Thank you for your comment. Can you explain b/c im still confused why my 2 doctors told me 2 diff. things...i really want to know why they both didnt have the same info...i mean, its medicine for gods sake.
GP = outdated. It's honestly a political issue. 6 months is given by the CDC (which is wrong). The country (and, ultimately, CDC) is run by 2 ultra-conservative, religious people (**** and Bush) who are, among other things, anti-sex/pro-abstinence, whatever.
Slightly sidetracking, I honestly believe that neither of them give a rat's @ss about your god or whatever but the fact remains that a large portion of this country's population is of the blind faith religious belief. It's in their best interest, remaining in their positions of power, to entertain this large portion (of morons). Therefore, in garnering votes, they must appeal to this population and so, among many other topics, you see an uber-conservative (BS) unnecessarily long 'window period' to scare people from having sex. It's as simple as that.
And no, I've never watched a Michael Moore film nor am I democrat/lefty/liberal.
Anyone who says testing to 6 months is necessary, of course, is either:
a) a religious zealot
b) a liar
c) was lied to by a patient who said that their last risk occured 3+ months before testing (i.e. they had another high risk incident, almost assuredly, 6 weeks or less before test)
d) is as gullible as the above mention population
wow...i actually never thought of that whole political thing...i dont pay much attention to politics.
Im sure your facts are correct but when you say that 6 months given by the CDC is wrong b/c of Bush and "****" does that mean it was different before he was elected?...i am just wondering if the 6 month was changed when he came into office or it was always that way.
and you really think that this long window period is to scare people about having sex?! interesting...
Although we probably won't get more than a "3 months is the only conclusive window period" answer out of him
(I would like his opinion on this instead of the needless technical banter with regularjoey)
Teak can probably answer that question better than I although I believe at one point, in very early testing methods and before we had such a large number of HIV+ infections, the window period was stated as 6 months. Modern testing as well as this huge (40+ million) population of HIV+ people has indicated that 12/13 weeks is more than enough. There was probably a much high stigma then as well so people were not as truthful when telling the time and risks of exposure. But that's just my (non factually based) interpretation. ...Teak?
Yes, I very much think so about the longer window period. You can read Dr HHH's view (6-8 window period is the practical period). 3 months is there because it can, once in a blue moon, take longer for someone to seroconvert (Teak has seen someone take longer than 6 weeks so he says 3 months, and so I'm fully with him on that. Notice he says 12/13 weeks is conclusive so NO ONE slips by like his friend).
Don't necessarily pay attention to politics, you'll only get a headache and a case of irritability. BUT be aware of whats going. This large blind faith population making the rules for rational thinkers is annoying.
Oh, it's always been there, I do believe, but GWB has the power to change it to the true window period (and doesn't) so that makes it just as bad as upping it from 3 to 6 months. It's very funny, while there are something like 40+K new U.S. infections/yr, we still don't hear about it much at all in the news (not like the 90's). Because the media (and religious zealots) rule everything here and you don't hear about it much, HIV must have been solved by GWB and abstinence!!!
Both your Doc are wrong. Find one that knows what's happening in the real world.
Forum-M.D.-HHH3/6/2005 nead_2 Your HIV counselor is behind the times. Modern HIV blood tests can become positive as few as 10 days after infection and are positive in ~95% of infected persons within 3-4 weeks, reaching ~100% by 6 weeks. (Please nobody hold me to precise numbers--but these are close.) It is almost unheard of for a positive test result to be delayed 3 months and especially 6 months. That was the story until a few years ago, but not now.Your exposure was low risk for everything, certainly HIV and syphilis; in theory, herpes (due to HSV-1) might be the biggest chance, and even that's very low.Good luck-- HHH, MD
"3 months is there because it can, once in a blue moon, take longer for someone to seroconvert"
when you say this "take longer for someone to seroconvert" do you mean longer than 6 weeks or longer than 3 months? i was a little confused...
and also, do you know if there is any reliable info. about anyone who has taken more than 3 months or is it just theoretical?
you seems to know your stuff....
ONLY HIV counsellors know HIV testing (and HIV specialist/ID doctors who are not blind faith Christians). I suggest going to gay ones who are far more compassionate.
Sorry, that was confusing. I meant once in a blue moon for someone to seroconvert past 6-8 weeks. Thanks for asking me to clarify that, I appreciate it. I am not an HIV test counsellor so I have only seen my own results :) Anyways, I've talked to 2 counsellors face to face who both told me that I should forget about HIV after a 3 month negative. Our resident HIV expert (who is also an educator and lives with the disease himself) will tell you 3 months (84+ days) is conclusive, as will Dr. Bob and some of the other well known internet HIV gurus. If you go to the pay forum, Dr. HHH will tell you that a 6 week negative will prove that you are HIV- (although I am not 100% comfortable with that so I tested to 12 weeks). I don't really 'know my stuff' but I do think I've read just about every paper out there on the internet during my scare, hah.
I think the >3 month thing is just theoretical anyways (I couldn't see a chemo patient or a recent organ transplant recipient playing naked twister in the first place!)
Your Gynocologist is correct. 3 months is conclusive.
so, what exactly was your exposure?....
and how the hell do you now SO much? lol
did you read the post on that Melvin guy?...about low B vitamins causing antibodies not to develop?...can this actually be true?...if so, would 3 months still be okay to consider conclusive?...that actually kinda scared me
No, Melvin made it up. That's what he gets for symptom searching on the internet.
Bush has nothing to do with CDC policies on HIV testing!
At any rate, you are HIV negative by all standards, since the 3 month test is what CDC actually recommends these days, conservative or not.
ohh ok so this hasnt been proven to slow down antibody production?
This was the first time I've heard of such a thing, yes
he made it up?...how do you know this if he told us that is what his doctor said?...
Doctor said he needed to take a vitamin supplement. The antibody deficiency part Melvin figured out all by himself.
he the man I'm on the right side not no demorat lol