I'll try to help. First, I agree with your own assessment of the risk: higher than most questions on this forum, but actually not very high. Second, you understand correctly that symptoms are not a reliable predictor one way or the other. Third, although I dislike disagreeing with a hands-on provider, I don't understand your doctor's perspective or recommendation. The truth about PCR testing is a middle ground between the website positions you cite, but closer to the second; mostly used to track progress, but occasional role in diagnosis is the suspicion of acute HIV is very high--higher than it seems in you. I wonder how experienced your doc is in HIV diagnosis and management.
1) And no, canker sore and fluctuating joint paints do not at all suggest HIV to me.
2) I answered this above. Also see my response to the thread immediately above (after) yours, which I happened to answer before this one.
Bottom line (no pun intended): I predict the PCR result will be negative, although there is a slight risk of a false positive result (which is why it shouldn't have been done either in you or in the thread above) and that follow-up antibody testing also will be negative.
Congratulations on your dedication to safe sex from here on. You won't regret it. Best wishes-- HHH, MD
Thanks for your reply! To clarify the issue regarding my doctor's perspective on HIV: he told me that he firmly believes oral sex is just as risky as anal sex in transmitting the virus. He also doesn't believe the antibody test is very reliable until the 3 month mark. I don't know why he's so cautious, but as I said in my original post, his concerns freaked me out tremendously. Having read your advice to others, I will get the antibody test after 6 weeks, then again at 3 months just to be sure. Thanks again!
Odd, my doctors actually would rather have me give oral than have protected anal sex (incase of condom breakage). He tells me it is rather rare for one to aquire HIV from giving oral sex to a man (NO ejaculation in mouth!) and tells me it is pretty safe. And my doctor is extremely knowledgeable. I have a feeling that Dr. H. will say the same thing.
Your doc is simply flat-out wrong about oral vs anal sex. "Firmly believes" is irrelevant in the face of definitive conflicting data. It makes me wonder whether his perspective is influenced by his moral or religious beliefs. Jacobsquestion's doc has a more appropriate viewpoint.
Nobody disagrees (including me) that absolutely definitive HIV testing requires 3 months since the last potential exposure. But that doesn't mean earlier testing is valueless. Most people are reassured by knowing the odds of being infected are very much lower, if not quite yet zero, if a test at ~6 weeks is negative.
A related discussion, PCR_RNA_Early_Symtoms