Aa
A
A
A
Close
HIV Prevention Community
52.8k Members
Avatar universal

My 2 different doctors say 2 different things about HIV testing

Hi everyone...i just found this site and wanted a doctor to assess my risk but did not know it costed money...

My Doctor (general practitioner) tested me for HIV at 117 days, almost 4 months after an exposure (through an ELISA). I just got the results back and it was negative.  I then asked her if I was HIV-free and she told me " well, I'm sure you're ok but to be absolutely sure, 6 months is usually the cut-off"  Now that really scared me when she told me that. She is a pretty young doctor.  I was at my Gynocologist a fews days after for a routine appointment and asked her what she thought and she told me 3 months was conclusive for an antibody test. So, now hearing 2 separate things from 2 different doctors really confuses the hell out of me...

Can someone answer these specific questions?...

1.)  Was my general practitioner out of date on her facts about testing or was my gynocologist wrong?
2.) Do I need more testing?....If so, what are the chances that my result will change to a positive?

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could help me...thank you
26 Responses
Avatar universal
1) Yes.
2) No (0%).
Avatar universal
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.
Avatar universal
GP = outdated.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.
Avatar universal
****=D!ck
Avatar universal
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
Avatar universal
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...
Avatar universal
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)
Avatar universal
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.
Avatar universal
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!!!
Avatar universal
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

Avatar universal
"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....
Avatar universal
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.
Avatar universal
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.
Avatar universal
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!)
Avatar universal
Your Gynocologist is correct. 3 months is conclusive.
Avatar universal
so, what exactly was your exposure?....

and how the hell do you now SO much? lol

Avatar universal
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
219662 tn?1223862160
No, Melvin made it up.  That's what he gets for symptom searching on the internet.
219662 tn?1223862160
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.
Avatar universal
ohh ok so this hasnt been proven to slow down antibody production?
219662 tn?1223862160
This was the first time I've heard of such a thing, yes
Avatar universal
he made it up?...how do you know this if he told us that is what his doctor said?...
219662 tn?1223862160
Doctor said he needed to take a vitamin supplement.  The antibody deficiency part Melvin figured out all by himself.
Avatar universal
he the man I'm on the right side not no demorat lol
Have an Answer?
Top HIV Answerers
366749 tn?1544698865
Karachi, Pakistan
370181 tn?1428180348
Arlington, WA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
These tips can help HIV-positive women live a long, healthy life.
Despite the drop in new infections, black women are still at a high risk for HIV, the virus that causes Aids.
What are your HIV treatment options, and how do you choose the right one? Our panel of experts weighs in.
Learn the truth behind 14 common misconceptions about HIV.
Can HIV be transmitted through this sexual activity? Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia answers this commonly-asked question.
A breakthrough study discovers how to reduce risk of HIV transmission by 95 percent.