I was tested recented by RNA ultraquan and the PCR DNA qualitative methods. The lab performing the tests state they are conclusive "28 Days after the last possible exposure". When I mentioned the ELISA I was told why use an 80's technology screening process when these new techniques can detect HIV so much more rapidly and as accurately.

My question is why use the ELISA at all except for a low cost screening test. If someone is really concerned and can afford the extra cost, shouldn't they take the PCR and start treatment if positive, or if negative, get on with their life?

You were seriously misinformed. The combination of the screening ELISA with confirmatory Western blot is the gold standard for the diagnosis of HIV infection. Tests like PCR are appropriate in selected circumstances when there is a high clinical suspicion of the acute retroviral syndrome. The HIV RNA assay, which is often used for this purpose, could be falsely negative in someone who was recently infected but who had recovered from the acute retroviral syndrome, and therefore it is inferior to the ELISA/Western Blot serologic tests as a diagnostic tool except for in patients with early infection.

The problem is that there are a lot of people out there, especially among readers of this Forum, who take the wrong approach to HIV testing and prevention. They have unsafe sex (or what they believe to be unsafe sex), then panic, then want to know RIGHT NOW whether they are infected.

The saner approach is to practice safe sex so that you don't need to be in a perpetual state of panic, and then have the standard ELISA done every 6 to 12 months (depending on your level of activity) just to be sure. It's much better for one's mental health than this cycle of "sex - panic - test - doubt results - panic - test - doubt results - etc., etc."

JG