Your test at 16 weeks is more than conclusive. Use condoms always. Take care.
I should add that this unsafe sex was a drunken one-off (though I realise it only needs to be once ....) ....
After your negative tests beyond the window period the means or circumstances of your exposure have become irrelevant.
I think what troubles me most is that the really quite sudden illness started 3-4 weeks after the high risk exposure, and the frequent sweating in particular continues to be a problem.
Could I be certain that the tests I took, including the earlier ones at 6 and 7 weeks, would have picked-up the infection IF those symptoms which began 3-4 weeks before the tests had anything to do with HIV?
As for the later tests, one is always concerned that they could be the freak statistical exception to the norm, especially when some places still talk about testing-out to 6 months (or even more!).
You do not have an HIV concern you have conclusive tested negative outside the window period.
In an adult, a positive HIV antibody test result means that the person is infected, a person with a negative or inconclusive result may be in the “window for 4 to 6 weeks but occasionally up to 3 months after HIV exposure. Persons at high risk who initially test negative should be retested 3 months after exposure to confirm results
Thanks, Teak, I'll read the link ....
So, on the basis of a negative test at 12 weeks and another negative test at 16 weeks, I can be 100% sure that I have not contracted HIV from the high risk event?
I trust no-one ever tests negative @ 12 weeks, let-alone @ 16 weeks, with no intervening exposure, and then subsequently tests positive.
I feel better when I see 12 weeks and beyond described as "conclusive" because of the 6 months mentioned in some places for rare people or particularly high risk exposures (as I think mine was).
Enjoy your life and protect yourself in the future. I hope i will be able to say the same regarding myself in about 4 weeks time..
Thanks, Viking, you too.
It's still taking time for my 12 and 16 week negatives to sink-in, because it's been tooo easy to look back at high risk and then suspicious symptoms, expect the worse, and then be confronted with the reality of the ACTUAL 4 negative modern tests: two at (apparently) useful timescales, and two more at or after 12 weeks.
The Internet can be a great resource, but reading about symptoms, and then more stuff about tests sometimes not being conclusive for 6 months or even longer is hardly helpful when anxiety levels are already sky-high.
Please don't regard this as continually questioning a negative result, but I want to ask something about PCR tests.
To be honest, because I had unsafe sex, got an STD from it, then had VERY suspicious symptoms at a suspicious timescale, had prepared myself for a positive result at the 6 week test, and still don't feel like my old self 4 months later, it is hard accept my negative status 100% because of the above, and reading about rare late development of antibodies in some people.
If I cannot completely put this to bed now, would there be any value in me paying for a PCR test, looking for the actual virus? How accurate are these tests at or about 4 months post last exposure? A negative PCR test result in combination with the negative antibody tests really would be irrefutable, wouldn't it? Whereas, a positive test, traumatic as it would be, would be better to know.
12 weeks is conclusive antibody test. Only approved test for diagnostic purposes.
So PCR testing, either DNA or RNA, at this stage would be pointless?
Yes, just waste of time and money. Your 16 weeks test is conclusive as you were told. You do not have HIV
Hi and thanks, diver58,
This continuing concern all derives from reading about only approx 97% of people having detectable antibodies by 3 months, meaning they couldn't / wouldn't be detected, and that I may be one of such people.
It's a hard niggle to shift, when there's a fair amount of "official" stuff online saying such things and even talking about not everyone having detectable antibodies by SIX months - or more!
I have the opportunity to have a PCR RNA test (HIV1&2) next week, in a bid to put any (small but niggling) remaining doubts to bed. Of course, there's no point doing so if the test would be redundant 18 weeks or so after my last (and very risky) exposure.
Time for a new thread (which I will keep simple).