* "False positives" are, despite of what you read, very rare with the new assays. Also, a false positive result is easy to detect (viral load <2500) and will be negative after re-testing.
That's total BS. My viral load is less than 50 and I'm indeed postive.
Studies seem to indicate that the viral load would peak around three weeks after exposure, so it is often recommended to take the RNA test after 21 days. Information about the PCR is often dubious. I've read some studies about detection of primary infection and PCR and this is what I've gathered:
* All studies show that PCR/RNA is 100% accurate during ARS
* "False positives" are, despite of what you read, very rare with the new assays. Also, a false positive result is easy to detect (viral load <2500) and will be negative after re-testing.
Of course there will be exceptions.
In Austria, a PCR/RNA after three weeks is often considered conclusive, and most experts there will tell you that it's as accurate as a three-months ELISA. In the neighbouring country, Switzerland, however, they don't use the test at all... Go figure.
RNA PCR is an excellent test for early detection since it directly looks for the HIV genetic material in the body directly.
RNA PCR is for early detection, test at the 14 th day after the exposure backed up by an antibody test at the 12th week is good enough to rule out HIV.
"These tests, which are more costly and used less often than antibody tests "
1. They are expensive
2. They are not a stand alone test, they have to backed up by an anti body test FOR CONFIRMATORY REASONS ONLY.
So, ya think the "T" word?
What was your risk to begin with that brought you to this forum?