Thank you Dr. I have had only one possible exposure I haven't tested for yet--the hand stimulation. The other exposures were 5 months ago and more and I tested negative at 5 months. I just wanted to know the reliability and you answered it. I guess it's safe to say that 5 months is definitive for sure. Thanks. KEB
With modern HIV tests routinely used in the US and most other industrialized countries, most (80% or more) of infected people get positive tests within 3-4 weeks, and it approaches 99% by 6 weeks. The official advice of most experts, including the manufacturers of the tests, is that you can definitively rely on results at 3 months.
You say you know about the low risk of the exposures you describe. But I'm still going to elaborate, in case you haven't seen the statistical analyses I have offered in other threads. I would judge the chance you got infected from those exposures, even if your escorts were HIV positive, at 1 chance in 10,000. Now let's assume there is a 5% chance that both WERE infected (which is far too high, but good enough for this exercise). 0.00001 x 0.05 = 0.0000005, or 5 chances in a million, or 1 in 200,000. Now assume you have a 1-month test, which is "only" 80% reliable. If that's negative, your odds of actually have HIV are 1 in a million. Now go to a 3 month test, and let's say it is "only" 99% reliable. Your chance of having HIV, if your 3-month test were negative, would be 1/200,000 (0.000005) x 0.01 = 0.00000005, or one in 20 million.
The risk of viral hepatitis might be a little higher than HIV, but only a little; and testing within 3 months is just as reliable as for HIV.
Bottom line: Because it is the official recommendation, be tested one more time 3 months after the second escort exposure. But in the meantime, don't lose sleep over the risk. Your odds of having HIV from the exposures you describe are in the lottery-winning, lightning-strike range.
Good luck-- HHH, MD