Exposure, Negative at 3 Months, Faint line at 4 months

[Dx300]

I would greatly appreciate the moderators opinion on my situation. I engaged in unprotected vaginal and anal intercourse on 7/6/13. About two weeks later I developed non bacterial prostatis that showed no bacterial infection that cleared a month later. 7 weeks later I came down with a short 3 days cold followed by a constant dull ache in my buttock muscles for around another 2 months. Around the 7th week post exposure I came to learn that the woman I engaged in sex with was HIV positive. She claimed she has been on antivirals for around 9 months and was undetectable but seeing as she didnt tell me initially I question the validity in this. At 7, 8 and 11 weeks I tested negative on Unigold Rapid tests and tested negative at 11 and 13 weeks on a HIV1/2 elisa that was run in a laboratory. I decided to confirm this result with and oraquick oral swab at 16 weeks and it can me back with a very faint partial line. Alarmed I took another Unigold Rapid test with blood that came back negative the same day. I have had blood sent away for a confirmation test but again had another faint line on another oraquick oral test the next day. Both of the oral tests were home tests. Besides the cold I have also had a flare in seborrheic dermatitis that started around week 8 that I have to my knowledge never had before. Obviously I have been extremely stressed over this whole situation and am hoping that this stress is what is flaring these issues. My question is how much stock should I put into these two faintly positive oraquick oral tests considering I have had a "conclusive" negative Elisa at 90 days along with negative blood tests at 7,8, and 11 weeks. I might also add that I have taken several other oral oraquick test that have come back negative between 13 and 16 weeks. And thoughts on whether or not I am infected would b greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[Jeff G]

You are conclusively HIV negative and you do not need to test anymore . You do not have HIV .

[Dx300]

Jeff,

First let me say thank you for all the hard work and selfless devotion you and the other moderators on this site devote to idiots such as myself.

It just seems the likelihood of having two false positives is very slim given my confirmed exposure. Unless the oraquick test just doesn't like my chemistry Im finding it hard to hold out hope.

[Jeff G]

You 90 day negative Elisa is the one to rely on and it was negative . If you don't trust the test result you can go to a testing center and retest at any time if nothing more than peace of mind . I would fully expect a negative result .

[Dx300]

Thanks for your expertise Jeff. I really hope you are right. I will inform you of my results in the next few days.

[Jeff G]

You are welcome !

[Dx300]

Update:

I received my blood work back. They did a 3rd gen HIV 1/2 Elisa and it came back non reactive. They would not do a western blot stating that they needed their Elisa to come back repeatedly reactive before they would order the reflex WB.

So good new I guess right? Wrong. I wanted to ease my mind and decided to take another oral oraquick and again I get another faint grey line. I just can't understand how an oraquick can pick it up but a lab based Elisa can't.

So today I decided to order another Elisa with a different lab and a HIV PCR test. It has been over 4 months since exposure and the discordant results between my lab based Elisa's and these over the counter oraquicks s driving me insane.

Does anybody have any comments or advice on this situation? Is my PCR going to come back positive on Friday?

[jkinatl2]

Oraquicks are, like any test, imperfect.  They are geared towards sensitivity as opposed to specificity. Meaning they are more likely to give a false positive (which, again, is what that faint line represents) than a false negative. Better for containing a pandemic to do it that way, would you not agree?

And sadly, some people (there have been maybe a few dozen in the ten years or so I have been answering questions on this forum have a quirk in their body chemistry that Will often if not always register a faint line. For those people, more comprehensive blood-basd test is required for peace of mind - but most professional people familiar with the test will at least consider the notion of a false negative rather than catching someone in the very act of seroconverting.

Were you actually seroconverting when that first faint line appeared, it would have absolutely have been definitive by now. And, of course, your other tests have ruled out HIV infection.

This was always one of my biggest issues with the over the counter Oraquick testing. But it was decided that the needs of the many outweigh the genetic outliers of the few. And you appear to be one of those few.

Proceed however you feel you need in order to get your peace of mind. But I have every confidence in your negative status. I hope someday soon you are able to say the same.

[Dx300]

Thanks for your advice and dedication jkinatl2. I really appreciate it.

In your opinion which test is more accurate and more likely to not miss an infection where one is present, the lab based EIA or the oral oraquick?

[jkinatl2]

Thanks for your advice and dedication jkinatl2. I really appreciate it.

In your opinion which test is more accurate and more likely to not miss an infection where one is present, the lab based EIA or the oral oraquick?

I would give more weight to a lab based test for weeding out false positives, but the oral Oraquick remains one of the finest and most accurate tests used today to detect those who are actually positive.

 Assuming of course, that it is taken correctly and at the right testing window.

One of my bigest beefs with the OTC Oraquick is that it is actually being used by individuals (and groups) as a flash-test directly before engaging in unprotected anal or vaginal sex. Of course, this completely negates the value of the test since a newly infected individual might have a soaring viral load yet not test positive on the antibody test.

Evidence is pointing to that group of people leading transmission rates within the gay community. We are designing better mouse traps, but educating the mice remains a dilemna.

[Dx300]

Would you recommend demanding a western blot from a doctor or are my subsequent non reactive EIAs good enough in regards to my situation. (4 months post confirmed exposure)

[jkinatl2]

Would you recommend demanding a western blot from a doctor or are my subsequent non reactive EIAs good enough in regards to my situation. (4 months post confirmed exposure)

If you genuinely don't think you can move on with the tests you have, then by all means. I don't think it necessary, but this really isn't about what is necessary - it is about what will help you move past this.

One piece of advice however. For whatever reasons, you are not the best candidate for the over the counter Oraquick testing.

[Ann]

DX,

You don't have hiv. It's time you moved on with your life.

Ann

[Dx300]

Are the oraquicks considered more sensitive than a lab based EIA? Is there a chance that the EIA wasn't sensitive enough to react?

[Ann]

DX,

NO.

DX,

You don't have hiv. It's time you moved on with your life.

Ann

If you read the Welcome Thread 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

[Dx300]

Ann,

I apologize for irritating the moderators with my questions. It was not my intent but given my confirmed exposure and potential false positives the questions seemed relevant. Any how, I wanted to update anyone following this thread.

I received the results from my follow-up HIV 1/O/2 antibody EIA and DNA PCR from Labcorp.

Negative

To anyone who has been in my position, the moderators in this forum seem to have a crystal ball like none I've seen and have really been the glue holding me together. Despite my confirmed exposure, all the symptoms, and my fun little experience with Oraquicks they were always right in the end. Thank you for all you do and I wish you all the very best. Thank you!

[RapidRod]

You took an unapproved PCR-DNA test? You got took.

[jkinatl2]

I have no more rabbits in my hat for you.

You are reliably HIV negative. I am sorry it has been a rough ride for you.

But honestly we have exhausted our science here. By all measures we know, you do not have HIV. Please, I urge you, move on from this.

[Dx300]

Rapid Rod,

You are right, I did. I spent $100 to help regain my sanity and it was worth every penny. I also took an approved Antibody test at 4 months to cover that base as well.

Jkinatl2,

I am going to move on from this, and again I can't thank you enough for your help and support. Thanks again and take care.