|
|
Blood test
#162540 - 10/23/05 07:13 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
If someone has a blood test (not an HIV test) 35 days after exposure, and the blood test doesn't show any abnormality, Is this an indication that an recent exposure has not happened, or should I be having an HIV test anyway?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
That is a tricky question to answer. A direct HIV antibody test has a chance of coming back negative at 35 days, so is there a possibility that standard blood work would not flag anything yes. On the other hand however, if you were seroconverting at the time something like a CBC may pick up on odd levels of things like WBC count or Lymphocytes. The bottom line is that you can spin the answer 100 different ways and come out with no conclusive answer. The only way to test for HIV is just that, test for HIV. Do not trust that it would have been caught by standard blood work, but at the same time do not rack your brain about infection without any conclusive results.
Best of luck and wishes to you,
Post Extras:
|
|
SteveR
|
|
Legend
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/19/05
|
|
Posts: 576
|
|
|
|
|
You need an HIV test, specifically. A CBC and standard blood work won't show HIV infection.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
If you had unprotected sex w/someone be tested at 3 months. If you have no symptoms let it go there. If you have had any symptoms test again at 6 months. If you really want to be sure.
Post Extras:
|
|
2 registered and 49 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess, kicker
|
Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1660
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3
| |
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
