To TEAK , Mike_no, Joan123

[sad82]

I hate to repeat myself again, but nobody sseems to ans my question.
I had a 9 week negative test ( rapid test, finger ***** ), risk is unprotected viginal sex with a girl, CAN I MOVE ON NOW?

Question 2: TEAK keep mention that unprotected sex is consider HIGH risk, but i check through some of the post in Dr HHH reply and he say its a LOW risk( 1 in 2000, and insertive party is even lower), Now is your word against Dr HHH, a professional doctor, whom do i believe?

[sad82]

Tks, i decided to take another test at 10++ week and tats it... i am going to move on after this.. not gona be torture by this stupid HIV thinggy anymore, think its the only deadly disease which need such a long time to get it comfirm...

[sad82]

Tats y sometimes i dun understand y u all take the risk factor into consider for the window period, i mean if u will get means u will get, if u are unlucky, u may be the unlucky one in 2000, even u say oral sex risk is very low, how low is low when u are unlucky, u can always be the 0.0001% . Get it.

[Joan123]

I'm sorry I didn't answer before, I was out this weekend.

I agree with Mike. A 9 week negative result is highly reassuring. Why? The vast majority of people seroconvert by week 6. It is rare to take the whole 3 months. If you are still concerned ( I can feel you are), just take another test at 12-13 weeks(not because I think it will change), just for your own peace of mind. Take care!

[Teak]

I read what Monkey said. It's amazing that there are only a few people that do more than listening to one Dr.. Have you ever done any research on your own? There are hundreds of available articles on HIV and transmissions that were written by "experts

[sad82]

Teak, i think wat monkey means is Dr HHH  said unprotected viginal sex is low risk and u say other wise. So is your word against the word coming out from the expert mouth. So naturally we will believe Dr HHH, he is a professional in this field .

[monkeyflower]

Everything in life is statistics and odds. Think about it. If the weatherperson says a 20% chance of rain, do you carry your umbrella anyway? Do you play the lottery and *really, really* believe that this time you're going to win? Stay home just in case you might get hit by a meteorite? Come on. Of course not.

HIV isn't a game. No one said it was. But with all due respect, it also isn't the end of the world. I understand people are afraid. But there are lots of scarier things out there, and it makes me sad that people are wasting so much of their lives living in fear of something that isn't even a real concern for them.

[Teak]

I have know idea where you get your information, I'll tell you from experience, HIV is the end of the world as one previously had. Do you think it's just taking pills and it's fine? Have you ever taken PEP just for 28 days. We that have HIV do that everyday. You live with stomach cramps, diarrhea, vision trouble, hearing trouble, PN, OIs, resistance to meds, brain fog, dementia, severely fatigue and the list goes on. Some are bed fast, some are wheel chair bound. Some have to have continuous home health care. You don't think that is not the end of the world for some? It's not the life they had before contracting HIV. You Monkey make it sound like it's nothing and that's HIV is nothing to worry about. Put yourself in anyone

[parrot 12]

6 to 8  or 10 to 14, does it really matter?
i think that u all taking that too far.

u made a mistake, lower or higher risk, so im sure u can wait 6,8, or 10 if u want to know if u are ok

everyone relax

[Teak]

There you go with your odds and statistics again, which have nothing to do with someone's actual status. It's a piece of paper, where changes can be made at the stroke of a pencil. You can't do that with someone that has had an exposure. Only testing will give them their status. Anyone that has had a risk and goes by stats and odds are just fooling himself or herself. HIV is not a guessing game to be played with as some on here seems to think.

[monkeyflower]

Actually, sorry to say that blood transfusions and needle sharing are at the top of the list. Unprotected receptive anal is considerably higher risk than unprotected receptive vaginal. Unprotected insertive anal is higher than unprotected insertive vaginal--which, in answer to the original poster's question, is indeed a 1 in 2000 risk. I'm not even going into this absurd testing nonsense.

So, gosh, who to trust. An internationally known and highly respected HIV/STD prevention expert, or another anonymous internet yahoo without even so much as a MD on some peer to peer board? Decisions, decisions.

[Teak]

Sorry to say unprotect vaginal sex is not low. It's up there with unprotected anal sex and unprotect anal sex is the top of the list.

[sad82]

but Dr HHH say that unprotected viginal sex is consider low risk.

[Teak]

Since you just recently starting coming here. Give Mass depart of Health a call and they will explain their guidelines to testing and it's not 6 weeks conclusive across the board. Unprotect anal or vaginal and IV drug abusers are 3 months. Their 6 weeks, is for the low exposures. "blowjobs."

[sad82]

Then how do u explain the Massachusetts now use 6 weeks as window period? From wat i know, the mfg is trying to play safe, to protect their own interest so it say it may takes mths for antibodies to appear( IV drug user, cancer patient, chemo), to save their ass.

[Teak]

You said, "There would not be so many well respected physicians and testing agencies who are adopting (and have adopted) the stance that 6-8 weeks is enough time for a conclusive result." Name the agencies peekawho that have said a 6-8 test to be conclusive. One state out of 50, which has a very low infection rate and 300 "Experts" out of over 800,000 physicians, which is not even 1%. First you need to look up what an "Expert" is. You don't have to be a doctor to be an "Expert" you only have to be knowledgeable of the subject. Now tell us which mfg. states that their tests are conclusive at 6-8 weeks. I'll help you, NOT A ONE. All of the mfg has the following statement, "Because you received a negative result does not mean you are negative. It may take months for the body to produce enough antibodies to detect. If you had a recent exposure, test at 3 months." It doesn't say 6-8 weeks is conclusive at all. Now who has the right to say it is conclusive at 6-8 weeks besides the mfg.? They are the ones that submitted their tests for an FDA approval and only the FDA can amend their approval when the mfg submits and files for an amendment and there has not been any mfg trying to have the testing guideline of there tests amended.

[mike_no]

Yes,agreed !

When I say some value that definitely means 95 -97 % accuracy, I've already mentioned that above

However CDC says 12 weeks to be conclusive so that's text book.

But I firmly believe in a 6 weeks test, for a fact the last time when I had my scare I tested at the 6th week and didn't test ever after.

[peekawho]

A 6-8 week test has "some value"????

Try 98- 99% accurate.  Thats far more than "of some value".  

[mike_no]

Thanks Teak

No offense taken

I completely understand the point however like I said before a test at the 6-8 weeks is not conclusive but definitely has some value.

[Teak]

I was just saying 300 out of over 800000 physicians is not enough to consider. One state that doesn't even have a high risk of HIV is nothing to consider. I

[mike_no]

I keep bringing it up because those are doc's own word and the doc certainly knows it, I don't say a 6 weeks negative is conclusive but very indicative of what it's going to be at the 12th week, the Dr. himself has said it many times that a test at the 6th week would be at a 95 - 97 % accuracy.

I completely understand that CDC recommends 12/13 weeks to be conclusive but the modern generation test has certainly minimized the window period hence a test at the 6-8 week is said to be conclusive by MASS, AUSTRALIAN AIDS/HIV helpline and Dr.HHH

With all due respect to you.

Mike

[peekawho]

If tests at 6-8 weeks resulted in false negative results with ANY measurable frequency, there would not be so many well respected physicians and testing agencies who are adopting  (and have adopted) the stance that 6-8 weeks is enough time for a conclusive result.  

The official recommendations vary for a variety of reasons.  If it were clear and obvious that 6-8 weeks results could not be trusted, NO agency (or Dr. HHH for that matter) would EVER recommend relying on them.  

Respectfully,
peek

[peekawho]

It was a conference of 300 of the top HIV/AIDs experts, not 300 random physicians.

[Teak]

You keep bring up that 300 physicians attended a conference. Realizing that there are over 800,000 active physicians in the US. 300 physicians are not many to agree on testing. That's what 0.0375% of the total physicians in the US.

[Teak]

Rapid tests and ELISA tests both test for antibodies.