A few questions

[chl]

Thank you for the forums.   Having now read many of your threads and your "guide to transmission" I have a good handle on your thoughts.....so I will refrain from reposting and reposting once I have a conclusive negative test.  I did have a few questions until then:

Background:
Anonymous male/male experience approximately 4 weeks ago that you would define as low risk sexual activity (no actual intercourse, but exchange of precum, oral, fingering, and rimming).  Coincidentally exactly 3 weeks later, some classic symptoms appeared which caused the usual "freak out" including 5 days of 101 fever, no appetite, aches, etc. etc...so this was more than just a hypochondriac ache....I've actually been quite ill.

Questions:
1) It seems in all my reading that the "rash" is about the only symptom that can be consistent with acute hiv syndrome that isn't with common flu or other viruses.  However, I haven't seen any data out there that suggests how often the rash actually occurs *if* the other symptoms have occurred and you have HIV.  That is, is there a high enough correlation with the rash, that if you don't have the rash (which I don't) that anything can be read into it.  It would seem if there is an 80% correlation (as an example) of the rash if other symptoms appear....and one doesn't get the rash, that would be a good thing to know.

2) I have read and re-read your analysis that 6 weeks is really the first good testing window for ELISA.  However, I have a doctor's appointment today (4 weeks) anyway.  Is there any data or thoughts out there that (although 6 weeks is better) 4 weeks still provides some reasonable indication...ie, should I even ask him to do an ELISA test since I'll already be there.  I have seen your general postings that you are not in favor of the PCR RNA as a diagnostic....but in this case, once again since I'm there, if the ELISA is useless, is it worthwhile for me to request the PCR?

Thanks.

[RapidRod]

You've never had a risk in the situations you've provided.

[chl]

Thank you.  I appreciate your follow up and agree my risks are theoretical at best.  Nevertheless, I'd feel better, personally, with one good confirmatory test which is why I asked if there is any data on how useful a 4 week ELISA is.  If it is at least 60-70% statistically specific at that point, it is worth it to me.  If the data is not known, that is fine too....but I was looking to see if you knew.

My question 1 was a bit more academic because I couldn't find any correlative data out there no matter how hard I looked...and since you all seem to be quite on top of this, I thought you might have come across something.

[Andy Velez]

We're not going to get into a round of number games with you.

First of all, nothing you are reporting has put you at risk for HIV. So for you testing is strictly about doing it if you decide you need that for your peace of mind.

The average time to seroconversion is 22 days. All but the smallest number of those who are going to seroconvert will do so within 4-6 weeks after an exposure. So the earliest time you can begin to get a reliable result is at 6 weeks. Beyond that we follow the CDC recommendation for a conclusive negative result to be done at 13 weeks. At that point all generations of HIV tests currently in use will yield a reliable result.

But I say that within the context of your not actually having had a risk and that testing is not necessary for you.

If your "symptoms" persist, discuss them with your doctor. I don't see any reason for thinking they have anything to do with HIV.