POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: Niceguy1 on May 11, 2012, 08:52:38 am
-
My case is quite unique and I’m happy to be sharing it with you. On July 2, 2011, I had an encounter with a transsexual escort (not proud of it). Well, to keep a long story short, I tried to penetrate her twice (with a Condom) and could not. Maybe because I wasn’t fully erect or because she was really ‘tight’ or a combination of both. I know I didn’t fully penetrate her but I think the tip of my penis did at least enter for a short period. Well in an effort to get ‘fully erect’ she gave me oral sex (with a Condom) which lasted 2-3 minutes. A little frustrated I finally decided to ‘take care of myself’. Also, during the heat of the moment my hand may have got in contact with her anus and that same hand may have gotten in contact with my face. I’m concerned about the entire event but what I worried more about was the condom being intact. When I ejaculated I looked at the condom and it looked fine.
Well, anyway, (10 days post exposure) on July 12 my lymph nodes on my neck became very painful and it lasted 2-3 days. On July 21 (19 days post exposure) I woke up with a sore throat, stuffy nose, and a cough. This lasted 3-4 days. As I was recovering from this I developed a canker sore on my inner lip that lasted 2-3 days (I continued to have very small canker sores for a few months). On August 12th (6 weeks post exposure) I developed Oral Thrush which was diagnosed my doctor. She prescribed three different medications to get rid of it but, believe it or not, it lasted for 6-7 months! I now think it has subsided but feel like its still lurking in my mouth. I have many more concerning symptoms including loose stool which I’m currently experiencing and seems like I’ve had it for months.
Now, for the testing:
4.5 Weeks (Rapid) – Negative
6 Weeks (Rapid) – Negative
7.5 Weeks (Rapid) – Negative
11 Weeks (Rapid) - Negative
4 Months (Lab test) – Negative
4 Months (PCR-RNA) – Not detected
5 Months (Lab test) - Negative
6 Months (Rapid) – Negative
8 Months (Lab test) – Negative
The reason I’ve tested so much is because of my symptoms (early on and currently) and because of the fear of delayed seroconversion. I’ve done a lot of research on delay seroconversion and a lot of people dismiss it as an ‘urban myth’ or something that happens to people in poor health. But that’s not true. They are other variables to also consider like the strain of the virus and your genetics. As for my symptoms, I have a lot of theories for the cause of them but I won’t share them because I want your assessment on my situation. So what do you think about my situation folks? Comments? Advice?
-
Nice,
Your situation is not unique - and it wasn't a risk either. No wonder you keep testing hiv negative - you weren't at risk in the first place.
If you feel unwell, see a doctor. You have already conclusively ruled hiv out as a possible cause of your symptoms. You do not have hiv.
Nobody seroconverts as late as after eight months. You're not a last seroconverter.
You absolutely did NOT have a risk in any of the activities you describe. You're not going to seroconvert because you did not have a risk.
Ann
-
The only reason I put myself through all this testing is because HIV testing is a 'crap shoot'. You dont know when you'll seroconvert or when the Virus will decide to trigger your immune system to produce enough anitbodies. Yes, antibodies are detectable in the majority of people (CDC estimates 90%) by 3 months , but for the rest of the population its 3-6 months, or even years! It depends on alot of variables, such as the strain of the Virus, your genetics, other infections, etc. Its very unsettling!
For those who will immediately go to the generic answer (3 months is conclusive), copy and paste the following links in your broswer, then respond:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2512827&dopt=Abstract
http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Labs/Q8096.html
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/1/07-0834_article.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=CmME6xfdEFAC&pg=PA67&dq=delayed+seroconversion+HIV&hl=en#v=onepage&q=delayed%20&f=false
I suport my opinion with sources. I've done the research. The above 4 links will make anyone question their '3 month is conclusive' statement. And I have more links if you want.
-
We're not here to argue with you. Nor are we interested in receiving more links from you.
For some years it has been widely accepted in the HIV/AIDS community that 3 months with all of the current generations of tests in use will yield a reliable negative result. The exceptions for testing out to 6 months are situations which involve longterm intravenous drug use, organ transplant or treatment for a disease such as cancer.
It is true that it can be years before HIV-related symptoms show up in someone who is HIV positive, but that is a different matter from when someone will test positive who has been infected.
All of this is moot in your case since as Ann has already pointed out that you were not at risk to begin with. As I said we're not here to debate the issue with you.
HIV is not your issue at this time. Get on with your life is my suggestion.
-
\Just because I have had a nice breakfast and a full night's sleep, I will entertain your absurdity.
Let's roll up our sleeves and explore the delightful foray into the scientific process, shall we? Thinking caps on, kids.
First, a bit of education about the scientific process as immortalized on the web.
A) Old, obsolete, and disproven science is not always, not even often, expunged from the web as newer, more reliable science supercedes it. In 1989, to pick a date out of thin air, we did not yet possess the technology via electron microscope to see HIV with any clarity. The proteins, the enzymatic methods by which it attached to cells was guesswork. Highly educated guesswork, but nonetheless. Moreover, we had NO vial load markers and no options for treatment other than lethal doses of AZT.
You can still find articles based on that level of science on the web. Even on the NIH website. The trick, of course, is to look at the date of publication.
Your first link was dated 1989. Wow, maybe I did not pull that date out of thin air after all.
Your first link is proof of exactly that. Without the advanced testing breakthroughs which precipitated the advent of Anti-Retriviral Therapy, scientists could not even pinpoint a window period. Notwithstanding that they were relying SOLELY on patient report (in that the patient engaged in no further unprotected sex between the intervals) to make their determinations.
It's an interesting piece of history, to show how scientists were grappling with limited knowledge and no concrete method of screening patients for what was then considered a fast moving, lethal illness. It is not, of course, valid TWENTY THREE YEARS LATER - when not only have the harder sciences been streamlined, but the testing process has become so advanced that not only has three months been the testing window for over seven years, but in some places (Massachusetts) that window has been officially shortened to six weeks.
So let's move on to your second link, ok? Still on the ride?
The second link is a person who claims to have been infected months and months past the established testing window. You will note that the person replying to the query completely ignores that claim, focusing on the salient question of treatment insofar as the CD4 count and viral load were concerned.
So I suppose if you go to the denialist sites, you will find nothing BUT ammo for your rants, correct? After all, they deny with the very existence of HIV and/or the role the virus plays in the condition known as AIDS. Plenty of links there. Post them here, of course, and you will be banned.
The third link, and THANKS for finding something in the late 2000's - is indeed puzzling, even to the scientists. Their conclusion - or at least their best guess, was that the patient was infected with a highly virulent strain of HIV which, combined with genetic factors and her history of chronic alcoholism, created a perfect storm by which a person could conceivably seroconvert, get sick, and die rapidly.
This case raises several disturbing and interesting questions and possible avenues for future research. The diagnosis of acute HIV encephalopathy with a CD4 count of 100 cells/μL raises the likelihood that this patient was infected with at least 1 strain containing particularly neurotropic properties, possibly with X4 or R5X4 tropism, or that her brain was particularly primed for HIV-induced damage. Understanding the neurotropic properties of different strains of HIV may help prevent similar adverse outcomes in other patients.
It is an interesting note that this same article, wildly looking for reasons for their own failure to detect HIV infection in a prison setting before it was too late, even site a 1989 article to defend on of their hypotheses. They do this in lieu of the far more likely hypothesis of human error and negligence on the part of the prison medical system.
Their other two citations were from 1997 and 1999, still considered antiques in the rapidly evolving world of HIV testing efficacy. At the time of those publications (and knowing the length of time between data collection and publication) the window period was still six months, in a large portion of the globe.
Your last link was an indicipherable series of searches within a book on AIDS published - guess when? 1991. Before viral load markers, before we were able to see HIV and identify it's structure with any accuracy, and before the seventeen or so upgrades to the ELISA/WESTERN BLOT tests. That is, by the way, when it was published. I doubt seriously that ANY of the citations used on the book were dated past 1990.
A historical document, absolutely. Relevant science? No.
Now, I have spent an hour and a half of my life answering your queries. I will indulge you no longer. You have wasted my time, and endangered other people by posting this outdated and speculative crap on these boards as if you had the slightest notion of the scientific method and the means by which WE, having a collective century or more in scientific exploration and at least that much collective time in HIV prevention and education, utilize in order to provide our risk assessment.
We have provided you with accurate and compassionate risk assessment.
You have responded by trying to crash this forum with ignorance and self-righteous self-pity. Congratulations are in order, I suppose, I was unaware that the two negative characteristics were able to coexist so faithfully.
With that, I respectfully withdraw from the conversation and will report these latest antagonistic posts to the other moderators for review. I also get credit for not swearing.
-
I must admit your explanations for each of the cases I cited are very convincing and i appreciate your insight, but with all due respect, why should I believe you? You used a lot of scientific jargon. Are you a scientist? HIV expert? Retired Doctor? For all I know you could be a 20 year old with unlimited access to your local library.
-
No one gives a rat's ass if you do or not, but you will move along.
-
I must admit your explanations for each of the cases I cited are very convincing and i appreciate your insight, but with all due respect, why should I believe you? You used a lot of scientific jargon. Are you a scientist? HIV expert? Retired Doctor? For all I know you could be a 20 year old with unlimited access to your local library.
Don't believe me or my jargon. Do what I do. Trust the science.
The reliable, recent science.
Also, I've been on these boards for upwards of ten years. Before that I am a non profit HIV education and prevention program. Currently on the board of directors of a mentor program in Atlanta.
I'm doing pretty well for a twenty year old.
You, however, are on thin ice on these forums with both your utter disrespect and your attempts to derail our prevention efforts.
You simply can not throw inaccurate science at me that I cannot derail. This would be a nice time to withdraw.
-
Guy,
The bottom line where you are concerned is that you have not had a risk for hiv infection. Your body cannot produce antibodies against a pathogen which is not present in your body.
Without the slightest doubt, you do not have hiv. Be happy about that rather than chase a virus you cannot possibly have.
If you cannot accept the fact that neither have you had a risk for hiv nor do you have hiv, then perhaps it's time for you to seek out a trained therapist who can help you get to the bottom of why you feel the need to be punished for having sex.
If you read the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) before posting like you're supposed to, you will have read the following posting guideline:
Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.
Please consider yourself warned!
Ann
-
Thank you, all. I'm going to stay away from the Internet. But let me ask everyone this. Without knowing my possible exposure or my testing history wouldn't you find my symptoms early on and currently suspicious? I tried to convince myself that timing and the separation of the symptoms don't make sense. And I want to reveal that I was diagnosed with Lyme around that time and took 3 different antibiotics for 1.5 months.
-
Guy,
Nope. Symptoms, or even the LACK of symptoms, mean nothing with it comes to diagnosing or even suspecting hiv infection. Only testing at the appropriate time will ever tell you a single thing about your hiv status.
A conclusive negative (at or after three months) means you don't have hiv - and there is nothing suspicious about that regardless of what your actual or perceived risk may have been.
Lyme disease can cause all sorts of on-going problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Chronic_Lyme_disease), but it won't interfere with an hiv test taken at the appropriate time nor will taking antibiotics interfere with an hiv test.
Keep working with your doctor. I suggest you do some research into Lyme disease (and make sure you're reading reputable sites with UP-TO-DATE information) rather than continuing to google a virus you have been proven to not have.
You do not have hiv. End of story.
Use condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, correctly and consistently, and you won't have hiv in the future either. It really is that simple!!!
Ann
-
Ann, I really hope your right. By the way, what are your credentials?
-
Ann, I really hope your right. By the way, what are your credentials?
What is your purpose? To come here and question everything that is being said? What part are you not understanding from what has been said about your specific situation?
-
Guy,
I can assure you that my credentials concerning hiv transmission and testing, as well as living with hiv, are a lot more extensive and much more impressive than are yours. Ever try reading the About Us section of this website? Now there's a thought....
I'm giving you that time out you've been warned about. Do not attempt to create a new account to get around your time out because if you do, you will be permanently banned.
Ann
-
Why are there worried wells? Plain and simple: Because the uncertainty of HIV testing and the seroconversion window period. 6 Weeks? 3 Months? 6 months? 1 Year? 2 years? No one can tell you what your window period is because everyone's body is different! There is no standard window period! I had an exposure in July 2011 and I’m still cant rule out HIV! I’ve had testing at 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 3 months, 5 months, 6 months, and 8 months post exposure. Tomorrow I’m going for my one year test! I have painful lymph nodes under my arms and in my neck. I have low-grade fever. So many things that I’m concern about and I can’t put this to rest because there is so much uncertainty! Don’t believe me? Copy and paste the link below into your broswer. It is from a reputable website that reports patients that seroconverted at 7 months, 13 months, 19 months, and 30 months! Now after reading that how can anyone believe 3 months?!
http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showflat.php?C=&Board=infected&Number=38676
-
■Please do not start a new thread every time you have another question or thought - regardless if you think your questions are related to each other or not. It helps us to help you when you keep all your thoughts or questions in one thread and it helps other readers to follow the discussion. Additional threads will be merged.
■If you cannot find your thread, click on the "Show own posts" link in the left-hand column of any forum page, under your name.
-
I've merged your threads. If you paid a fraction of the attention you give to a lot of nonsense about protacted exposure dates, to things like the rules in the opening thread of this section, you'd know that you are always supposed to keep all entries in the same thread. In other simple words, don't start anymore threads. Use only this one.
You're on a very slippery slope here, sir. If you continue to return with your various remarks about a situation for which you have reliably tested negative you are going to find yourself with another Time Out or getting banned from this site altogether. Just because you have not received a diagnosis of whatever is your real problem, doesn't by default mean it's HIV.
In any case you don't seem to have found coming here to be helpful so perhaps it's best if you just move along instead of trying to persuade us and others of the validity of your bad science.
-
Andy, I don't come here becuase I don't have anything better to do. And I don't come here to spread dubious science. I'm far from a Scientist. I'm just a normal guy that made an error in judgement last year and I'm very concern for my health. I come here to this forum for answers. Everyone on this website swares by the 3 month window period despite the person's situation, but there is so much information out there that points to a longer window period! I gave you a link to reputable website that has testimonials of real people seroconverting way beyond 6 months! Years in some cases... What is going on here?! I have an negative 8 month test post-exposure but can I be confident that I won't infect my wife?!
-
Andy, I don't come here becuase I don't have anything better to do. And I don't come here to spread dubious science. I'm far from a Scientist. I'm just a normal guy that made an error in judgement last year and I'm very concern for my health. I come here to this forum for answers. Everyone on this website swares by the 3 month window period despite the person's situation, but there is so much information out there that points to a longer window period! I gave you a link to reputable website that has testimonials of real people seroconverting way beyond 6 months! Years in some cases... What is going on here?! I have an negative 8 month test post-exposure but can I be confident that I won't infect my wife?!
Evidently you are not interested in paying any attention to what has been said to you. You have made up your mind about HIV being your issue so there's nothing that can be done by any of us here. I am reporting your reply and recommending that your access is suspended. If you were posting this in the Spanish forums I'd handle it myself.
As far as your "reputable" links, do you realize that the entry is from 2002? Are you aware of the fact that there is nothing scientific in anything that was written in that page? That they are entries by people who, like you, want to ignore scientifically proven facts and to believe that they are infected?
Please have a little respect for those of us who live with this virus and for those who might have an actual reason to be afraid about it. Have some respect for those of us who take time to try to help in this section. Do us a favor, get tested as many times as you wish, but count on the fact that you will get a negative result. In the meantime, keep your nonsense away from our forums.
-
Good Lord.
I actually clicked on your link, thinking I would find a scientific journal or peer-reviewed article that states an uptick in the established window period for HIV infection. I was interested, because any month/year now (not holding my breath) the window period for HIV infection is likely to officially drop from three months to six weeks.
Instead I get anonymous people writing in to Dr Gallant on theBody.com reporting their perceived infection windows. And shockingly(not,) many of them are adopting the same accusatory tone as yourself.
You realize of course that we actually DO research the shit we put out? Really. And not only has the established window period been three months since the early 200s, but in Massachusetts, where they have spent the cash to insure that all clinics use state of the art testing, the official window period has been dropped to six weeks.
Six weeks.
Although we still mention that some people (people on chemo who have no working immune system, or people suffering from some severe autoimmune diseases what do the same thing, IV drug users who have destroyed their immune system) *might* take longer to seroconvert, I have not read a reliable updated study to that effect in almost a decade. Methinks even THAT speculation is worth reevaluating.
But nonetheless, the CDC (notorious for being slow on the updating) has for YEARS established the window period - globally - taking into account developing countries and older tests - as three months.
But you not only want to drag a thread on another forum where anonymous people claim to have had longer window periods, but then demand that we address that? And you compare that thread to our peer-reviewed science?
Really? You say you are not a scientist, but seriously. Just a teaspoon of critical thinking here and there would make the world a far better place. A milliliter, if you're metric.
We do our best to constantly update our site, fine tuning transmission theory and making things more perfectly clear. What we don't do, WON'T do it police the entire internet just because some assholes insist on putting false information out there for a myriad of reasons from simple ignorance to drug/alcohol blackouts to more malicious intent.
You want to walk through crazytown? You get to do that on your own.
We get people who claim immaculate infection here all the time. Because they are newly diagnosed, I try not to bust them outright, because they are in no place to hear logic. More than once, a husband and wife both have accounts here, and are able to Read one another's posts. More than once, it has been in the husband's perceived best interest to claim that he got HIV from a random drop of blood at an outdoor party than to admit on a public forum that he cheated on his wife with a guy. Screw the science. Screw the fear mongering such outlandish claims dredge up in Worried Wells like yourself.
Of course, in due time the truth usually comes out.
But as little patience as I have for those situations here on AIDSMEDS, I have absolutely ZERO stomach for having the same batshittery brought here from thebody.com. Zero.
You seem to equate first tiered peer-reviewed science with anonymous, outlandish claims on a public message board. Have at it then. From what I managed to read off that link before I started to lose my peripheral vision, your tone will make you an esteemed member of that community.
I for one wash my hands of this thread. You're not unique. You are HIV negative. You are free and clear to have sex with your wife, assuming no more indiscretions on your part put her at risk. Not for HIV, but for the dozens of other STDs that men can more or less shake off but women cannot.
You've been patiently and consistently helped here. And frankly I think we've done all we can for you. If you want to refute our scientifically-backed claims, you might want to develop a rudimentary understanding of science first.
But hey, you're welcome.
-
Can you please share the scientifically-backed, peer reviewed reports you and your staff refer to? Please?
-
■Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result, or no-risk situation will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.
Move along.
-
Guy,
Guess what - YOU DO NOT HAVE HIV.
Ann
-
Everyone is attacking me but no one has asked my symptoms: Stomach pains, unusual bowel movements (including diarherra), white toungue (bad breath), painful lymph nodes (especially Underarm and jawbone), mouth ulcers (1-2 monthly), Etc.
-
You wasn't asked about your symptoms because they have nothing to do with HIV. You don't have HIV.
-
To the AIDSMEDS staff (RapidRod, Ann, Jkinatl2, etc.), I’m sorry to inform you but some of your colleagues disagree with you. Read this blog entry by one your colleagues at POZ (a sister publication):
http://blogs.poz.com/joseph/archives/2010/10/natural_immunity_and_1.html
-
You don't have to believe us. But we are not going to engage with you any further. There's nothing more we can do for you in this setting.
If you come back again about this same incident you are going to get a Time Out or be banned from the site.
Get on with your life.
Consider yourself warned.
-
Why are there worried wells? Plain and simple: Because the uncertainty of HIV testing and the seroconversion window period. 6 Weeks? 3 Months? 6 months? 1 Year? 2 years? No one can tell you what your window period is because everyone's body is different! There is no standard window period! I had an exposure in July 2011 and I’m still cant rule out HIV! I’ve had testing at 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 3 months, 5 months, 6 months, and 8 months post exposure. Tomorrow I’m going for my one year test! I have painful lymph nodes under my arms and in my neck. I have low-grade fever. So many things that I’m concern about and I can’t put this to rest because there is so much uncertainty! Don’t believe me? Copy and paste the link below into your broswer. It is from a reputable website that reports patients that seroconverted at 7 months, 13 months, 19 months, and 30 months! Now after reading that how can anyone believe 3 months?!
http://www.thebody.com/cgi-bin/bbs/showflat.php?C=&Board=infected&Number=38676
Your link is B******* >:(
In the page shared there are not different stories, it's the same story told by the same (paranoid) guy at different times.
First he claims "to have seroconverted at 7 months", then later THE SAME GUY changes his arguments and says "I am the person who converted at 13 months" and then THE SAME GUY says "So I took 19 months to seroconvert", then he says again "Dear doctor, I just seroconverted after 30 months since exposure. YES, 30 MONTHS".
And you buy that b****** just to feed your paranoia?
Did you ever take the time to read the comment of the person who shared those stories? "Count back in months from the date of the post the amount of months this guy claims to have seroconverted (...) it's basically rubbish"
-
Ummm.. Ashler, its not the same person. There are a total of 4 people that reported seroconversion beyond 6 months. One person I believe did post 3 times which is what may be confusing you.
Since your're trying to discredit my link, what about the most recent link i posted. It is POZ staff doctor that has his own blog. His entry is bascially about the window period being bull shit that no one really knows when a person will seroconvert! Yes, a doctor that is affiliated with AIDSMEDS. No one on here has responded or will respond regarding the doctor's blog entry becuase it is someone that is affiliated with their company. One of their own that has a diffrent belief. Maybe the staff here should invite the doctor on this forum to discuss.
-
Ashler, you're breaking a major rule of the site which is that only those authorizied to do so may respond to members in this section. You don't have that authorization and in addition you're using rude language.
Don't do it again or you will get a Time Out.
-
So no one has anything to say about the doctor's blog entry?
-
As you told before we don't give a rat's ass what you come up with. Now move along you never had an exposure.
-
So no one has anything to say about the doctor's blog entry?
We won't bother to dignify your nonsense with any additional replies. Enough is enough.
-
We don't seem to have been helpful in relation to whatever special attention your "unique case" warrants. So I am going to help you out of the situation by banning you permanently from the site. Along with what you call your "unique case" you have a really nasty attitude. There's no reason we need to be subjected to it any longer.
Perhaps you can find help elsewhere that suits your taste.
Don't both trying to get back here by creating another name. We'll spot that right off and ban you again.