POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: Caesu on July 18, 2006, 02:07:01 pm
-
I have heard this site is a very definitive area to ask a question, and Im hoping someone could clarify my fears ><
11 months ago, I went to my doctors office being under a lot of tension from work etc. Just to make sure it wasnt anything else but stress he told me to get a blood test at the clinic downstairs. This doctors office is very busy and a large complex with houses multple surgeons, dentists etc.
It was late, and the place was closing. I went down and the clinic person came forward at me and took my card the doctor gave me, and drew my blood. I was really nervous and wasnt looking and ever since then Ive been reeling with thought she used a used needle contaminated with HIV.
So much so I went for an STD test, which tested all hep forms as well as HIV1/2. They use an antibody as well as NAT testing at the same time.
They told me if they found anything I would know in registered mail within 2 weeks. Its been over 2 weeks, and they never called/sent anything. So i called the testing center. She told me nothing was on my file and if they didnt send anything then there was nothing. I even verified my address incase there was a doubt.
Even after then Id find myself looking at websites, and now I found all this delayed seroconversion stuff and eclipse periods. About needle stick incidents, and whatnot and that testing around 12 months is required in rare cases.
Is there any chance I am infected? I got tested at 11 out of 12 months and Im thinking, what if its that last month? Yet everywhere I read, they say delayed seroconverion only happened from physiological preexisting issues, or the cases were decades ago when testing sensitivity was no where where it is as today. And there there hasnt been any cases for years that have been reported as delayed.
Thanks,
Caesu
-
Caesu, I am not getting why you are concerned about HIV. But maybe I don't need to know that.
If you have tested negative at anytime more than 13 weeks after a possibly risky incident and not had any risks since then, then you are reliably HIV negative. Period. End of story.
Please clarify if I am missing something.
-
Nothing else to clarify. Im just scared she used a dirty needle on me to draw my blood >< Have had no risky behaviour since. Dont drink much, dont smoke...
Just that I think I should have not read across all the information sites. Left me with a lot of 'what ifs?' and doubt and the one that is nagging is delayed seroconversion. It's scary!
Maybe I just want to know the absolute information on the topic to settle myself once and for all.
Caesu
-
What ifs are bad for your health. You have absolutely no basis for assuming that an unclean needle was used. That's just your mind playing with your head.
Read the lesson on this site on transmission. It gives you all the basics.
Conjecturing about dirty needles will lead you to nowhere good. Get productively busy and get on with your life. No kidding.
-
I know my risk was non-existant, but I have one last nagging question. Please, please answer ><
One last question or so....
I sometimes very occasionally (as in not much at all) take a small amount of a topical corticosteriod called, Cyclocort for enzema which Ive had since I was very young. I do not get it every year either, so it is a mild form. I just use a small dab around the area.
The night before my test I got 2 mosquito bites and put a small amount on them for relief. My test was done 11 mths after my suspected exposure.
Given that much, would cyclocort used at this level intefere with the test?
And just a final clarification on the causes of latent seroconversion?
Thanks,
Caesu
-
Bump, new question had to post in old thread. Question above.
-
Caesu,
Your eczema cream would absolutely not interfere with your test results in any way, shape or form. The only drugs that might make a difference are chemotherapy drugs for cancer and anti-rejection drugs taken after organ transplant. Even these powerful drugs aren't guaranteed to slow seroconversion down.
You have tested reliably negative. You are hiv negative. If you have trouble accepting that fact, then please seek the assistance of a mental health care professional. We cannot offer you the face-to-face help you need. There is nothing more we can do for you here.
Ann
-
Thank you Ann for your reply. After a lot of soul searching I do truly think the route of my problem is a 'lack of trust' in others. Maybe because Im kinda a sloppy worker so I think other people may be sloppy too! Looks like this is stemming towards a lack of trust in everything and is spiraling, be it what Im reading and whatnot. I think I'll just let it go and realize there may be more capable people than myself out there haha :)
I'll also try and refrain from reading these sites as it seems to fuel more worry than whatnot.
thanks again!
Caesu
-
Since you're still online - all throw in my 2 cents. In answer to your original question "Am I going mad?" My reply is yes a little bit...lol...Funny what anxiety can do to someone, huh? We've all been there at some point for some reason, HIV fears or otherwise. But, dude - you didn't get infected from having your blood drawn at the clinic. Use your head and think about that for a second, what do you think the actual rate of someone becoming infected from having their blood drawn at a US clinic??
Just for fun let's make up a number and say its less than one ten thousandth of a percent (and this probably way too high). Now that we know its already ridiculously low and just doesn't happen, lets say someone like yourself goes and tests conclusively negative for HIV at 11 months. What is the chance that that was a false negative? Again something extremely close to 0. So if you remember mathematics when you multiply two incredibly small decimals by each other they get even smaller. IE) The number is so small you have a better chance of winning the jackpot in the lottery twice in the same month, than being mauled to death by a vicious house kitten so that you can never spend your winnings. Ok sorry i'm getting a little ridiculous myself....but you see my point.)
-
Se becoming infected from having their blood drawn at a US clinic??
Correction, that should read at any health clinic (not just U.S.)
-
heya all... ><
Just as I was getting over everything about my episode, after reading and listening to everything being said. I went to delete old links to not remind me and move on....
and out of curiosity I clicked one link that has thrown me into a worry again....
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-01-07-32
the point area was when he mentioned needle stick injuries....and delayed sero.
namingly:
These researchers had some pretty scary things to say about the window period for two of the 50 people. While 48 people took an average of 46 days, for two it took longer than six months, They speculate that HIV can "hide" in lymph tissue near the point of entry, so that the infection is sort of latent in rare cases. A needle stick into a finger is very different than sexual exposure along a mucous membrane, so I don't know how relevant this is to exposure through sexual contact. However, they suggest that to be absolutely sure, a health care worker should get tested one year after exposure just to be sure.
Again I got tested at 11/12 mths in a very unlikely event. I was convinced that delayed sero was because of situations not peraining for me. ex PEP, chemo, heavy IV, immuno suppressed, atypical host response...
but what the heck is this, 'hiding and Imma get you later' scenario ><
Way to go Caesu for clicking the link =X
Caesu
-
Why don't you look for something that isn't outdated?
-
So what you are saying is that there is no foundation for such a claim as of today? That is, how it can hide out for months?
Caesu
-
Caesu,
The virus doesn't "hide out". It isn't the virus that the test looks for anyway, it looks for antibodies.
When a person has become infected, they start producing antibodies specifically against hiv. The average time it takes for a person to develop enough antibodies to be detected on the test is 22 days. The vast majority of people who have actually been infected will produce antibodies (seroconvert) and test positive by six weeks.
A few people will take slightly longer than six weeks to produce enough antibodies to be detected. This is why the window period is 12-13 weeks - to catch these few people.
The clinic told you that if you were ok, you wouldn't hear from them. So why are you worrying? If you need to see that negative result with your own eyes, go get a rapid test and get it over with.
Ann
-
Thank you >< Ok the virus does not >hide out< in secret somewhere to suddenly jump out months later (like over 6+) and go **RAWR** on your face.
I just wanted to add that its because of posts like this (the one linked above for insite) which create insane fear and worry. People who dont know search the internet for answers, looking for that site which is The Bible of certain information. When you find one answer another site seems to contradict it...
3 months....6 months....and heck 12 months. People sit and twiddle thinking 4,5...7,8,9,10...11 months? Why 3-6-12?! Yet no answer is found...or is best tucked under a rug.
So why doesnt anyone go to the above mentioned site and tell them, "Dude that information is old and unfounded! Its doesnt hide, take it off or update it before you scare the heck out of the unaware! People hardly ever go past 6 months, actually not now because tests are much more accurate....and the remote chance that it does is because of PEP, Debatable co-infection, cheo, immune suppressed and the extremely unlikely atypical host" How are we supposed to know what is right?
The lack of clear and concise answesr is truly frusterating. I will say, I believe you all and I believe The Body. I think those sites are definitive.
On that note, Imma go out with my wife and maybe get lucky. (and yes shes safe too, she donated blood last month and they never called back or whatnot).
Caesu
-
Thank you >< Ok the virus does not >hide out< in secret somewhere to suddenly jump out months later (like over 6+) and go **RAWR** on your face.
I just wanted to add that its because of posts like this (the one linked above for insite) which create insane fear and worry. People who dont know search the internet for answers, looking for that site which is The Bible of certain information. When you find one answer another site seems to contradict it...
3 months....6 months....and heck 12 months. People sit and twiddle thinking 4,5...7,8,9,10...11 months? Why 3-6-12?! Yet no answer is found...or is best tucked under a rug.
So why doesnt anyone go to the above mentioned site and tell them, "Dude that information is old and unfounded! Its doesnt hide, take it off or update it before you scare the heck out of the unaware! People hardly ever go past 6 months, actually not now because tests are much more accurate....and the remote chance that it does is because of PEP, Debatable co-infection, cheo, immune suppressed and the extremely unlikely atypical host" How are we supposed to know what is right?
The lack of clear and concise answesr is truly frusterating. I will say, I believe you all and I believe The Body. I think those sites are definitive.
On that note, Imma go out with my wife and maybe get lucky. (and yes shes safe too, she donated blood last month and they never called back or whatnot). Anywho, you all say Im not, so Im not.
Caesu
No offense Caesu but it's not this site that has a problem, it is you scouring the net for information rather than seeking professional help to deal with your anxiety. That particular UCSF website does a really good job staying up to date with current information. That post is dated June 22, 1998. So you can figure out that it is now 8 years old. Likewise you fail to mention an important paragraph in that posting, i'll paste here for you.
"Because there are so many factors, if I were speaking to someone face to face about whether they should retest and when, I would ask them a lot of questions about the particular incident that has put them at risk. Based on that, I would recommend a window period. If there was very little risk in the first place, then the chances of the person being infected are very small and the chance of having a long window period on top of that makes this so improbable that I would recommend a three month window period..."
We've already established that you didn't have any real risk of infection and therefore this paragraph is directly applicable in your situation. Irrationally believing you got infected from getting blood drawn at a clinic does NOT constitute a "risk of infection".
I'll say again stop surfing the net - if you can't get over your irrational fear of infection seek qualified professional help - you can't get it from the internet.
-
Science,
I disagree with that paragraph you cite.
The risk someone is testing over has no bearing on the window period - why would it? The antibody-making process in a person's body doesn't think, "He had unprotected anal, I think I'll drag my feet..."
The conclusive window period is 12-13 weeks REGARDLESS of what the risk was - or in some cases, wasn't.
Think about it!
Ann
-
Getting over your fears is really hard, trust em Im really trying here.....I've read too much ><
Right now Im thinking, is it possible to be atypical AND have a Group "O" infection from a blood draw. Inside I know it sounds ridiculous....but now that I've thought of it, it haunts me. I know it is anxiety, but maybe I dont believe myself....is there any plausibility to this notion?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00040569.htm
I shoudlnt have clicked this either....has there been any discussion on this topic? I do not think it is a stupid question because Im sure others wonder about it too...
Caesu
-
Science,
I disagree with that paragraph you cite.
The risk someone is testing over has no bearing on the window period - why would it? The antibody-making process in a person's body doesn't think, "He had unprotected anal, I think I'll drag my feet..."
The conclusive window period is 12-13 weeks REGARDLESS of what the risk was - or in some cases, wasn't.
Think about it!
Ann
Hey Ann
I absolutely agree with you. My thoughts were if he had unprotected anal and was immunosuppressed because of CML or some outstanding medical condition (the condition being the risk for not showing up in the standard window period - not the sexual act).
Science
-
You can't have O strain or any other strain because you have not been infected. The clinic DID NOT use a used need to draw blood. Period......
-
Hey Ann
I absolutely agree with you. My thoughts were if he had unprotected anal and was immunosuppressed because of CML or some outstanding medical condition (the condition being the risk for not showing up in the standard window period - not the sexual act).
Science
That certainly isn't what you said in your post. You said that because he didn't have a risk, the paragraph you quoted directly applied to him. The level of risk has nothing to do with the window period, period.
Furthermore, if an immune system were so suppressed that it would delay that person's seroconversion, they would most certainly know about it as they would be very ill indeed. Testing positive for CMV would not be enough to delay seroconversion.
Ann
-
Caesu,
You are conclusively hiv negative, end of story.
If you cannot accept your negative hiv status, please seek the assistance of a mental health care professional. We cannot give you counseling here, you must go see someone face-to-face.
You are hiv negative and there is nothing more we can do for you here.
Ann
-
That certainly isn't what you said in your post. You said that because he didn't have a risk, the paragraph you quoted directly applied to him. The level of risk has nothing to do with the window period, period.
Furthermore, if an immune system were so suppressed that it would delay that person's seroconversion, they would most certainly know about it as they would be very ill indeed. Testing positive for CMV would not be enough to delay seroconversion.
Ann
Ann i'm well aware of the fact that risk does not change the amount of time it takes a person to develop antibodies to the virus. I was simply trying to again illustrate the fact that when you multiply a no risk exposure times the extremely small chance that someone would not seroconvert in a 3 month window period it equals 0. At any rate I think we would both agree - HIV is certainly not his problem.
-
please seek a professional counselor for help. Mental illness' are far worse than HIV. With HIV you can still live a good "quality" of life, with mental illness, left untreated, the only quality you will obtain is poor quality. Its no way to live.
Believe me, we all have issues that we need to talk about to fix them, some do require a professional counselor. Its nothing to be ashamed of, and the pride in taking proper care of yourself is the same as if you had some other ailment. Sitting down with a professional and discussing your issues is far better a walk in the park than what those of us have to go through to obtain/maintain a good quality of life. The solution to your problems is simple, you just have to get up and go see for yourself, how easy it is.....Good Luck & God Bless*