Blood Bank Test

[curious394]

I recently found out that my wife has been cheating on me with two different people. We live a remote (different states)marriage due to career paths. But to my point; My question is : The last time we engaged in sex ( 3 times in same day) was 45 days from when I donated blood (all my test came back negitive). I was not aware of the cheating at the time of the donation. Once I found out, I did some research and found out that the blood center uses two methods of HIV/STD testing. The first method being the NAT RNA (pooled) method followed up by an anti-body test. I found out by some research that the NAT RNA method will detect HIV at around the 12th. day of exposure ( the only difference between the "pooled" method of NAT RNA is 99.0% at day 12 and the individual NAT RNA is 99.9% at day 12; the range that the manufacture states is 10 to 15 days for these percentages) and that the newer anti-body test can detect as early as 22 days and most often no longer than 42 days from point of infection. So with this all said does any one feel that I have any concerns as far as more testing being needed or should I take the test that the blood center did as being good enough. Thanks

[Teak]

Get an antibody test 3 months post exposure.

[snippets69]

The test you mentioned that screens the blood is very sensitive and specific.  They wouldn't be using it otherwise. You don't have HIV.

[Teak]

Find out who the mfg of the Provial DNA is. Then look it up via the FDA and you'll see that it will say not to be used for diagnostics. Your best bet will be your antibody test which is a hell of a lot cheaper.

[curious394]

Thanks for your reply. I havea few pondering questions.

A) what is the real difference between a "screening test" and a "diagnostic test"?
Would not a blood bank use the best methods around; and is not the anti-body test that a blood bank perform be just as good as one I would get on my own if not better?

B) Why would a company claim that a test such as the Provial DNA was as reliable as they say if it was not (they also perform an anti-body test along with the DNA test); seems like to me that for a mere $300 the test would have to be reliable or a company would not expose itself to such a huge liability for a class action lawsuit; plus would there not be goverment agencies already shutting there doors down if the test were not perceived as being a reliable method.

C) just to be clear; when I gave blood they always perform an anti-body test on donated bood; correct?  and if so in your opinion is that anti-body test good a far as beng reliable.

D)  Just to let you know' I plan n taking an anti-body test at 3 months.

Thanks again

[Teak]

PCR tests are not approved diagnostic tests. Why not take an antibody test.

[curious394]

What about taking a HIV Provial DNA test offered by LapSafe. They claim that it is
99.9 % at 28 days from infection and follow it up with anti-body testing. Do you feel that if that test came back neg. along with the blood bank test everything would be fine. Also I need to metion that I have a friend who is a doctor and he said that at 6 weeks from infection that a standard anti-body test now days is very reliable as being conclusive. Your opinion.
Thanks again.

[Teak]

Then you also found out in your research the and RNA test is not a stand alone test and the other tests used a the blood banks are screening tests and not diagnostic tests. Take an antibody test 3 month post exposure.