Jun 18, 2008
I was diagGUESSED w/ AIDS Dec 8, 2006. I tested HIV negative Jan 28, 2008. I thus switched Dr.s.
My first appt w/ my new Dr (after having my records transferred)... those records read as though I had both a positive and a negative test. Were I to have actually had a positive test, #1) I would be informed of this test #2) it would need be confirmed and most likely backed by load and resistance tests also. #3) the negative test > 1 year later makes those points moot, correct?
This new dr. took a truckload of blood (I'm actually wondering if he feeds his coven in the backroom) and had me sign testing wavers for all sorts of tests, including HIV. Then tells me results won't be in until September. "Rapid tests? I don't subscribe to that nonsense" (notice the quotes).
I figured I'd found another gold miner MD, but (This is the part that scared me) "no charge."
Questions: A) a negative oraquick at 13 months from that diaGUESS outways ANYTHING? I'm very unlikely to be shocked come Sept? ("see the archives")
B) I would have been informed of, seen the results of, and been followed up on for an actual positive test?
C) the second Dr.s opinion of inexpensive testing doesn't make it any less valid (so far outside the window that Hubble can't see the period)? ("see the archives")
D) the odds of acquiring in an ER, when combined with the odds of > 8 months to seroconvert are looking pretty anorexic?
E) homosexual serodiscordant marriage is legal in CA? HETERO seroconcordant pos marriage is illegal in FL. GAY? Serodiscordant? Newlywed? That would be sacriledge here, Go Arnold! What's the bill for that bill of rights? ("see the constitution") F)(the signature derogatory remark) the odds of acquiring most all stds through insertive oral sex are low enough that I can fairly safely get those two Drs in a room and holler, "Blow me!"? ("see the archives", research the unabridged dictionary for alternatives)
| Response from Dr. Frascino
I'm not at all sure I follow your rather obtuse post, but I'll try to make at least a few comments.
1. I have no way of knowing what went on with your first doctor and his "diagGUESS;" however, if you tested negative a year later, there is no doubt HIV is not your problem. No way. No how. Consequently yes, the other points would be rendered moot.
2. Truckloads of blood with results not back until September throws up all sorts of red flags. I'd get out of there quick and not look back! His opinion on rapid tests ("I don't subscribe to that nonsense") corroborates my impression that this guy is way wacko. If you've escaped with "no charge" so far, count your lucky stars and don't bother going back to Dr. Quackpot.
Regarding your specific questions:
1. The negative test at 13 months is definitive and conclusive. I wouldn't go back for the September results. (There is no legitimate HIV-related test that takes that long.)
2. Hopefully yes.
3. The second doctor's opinion should be considered suspect, based on his comments and behavior to date. My advice: Avoid him like the plague.
4. I have no idea what you're talking about here. ER?
5. Obviously Florida hasn't gotten anything right since it screwed up the 2000 election. ("See Bush's legacy as the worst president of the United States!")
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
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.