very recent negative result but could she still harbour HIV

[paullelo]

Hi

First of all I want to say thanks for being here for us and imparting your excellent knowledge.

Ok my question. Two nights ago I had unprotected anal sex with a female I met from an adult dating site. looking at her profile she gets a lot of success from said site.

The next day when the stupidy of my act sunk in I asked her if unprotected sex was the norm for her and also when she was last tested. She told me that it was not the norm and that she had very recently ( 2 weeks ago ) been tested at a british GUM clinic with an all clear, negative across the board.

Now that would make most people relax. I mean whats more reasuring than being told your partner has just had an all clear?

Thing is I understand that it is widely accepted that 3 months after a potential exposure is the length of time required for a reliable result and one which will allow you to rule out the HIV virus.

So my question is can I take her all clear as meaning that she will not have passed anything to me or can any encounters she may have had within the 3 months leading up to her test have led to her aquiring the HIV virus; it not showing on that particular test result and it still being infectious to me?

Sorry for the wording. Basically if a partner's test results are negative does that mean you are safe or is there the possibilty of HIV being present but ( up to that point ) hidden from detection and in this case is it passable to a sexual partner?

Apparently porn stars all show certificates but i always wondered about this 3 month window?

I hope that is clear

Also I am naturally curious as to the chances/odds of catching HIV from insertive unprotected anal sex with a female.

I will be so grateful if you could help me out with some advice.

Cheers

Paul

[VY_Canis_Majoris]

             Deadset ... One can surely infect others immediately after having contracted the virus ...in other words as early as the day after the infection primarily due to the high viral load ...The body is yet to reconcile with the situation thats entirely new to it ..The virus would then find itself a HOST cell to cling to ..and then would attach its RNA with the DNA of the host ..Later on it ll get inside of the cell and using it's replication mechanism would create multiple copies of itself.

            You can get a DNA PCR test on  or after the 28th day of plausible exposure, that detects proviral DNA integrated into the host genome. The latent proviral DNA serves as a reservoir for viral replication. The HIV DNA PCR test can detect this latent or inactive HIV virus.

Good luck ...

[paullelo]

Yes I can't rely on her words. I am so aware of this and of course I will test myself again at 3 months.

I was negative before this encounter, I was tested just over 2 weeks ago and my previous encounter was more than 3 months before. I assured her of this. She then categorically assured me that she was recently tested as negative.

Now presuming that what she says is true I am trying to ascertain what that result (assuming it to be the true fact) means to me.

Can someone catch HIV and then be in a state of infection to pass it on to someone the next day or week? ( and still be negative on a test ) Or does the infection require time to become transmittable as it requires time ( 3 months) to be visible on a test?

Thanks

Paul

[VY_Canis_Majoris]

           You can't rely upon her words ...What if you had HIV and had unprotected sex with her ? huh ? She would surely tell her next root rat partner that she is clean of HIV .. which would be rediculously wrong.

          The only way you could be sure that you didn't contract the virus is by gettin a test  ..Just don't be forlorn of all hope. don't be evasive eitiher ...Don't scout for more answers  .cuz i bet you ll have more questions to ask within the next fortnight or so  than the ones that can ever be answered ... hmm

   Good lick ......