HIV Study - Delayed Seroconversion

[Niceguy82]

Can anyone make sense of this study? Why did the patients in the study seroconvert so late? According to the study the maximum a patient seroconverted was 42+months (3.5 years)! Please leave your comments stating what your interpertation of this study is. Copy and paste this link in your broswer to see the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2512827&dopt=Abstract

[LIZZIE LOU]

just gave you my opinion...3 months is conclusive

[Niceguy82]

LIZZIE LOU, what's your opinion on the study I cited above? With persons seroconverting 3 years to 6 months.

[LIZZIE LOU]

3 months is CONCLUSIVE.

crazybear...dont hijack someone's thread with your NON EXISTANT risks.  time to move along.

[interestedparty71]

1.no
2.Yes, probably in about 99.9% of cases those symptoms wont indicate HIV.
3. No, I would say you have no need to test. HIV testing should only be undertaken in the event of an exposure which could have lead to transmission. Your 'exposures' do not fall into that category.

[mandi2013]

Can you please answer a few more questions

1. Does it matter the amout of blood because he cuts pretty deep and alot its on the floor
2. Can you have a sore throat for a month,swollen glands and pain and groin and not have HIV?
3. If I didnt have any exposures but had symptoms of acute HIV and the perfect time-line would you say get tested?

[interestedparty71]

I am shocked you were offered any testing at all. What a waste of time and money. None of the three 'exposures' you describe put you remotely at risk of contracting HIV, because it becomes inactive upon exposure to the environment.