication does not peak until 2 weeks after infection. (1000000 copies per ML).  The DNA PCR does not rely on free virus in plasma but in resting cells and like you stated can detect HIV at even lower levels than the HIV RNA PCR.
Therefore, if you tested a rape victim and recieved a reading of <50 or even 349 copies, what does that tell you? Nothing really.  So in this scenario, testing during the first week after exposure, the DNA PCR would provide more information.  However, if you tested that individual at two-three weeks during suspected ARS, the RNA PCR would be more valuable.  Contrary to what you have heard or read, I can assure that the RNA PCR is the better test during ARS.  
The published report by the CDC concerning the porn industry just echoes what I've been saying. If this test was missing infections during the first month, than what good is it?  You can find hundreds of research conducted on this DNA test with conflicting results DURING the first month.  Anything from 30% to 93%.  

So, testing just after infection with the DNA PCR is provides more knowledge because the viremia level has not peaked.  Compare the two possible results at this time from the different tests and the DNA would be better.  Yet still inconclusive.  However test during the 2nd or 3rd week after infection and the result of the RNA PCR would provide better information if HIV infection is present.

[shouldaknownbetter]

I am very impressed with your knowledge, and, in general, with this NEW forum.  I believe, it gives many of us another avenue to vent.  I, myself, am going to have to gradually "wean" away from this HIV stuff; as it has been on my mind pretty much 24/7 for the last 6 months.  I am free and healthy, and I AM going to take it!!  Thanks for your expertise and guidance, and confirmation that the PCR test, if taken correctly for the RIGHT reasons and timing, IS a diagnostic marker of infection.  No one of authority outside of a few sites I have explored will go there.  Take care.

[Ronnie99]

I appreciate mpo's posts as well. They are very informative. I think I undersood the tests relatively well, but mpo made some of the points that I was uninformed about much more clear to me. Thanks!

If this topic were not so worrisome, it would be really interesting... ;)

[o_g]

This is indeed a good place to share knowledge and thanks mpo131 for such a detailed view on PCR testing. I got 2 Proviral DNA PCR's done at 3 weeks and 2 months. Do you guys think they hold much value.

[shouldaknownbetter]

Take a look at this link:

http://hivmedicine.com/textbook/acuteinf.htm

I believe this is a prestigious source, and it says that the DNA PCR is a marker for infection.  I believe in that statement.

[o_g]

I saw the article. It did not see anything regarding DNA PCR being called the marker for HIV. they talk about HIV-1 RNA and all but did not find any information on DNA PCR. Also, as you say, it may be marker for infection but what will be termed as a time to take it so the results are somewhat reliably. I have even in one of Doc H's old replies few months ago seen him mentioning that DNA PCR, if at all needs to be used should be used between day 7 and and day 20 as after that antibodies start appearing and ELISA starts becoming equally sensitive. Please correct me if I stand wrong in my assumptions.

[o_g]

Reference from medhelp sexually transmitted disease forum:

User name: testing
Date posted: 11/27/2005
Thread Subject: HIV Testing

[o_g]

So, if what I have understood about DNA PCR from what you have mentioned above is, it seems DNA PCR is pretty useless test to take for early detection as its reliability is not even known in 1st month. Also, keeping that in mind, it would be a good judgement to make that P24[& obviously RNA PCR] test is better equipped for early detection of HIV-1 than DNA PCR.

[mpo131]

You got it!

Keep in mind though, after two months the DNA PCR test is GOLDEN.  If you want to determine the validity of your test, I suggest you call them and ask which primers they use.  If they state "A through G sir," and your test was at or after two months, then you are as close to 100% as you can get.  

Remember, the antibody tests turn positive in over 90% of cases within the first month.  There is absolutely no need for this test in the general population.  Scientific research has proven the course of early infection, with viremia levels skyrocketing in the first few weeks, then declining with development of antibodies.  This is fact.  The only reason there is still speculation about the window period is because of the VERY FEW individuals who took longer than three months when outdated and obselete testing was used.  How many times have you read that antibody testing has improved, the window period does not exceed 3-5 weeks, 6 weeks is conclusive, 13 weeks is more than sufficient, and so forth.  The problem is mental.  It is completely irrational and unreasonable to doubt these statements during this day and age and is most often linked to some underlying disorder such as guilt, anxiety, shame, etc.

The Dr. of this site does his best to reassure the worried well with his numbers and unfortunately the individuals he is trying to assure, focus on the ONE in a, instead of the last number 2000000.  Try to be rational here, you know the facts, listen to them and get your antibody test at 6 and 13 weeks and rejoice when you have learned the real lesson involved.  

Try reading the post by DR. Gallant from Hopkins about the difficultly rationalizing with the worried well.  It definately puts things in perspective.

I or nobody else can ever tell you that you are not infected.  Nobody can truly tell you that.  That is a decision you will have to make one day!  Hopefully my friend, rationality will take over and you make that decision sooner than later!

PEACE!!!

[Ronnie99]

My PCR result reports don't say anything about the primers used.... I called Quest Diagnostics and the representative did not know.... Such is life....

[shouldaknownbetter]

Sorry, wrong link within the website:  

This is it:

http://hivmedicine.com/textbook/testing.htm

3/4's of the way down it will talk about qualitative genome tests as a marker of infection.  This is another way of saying DNA PCR.

By the way, it talks about the window period too.  This is the updated 2006 version.

[o_g]

Thanks for the information mpo131. This info has been really helpful. If I remember correctly, the test did cover A-G. Take care....

[o_g]

I understand you have carried out the HIV-1 Proviral DNA PCR. I assume it is a standard practice that subtypes A through G are looked for in that test. If I recall correctly my result sheet clearly stated subtypes A-G as I remember it looking for 7 subtypes. I am pretty sure there is a world wide standardization for Proviral-1 DNA PCR basic primers.

And moreover, Dude, U really need to start forgetting about PCR's and ELISA's and P24's. You really negative Bro!!!!!

[o_g]

Thanks for the link. I assume you are talking about this.

" Qualitative testing for viral genome serves as a marker of infection. It supplements or substitutes antibody testing for the diagnosis of HIV infection in special situations (such as suspected fresh primary infection: absence of antibodies during the diagnostic window; newborn of infected mother: presence of maternal antibodies - also see below)."

[shouldaknownbetter]

Correct!!

That little paragraph meant a lot to me at the 2 month mark when I received my negative DNA PCR!!