Aa
Take a look at this...
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."
"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."
First, excuse my English.It's not very good. I've read a lot about this window period and for all I've learn nobody really has a conclusive answer. I just don't believe that Mass. Department of Health would dare to say the window period is 6 weeks for MOST of people if it wasn't really true. That would be very irresponsible. They must base this assumption (6 weeks) on something, for sure.
Dr. HHH wouldn't be telling people that 4-6 weeks or 6-8 weeks test was pretty much conclusive (for low risks exposures) if he thought it wasn't true.
I think a 6 week negative result is indeed a good indicator that a person do not have HIV. Of course, there are exceptions, as you know, people with debilitate immune system, etc...This is possible, but rare. Remember that with the new generations tests is also much difficult to miss a positive result at that stage. Dr. HHH himself and other doctors that work in the area haven't seen anybody turning positive at 3 months after a 6 week negative in the last few years. That pretty much tells me, cases like late seroconversion are, again, possible, but very rare.
I myself again believe that a 6 week negative result is a good indicator of your status and very reassuring, but for a high risk I would say a 3 month test for a piece of mind. Especially because someone with a high risk wouldn't rest until 6 weeks later. You know, sometimes at night before you go to bed, when you are about to lay down and you start to think if you lock the front door or not. You are almost sure you did, but you know if you don't go there and check again, you won't be able to sleep well.
Dr. HHH wouldn't be telling people that 4-6 weeks or 6-8 weeks test was pretty much conclusive (for low risks exposures) if he thought it wasn't true.
I think a 6 week negative result is indeed a good indicator that a person do not have HIV. Of course, there are exceptions, as you know, people with debilitate immune system, etc...This is possible, but rare. Remember that with the new generations tests is also much difficult to miss a positive result at that stage. Dr. HHH himself and other doctors that work in the area haven't seen anybody turning positive at 3 months after a 6 week negative in the last few years. That pretty much tells me, cases like late seroconversion are, again, possible, but very rare.
I myself again believe that a 6 week negative result is a good indicator of your status and very reassuring, but for a high risk I would say a 3 month test for a piece of mind. Especially because someone with a high risk wouldn't rest until 6 weeks later. You know, sometimes at night before you go to bed, when you are about to lay down and you start to think if you lock the front door or not. You are almost sure you did, but you know if you don't go there and check again, you won't be able to sleep well.
I agree...
Joan, I think that's a perfect analogy. Both are characteristic of OCD :-)
I never fail to be mystified by why everyone here is so quick to accept Teak's opinion on testing, but completely disregard what people who are actually *experts* believe and experience and know. Anyone with any particular illness (or whatever) is going to have an agenda, and can't be even remotely objective.
But there are people who DON'T have an agenda--they're the people who have studied (whatever) and whose opinions are based purely in fact and research and experience--not to mention basic scientific and medical knowledge. So who are you going to believe?
Ah, critical reading and thinking are invaluable skills...
I never fail to be mystified by why everyone here is so quick to accept Teak's opinion on testing, but completely disregard what people who are actually *experts* believe and experience and know. Anyone with any particular illness (or whatever) is going to have an agenda, and can't be even remotely objective.
But there are people who DON'T have an agenda--they're the people who have studied (whatever) and whose opinions are based purely in fact and research and experience--not to mention basic scientific and medical knowledge. So who are you going to believe?
Ah, critical reading and thinking are invaluable skills...
Joan, I contacted the Mass. Department of Health and posted the comment that I received from them. They suggest testing out to 3 month for all high risk exposures.
Does anybody know what kind of antibody HIV tests have been used in New York? I understand they say the window period is 3 months, but they also say with the HIV antibody tests used in New York State, virtually all people who are infected will test positive within one month of being infected. Most people will test positive even sooner. Are they referring to a standard HIV tests?
Even Anne at aidsmeds said, if she had tested within 6 weeks of her infection, she would have been positive. She did not test until 4 years after infection. Then she remembered when she was infected as she has symptoms. It seems as though she is even saying 6weeks is good for a test too but the CYA statement at the end always says it is not considered conclusive.
Everything points back to the CDC as the problem/confusion with the window period. Go with the experts in the filed and on the front lines, not a government agency with CYA written all over it.
Everything points back to the CDC as the problem/confusion with the window period. Go with the experts in the filed and on the front lines, not a government agency with CYA written all over it.
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
