Asbestos and HIV !!!
Jun 3, 2006
Thank you for this wonderful site!! I hope my posting title caught your attention. I'll explain it shortly!
I just tested negative at 13 weeks with an Oraquick (not the saliva, but the finger prick blood version) after a relatively low risk exposure. I guess I should woo-hoo, but I'm wondering if this Oraquick test was just as reliable as a regular Elisa test?
Let me digress very quickly. About 4 years ago, I moved into my apartment complex, which was built back during the 1940s. I was nervous about asbestos because I have a young daughter. I was told by management that there was no asbestos. A few months after moving in, I noticed one of our doors was flaking off this tan granular substance, which looked suspicious (I had seen asbestos before). I took a small teaspoon size sample in a plastic bag and had it analyzed at a lab. The lab said the sample was a bit too small to be accurate but tested it anyways. It came back negative for asbestos so I was relieved. However, a few weeks later, the door kept flaking and I tried to just forget about it, but I ended up deciding to take a bigger sample just in case, about 3 tablespoon's worth, and had it re-checked at the lab. To my utter horror, the sample came back positive for asbestos fibers, which they said they couldn't detect in the first sample because it had been too small. Our apartment management ultimately replaced the door, etc.
Okay, here's my question. Can HIV testing be similar to asbestos testing in terms of the volume of the testing sample? For example, since the Oraquick finger prick test only takes a couple small drops of blood, as opposed to a standard Elisa, which takes a whole vial of blood, is there a chance that the Oraquick wouldn't be able to detect antibodies because the blood sample was too small, and a regular Elisa would detect it because it's using a bigger blood sample?
Sorry, but I couldn't seem to find any similar questions posted. I'm just wondering if I need to confirm my Oraquick results by having a regular Elisa done also, or is the 13 week Oraquick finger prick test truly accurate and conclusive enough? Thank you so much for answering this for me!!
Response from Dr. Frascino
Yes, a negative OraQuick test at 13 weeks is indeed as reliable as a negative ELISA. No, HIV testing is nothing like asbestos testing. No further HIV testing is warranted. The only thing you need to do now is WOO-HOO!
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
- White Bumps Could I Have Acute HIV Infection
- Chills After Insertive Anal Sex With Condom Does It Mean I Have HIV
- Ear Infection After Oral Sex With No Protection Does It Mean I Have HIV
- Itchy Rash After Touching Urine Sign Of HIV AIDS
- Red Eyes After French Kissing Worried I Have HIV
- Swollen Lymph Glands After Insertive Anal Sex Without Condom Does It Mean I Have HIV
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.