Advertisement
The Body: The Complete HIV/AIDS Resource
Follow Us Follow Us on Facebook Follow Us on Twitter Download Our App
Professionals >> Visit The Body PROThe Body en Espanol

HIV Transmission and Education >> Am I Infected?

Pages: 1
Anonymous
Unregistered

jake here is an example..
      #122222 - 12/09/04 12:56 PM

Just found out HIV+ spouse

Posted: Mar 7, 2004






Dr. Bob, My husband and I just found out that he is HIV+ about a month ago and so far we are doing well with the news. I was tested a month ago and my test was non responsive with a rapid test. They recommended that I be retested to be sure, since we had unprotected sex just a couple of days prior to us finding out his results. We have been married 7 years and together 8 years, our lasts tests we in Aug of 96 and were negative then. So we think the HIV is just within the last couple of years. I have heard conflicting times on when to have a second test and want to be sure about when is the best time. I am not really too worried, but just want to be sure. We also wanted to say that we love reading your insight and your column and it has really helped us put a perspective on what has happened with us recently. I am happy to say that my husband and I are beating this together and we are making sure he is going to do what he can to stay healthy. His initial tests were good CD4 were good,around 580 and viral were around 4700. I know some people can't handle this but, believe me it is handleable. I applaude you for what you are doing here, it is a wonderful and generous thing for people who need to know some answers.

Thanks again, Jacque








Hi Jacque,

I'm very sorry to hear about your husband's recent positive HIV test. I'm very pleased you have decided to battle this challenge together! Your negative rapid test is very encouraging. The CDC recommendations for unprotected receptive vaginal or anal sex with a partner known to be HIV-positive would include testing at three months and again at six months. Should you develop symptoms consistent with ARS in the interim, additional testing, including viral load testing, should be considered. Your husband's HIV specialist should be a good resource, if any questions or concerns arise during this period.

As for this being "handleable," yes, I couldn't agree more! Steve (Dr. Steve on The Body's Tratamientos Forum), and I have been together for over a decade as a magnetic couple (one poz, one neg). Ours is a relationship of strength, love, fulfillment, and intimacy. Neither HIV nor a hate-filled constitutional amendment can change that.

Good luck, Jacque. Let me know if you have additional questions. Steve and I are more than willing to share our insights and experiences, and offer whatever advice and assistance we can. We both send you both our warmest wishes as you begin this unscheduled detour on life's never predictable path.

Stay well. Stay happy.

Dr. Bob



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: jake here is an example.. new
      #123037 - 12/09/04 10:15 PM

Dr. bob says the "CDC recomends". The CDC is the most conservative body in the world. If there was a person who tested positive and had an ingrown toe nail as a symptom at that time, the CDC will tell you that an ingrown toe is an ARS symptom in less than 1% of people who are infected. I'll tell you one thing. Every doctor on the website have to write conservatively since everything here is in black and white. If lawsuits pops up, there ass is on the line and their advice given on the web will be taken to court. So if you were them, wouldn't you give the conservative view to a stranger on the web. If anything contradictory happens, Dr. Bob can say that all he did was quote from the CDC. The CDC has no one to back them up so they HAVE to be the most conservative. I'm in the window period right now and am worried too, but I've just been so pissed off at all the bull shit that is on the web. The information is so broad and conservative that they do not teach people at all. They just want to scare the population and are not concerned with giving the hard updated facts.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: jake here is an example.. new
      #123131 - 12/10/04 12:36 AM

Dr Bob also say about 12 weeks from his personal experience..


Doctor you answer every question under the sun about what diseases and conditions do not affect the elisa or the bodies ability to create antibodies to HIV... So please tell me what exactly does have an adverse affect on ones ability to create HIV antibodies in the suggested 12 weeks?

P.S. Do you make house calls


answer:

Hi,

Do I make house calls? Sure, exactly what would you like me to call your little love shack?

All of the information about false-positive and false-negative tests is already covered in the archives. Have a look!

Specifically to address your "after 12 weeks" question, nearly 100% of folks who don't have anti-HIV antibodies at 12 weeks are HIV negative. That's by far the most common reason for a negative result. Regarding false-negative results, the usual cause is testing during the time between transmission and seroconversion. Extremely rarely, a false-negative result can be the result of agammaglobulinemia or an infection with a strain that is antigenically distinctive.

Hope that helps, Love-Shack-Guy.

Stay well.

Dr. Bob


http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/Testing/Q158818.html

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jake_the_shake
All Star

Reged: 12/07/04
Posts: 98
Re: jake here is an example.. new
      #123328 - 12/10/04 12:17 PM

he says "The CDC recommendations for unprotected receptive vaginal or anal sex with a partner known to be HIV-positive would include testing at three months and again at six months."

Not Dr. Bob. The CDC.

He's a very helpful guy, but he's not going to risk the massive liability of telling someone who he's never met that they're fine when they might not be. What if this woman tests negative then goes on a smack binge, and then tests poz and decides to sue the website? Unlikley? Very, but what does Dr. Bob stand to lose in quoting the party line from the CDC?

put it another way, you walk outside and the sky is clear as a bell, not a cloud in it. Someone asks you, will it rain in the next 10 mintes?

"Not bloody likley," you say

"ok,." they reply, "will you stake your reputation, career and livlihood on that claim that it won't rain tin the next 10 minutes?"

I don't know about you, but I would say, "well, highly unlikley, approaching impossible, but sure, to cover my ass, it might rain."

my 2 cents.

test out to 12 weeks and be done with it.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: jake here is an example.. new
      #123335 - 12/10/04 02:29 PM

If you have read more of Dr. Bob's posts, he only recommends the 6 month window period for people who had a sexual exposure to a person CONFIRMED hiv +. In other cases he recommends 3 months as conclusive.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: jake new
      #123337 - 12/10/04 02:35 PM

Yeah...the cdc is really conservative...other countries like france,uk,australia,canada never stated that a person should test out to 6 months for exposure with a positive person..They just stated that 12 weeks is conclusive...A test at 12 weeks is definitive for someone who do not know whether his exposure is with a confirm positive person is conclusive just doesn't makes sense at all..if a person knows that his exposure is with a negative person, why should he be testing at all?

The virus is smart but not to the limit of able to tell: oh this guy have a confirmed exposure,so I will start to show up after 3 months..and this guy do not know whether he has been exposed or not,so I should show up by 12 weeks...

and also the virus do not know where u are staying...if a person stays in boston, then it will show up at 6 weeks...if the person is staying in NYC, then it will show up at 12 weeks..or perhaps if a person stays in atlanta (where cdc is situated), then it will show up at 6 months...bottom line is...if u have it means u have it..it will show up by 12 weeks..



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1


What's New at TheBody.com

Additional Information
1 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess 

Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Thread views: 1318

 
Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3