Aa
HIV Study - Delayed Seroconversion
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
22 years to be exact. But its scary to think that only 20 years ago people were seroconverting 42+ months. That's 3 years! The study examined 24 homosexual men and found that the maximum seroconversion was 42 months and the minimum seroconversion was 6 months. This study has really made me uneasy. How could we say 3 months as conclusive if only 20 years ago people were seroconverting between 6-42 months.
i really don't know.
but if there isn't any real truth to it, then how come everyone is preaching that???
the other thing is we come from various parts of the world - how sure are we all tests are the latest generation?
i asked the lab when i went for a test about the generation - and she just said "not sure, but normally 6 months is OK, but if you still have problems, then test again at 9 months".
i was like - does it matter? is it 6 or 9 or even 3 or 1 year, or ?????
i have conflicting opinions from 3 medical practitioners - 1 said 6 months, 2nd one said 9 months, 3rd said could go to 1 year.
tiring isn't it???
don't be mistaken - i hope this 3 months opinion is really correct, I REALLY DO, but there are crazy amount of uncertainties in so many areas...
but if there isn't any real truth to it, then how come everyone is preaching that???
the other thing is we come from various parts of the world - how sure are we all tests are the latest generation?
i asked the lab when i went for a test about the generation - and she just said "not sure, but normally 6 months is OK, but if you still have problems, then test again at 9 months".
i was like - does it matter? is it 6 or 9 or even 3 or 1 year, or ?????
i have conflicting opinions from 3 medical practitioners - 1 said 6 months, 2nd one said 9 months, 3rd said could go to 1 year.
tiring isn't it???
don't be mistaken - i hope this 3 months opinion is really correct, I REALLY DO, but there are crazy amount of uncertainties in so many areas...
Wow, you received three diffrent window periods? 6, 9, and 12months?! Which one is it?! That is absolutley crazy. The Medical community really have to get together on this 'window period' and make a desicion! And now I find older studies of people taking years to seroconvert but some doctors now will give you a 'OK' after 3 months.
So now we have 3,4,6,9, and 12 months. This is insane. Anyway, even if it's 3 months, how have we went from a seroconversion of 3 years (42 months) to 3 months? I really can't see Tests improving that much over 20 years.
The weirdest was that when I did get tested at 3 month she was I was fine then she said if you get a boyfriend and want to have sexual relations have him get tested at 3 months then 6 months
A very nice lady doctor attended to me most recently. When I obtained my negative 8.5 months elisa, I asked her is it conclusive?
She said "Are you asking you are the 0.5% to 1% of late seroconverter? Well, nothing is 100% in medical science. All I can say you tested up to 8.5 months. If you ask me a frank opinion whether you need to go for another test, the answer is no."
She said "Are you asking you are the 0.5% to 1% of late seroconverter? Well, nothing is 100% in medical science. All I can say you tested up to 8.5 months. If you ask me a frank opinion whether you need to go for another test, the answer is no."
The only relevant studies are those done on the latest generation of tests. Experts now never see seroconversion after three months and rarely see it after 6-8 weeks.
HIV detection (and indeed treatment) is unrecognisable from what it was 20 years ago, in pretty much every country.
HIV detection (and indeed treatment) is unrecognisable from what it was 20 years ago, in pretty much every country.
I took my first test 10 days and the second I think I took my test around 10 weeks and 3 days thou but the lady wont let me come back to get another test because she thinks im crazy and the Hospital wont test me ethire because they dont think I had a risk soooooo??
I have 3
1.. A staple in my chair I was looking for my xbox cord and got poked on the finger.
2. I cut my foot on glass the cut was on the side of my toe going down and my cousin who self harms cuts himself and never cleans up his blood so maybe I walked in it (this is the one im mostly worried about)
3.snice I didnt use a band-aid on my finger from the staple maybe I got it at the store cause im always there touching things.
1.. A staple in my chair I was looking for my xbox cord and got poked on the finger.
2. I cut my foot on glass the cut was on the side of my toe going down and my cousin who self harms cuts himself and never cleans up his blood so maybe I walked in it (this is the one im mostly worried about)
3.snice I didnt use a band-aid on my finger from the staple maybe I got it at the store cause im always there touching things.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
3 months is CONCLUSIVE.
crazybear...dont hijack someone's thread with your NON EXISTANT risks. time to move along.
crazybear...dont hijack someone's thread with your NON EXISTANT risks. time to move along.
LIZZIE LOU, what's your opinion on the study I cited above? With persons seroconverting 3 years to 6 months.
Lizzie, don't you see anything concerning about this study? I mean only 20 years ago doctors were not able disgnose HIV until after 6-42 months after infection! 20 years later we're comfortable with 3 months?
good lord...do you know how ridiculous that sounds? 20 YEARS is a helluva long time ! ! !
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
