That's all for this thread. Take any furhter discussion over to the community forum.
oh haha was that the case? sheesh that thing scared the **** out of me... i feel kinda dumb now, though apparently fever+rash is still rather common amongst ppl who get ARS... but thanks for the clarification
You got that from the hopkins website. THe doctor was making fun of the person. He was being sarcastic.
Dr. Hook and I won't get into second hand debates with other online sources. But either that person was mistaken or you misunderstood the context. No other illnesses aside from ARS that present with fever plus rash???? Ridiculous! There are many such conditions.
For sure no more comments.
well my question is (relating to the original question), i found a website that said the combination of rash and fever almost certainly points to HIV, the doctor on the site said that this combination was never known to occur until ARS was discovered. are they correct?
It was a thread jump. I didn't initially notice that the follow-up comment, which asked a new question (without commenting on the original question) had a different username. Feel free to start a new thread.
was my comment erased because of irrational fears?
I think the doctors have already said you cant rely on symptoms. Many people experience no symptoms and others experience symptoms identical to ARS but it is just some other virus. If you put yourself at risk unprotected vaginal or anal sex or you injected drugs then the only way to know is a test. If you did not do any of the above and you have ARS symptoms dont worry about it you probably just have the flu or some other virus.
Indeed there is a lot of conflicting information about ARS and early HIV infection. However, much of the problem stems from nonprofessional sources of information. Limititing your sources to public health departments, academic medical centers, and similar organizations might be helpful.
As to your 6 statements about ARS, I would modify no. 1 to say that fever is usually present ("almost invariably" is a bit too strong); and often there is no rash. The other statements are generally true.
To your questions:
1) It is splitting hairs to try to distinguish between 2-4 versus 2-6 weeks. My understanding is that an incubation period longer than 6 weeks would be unusual, but I cannot say it would never happen.
2) I don't remember saying only 1-2 weeks. "A few weeks" probably is as precise as the data allow. There probably is a lot of variability from one person to another.
As to your own symptoms, I have no comment. As someone who has read the forum a lot, you undoubtedly know that symptoms never help determine whether a particular person has a new HIV infection. The combination of test results and the risk level of recent exposures tell the story; symptoms never do. In other words, get tested 6 or more weeks after your last potential exposure; and if the result is negative, believe it, regardless of any symptoms you may be having.
Regards-- HHH, MD