Reducing the window period id assume?
Thank you! It is a miracle, people on this forum are actually beginning to see the light. Wow, yes they are reducing the window period. As I have said numerous times on numerous threads, 3 months has no medical relevance and is simply a CYA attitude. 6 week test, conclusive, the HIV counselor, along with Drs. Hook and HHH, and the infectious disease docs at Emory, I think I was CONCLUSIVELY right. Thank you Rae.
Do you currently work in an HIV clinic?
where did you hear that they are reducing it?
julez- All of the infectious disease docs I know say that the guidelines concerning HIV are being changed, especially as new tests and meds come out.
Dumbo- No, not currently. I worked in two different ones in one of the top 10 cities for HIV rates. Once medical school started, and I moved out of state, I didn't resume my work in Georgia. Instead, I frequently shadow infectious disease docs who see private patients in Atlanta.
The doctor at the clinic I went to told me as long as the exposure was 4-5 weeks ago, it would be conclusive.
I went to the Clinic today, they are not changing it from 3 months. Until tests are approved by the FDA, it still takes three months to get a conclusive result. No test has been ammended or has any manufacture ask to have their tests ammended to less than three months. If anyone wants to call the University of Cincinnati ID Clinic be by guest. But at this time their is no talk about even lowering the conclusive timeline.
I called the CDC and they said they are not changing their guidelines. Where did you get this information. Furthermore, Dr's Hook and Handsfield continue to recommend testing out to 12 weeks for high risk exposures. Not sure where you get your info from and then even use it to twist the recommendations from the Dr's on Medhelp.
Dr. HHH will tell you, and has told many people, that if they have a test at 6-8 weeks, you can consider it conclusive. All of the doctors I have encountered will tell you the same thing. AusGuy's physician, along with Rae1's clinic doctor, all said the same thing. There was nothing twisted about what I put up. Dr. HHH literally said, as did Dr. Hook, that 6-8 week tests are conclusive. Search the archives, you will see this. I posted excerpts from a few of their responses on another thread. Of course someone went to the clinic today. Apparently so did a lot of other people, and that someone is the only person who said they are not changing it from 3 months. I doubt that this person asked what they actually consider conclusive, as opposed to what they use. As the user Rae1 said, his clinic said by CDC law they have to say 3 months is conclusive, but they ACTUALLY use 6-8 weeks. Continue to believe your outdated information, my information comes from my actual work in the medical field and not someone sitting behind a phone at the CDC who simply looks up your question and tells you 3 months.
I just posted a reply of what Dr. Hook advised a poster. You are not giving out factual information you are going by hearsay from people that don't know what they are talking about. Call the CDC and verify it. Then come back an post how wrong you were.
People who don't know what they are talking about? Infectious disease docs at Emory in Atl, one of the hot spots for HIV? Ok, yes I guess they don't know what they are talking about. I think I'll listen to you in the future Teak. Wow
I am not sure why all the ongoing endless debate on this subject. But I will add I would go with the over 60 years of combined experience of the 2 doctors here and others I have heard from in person,also in the same field.
I think it is important to realize that Dr. H (and others) have said they have never seen a 4 week negative turn positive later without any other risk factors. I like to go by real world experience. So, in the case of testing recommendations, I go with recognized dorctors in the trenches so to speak. But it all depends on how comfortable a person is and who they will go with.
In temrs of say oral sex, which the CDC says is a risk, I go with the studies done and with the comments made by sero discordant couples on Aidsmeds. That is real world experience and no governing agency can beat that imo.
Here is a reply from Dr Hook: "If this test is negative, your should have the serological test at some point between 4-6 weeks after the exposure and then again at 12 weeks." Also CDC does not have a law. They will continue to follow the testing procedures established by the manufacturers and approved by the FDA. Until that changes -which it wont, the CDC will not be changing their guidelines. CDC law-now thats laughable.
I agree totally. Real world experience trumps lab work and projected studies all of the time. People are not lab rats and they do not behave exactly as predicted or projected. Good post.
The CDC says oral is a risk because it is a risk, albeit a small one. Dr HHH has also said transmission probably does occur via insertive oral but in such small numbers it really doesnt matter. Also the studies that have been done are with relatively small subject samples that conclusions can not be called definitive.
What does AidsMeds say about a conclusive test? They say three months is conclusive.
That is incorrect, the studies that have been completed and some are ongoing and have been for many years verifies that oral sex, receiving or giving is not a a risk. There are no verified cases that anyone has been infected via oral sex. There is however the long and on going studies on serodiscordant couples and no one has ever seroconverted.
Dumbo is right, as is Teak this time. Oral is no risk, period. Nothing has ever been confirmed. If oral was a risk, many more people would have it, as serodiscordant couples who use protection for both anal and vaginal sex and no protection for oral never get HIV.
You are 100% WRONG! There is documented proof that people have become infected through receptive oral sex-it is not theoretical but real documented cases. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
There is NO documented proof of an infection via oral. The ONLY thing that these studies claim is that participants in the study have REPORTED that oral was their only risk. This is highly unlikely that a gay (or straight man for that matter) only had oral sex over a period of two years! You need to get your facts straight. Theoretical it remains, not documented. All of those studies you are referring to have been disproven by the LONG term studies of serodiscordant couples. You need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. I don't agree with Teak on much, so it's saying something when we both agree on this, you are dead wrong.
The long term studies that you are referring to- such as the Spanish Study doesnt disprove that prior infections have not taken place. There is no denying that receptive oral sex has resulted in HIV infections. Everyone in the medical community agrees with this -even the San Francisco City Clinic shows receptive oral sex as a documented risk but not insertive. I agree that insertive carries virtually no risk but receptive is low risk. Just read the documented case reports which have been verified!
And what dont you just do a little research differentiating between receptive and insertive oral. And don't use selective filtering.
From the San Francisco City Clinic's website.
Questions about oral sex are probably the most common ones we get. In terms of HIV, oral sex both ways is very safe. The University of California San Francisco and the San Francisco Dept. of Public Health just completed a study of men in San Francisco who have only had oral sex and found zero new HIV infections