Take a look at this...

[Joan123]

I was browsing aidsmed.org and found this. It is a discussion about the different info in HIV window period."I talked to a doctor who leads the state in HIV testing in Massachussetts about how they came up with 6 weeks as a conclusive test.  He said the state conducted a huge study following a very large group of MSM participants.  The study concluded that ALL men who seroconverted during this test did so within 6 weeks using modern assays AKA 3rd gen or higher.  Also, the public health dept of Mass is funded by the CDC and I assure you if the CDC had proof that what they were saying was incorrect they would say something about it. More importantly, if people were coming back positive after a 6 week neg, we'd hear about it.  In the medical field there is acceptions to everything.  Nothing is 100%, but for all general purposes it is accurate. I would say thay most of the leading researchers/doctors conclude that 6 weeks is accurate:
"Not only have I never had a case, I have never heard a story from any of my many colleagues (who have much greater experience than I do) having a patient who was HIV negative 6 weeks after exposure and positive later. Unless, of course, there were new exposures in the meantime."
- H. Hunter Handsfield, M.D., Senior Health Research Leader at the Battelle Center for Public Health Research "The AIDS virus replicates (reproduces itself) very quickly: minutes. But, the tests to detect whether someone has been infected with the virus after exposure take much longer to be accurate. The standared HIV test is positive within 3-4 weeks of exposure (the older HIV antibody tests took 2-3 months). In situations where someone has symptoms of acute HIV infection (high fever, swollen glands, rash) we use a test to look for the virus itself, the HIV viral load test. This test detects HIV within 2-3 weeks of exposure and is used in cases where people have symptoms of ACUTE HIV infection. In your case, assuming you are feeling well, you should get a HIV antibody test four weeks after your potential exposure."

[skins123]

Why in heavens earth would Dr. HHH give such a resounding endorsement of a 6 week test if he didnt actually believe it.  I know there are different degrees of risk - and of course the greater the risk - the more imp. it is to test out accordingly....but frankly its a tiresome subject regarding the window period  - in low risk settings - it is becoming glaringly obvious that a 6 week test is sufficient.....i know Teak will not agree with this until the CDC abides by a lower window period - which may or may not happen.

[Teak]

He doesn't follow the guideline of the Health Deptment he's a member of which states 3 months. http://www.metrokc.gov/HEALTH/apu/infograms/testing.htm

[RB888]

Just reading the info and the replies it seems a bit contradictory.

If the state of Mass. lowered the window period to six weeks based on a study of MSM - common sense would dictate most or perhaps all of the seroconversions from this goup were from high risk exposures - yet they were confident enough to declare six weeks conclusive.

Why would they feel comfortable lowering  their window period then caution everyone else to test out to three months for high risk exposures.

Somenting is missing?

RB

[scared_25]

I agree.  I think Mass. they take a probability stance like Dr. HHH, coupled with testing statistics to say unless you had a high risk exposure

[RULER]

I understand ur confusion but keep in mine that dr. hhh i think has mention in some of his responses that the mass clinic as well as the new york clinics are standing by a 6 week to be conclusive.  

[RULER]

what i'm trying to say is that i trust dr. hhh 100% and if we r not then we r wasting our time in this forum.