POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: confusednow on July 03, 2006, 09:47:08 pm
-
Today Whizzer on Aidsmeds wrote:
"As best I can tell, I seroconverted in Novermber 04. It was the flu unlike any flu I ever had before, swollen glands, fever, chills, rash, sore throat, but no upper respiratory problems, and it lasted 6 days. A routine HIV test in August 05 was poz for ELISA with an indeterminate Western Blot. The following December they did a Western Blot again and it was STILL indeterminate - only two of four bands reactive. No one has been able to explain this to me.
I guess I'm one of the 1%."
This seemingly contradicts the 13 week window period. Is Whizzer not being honest? Or is this perhaps more complicated than we may think.
BTW, I registered in the old forum and cannot recall the username I used.
What are your thoughts on this?
-
So I take it you haven't taken a test since December. Have them run the test again and go to a different clinic that uses a different lab. And no I don't think you are the 1%.
-
Rod, you didn't read what I quoted. I was not referring to myself I was referring to the post by Whizzer made in the "Living With" forum where he stated that it took him over a year, and he still does not test positive on the Western Blot, yet has HIV.
Reread his post.
-
It was a quote from the thread entitled "The Seroconversion How Long Does It Last" in the "Living With" forum. It was the post written by Whizzer. It seems to contradict the prevailing assertion that the window period is conclusively 13 weeks. I am not sure if Whizzer has a compromised immune system ie:
1) A chemotherapy patient
2) An IV drug user
3) An organ donor recipient etc.
It just seems that perhaps nothing in science is 100 percent and maybe some people take longer to register as positive who do not fall into the categories described above.
Whizzer's post adds to the confusion.
-
hey confusednow i have some questions for you. if you dont mind answering them. ok you said you seroconverted in august 04 and had a test in november 05 . Ok could you tell us please when was or at least an approximate of when was your exposure and if you had a test before that or maybe could you explain in more detaills if this is the day or the year im assuming is the days you had the test so could you please tell us if you were so kind to let us know when was your exposure and approximately when did you started to have sympstoms believe me you are going to help a lot of people right here going through the window period also if you odnt mind could you describe your exposure please .
thank you so much if you answer some of our doubts you dont know how greatful we will be if you answer these questions.
-
oh disregard that last transmission im sorry i was confused no need to answer thanks a lot anyways
-
Then he should have had his tests redone.
-
trolling the LIVING WITH forum is never recommended. The people who post there are NOT doing so in order to pacify or inflame the worried well. They are writing their experiences, and Whizzer was NOT diagnosed with having ARS by a doctor in November of 04. He assumes that this was it, even though he tested negative until far later.
More to the point, the CDC and NIH and WHO have concluded that 13 weeks is a reliable window.
I am not going to second guess or debate the experiences of anyone seeking this support forum. Certainly not here, in the adjunct to that forum.
Like Rod said, if you have not tested since December, why not get a test? I recommend a full STD panel twice a year for anyone who is sexually active.
Regardless, I shall not be discussing any individual member on the forum as though s/he were a lab rat. It's beyond offensive to do such trolling, and it serves no scientific purpose.
-
I think it is a fair question.
Why is merely questioning the prevailing dogma considered trolling.
Calling someone who questions something a troll is really offensive as well. It also indicates an inability to address a simple question by resorting to a thinly veiled personal attack.
I will take this as an inability to properly address the question posted.
-
Please also note that I respected the forum rules and did not post in the "Living With" forum. I was not aware that merely reading the content of the "Living With" forum constituted "trolling".
It would be refreshing if someone would just admit that he or she does not have all the answers rather than personally attacking anyone who dare question his or her self-declared authority.
-
I think it is a fair question.
Why is merely questioning the prevailing dogma considered trolling.
Calling someone who questions something a troll is really offensive as well. It also indicates an inability to address a simple question by resorting to a thinly veiled personal attack.
I will take this as an inability to properly address the question posted.
Please also note that I respected the forum rules and did not post in the "Living With" forum. I was not aware that merely reading the content of the "Living With" forum constituted "trolling".
It would be refreshing if someone would just admit that he or she does not have all the answers rather than personally attacking anyone who dare question his or her self-declared authority.
>:(
Confused,
Symptom shopping and trawling the Living With forum for "examples" which you think will back up your unfounded fears of HIV infection is considered to be one of the most offensive things a person can do here in the AIDSMEDS forums.
How dare you come into the Living With forum and quote OUT OF CONTEXT the experiences of HIV positive people in Am I Infected to feed your Worried Well jollies. Not only is it exploitative of and disrespectful to HIV positive people it promotes FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) amongst the other WW's.
You need to remember that the VAST majority of experts who answer (free of bloody charge too) the questions posted in this place by people like you are HIV positive and are deserving of your respect. We're not lab rats to be used and abused by ingrates such as yourself.
Jonathan is exactly right. What you're doing is trollish and you have an unmitigated frigging cheek in speaking to him like that. To suggest that this is some sort of topic for discussion is simply beyond the pale.
You should (but I know you won't) be ashamed.
MtD
/edited to include confused's subsequent outrageous comment/
-
So noone can answer the first question?
The reason the question is relevant is because it contradicts the prevalent notion that the window period is always
thirteen weeks. It merely demonstrates that sometimes one does not know all the answers.
All that happened here was a lot of over-reaction, over-emotional behavior, and avoiding the question.
Wow, kind of reminds me of a White House Press Conference.
-
Sure, you want me to grill the poster about the circumstances of his infection and seroconversion? You want to treat people with HIV like lab rats for your amusement? I am certianly NOT avoiding the answer to your insensitive question. I am stating outright that I have no intent to ask Whizzer to qualify or quantify his post in a support group for the infected. That's not avoiding the question, that's giving you your answer.
We did NOT choose the 13 week window period. The NIH, the WHO, and the CDC have all done so. In some places, the window period has been further reduced to six weeks. We are being rather conservative, taking into account older and less sensitive tests being used in some places around the world, in our rather carefully-researched and well written lessons.
You really don't see how insensitive it is to bring one individual's post in a support forum over to this side, do you? I can see that this bit of etiquette escapes you.
I withdraw from further communication here. But first, the science:
Busch MP, Kleinman SH and Nemo GJ. Current and Emerging Infectious Risks of Blood Transfusions. Journal American Medical Association, Feb 26, 2003; 289(-8-): 959.
Lindback S, Thorstensson R Karlsson AC et al. Diagnosis of Primary HIV-1 Infection and Duration of Follow-up after HIV Exposure. AIDS, 2000; 14(15): 2333-2339.
<< An individual who tests negative three months after an exposure does not require further testing unless he/she may have repeated exposures or if their antibody test results are incompatible with their clinical history.
>>
Source:
http://www.hivguidelines.org/public_html/center/clinical-education/q-and-a/update.htm
-
I too will have no further truck with the odious originator of this thread. I have reported the matter to the Moderators. To continue with the person distracts us from helping people with genuine HIV fears. May he be declared anathema.
MtD
-
Confusednow....
I just want you to understand something. The two people who've responded to you are experts in addition to their other attributes and gifted writing abilities. Serious experts. You know not of what you speak. Believe me, if you cannot believe anyone else, the answers are there, that isn't the issue at hand here.
You've taken a piece out of some posts in Living with...without a proper understanding of the overall picture. The bigger issue is that you can really upset some people here by cobbling together opinions from Living and basic discussions VS peer reviewed scientific evidence. A slippery slope.
Seroconversion is confusing, notoriously variable BUT happens within 13 weeks. Many people don't know when they seroconverted and its EASILY confused with allergies, the flu and what have you. That is PRECISELY why the test is the only conclusive evidence NOT symptoms, never symptoms. That's why there is an ELISA and Western Blot and retests.
What isn't confusing? 13 week window period. PERIOD.
Try to focus on that. 13 weeks is CONCLUSIVE. That's it, that's all.
Sae.
-
I am certainly not asking anyone to grill anyone. It just seems that there are times when we do not have the answer. This seems to be an example of one of those times.
A simple "I don't know" is fine when one does not know. Responding emotionally and attacking the person who raises the difficult question does not seem like the proper way to address difficult issues.
I find it interesting that merely asking an unpopular question creates such an extreme response. This seems histrionic and unprofessional.
I did nothing in the way of breaking any rules, nor did I respond rudely to anyone. I merely asked a simple question based on what I read in an unrestricted forum.
Censorship of questions really seems strange when I merely asked a reasonable and relevant question.
All the reactive responses have done nothing to clarify a confusing situation, only adding apprhension to the already existing confusion.
Please try to be patient with those of us who are confused by this epidemic and all the contradictory information out there.
It can be reasonable assumed that people will read all of the sections available to read. It can be reasonably assumed that some posts may raise questions for some readers. As long as the reader asks a question about what was read in the proper forum, and in a manner that is not insulting or threatening, I see no reason such a question should garner such a harsh response.
-
Sae,
Thank you. That makes sense. I immediately hit the proverbial panic button when I read the post by Whizzer. You are right, I should really pay attention to the science, and not panic everytime someone posts something that seeminly contradicts the prevailling experts.
WW's tend to read this entire website. From time to time something might panic one of us. Please keep that in mind.
-
Confused,
Glad to see you've calmed a little bit. Seriously, they are experts of which you just can't imagine dear.
Yes people read the whole site and can freak themselves out without a doubt. Its sometimes difficult while in a waiting period to stay calm, stick to the relevent information and realize that this site isn't actually solely for Am I Infected forum members. The internet provides plenty of fuel to scare oneself silly anyway. Its AIDMEDS that provides the one place that I am aware of that is correct, current, monitored and well....safe and scientifically accurate.
Its a place where HIV positive people come for scientific information, med info, and an understanding of what HIV experiences are shared. It was created with that in mind...as Peter Stanley has written why he started AIDMEDS. Even the name actually explains that if you think about it. It HAS to be a place where anyone can come and write their experiences without fear of setting off a fears epidemic in this forum. That's the point you see...read where you like but be sure to stay clear of opinion and shared experience vs fact.
I understand how you feel. I really do, maybe because I was there once. I was a lucky one with a serious exposure and a lucky negative test result. So much of the Fear of HIV is wrapped up in the stigma of HIV itself. I hate the stigma more than I hate the virus, which says something..yes? Just don't bite and question the experts, because its not the Whitehouse, its people who respect one another, and if we are protective or overprotective of one another, well, perhaps you can view that as people who care not only about strangers, but each other.
Sae.
-
Thanks Sae,
Your words helped.
-
Confused,
You were a little quick to believe Jonathan was calling you a troll when he misspelled "trawling" as "trolling". Was that because you had a guilty conscience?
The AIDSmeds Forums exist primarily to give support and information to people who are living with hiv/aids. This particular forum for people who are worried about infection was added as an afterthought and to keep all the hysteria - and stigma - out of the rest of the forum.
It is the worst kind of netiquette to trawl for people's posts in the rest of these support forums and bring them here to question that person's honesty. I'm not going to go on about this because Jonathan, Matty and SAE have already said it all.
What I will do, however, is lock this thread. It serves no useful purpose.
Confused, if you have a question about YOUR OWN SPECIFIC SITUATION, then please feel free to start another thread. I'll warn you now though, if you bring more posts over here from the support side of these forums, I'll lock that thread too.
We are here to give people risk assessments and advice concerning hiv testing, relevant to each individual poster. We are NOT here to pick apart the lives of people living with hiv/aids. Please keep that in mind when you post in this forum.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ann
And by the way... you will notice that he tested POSITIVE on the ELISA, but indeterminate on the WB. Indeterminate is NOT negative!