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

window period
      #192871 - 05/24/06 04:32 PM

Entire Site Articles/Fact Sheets Ask the Experts Conference Coverage

Choosing Your Meds

Drug Resistance and Staying Undetectable

Fatigue and Anemia

Fusion Inhibitors

Hepatitis and HIV Coinfection

Managing Side Effects of HIV Treatment

Mental Health and HIV

Mixed-HIV-Status Couples

Strategies for Treatment-
Experienced HIVers

Tratamientos (En Español)

Understanding Your Labs

Women and HIV

Workplace and Insurance Issues

AIDS-Related Cancers
Lipodystrophy and Wasting
Nutrition and Exercise
Opportunistic Infections
Oral Health and HIV
Spiritual Support and HIV

Please Note: Due to volume considerations, not all questions can be answered. Questions most likely to be answered will be those of general interest to a broad group of visitors to this forum. Questions pertaining to a specific case; requests for diagnosis, medical advice, or second opinion; or requests for opinions about untested alternative therapies will generally not be answered.
Ask the Experts about Safe Sex and HIV Prevention

Robert James, this is your Mother talking
Jul 26, 2004

okay so I am not your mother, but I do need some advice. You have said over and over if you think you were exposed test at 3 months, but you also say if you know you were exposed test to 6 months??? What gives? Don't quote the CDC. I want you to be straight with me, (there is a joke in there) Why are you not consistent? 3 months if I think and 6 months if I know! What is your opinion? I have had the works when it comes to symptoms and was diagnosed for 1 STD, all are gone except for the PN. This after a 1 time insertive exposure with a female who I fear has HIV. I had a neg elisa at 5 months. Do I need another test or not? And why the 3 or 6 months answers? P.S. and don't be straight the world loves you the way you are!

Response from Dr. Frascino

Hello Not My Mother,

I do realize this issue is more than a bit confusing, so let me try once again to explain the rationale behind our advice. The question seems simple enough: three months or six months for a definitive result. The answer, however, is far from "straight" forward. The confusion results from variability in the immune response (time to produce anti-HIV antibodies) which is different from person to person, limitations in the test's sensitivity and specificity (ability of the test to pick up all true positives or eliminate all true negatives), and clinical judgment. In addition, there are special circumstances where our general recommendations for testing might not be applicable. For instance, when folks are simultaneous exposed to hepatitis C and HIV or when folks have previously received experimental HIV vaccines, consultation with an HIV specialist is often required to provide guidance on when to test and how to interpret the test results. Added to his are many very anxious folks who are absolutely certain they have contracted HIV, but in reality, have no identifiable risk. You know the type: "Grandma farted while trying to get out of her Barco-lounger chair. It smelled worse than usual. Now I'm convinced I've got AIDS." Of course, these folks require basic HIV prevention counseling and education, not HIV testing. But that doesn't stop them from getting tested "just to be sure," etc. So what would the answer be to these folks' "three months versus six months" question? In reality, neither, since they didn't need testing in the first place. And what about folks with some degree of potential ongoing exposure? How do we monitor their HIV status? So you can see this is not as straight forward as you might originally think.

OK, back to your questions. The best I can do is take all the information provided to me from an individual questioner, apply the information concerning the limitations of HIV testing, the results of large-scale epidemiological studies, and the scientific facts pertaining to how HIV is transmitted, and then give the questioner my expert opinion and advice. Whether that person chooses to accept my advice or follow my recommendations is, of course, totally up to him or her. The reason I quote the CDC's published guidelines is that they are perhaps the most conservative set of published and well-referenced recommendations I have seen.

So what can I, in good conscience and backed by science, advise? I can say that following a single possible or known exposure, the vast majority of infected persons will develop detectable HIV antibodies within three months of exposure. If the initial negative HIV test was performed within the first three months after exposure, repeat testing should be done at three or more months to rule out the possibility of a false-negative result within the window period. If the ELISA test is negative at three months or more after an exposure, the individual is extremely likely to be HIV negative. This is all based on statistical risk analysis and large-scale epidemiological studies. Now comes the confusing part. If a person was significantly exposed to a known HIV-infected person, the estimated statistical risks change and a second repeat test "might" be considered at six months or more from the exposure depending on the circumstances. And yes, there are very rare reports of seroconversion 6-12 months after a known exposure. The exact details of these very rare historical cases are a bit sketchy, but the reports do indeed exist in the medical literature. Today, however, extended follow-up testing beyond six months after exposure to rule out the extremely rare possibility of delayed seroconversion is not recommended, except under exceedingly rare circumstances that should be based on the clinical judgment of an HIV specialist.

I realize some folks may find this response unsatisfying and perhaps unsettling. However, I'm here to provide you with the best confirmed scientific knowledge that we have, and that's the extent of our knowledge at this time.

I'm also here to provide you with an expert opinion about that science. So let's proceed "straight ahead" (or should that be "gaily forward?") to your question. I would consider a negative ELISA test at five months following a "1 time insertive exposure with a female" of unknown HIV status to be definitive. I would not recommend additional testing. However, as always, the choice to follow my advice or not is totally up to you, whether you are my mother or not.

Good luck.

Dr. Bob

Please remember that this forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not engaged through this forum in rendering legal or medical advice or professional services. Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither The Body nor any sponsor is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.

Questions and messages posted to this forum are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of The Body, Body Health Resources Corporation or any sponsor of this forum. While neither The Body nor Body Health Resources Corporation regularly reviews posted content, we reserve the right to delete, move, or edit postings if we deem it appropriate under the circumstances. Visitors submitting questions remain solely responsible for the content of their messages.

Information provided by experts is general only and should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease, or relied upon as legal or other professional advice. This information is not a substitute for professional advice or care. If you have or suspect you may have a health or legal problem, you should consult your own health care provider or your attorney.

Copyright notice.

Our Mission and Team | Content Policy | Privacy Policy | Advertising and Sponsorship | Link to Us

The Body is a service of Body Health Resources Corporation, 250 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10107. The Body and its logos are trademarks of Body Health Resources Corporation, which owns the copyright of The Body's homepage, topic pages, page designs and HTML code.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: window period new
      #192874 - 05/24/06 04:52 PM

Don't you just love that last part where they say they aren't here to offer any medical advice? Yet that's what we use them for. I do think Dr Bob is a good guy and tries his best to answer correctly. However, if his advice causes you problems it's right there he's not responsible.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: window period new
      #192880 - 05/24/06 05:08 PM

You should go by how you feel and your exposure risk
If you really think without a doubt you had ARS then follow up with the 6 month test. Only you are in control of your health and know what is going on inside your body.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

this is a very dumb post new
      #192928 - 05/24/06 06:06 PM


Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: window period new
      #192957 - 05/24/06 07:18 PM

Bitchy Btchy Bossy,

Dr. Bob is on the rag. He is so afraid of being sued, he cannot answer a question in a clear cut manner.

Cut to the chase. Nothing is certain. Get tested monthly if you want. Hiv is wierd. Life is wierd. And apparently, Dr. Bob is wierd.

If you have HIV, believe me, you will know it.


Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1

What's New at

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

Moderator:  TheBody, bogart, gigi, riverprincess 

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

Thread views: 2009

Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

UBB.threads™ 6.2.3