SENT HERE BY MY PSYCOTHERAPIST - NEED HELP!

[dbernardo60]

Hello, I'm posting this question as request from my psychotherapist for my mental health, please read everything, as my therapist wants me to bring you your response to my questions. She told me I wont be able to get over this until I hear from an expert my risk is impossible. Even I know it's not possible but still obsess over it. Quick background, I am a male 20, and healthy, don't do drugs. 5 months ago I had a real risk I had sex with a drug using female pros. in SF. I tested out until 4.5months including a PCR & Elisa test and all were negative. All std negative except HSV-1 which I knew I had. So I still worry a little bit that I could test positive from that but I accept I wont.

Now my new "apparent" risk. And I know this is so outlandish and things like this don't happen. But I can't accept that, the only way I can put this behind me is if I know it's not possible even if some one wanted to spread HIV like this. So 6.7wks (48days) ago I ordered this home HIV kit that isn’t FDA approved but what ever (http://private-hiv-test.com)... So I did the test and it came out negative (I think, when it dried for over an hour I noticed some weird line on the positive part I hadn't noticed before but it was so faint maybe dried blood?) So after the test I freaked out, I immediately thought the HIV test was tainted with HIV. Like some one spread it through this test. And don’t tell me it's crazy I know it is, but what I want to know is if it's possible.

[Edward W Hook, MD]

I do not know whic type of test is done at the SF clinic and, to be honest, when used for diagnosis it is irrelevant.  I said I wouldn't answer further questions and broke my rule but will not do so again. EWH

[dbernardo60]

sorry just one quick verification. is the rna test i did @ sf city clinic qualitative or quantitative? I called the doctor there and asked, I think he said qualitative but now I cant remember and am embarrassed to call back and ask (i dont wanna bother, so i bother u guys instead haha :). Any idea docs? I now what the difference is, is there any way they would do a quantitative test for me? or would it always be qualitative when seeing if a person has HIV or not?

[Edward W Hook, MD]

You need to talk with your therapist about your last question.  Testing is based on sceintific principles and employees scenitific methods.  As a result while the the tests are not perfect, sometimes because of human error in performing them and sometimes because of limitations of the the tests themselves, all of the evaluation, standardization and training of personnel that go into proper testing procedures are designed to minimze testing.  Between the two different negative tests you have had, there is no realistic way that you have hIV infection from the exposure you describe.  Each test is based on scientific principles and is very accurate, they agree making your probability that you are infected a multiple (not sum) of that.  the "chance" that you have HIV is as close to zero as is possible.  Time to get over this.   Last answer.  EWH

[dbernardo60]

Thank you so much for your response.

I will definitely show this to my therapist tomorrow when I go in. So just to clarify, that biologically it is impossible that I could infected this way correct?

And the last question and I will hopefully never put my self at risk again or come back to this forum (no offense).

My last question is this, as I have seen you say and as I fully acknowledge there is no absolutes in science, and we would be lying to our selves to think so. But is this also true when it comes to testing? Or is there absolutes when it comes to this kind of thing? Is there no way possible that my 10 week RNA test and missed something or that I haven't developed enough anti-body's yet to be detected? Or am I just way off on this? Are these things for sure?? Thats the last question thank you, because if you tell me 100% those are accurate I will never obsess over HIV again and move on with my life and never put my self @ risk again. Thank you!

[Edward W Hook, MD]

I will answer your question out of professional courtesy to your psychotherapist, and that is the only reason.  We typically delete posts which are this  far outside of the realm of possibility and which have no educational value to others who read the posts of the site – yours qualifies on both counts.  Furthermore, you have either not read, or ignored the rules of this site. The reason you were being cut off was because you exceeded the character limit for posts with a lot of statements that are not germane to the questions you asked.

As for your questions.
1. You do not have HIV from your exposure in San Francisco. Your approved tests prove this.
2.  The idea that the lancet or alcohol swab in the home test you used was HIV infected is preposterous and not worthy of comment (although I hope you will discuss with your therapist why you went and used a non-approved test.  Given ALL of the alternatives, that really was a silly thing to do).  Even if the lancet or alcohol sponge were contaminated with HIV, the HIV would have died, either from drying or alcohol exposure long before it got to you.  The circumstances for survival you suggest are just plain wrong and have no biological plausibility.
3.  Finally, there is no such thing as being a "little infected" with HIV, just as there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant.

EWH

[alienshadow]

Man you need to ease up
1) You have a conclusive result from your exposure in SF
2) The test you ordered was not infected with hiv
3) Even if it was hiv does not survive long outside of its host.

Bottom line is you need to face your fears with your Dr you are seeing.

[dbernardo60]

I don't know whats happening this website keeps cutting off the rest, here it is:

The only way I could imagine is if there was maybe blood on the lancet I used, i didn't see any but you never know. It wasn't hollow tip just a lil pin they sent me and I manually poked my finger. Then I started bleeding, and like they do in the rapid test I wiped my finger with the alcohol pad on the wound (just a little hole I was bleeding from). Now what I've been thinking for weeks is since the alcohol pad is an a sealed air tight (and damp) environment, some one could have made a fake pad or maybe a real one but then put infected sperm or something in there and then when I wiped the lancet and or my wound with it I could have infected me.

Now my understanding is that HIV can't live out side the body for long or outside it’s host so even if someone wanted to spread HIV, could they via mail? Because the packet was air tight and in the dark and a controlled temp couldn't the HIV have stayed alive?? I would say the HIV test was in the mail from any where to at least 3 days to a week and a half. So what I need to know, if some wanted to, could they have spread HIV to me this way?? If everything was air tight and done correctly could they have? Please just let me know, don't tell me I'm crazy I know I am. I just need to know if this at all possible in theory because if it's not then I have to put it behind me, I have no choice.

Also I tested yesterday (6 weeks) after the incident I came out (-) and that would be 4.5months from my risk with the prostitute. Am in the clear for both?

One last question, have you guys ever been wrong? As in the sense you told some one they 100% didn't have HIV or that it was a one in a billion risk but to later find out they were +? Or is HIV on of those things you either know your positive or negative?