That's the way it is and has always been. But ONLY when people are on treatment. In untreated people ho are worried they were exposed to HIV (like you), negative tests are 100% reliable. Believe it, accept it, and do your best to move on. Ignore any and all new fears that come to mind. There is no new information, or anything you may think of, that would change our advice about your sexual exposure and test results. It shouldn't be necessary to keep spending good money to hear the same advice!
Dr.
Thank you for replying. Just a quick clarification. what does the researcher mean in last sentence =
BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT THE VIRUS PERSISTS EVEN WHEN SOME OF THE MOST SENSITIVE BLOOD TESTS FAIL TO DETECT IT."
Thank you once again.
Welcome to the forum.
I think you have misinterpreted the news reports. If this is the same news story I read yesterday, it concerns two patients who underwent bone marrow transplantation for cancer treatment. A few years ago, such a patient with HIV was apparently cured, and therefore there was hope that these two patients might also have been cured by bone marrow transplantation. They were not. It's not a surprise.
I suspect you ask because you are still worried about the exposure and your negative test results, discussed on this forum two months ago. However, this news report is irrelevant to your situaiton. It is very common for people on drug treatment for HIV to have no detectable virus in the blood. That does not mean they are not infected; they are. If they stop treatment, the virus is then detected in the blood. In persons who are not taking anti-HIV drugs, negative testing is proof they are not infected.
I hope this clarifies things for you. Best wishes-- HHH, MD