As many people will tell you 6 weeks is not likely to change BUT if you are obsessed with HIV like many on this forum do the 12 week to be conclusive..then move on. Personnaly it is tough to decide because on one hand you have DR HHH say 6 weeks in conclusive but on the other hand other experts say 12 weeks, technically speaking I think 6 weeks is as accurate as you will get but the CDC is cautious to say 12 weeks. I have read studies from rapid test and the studies show detection as early as 3 weeks. Another thing is that there is no way to tell wheat the real window period is as Dr HHH has said many times, there has and will never be a study that can prove this 3 month window, my suggestion is....do a 12 week BUT be certain it will not change.
Hi, your test result is reassuring but given the high-risk nature of your episode a 3-month test is recommended. It will be definitive.
The vast majority of infected people will test positive within the first month. And your risk was very very low, most likely zero, you didn't need to test in the first place. I'm absolutely confident that you're negative, if you decide to test again expect only a negative result.
I recommend browsing the parallel Doctor's forum for similar questions
No, your 6 week test is not conclusive. A conclusive test is 12/13 weeks post exposure. There are no tests that will give a conclusive test earlier that 12/13 weeks.
Unprotected vaginal sex IS considered a high-risk episode. For men the risk is slightly lower than for women. Still, millions of men in Africa acquired HIV through unprotected vaginal intercourse. With a 6-week negative most likely you will stay negative, however, for a conslusive result a 3-month test is warranted.
considered by who? we are not in africa
warranted by who? a normal doctor doesn't warrant any testing over any particular single low risk events at all
Considered by all HIV-competent people. Read the CDC and thebody.com. The virus is present in female vaginal fluids, not only in male semen. There are tons of individual case descriptions on the Web where men contract HIV from women. And physiological (not statistical, mind you) risks are the same with people of all countries and races, no matter US or Africa. In my country heterosexual sex is the main way of HIV transmission. It's a well-established medical fact. It won't change whether you argue it or not.
regularjoey doesn't know what he's talking about. You just have to ignore him. He thinks HIV is only spread by homosexuals.
Where are you from, Serge? As you can probably imagine, I realize very well that HIV can be spread by vaginal sex. Nonetheless, the risk from any single episode with an unknown status partner is extremely low, especially if you are male and especially in the industrialized world. It is almost unheard of to get infected in this way. In my 10 years of studying HIV, I saw only 3 or 4 such reports. It just doesn't happen. When heterosexual men do contract HIV it is usually after dozens of exposures.
I saw your story by the way. You tested for a whole year, because you thought your wife infected you? May I ask why did not you just take the little lady to get tested? Stay well!
Didn't you get a warning from MedHelp? I really don't want to report you, I don't want you to get banned, I know how much this forum means to you. Why are you provoking me?
Wrong, You don't know what you are talking about. PERIOD!!!!!! 10 years of study and you haven't learned a dam n thing.
I'm right. Browse the parallel Doctor's forum for similar answers if you don't believe me.
Hey regs, i am very delighted to see you have been studying HIV for 10 years and you have just so emphatically mentioned that heterosexual contract HIV only after dozens and dozens of exposures. My simple question, if you can answer, is
why is that so? Why do you think it takes so many attempts for the virus enter into a male's body from a female's body?
does that mean it takes quite a few exposures (if so, minimium how many) before the virus can make a jump?
would appreciate some reasonable answer
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is just that it is a VERY unlikely event. Let's say you try a halfcourt basketball shot. Are you going to make it? It's possible, but you won't. Now take a hundred shots - pretty good odds that one of them will fall. Sorry to disappoint you, but for a large part of HIV transmission science is just cr@pshootology.
That was the most unscientific explanation i have ever heard, that too coming from a phd who studied HIV for 10 years.
I would have really appreciated a scientific answer. i can see what you are trying to say with the basketball analogy but the truth is HIV virus is no basketball player.
In that case, lets assume the player has been practicing for along long time now (is it 30 years?) so he has become a very good player, then wouldn't you be scared he might just get the half-court shot in the first go??? Looks like a silliest analogy i have ever made.
Anyone, any scientific answers please? like in real terminology without analogies?
and anyone without PhD in cr@pshootolgy is welcome.
Keep in mind that in Africa heterosexual anal intercourse is the rule.
US HIV Surveillance Report Updated June 2007
High-risk heterosexual contactb 6,730 6,895 7,501 7,447 7,591 102,171
Totals for 2001-2005 that is not even counting IV drug useage.
Now you want to call that RARE. Give us a break.
And the rectal fluid has more viral load than BLOOD. This explain, for me, why in Africa and among the gays of USA HIV is a not a too rare disease.
For your information, I did not get a warning from Medhelp. :)
Mark makes a good point by the way.
Freak, you can ask other experts as well - they will give you the same answer as I did. A cr@pshoot is all it is. There are many factors that affect the odds, but in the end it is still a cr@pshoot. You'll miss the 67 shots, but nail the 68th. I know basketball is a poor analogy, yes it takes practice (unlike HIV), but I can't think of another one right now.
The problem is that study don't makes distinction between anal heterosexual and vaginal heterosexual. Because if people became infectede had anal heterosexual then it's like a gay risk for the existence of rectal fluid.
Well, that's a nice table. What does it tell you that you don't already know? Since the start of the epidemic, gay men have accounted for over 500 000 of HIV infections in the US. In contrast, men that claim to be heterosexual account for only 60 000 of HIV infections - that's over 25 years of epidemic. In the US, HIV is very common in gay men, but rare in the general population.