Typo in my first reply. Viral Load tests are not used to screen HIV.
So, I was able to get the lab to explain how they document the results. This particular lab does not use the terms Not Detectable nor Low, But Detectable. They simply place the number on the results and my results mean that their test did not detect any virus. In addition, it is my understanding that viral load in the case of infection would be reasonably high 2-3 weeks after a new infection. So, I will not question this result and have accepted that my exposure did not result in infection. Certainly feel free to delete this entire post if it is duplicitious or unhelpful to others.
I understand that the viral load test is not typically used to screen for HIV. However, I was prescribed this test because I have a known exposure to HIV and wanted a method that would provide early detection at the 2 to 3 week mark. In retrospect, maybe I should have been more patient and simply opted to repeat the HIV 1/O/2 + p24 fourth generation test in a week or two. That being said, I have done some searches online about the viral load test and have seen references to a category called "low but detectable" and a reference to the tests lower limit. So, I'm not certain if my results mean that the test did not detect any HIV viral load, but the test has a detection limit of 40, so there is no way to be sure if the viral load is below 40 copies. Or, if they detected something but can't quantify it due to the limit.
Sir Teak. Please explain the difference between screening test and other test
Any doctors that can help interpret the results?
VL tests are screening tests.