POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: Waiting Ryan on April 24, 2007, 04:20:03 pm
-
Hello to all,
I am currently in week nine of the worst period of my life. A drunken fool, I had vaginal sex with a prostitute. We used a condom, however, it broke as her vagina was dry. I pulled out immediately and that was the end of it.
Around day 7, I began to get a superficial burning around my genitals. This lasted for about 3 days.
Around Day 10, I began to have pretty bad testicular pain in both testicles. This lasted for about a week.
At this point I was tested for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Negative on both counts.
Around day 20, I began to have diarrhea. This lasted for about 2 days.
Since then I have had swollen glands in my groin. This is what has really worries me. They have been swollen for around 6 weeks now and are a constant reminder that I may have contracted HIV.
I have tested Negative with an OraQuick Advance at 6 weeks.
I also tested Negative with a PCR DNA Test and ELISA done through LabCorp at 8 weeks.
I know that I a 3 Month antibody test is the only test deemed conclusive by the CDC. But I am going out of my mind with worry. I don't know how I've made it through the past 9 weeks. I really don't. I'm just running out of gas to deal with this. What are my chances based on the exposure, the symptoms, and the testing that I have set forth? Any advice would really help.
Bless you all,
Ryan
-
OK, despite what your mind and your symptoms are telling you, Ryan, you're in pretty good shape as far as HIV is concerned.
The condom protected you until it broke. HIV is not an easy virus to transmit, and even IF the woman you were with is HIV+, which is not a certainty, it is significantly harder to transmit from female to male. Given that it was a brief possible exposure and adding in those several negative test results I expect you will continue to test negative.
All but the smallest number of those who are going to seroconvert will do so within 4-6 weeks after an exposure to HIV virus.
As for your symptoms, the tension factor aside, you should be discussing symptoms with your doctor. There is nothing HIV-specific about your symptoms, which is no surprise because I don't see HIV as being an issue for you.
Get tested at 13 weeks, collect what I expect will be another negative result and get on with your life.
Cheers,
-
Andy, thank you very much for your quick and reassuring reply. I will no doubt test out to 3 months to make absolutely sure. However, your response will make the next 3 weeks much easier to bear.
I was also wondering if anyone had an opinion on my DNA PCR test result. I know that I was foolish to have one done given the rate of false positives and that the test is not approved by the FDA for diagnostic purposes. However, it was a decision that I made in haste and under duress.
That being said, how much comfort can I take from the negative DNA PCR result that I collected at 8 weeks?
In other words, can I be confident in my negative PCR result? I know that the vast majority of experts (if not all) believe that such a test isn't conclusive and should not recommended for diagnostic purposes. So, I'm testing out to 3 months no matter what. However, now that I have collected a negative DNA PCR result, how much comfort can I take from it?
Also, why isn't the DNA PCR test recommended for diagnostic purposes? Is it only the cost and the high rate of false positives? Are there also concerns of false negatives? Is there just too little in the way of data?
Thanks again to Andy, and thanks in advance to any other contributors to the thread.
-
Also, why isn't the DNA PCR test recommended for diagnostic purposes? Is it only the cost and the high rate of false positives? Are there also concerns of false negatives? Is there just too little in the way of data?
You nailed it, kid. PCR testing has an unacceptably high rate of false positives. As I understand it false negatives are not a concern. PCR testing is really designed to be one of a number of tools for monitoring disease progression and treatment efficacy in HIV positive people.
If you're already stressed now, can you imagine what a false positive PCR test would do? In any event, a positive PCR test would have to be backed up by appropriate antibody testing at the 12-13 week mark.
The reality is that you're gonna have to wait out the window period and have that antibody test at 13 weeks. If you've lasted 9 weeks, you can cope for another 3.
MtD
-
Thanks Matty,
I knew that I was taking a big risk in that regard and that it was foolish. So, I may have dodged a bullet simply by NOT getting a false positive. Hopefully I will dodge yet another bullet in 3 weeks. However, given your statement regarding false negatives not being a concern, would you think that I could be "confident" until then?
Best,
Ryan
-
Ryan,
Like Goderator Andy, Matty the Damned is extremely confident that you'll return a definitive negative antibody test result at the close of the window period.
If I may, allow me to offer another piece of advice. Try to avoid combing the internet, even this site, for information about HIV/AIDS and it's related stuff during the next three weeks. That way madness lies. Get on with your life. Go about your normal business and don't fall into the trap of obsessing about this stuff.
MtD
-
Matty, thank you for your reassurances. Thanks also for what I am coming to learn is very sage advice.
Best,
Ryan
-
Ryan, I just want to add on to Matty's suggestion. By staying productively busy during the rest of your waiting time it can pass more quickly than you may imagine at this moment.
Every negative test result is always good news. Taking all of the facts into consideration I do expect you will come out of this ok when you re-test.
Now, get busy with other things. Really.
-
Ryan,
I also certainly expect you to test conclusively negative at the end of your window period.
What I'm more concerned about now is that you come out of this knowing the correct way to use condoms. A correctly used condom rarely breaks, so please read through the three condom and lube links in my signature line.
You need to be using condoms for anal or vaginal intercourse, every time, no exceptions until such time as you are in a securely monogamous relationship where you have both tested for ALL STIs together. To agree to have unprotected intercourse is to consent to the possibility of being infected with a sexually transmitted infection. Sex with a condom lasts only a matter of minutes, but hiv is forever.
Have a look through the condom and lube links in my signature line so you can use condoms with confidence.
Anyone who is sexually active should be having a full sexual health care check-up, including but not limited to hiv testing, at least once a year and more often if unprotected intercourse occurs.
If you aren't already having regular, routine check-ups, now is the time to start. As long as you make sure condoms are being used for intercourse, you can fully expect your routine hiv tests to return with negative results. Don't forget to always get checked for all the other sexually transmitted infections as well, because they are MUCH easier to transmit than hiv.
Use condoms correctly and consistently and you will continue to avoid hiv infection. It really is that simple.
Ann
-
Thanks Ann,
I must tell you that aside from this incident, I am really quite safe and responsible when it comes to sex. I always use condoms, and always use them properly. I owe the error in judgment and the condom failure to being a drunken fool. Hopefully this incident will serve as a valuable lesson and nothing more.
Best,
Ryan
-
Just wanted to give an update to those that are interested. I just received another negative result with an OraQuick Rapid Test. This makes 10 weeks for me. I know I have to wait a couple more weeks, but it's nice to have another confidence boost. Just thought I would share.
Thanks to everyone for the support.
Ryan
-
Hello all,
In a discussion that I was having on another board, it was pointed out that Proviral DNA testing and PCR testing has just appeared on a list of tests endorsed by the CDC for the purposes of detecting HIV in the blood. The list is actually on hivtest.org. However, hivtest.org is a service of the CDC.
At any rate, here is the link:
http://hivtest.org/subindex.cfm?FuseAction=FAQ#2
If you will notice, the link states that the "proviral DNA amplification method, a less available blood test that can be used to resolve an initial indeterminate Western blot result in certain situations."
Of the PCR test it states, "Although expensive and labor-intensive, the test can detect the virus even in someone only recently infected."
From what I understand, this list just recently appeared. I wonder if this means that there might be some new developments in the field of NAT and PCR testing with respect to its unacceptably high rates of false positives. I certainly don't mean to make a definitive proclaimation as such, but I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts, comments, concerns, further insight, etc.
Also, I was wondering if someone could explain the difference between "Nucleic acid testing (e.g., viral RNA or proviral DNA amplification method" and PCR testing.
Best,
Ryan
-
It's nothing new, it's just the CDC has accepted there use.
-
. . . and anyway you should have posted this in your original thread. (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=11660.0)
MtD
-
Well, at the very least it's something new because the CDC has now accepted their use for diagnostic purposes. Previously, I think only the RNA test was approved for diagnostic purposes. The DNA test was only used for screening purposes. I could have that backwards, I'm not sure.
Anyway, and I know it's a stretch, but don't you think that the CDC's acceptance of their use could signal that they are coming around to them as being definitive diagnostic tests. I mean, before now, you could barely find any mention of PCR testing by the CDC. Who knows? Maybe we could be seeing a change in policy here.
Best,
Ryan
-
Sorry Matty, didn't know the rules. Can I merge the thread somehow?
-
OK. I've merged your threads here. Please keep all of your questions and comments in this same thread.
It helps others to follow the conversation and also to respond more intelligently to you.
Thanks for your cooperation.
-
Thanks Andy. Sorry for the goof. Any comments though on the new CDC info?
-
Ryan,
Most of the tests newly listed by the CDC aren't ones that are or will be in general use. Why they decided to list them now, I don't know.
Ann
-
Ann, why do you suggest that these tests won't be the ones in general use?
-
Ryan,
Because for the most part, they are unnecessary. They are also expensive and labour intensive.
You have to have any of those tests confirmed with a positive ELISA and WB if they give a positive result, and they have to be confirmed with a negative ELISA result at the end of the three month window period if they give a negative result. It makes more sense in most cases to stick to the ELISA testing.
Ann
-
Ann, my suggestion was that the CDC adding these tests to the list might be foreshadowing a change in policy. Namely, that such tests might have reached a level of accuracy and dependability that they will be considered stand alone confirmatory tests. It's obviously just a theory though.
-
We prefer here to deal with real situations and to focus on them in terms of level of risk.
Guessing what the CDC may or may not do is another form of WHAT IFs, a domain I don't find productive to put energy into. The recent announcement falls under the heading of what I call a non-event.
Cheers,
-
Thanks for the reply Andy.
Ryan
-
Hello all,
I was just wondering how aidsmed.com formulated its position on the 3 month window for a definitive antibody test. The CDC for example, states that only 97% of people will have detectable levels of antibodies by 3 months.
Now I understand that many in the HIV community state that this is overly conservative, and that the other 3% are those with suppressed immune systems etc. However, in my research, I haven't really found too many official agencies that back the 3 month window. Most stick to this 6 month window endorsed by the CDC.
Does anyone have any insight on this? Or know of any agencies that do back the 3 month window?
Thanks in advance,
Ryan
-
However, in my research, I haven't really found too many official agencies that back the 3 month window. Most stick to this 6 month window endorsed by the CDC.
Le sigh.
When a WW utters the words "in my research" you just know he's hopped aboard the Crazy Train with a one-way ticket to Central Station. What did Matty the Damned tell you about googling "HIV testing", Ryan?
Let me assure you that almost every reputable agency in the western world holds to the 3 month window period. In Australia and the UK it's 12 weeks and has been for years. In the American state of Massachusetts (eminently sensible people) the window period is 6 weeks because of the testing kits they use.
AIDSMEDS advises a window period of 13 weeks because that's what the current science and common sense supports. We've never been wrong yet, so I don't think we're gonna start now. And contrary to what your "research" reveals, I believe the CDC supports the same.
But you believe whatever you want. Matty the Damned learned long ago that a determined WW cannot have his mind changed by simple reason, fact and logic.
MtD
-
Thanks for the response Matty. However, I was just commenting on the fact that the CDC actually recommends testing beyond 3 months, or at least do so impliedly by saying that only 97% of people will develop detectable levels of antibodies by 3 months.
I don't doubt the 3 month window. I just wonder why the CDC seems to be more conservative than everybody else.
-
If you would have continued to read they give the reasons for one to test longer than 3 months. It's very rare for it to happen to begin with.
-
I don't doubt the 3 month window. I just wonder why the CDC seems to be more conservative than everybody else.
You do doubt it. You said so earlier and you continue to question it. As for the CDC being conservative, they are a Government Agency, they are ALWAYS conservative. Look at the stance on abstinence instead of proper sex education and condom programs, UBER-conservative.
Listen to matty. Quit doing "research", because your fears are driving what you are calling "results" you are undeniably biased. We aren't. Stay off the net, quit googling and get busy living.
-
To Matty and others,
Why is the window period in Massachusetts six weeks? What kind of test kit do they use that can reduce the window period by such a margin?
-
Ryan, if you contact Mass. Department of Health, they will tell you that if you are at high risk for HIV they recommend that you return at three months and retest. What is a high risk person. Anyone that has unprotected vaginal or anal sex with multiple partners, anyone that has had sex with a KNOWN hiv+ person and those that are IV drug users.
-
Thanks for the response RapidRod. That is what I assumed. I was just wondering about Matty's reference to the "test kits" Mass uses, as if they were somehow more advanced or something.
-
They use OraQuick Advance 1/2 tests by OraSure. Which are very reliable tests.
-
All the clinics in my area use the OraQuick 1/2 test. I believe it is manufactured by OraSure. Do you know if this type of test is just as accurate? I will be going in a couple of weeks for what I hope to be a confirmed negative result.
-
Very accurate, if taken at the correct time.
-
Thanks again.
-
It's an FDA-approved test, Ryan. As Rod has said, done at the proper waiting time it yields a reliable result.
Good luck.
-
Hello all. I just wanted to give everyone an update. I just got a negative antibody test at 13 weeks. I was very relieved to say the least. However, I think it's going to take some time to repair my psyche. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks to all of you who offered your knowledge and support to me in this trying time. Thanks to all of you. God Bless.
Ryan
-
I hear that most people seroconvert between 4-6 weeks, would a 6 weeks test be conclusive? Im pretty sure a 10 week test will not change at the 13th week, so I am not sure why you need to test at the 13th week? you are negative, congrats ;D
-
Rich, you are hardly in a position to be giving other people advice. Please stay in your own thread and leave the advice giving to those of us who know what we're doing.
It's all in the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0), which you should have read by now.
MtD
-
Hello again,
I haven't gotten the piece of mind that I thought a 3 month negative would give me. About a week ago, I started to notice a big white patch on the back of my tongue. I brushed it with my tooth brush and it went away. However, it came back a few days later. I brushed it away again, and it came back again. Now it burns. I'm worried that this is oral thrush and I plan on seeing my doctor ASAP. This is NOT a case of me looking for symptoms. After my 3 month negative, I was moving on. I just happened upon this growth on the back of my tongue.
Anyway, I went for another antibody test and received a negative result after 4 months and a few days. Is it possible that my immune system is taking a long time for a detectable level of antibodies to develop? Would oral thrush be a sign of this? Is it possible that HIV itself could have already weakened my immune system such that it wouldn't produce antibodies?
Over, the past month, I started to feel myself again. In other words, I wasn't dreading every waking moment in fear. That fear is starting to crawl back into me as I feel this burning on my tongue and in the back of my mouth. If anybody is up and around, please let me know what you think. Thanks a bunch.
Ryan
-
No and no. Move on, you're negative.
-
If you would have continued to read they give the reasons for one to test longer than 3 months. It's very rare for it to happen to begin with.
Rod, thanks for your response. I was just wondering, a while ago you said that the CDC gives the reasons why someone should test beyond 3 months. The only thing that I have seen the CDC comment on with respect to this issue is that it's very rare for someone to take up to six months to develop anitbodies. Additionally, it says that 97% of people will develop antibodies by 3 months. However, I don't see it said anywhere why it would take longer than three months. It has been suggested to me by others that the other 3% are those people with compromised immune systems, i.e. people receiving chemotherapy, people with lupus, IV drug users, etc. I was just wondering if you or anyone else could direct me to where the CDC explains why someone would want to test beyond 3 months.
"Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, if the initial negative HIV test was conducted within the first 3 months after possible exposure, repeat testing should be considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the possibility of a false-negative result. Ninety-seven percent of persons will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV. "
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/qa/be_tested.htm#wait
I'm sorry if I seem like I am refusing to listen to the advice I'm receiving. I know that the CDC is considered to be VERY conservative. And I know that the odds of me being positive is minute. However, I am supposed to be married later this year. I don't even care about myself at this point. I care about my futue wife. I cannot bring myself to resume our normal life together until I am 100% sure that I am negative.
Thanks for listening,
Ryan
-
Also, I know that the rules of Aidsmeds is that HIV- people are supposed to stick to the "Am I Infected" forum. However, I wanted to know if it was okay for me to visit the "AIDS Activism" forum. I would like to get involved in some voluteer work and assume that I could get a lot of information over there.
Thanks,
Ryan
-
Ryan,
Read what you want, just don't post anywhere other than this thread or Off Topic. If you want to do volunteer work, ask at your local AIDS Service Organisation. Thanks.
You do not fall into a possible late-seroconverter category. You are absolutely, conclusively hiv negative. Hiv is not a prerequisite of thrush - if you even have thrush. See your doctor.
You are hiv negative - use condoms correctly and stay that way.
Ann
-
I saw my doctor. He says that I don't have thrush. However, I do have inflamed paillae - possibly "hairy tongue." I have read that hairy tongue is also associated with HIV, and I have never had something like this before.
My doctor has advised me that my negative test is conclusive. However, it's just so unsettling.
Thanks for listening,
Ryan
-
A "hairy tongue" is not a sign of HIV infection. Your test results are conclusive. You do not have HIV.
MtD
-
Hello again,
I am now 5 months negative. I haven't exactly been dwelling on the possibility of HIV infection. However, a little fear still lingers. I just don't think that I will be able to completely move on until I get a 6 month negative. Then, even the archaic CDC will have to give me a clean bill of health.
At any rate, over the past couple of days I have been suffering from an enlarged submental lymph node, the one directly behind your chin. You can nearly see the darn thing from across the room. This thing is really freaking me out. That along with the persistent white tongue just keep a little bit of fear in me.
Have any of you had any experience with an enlarge submental node? Or know anything about such a symptom? Thanks in advance.
-
This is not an HIV concern. If you have a concern, see your doctor.
-
Hello,
I once again did something foolish involving a possible risk. I am much more calm than the last time I went through this ordeal, but nevertheless, I am a little uneasy.
My incident involves cunnilingus and deep french kissing with a stripper. The kissing lasted only a couple minutes, and the cunnilingus lasted only a few short seconds. I have read a few threads that indicate that neither kissing nor cunnilingus is a risk for HIV transmission. However, I have a couple variables that might be of concern:
1) I have sensitive gums which are prone to bleeding when I brush my teeth, etc. Would sensitive gums increase the likelihood of transmission?
2) What I am more worried about is that I had used some cocaine shortly before the incident. It dried the heck out of my mouth. So, whatever defense saliva provides was probably nonexistent.
3) I was also biting my lips and cheeks because of the cocaine. So, there may have been a small cut in my mouth or a small split in my lip. There definitely wasn't any type of large bleeding wound though.
4) The cocaine irritated by sinuses badly enough that they began to bleed the next day. I don't think they were bleeding at the time of the incident, but they were obviously very irritated.
Please advise if you think this encounter contains any possibility of HIV infection. I have been completely faithful to one person since my last conclusive test. Do you think that this encounter warrants further testing?
Many thanks to you all.
Best,
Ryan
-
No risk.
-
Ryan,
I agree 100% with Roddles here. There is no risk in anything you describe. HIV is not transmitted via cunnilingus and/or french kissing. Why you mention this woman being a stripper is also a mystery to me. It's irrelevant.
You've been around here for more than a year and you should know this stuff by now. I think it's time you took a look at the posting guidelines in our Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) particularly this one:
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.
MtD
-
Thanks for the info.