Aa
HIV testing confusion
I would like to post my question in a non-confrontational manner - why do HIV specialists use RNA tests when the various on-line forums constantly say that those tests aren't conclusive? Does having a 21 day and 61 day RNA test both coming back undetectable (<20) conclusively prove that I'm negative? Why didn't my specialist even mention having an antibody test?
Best Answer
I have to agree with you on this subject,if the doctors in the expert forum know that there are no tests marketed or sold to give a negative test result earlier than 3 months post-exposure then how is it possible then that they can say to a poster that their test results are conclusive at 4 weeks,6 weeks,8 weeks,etc.when they are fully aware of the guidelines,can someone please explain this situation once and for all.
Teak, that's what I expected you to say - you've said it many times, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I just wish that some common ground existed between the on-line community (such as yourself) and the medical community (such as my HIV specialist). Why is there such disparity?
Does that mean Dr Garcia and Dr Handsfield are not HIV specialist only Medical doctors???
Teak, I have no reason to lie to you - my HIV Specialist is board certified, I don't know how else one deems the how "true" a specialist is; I will gladly provide you with her name in a private message. She actually referred me to a psychologist after my second negative RNA test because she believes that my symptoms are in my head. Also, I telephoned Capitol Hill Medical Center in Seattle, and they said that a three week RNA test is conclusive. This is not to say that these HIV specialists are right and the CDC 3 month antibody requirement is wrong - I will be going for the 3 month antibody test next month ON MY OWN ACCORD, even though my future shrink and my current HIV specialist and a clinic in Seattle that caters to gay men all say that my previous RNA tests are conclusive. All I'm trying to point out is that anyone in my situation would like a level of consistency (as opposed to a contradiction, which only adds to the overall anxiety) between the medical community and on-line community. Apparently this contradiction will go on forever: while you are canonically correct for stating CDC guidelines (at no cost to the worried well), the specialists will continue to collect large fees for multiple medical appointments and expensive RNA tests that they feel justify their prognosis.So the bottom line is that your advice is by the book and free (and I genuinely thank you and commend you for responding to me and thousands of others), while their advice is avant garde and expensive. Like you, I would not want anyone in this situation to be given a false negative result, and I hope and pray that the ID specialists never put someone in that hell (including me).
PCR-RNA tests are not appoved diagnostic tests and feel free to show the test approval that says any different.
You're exactly right - then the specialists should tell their patients what you just wrote, instead of running thousands of dollars of unapproved testing, and then based on the results of those unapproved tests, tell their patients that they are conclusively negative.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
