HIV Transmission and Testing > Am I Infected?

I think I'm in trouble.

<< < (4/5) > >>

Testingway2much:
Exactly the response was hoping for. 

Thank you for taking the time to dig that up and post it here.  That was both educational, and relieving.

I am going to try to stop surfing the web for HIV symptoms and testing facts now, and go back to using it for something more appropriate like shopping or porn.

Thank you all again.






Testingway2much:

--- Quote from: jkinatl2 on February 09, 2013, 05:23:02 PM ---I am curious as to why experts question the first generation Home Access Test. Granted, they are plentiful and far less expensive, but at three months EVERY GENERATION of test is considered reliable. It isn't like they are using tests from 1990.

Here is a rundown form the site:

I added color to the last, in my opinion most pertinent sentences.

There is no advantage to another generation of testing because any positive test would need to be verified regardless - and as long as the three month testing window remains the gold standard, there is no compelling reason to sacrifice the benefits inherent in first - gen testing for the specificity of the third gen which might not catch certain outliers.

As for the payment thing, it's sort of our responsibility as a risk assessment forum to remind you that you had no risk - and that even the scientific stuff I unearthed for you can and likely will be used for another round of needless worry about a situation that did not, CAN NOT result in HIV infection.

It's not that we don't want to give everyone their money's worth here. It's simply that in good conscience we should not encourage obsession over a no-risk event, even if it pads the corporate wallet.

--- End quote ---


Turns out that Home Access is not a first, but second generation test.  Not sure where the above info was found, but it may be outdated.  (Thanks for looking anyway though!)

Ok, so I've tried to stay away, and per advice given, I went to Doc for complete physical. 

Doc felt nodes, and seemed to think they were palpable because of my weight loss and poking and prodding....  Not sure i agree, but I am not the doctor.

Took CBC and my white blood cells have dropped from 5.3 a month ago to 3.8(low) a few days ago.

Took yet another Home Access test (154 days, or 5 months) and STILL NEGATIVE.

Still have stiff neck (every day, all day), various annoying nodes, pain/discomfort under left rib, malaise, and FEAR.

Has ANYONE heard of a 154 day Home Access being false negative????

I know, I am toeing the line for a time out...  But I repaid for another week, so I was hoping for just a little bit more leeway.

 

jkinatl2:
Your 158-day test result is reliable. You absolutely do not have HIV. I urge you to celebrate with shopping or porn.

Testingway2much:
In relation to answering questions from the anxiety-ridden (like myself)...

Have you guys ever been wrong?

I see many cut-and-paste responses on the sight.  Is transmission (or lack thereof) really as simple as you make it sound?

No shared needles, no unprotected penetrative sex, no HIV?

Please don't misunderstand, I HOPE you are ALWAYS right.

It just seems like such a complicated disease, that perhaps transmission isn't always as simple as stated above.

I suppose with the hundreds, or thousands of questions you receive, surely if there was a method of transmission (oral, handjob, etc...) that had occurred, you would have heard of it.

I worry, because some  other sites have been known to delete comments or entire threads whenever one of their "experts" is questioned....

I just appreciate the level of directness and apparent honesty found here.

God, I hope you people are as smart about this as you claim to be!!!!!! ;)

jkinatl2:

--- Quote from: Testingway2much on February 24, 2013, 07:08:03 PM ---In relation to answering questions from the anxiety-ridden (like myself)...

Have you guys ever been wrong?

I see many cut-and-paste responses on the sight.  Is transmission (or lack thereof) really as simple as you make it sound?

No shared needles, no unprotected penetrative sex, no HIV?

Please don't misunderstand, I HOPE you are ALWAYS right.

It just seems like such a complicated disease, that perhaps transmission isn't always as simple as stated above.

I suppose with the hundreds, or thousands of questions you receive, surely if there was a method of transmission (oral, handjob, etc...) that had occurred, you would have heard of it.

I worry, because some  other sites have been known to delete comments or entire threads whenever one of their "experts" is questioned....

I just appreciate the level of directness and apparent honesty found here.

God, I hope you people are as smart about this as you claim to be!!!!!! ;)



--- End quote ---

Have we ever been wrong? Do you mean, have we ever told someone that they were not at risk for HIV and then had them test positive? Not that I am aware of.

Perhaps other sites delete comments. We normally don't. We can and do give time-outs and even eventually ban someone who keeps asking the same questions over and over again, or becomes so argumentative that they leech time away from our abilities to help people who are actually receptive to accurate HIV information. But we normally leave the whole wretched affair up for the world to archive. Transparency seems to work better than censorship.

As for cutting and pasting, I have started to do that myself. Given that there are only a handful of people who respond to questions here, and almost no one gets paid for it, the volume can be staggering sometimes. Moreover, there are only so many different ways I can answer essentially the same questions.

Example:

 ****

Can you get HIV from a kiss?

Answer: No. Saliva is not infectious. It actually contains over a dozen identified elements that render HIV inert so even "caveats" like sores, cuts, bleeding gums, recent tooth surgery, and other qualifiers make no difference.

In the entire history of the pandemic, there has never been a case of HIV transmission documented through kissing.

*****

There really are only so many ways I can phrase that. The science has not changed.

And it is the science that is right or wrong, not us. We are careful to use the most up to date, credible, published. tiered peer-reviewed science out there. We can back up our statements with links when accessible, and abstracts when the links are behind a paywall.

Most of the links will be accessible by now, however, since I have not seen new HIV transmission studies ongoing for quite a while now.

The science of HIV transmission has indeed evolved from the hysteria of the early 80s and even the 90s, when things like "microscopic cuts" and the like were spoken of in earnest by doctors and researchers because there as absolutely no way to even identify the virus, much less study it in the lab. Much early science was extrapolated from SIV, a simian version of HIV that behaves similarly (but not exactly) to HIV, and a manipulated mixture of the two called SHIV. Then, as now, this research was woefully incomplete. And transmission vectors were based on patient report after the fact - which is notorious for being inaccurate.

It was only in the mid 1990s, after the advent of anti-viral therapies that totally changed the landscape of the pandemic, that effective transmission science could be utilized. People were actually living long enough, healthy enough lives to be involved in long term relationships with other people - often HIV negative people.

No fewer than three ground-breaking studies, in Spain and the USA, followed hundreds of these "serodiscordant" couples for ten, three, and five years. The couples in question had the commonality of using condoms for penetrative anal and vaginal sex, yet chose NOT to use protection for any form of oral sex. These couples were both hetero and homosexual, and during the course of the study, some of the positive partners had undetectable viral loads, some had very high viral loads. Some were on meds, some not. Some started medication, others went off.

And throughout these studies, cataloging hundreds of thousands of sexual acts over a combined eighteen year period, yielded exactly ZERO infections through oral sex.

During that time, of course, laboratory studies discovered the powerful anti-HIV properties of human saliva, and have identified a dozen different elements that render it inert.  Lab studies had already been aware of the extremely fragile nature of HIV, given the difficulty keeping it active and infectious long enough to test it at all.


So, though it's far too late to be brief, we copy and paste because the transmission vectors for HIV really ARE as simple as we make it sound. The virus itself is complex, but then again so is syphilis. And both are deadly if left untreated.

The reason I choose to cut and paste, now that I am a moderator here, is because this little essay I wrote to you has taken several hours over the course of two days to complete. If I did this with everyone who asked a question, many of these questions identical, but only would I have no time for anything else in my life (like most, I am a volunteer here) but I suspect I would have thoroughly burned out by now.

I have been on this forum for ten years, answering questions here. Ann and Andy have been here even longer. We always fact-check one another and mistakes in typing or unclear phrasing rarely go uncorrected. And when I, for one, seem to get a paragraph concise and readable regarding HIV transmission, I would be an idiot not to keep it and copy and paste it when appropriate.

Hope this has been of help.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version