Hiya. Well im going to make this quite short and simple,so their is no misunderstanding.
The odds of you meeting somone with hiv, less than 1%. The chance of getting hiv from the exposures you mention, less than 1%. The chance of a test giving a false negative, less than ·5%. The chances all 3 being wrong well at a guess 0.00001%.
Now of course if you really wont or have the time to do the maths you can see their is a possiblilty, but then thats about on par with winning the lottery 3 weeks in the row with numbers 1 - 6.
Its not possible to comment about the net and so called results because people make all kinds of rubbish up to scare other people, infact i have seen many first hand. So i would ignore those as none credible quotes.
Honestly, you are negative and to spend another second on this is not logical or healthy.
Haven't you heard about false positive results? In all probability that is what happened in the posts that you read.
HIV tests can have a higher false positive rate than the true prevalence of infection (see below):
The other reason why people can have different results on different tests is that they have tested recently (within a few weeks) after an exposure and are seroconverting.
The fact that people have tested positive on an ELISA or PCR test and negative on a rapid test probably means that they just had a false positive. There is no such thing as a false negative on a rapid test after the window period.
Thank you for the math breakdown of my chances with meeting someone with HIV. Unfortunately, in the city I live in....it is much more common. I live is Washington, DC where we are supposed to have the highest HIV rate is the United States even though most people I have been friends with get tested way more often than I do and have all tested negative. So either, someone is fabricating the HIV rate hear in DC or everyone that test negative really isn't negative. I do understand that people put all sorts of things on the internet to scare people....I do not doubt this one bit. But, I do not believe that someone who is sincerely getting tested and later on finds out that their results are not what they were initially told would not lie nor would they go and donate blood knowing that you are tested for HIV when donating blood. The post that I read, that is exactly what happened. This young lady was not trying to scare anyone, she just wanted to know how in hell she tested negative with a "rapid HIV test", goes to donate blood and is being told that she tested positive, finally goes to her doctor and is diagnosed as being HIV positive and all of this after a four years exposure. The only thing that she could possibly be lying about is the date of her exposure but I seriously doubt that she was. One thing I have learned by reading numerous HIV forums is that people that find out they are HIV positive usually just accept the results and move on. They may be pissed, hurt, sad, confused but they do not go on some denial rampage. On the other hand, someone that has been told "you are HIV negative", who tested outside the window period and with a FDA approved test and then test positive after donating blood.....now that's a person that would go on a denial rampage. Who could blame them, I would too. As far as spending another second thinking about this....you are absolutely right, it is both illogical and unhealthy; but how can I not stop thinking about it when something like this can happen. At this point, I feel as though I can not donate blood, I can't have another child, I can't get married and I can't even make plans for my future all because their is a possibility that I can go take an ELISA test and it come back positive not saying that is will. I pray to GOD that even though I have been reckless in my eye sight that the rapid test was true and accurate. That I really don't have HIV, that GOD had mercy on me and that this is just a lesson that I need learn. I hope that this is what this is because in that case I have truly learned my lesson and honestly will never have sex again. You are saying that the chances of me contracting HIV from the exposures that I mentioned are less than 1%. Okay, like I said....I consider every single time that I have had sex to be an exposure because condoms are not 100% and even though I said use a condom and saw them put the condom on does not mean that they kept it on or if it broke that they would tell. I say because when I got pregnant, I had no idea the condom broke until my partner told me the next day but I am sure he knew that it broke the moment it happened. So, that why I am so scared, if he didn't care enough to say "hey the condom broke, let me put on another one"...how am I so sure that anybody else I have been with would not do the same thing. I said the same thing "that there is no way three can be wrong" but according to places that have used rapid test in private studies...rapid test can be performed wrong. I am not sure how you can mess up picking someone's finger or swabbing their gums but these people in these studies have in fact found that is can be done.
Yes, I have heard of false positives but usually when a false positive occurs, the person is not diagnosed as being HIV positive. I used that young ladies post as an example because she was diagnosed by her doctor as being HIV positive after having two negative rapid test. Now I am not a medical professional, but from what I understand doctors consider ELISA test the standard gold and to be more accurate than any rapid test again...not my words but the words of many studies from many HIV specialist and doctors that I have read. I even called a lab the other day and asked them about the accuracy of the rapid test and this women said and I quote "I have been performing HIV testing for over 15 years and the ELISA test trumps the result of any rapid test" and she goes on to explain why, she said "when you do an ELISA test, a larger sample of blood is being tested which makes the antibodies easier to detect, when performing an ELISA there are trained professionals to run positive/negative controls and to ensure the equipment is running correctly, rapid test can and have been know to be faulty, the individuals that perform these rapid test are usually not properly trained and often do not follow protocol.....and the list goes on. I was floored at the reasons this women gave why people should not trust rapid test, especially the one about the amount of blood. I mean, does that in fact matter? Also, when d...doesn't doing a PCR test doesn't that look for the virus itself...so if that comes back positive doesn't that mean that the actual virus was detected. I do not understand how a test that was designed to look for the HIV virus itself can be a false positive if it found what it was designed to look for? Anyway, like I stated, I am just really scared at this point. I said on my HIV prevention post and I will state it again, I do not understand rapid test and how they are similar to ELISA test and no one has yet provided and explanation.
Due to the lack of paragraphs its really hard to follow your posts and more so the rambling than having a particular point you wish to make.
The bits i picked up. Rapid tests are 99.9% acurate. They are fda approved and used by leading hiv experts. I dont at all some of what you read and quite frankley im stunned you even belive it or more even bother to mention it, as it has no credible point at all and thats about a woman tested negative then 4 years later she is positive?
So lets forget all the reasons to why you dont belive logic and your conviction to find anything to back up your paranoia. Although as you said you have spent many hours reading about hiv tests etc, you must have missed the part about why your tests prove you dont have hiv.
So this is the only part i need you to answer, as logic and facts dont help with your ocd.
WHAT will convince YOU about your hiv status? Simple question and just need a simple answer.
You seem smart enough to be able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information, so I really don't understand why you are letting one or two posts in an internet forum ruin your life. You don't know if this person(s) is disregarding or not remembering other exposures they have had or just trolling. Do you really believe everything that you read on the internet? These tests were approved by scientific studies with hundreds of people. Do you think if you showed these posts to the FDA that they would take the tests off the market? You don't seem like the type of person to fall for a Nigerian email scam, but what you are doing requires a similar lack of critical thinking. I think you CAN distinguish good and bad sources of info, but your anxiety is interfering with that capability and making you latch onto things that fuel it as Apollo said.
Same thing with taking advice about the reliability of rapid tests from a technician. Did you know that a rapid test IS a type of ELISA test? The basic principles of the tests and the reagents are exactly the same. The rapid tests have controls so the amount of blood and technician mistakes are controlled for. The major difference is that with a traditional ELISA, an instrument produces a readout.
If you need an instrument to tell you your HIV status, then just take a traditional blood test. You can go to your county health department and put this behind you for good. As you yourself said, people who are diagnosed with HIV go on with their lives. They MOVE ON. Even if your paranoid fears somehow came true- three FDA-approved rapid tests gave you the wrong answer- it would be better than the way things are right now.