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
Read Now: TheBodyPRO.com Covers AIDS 2014

HIV Transmission and Education >> Am I Infected?

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test?
      #195681 - 06/12/06 10:34 PM

Daisey's case from what i have read she was having ARS symptoms at the time she took the oraquick & elisa test.

the elisa test is most likly a 3rd/4th gen test and will pickup antibodies 2-10 days earlier then a rapid oraquick test. This is why she had a negative oraquick & positive elisa.. it wasnt because the oraquick missed it because she claims her last exposure was 3 months earlier.. you DONT get ars symptoms 3 months after exposure. her exposure was most likly 1 month before the tests.

so everyone relax. Oraquick test taken 13 weeks past exposure is just as accurate as an Elisa and is considered conclusive.

its when your in the window period during ARS symptoms where Elisa is better equipped to pickup antibodies.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195774 - 06/13/06 11:37 AM

Why are you copying and pasting old posts?

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
daisey6205
Legend

Reged: 09/08/05
Posts: 1091
Loc: kansas
Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195775 - 06/13/06 11:39 AM

that may be true............ but even after 3 months and on into 2 months after testing positive by western blot and eia, the oraquick was STILL negative. not trying to ruffle feathers, but nothing in life is 100% effective, except abstinance.
for futher reference, if you are going to quote me or tell my story, then tell the whole story, not just what suits you.
daisey

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195779 - 06/13/06 11:47 AM

Sorry I have a hard time believing you and your story. oraquick would have picked it up. I don't know much about your story but in todays testing world there isn't much difference in the blood Elisa and the oraquick both blood and oral slight but not much.

Anyway like the pictures, which one are you??

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195780 - 06/13/06 11:55 AM

Now why would Daisey lie about this. What would she have to gain. An explanation might be that the entire batch of Oraquik tests were defective if she tested at the same location multiple times.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Virgo
Grand Master

Reged: 06/01/06
Posts: 171
Loc: Massachusetts
Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195783 - 06/13/06 12:16 PM

I doubt she would lie about this. The ONLY explanation would be she got infected after she thought she did, but she would know that.

Besides, her situation is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.....so LAY OFF!

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195785 - 06/13/06 12:44 PM

here is your posts

"i went to my family doctor due to the fact i had what appeared to be mono. i told him about my husband and he was concerned that maybe i had started seroconverting... he said he believed that the blood draw would be more specific than the oraquick, so i agreed to do the test. that same day my husband had an appt. with his specialist, i took him to the appt and told the specialist what was going on with me and she wanted to do an oraquick (finger prick). the oraquick was negative. that was on a monday. on friday my family doc called and wanted to see me in his office- asap. i went straight there only to be told that the test came back positive and they confirmed it with the ifa. i took the results to the specialist and was told they were false poz, that i was negative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so i went back to my family doc, told him what happened and that was when they said she was full of crap and did a western blot, which came back poz a few days later. my specialist had to eat her words and swallow her pride."

"i am not sure due to the fact i dont know which sexual act i actually contracted the hiv. symptoms really are irrelevent, due to the fact symptoms do not equal hiv. i wish i could be of more assistance to you...................
daisey "

From the above posts it shows you dont really know when you were infected you took the tests when you were having MONO symptoms meaning it was ARS, you also state one of the oraquick tests showed a faint line.

now your saying you waited 2 months after you tested postive from Elisa and tested again via oraquick and it was negative. i have a hard time believing that, considering the faint line intially.

Iam not here to judge but your story is all over the place in different threads its hard to really place any confidence behind it.


Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
daisey6205
Legend

Reged: 09/08/05
Posts: 1091
Loc: kansas
Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195790 - 06/13/06 01:08 PM

think what you want to, but if you had been on the roller coaster ride i was on, your story would have been all over the place also............
i know what happened to me. i am not a liar. i do not bullshit about hiv and i would never lead anyone to believe nothing but the truth. i stand behind my story 195% of the way. i tested several times by oraquick, even after my eia/ifa and western blot. they were still negative. the last test i took the gal tried to tell me i was negative, she failed to look close enough at the test, there was a positive reading, but i had already been diagnosed positive 5 months prior.
so, before you go throwing stones and thinking i am a liar.... stick to your own beliefs and i will stick to what i know happened to me. i do not want to dispute this any longer, but do your research. know all the facts and you wont have any problems debating issues over the oraquick with others.
daisey

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195793 - 06/13/06 01:28 PM

so what your saying is the oraquick test took 8+ months after your last possible exposure to show a faint postive line?

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Virgo
Grand Master

Reged: 06/01/06
Posts: 171
Loc: Massachusetts
Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195798 - 06/13/06 01:41 PM

Anon,

Reallly come on now!! This is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You should not be using the stories of those infected, and posting them on this board!! You are very rude, and I think you need some help to be going on and on about Daisey!! Let it be!!

What the hell is your scoop anyways?? If you have a question about a risk, or testing just ask!! Leave the positive folks alone!

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195801 - 06/13/06 01:51 PM

alot of her posts were in the am infected forums, and i know its none of my business, but she was grateful in sharing her story with us, and with that came many questions. when someone says they test out of the window period negativa via oraquick and pos vis elisa, then your gonna get questions wether you like it or not.

My risks were protected vaginal sex + unprotected insertive oral sex, by sex worker in Dec 10, 2005. I have tested negative 6 weeks via elisa, 7 weeks via oraquick and 18 weeks negativa via oraquick. but by her posts i guess thats not good enough.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Virgo
Grand Master

Reged: 06/01/06
Posts: 171
Loc: Massachusetts
Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195803 - 06/13/06 02:04 PM

My goodness, your test is not conclusive for that high risk act!!!!!!!! You really need to test out to at least 6 months, maybe LONGER!! A year, then 2, then 5...just to be sure!

All this reading you do, and poking your nose into other people business!! YOU FORGOT TO READ ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION RISKS!!

Here let me help you out on that one!!



Specific Sexual Practices: What are the Risks?

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that certain sexual practices are associated with a higher risk of HIV transmission than others.

Vaginal Intercourse:

Unprotected vaginal intercourse is the most common mode of HIV infection worldwide. In the United States and many other developed nations, it is the second most common mode of sexual HIV transmission (after anal intercourse among MSM).

At least five European and American studies have consistently demonstrated that male-to-female HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse is significantly more likely than female-to-male HIV transmission. In other words, HIV-positive men are much more likely to transmit the virus to HIV-negative women through vaginal intercourse than HIV-positive women are to HIV-negative men.

There are a few reasons for this. First, there are more men than women in the United States infected with HIV, meaning that it's much more likely for a female to have sex with an HIV-positive male than for a male to have sex with an HIV-positive female. Second, women have a much larger surface area of mucosal tissue – the lining of the vagina and cervix that can chafe easily and are rich in immune system cells that can be infected by HIV – than men. For men, HIV must enter through a cut or abrasion on the penis, through the lining of the urethra inside the penis.

There has been some research suggesting that men who are uncircumcised have a higher risk of becoming infected with HIV or transmitting the virus if they are already HIV positive. However, it is important to stress that men who are circumcised can still be infected (or transmit the virus) if condoms are not used for vaginal sex.

Men or women who have ulcerative sexually transmitted infections (STIs), such as genital herpes or syphilis, are more likely to spread the virus if they are HIV positive or to become infected with the virus if they are HIV negative.

Anal Intercourse:

Being the receptive partner – the "bottom" – during unprotected anal intercourse is linked to a high risk of HIV infection. The reason for this is that HIV-infected semen can come into contact with mucosal tissues in the anus that can be damaged easily during anal intercourse. And the risk of HIV transmission isn't necessarily reduced if the "top" pulls out before ejaculation – studies have demonstrated that pre-ejaculate (pre-cum) can contain high amounts of HIV and can result in transmission during anal intercourse.

It's important to note that both MSM and heterosexuals have anal intercourse. Many heterosexuals report that it is a pleasurable form of intimacy that eliminates the risk of pregnancy. However, it is still associated with a high risk of HIV infection, if condoms are not used and the insertive partner's HIV status is either positive or not known.

Is the insertive partner (the "top") also at risk during unprotected anal intercourse? At least eight studies conducted over the years were unable to demonstrate a clear link between insertive anal sex and a risk for HIV infection among MSM. However, these studies should not be interpreted to mean that being the top during anal intercourse – and not using a condom – is without risk. We know that men can be infected with HIV through vaginal intercourse – an activity in which they are the insertive partner. Based on this knowledge, it is also believed that the insertive partner during unprotected anal intercourse can also be infected with HIV. Studies, using mathematical estimates, suggest that unprotected insertive anal sex is roughly four to 14 times less risky than unprotected receptive anal sex. However, experts still believe that the risk for transmission is noteworthy.

Penile-Oral Sex

Of the different sex acts, the one that often causes the greatest amount of confusion in terms of risk – and raises the greatest number of questions – is penile-oral sex. The fact is, most experts agree that fellatio, sometimes referred to as "blow jobs," is not an efficient route of HIV transmission. However, this does not mean that it cannot happen.

Research attempting to evaluate the risk of fellatio has often faced important limitations. For starters, very few people participating in studies only engaged in penile-oral sex. Many people also had unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse, making it very difficult to determine if unprotected fellatio is an "independent factor" associated with HIV transmission. There are also people who test positive for HIV and claim that unprotected fellatio was their only risky behavior. However, it's virtually impossible to know if these people are always reporting their sexual behavior accurately. (Study volunteers often have a difficult time admitting the truth about potentially embarrassing behavior to healthcare professionals conducting scientific studies.)

Because unprotected fellatio can mean that body fluids from one person can (and do) come into contact with the mucosal tissues or open cuts, sores, or breaks in the skin of another person, there is a "theoretical risk" of HIV transmission. "Theoretical risk" means that passing an infection from one person to another is considered possible, even though there haven't been any (or only a few) documented cases. This term can be used to differentiate from documented risks. Having unprotected receptive anal or vaginal intercourse with an HIV-positive partner is a documented risk, as they have been shown in numerous studies to be an independent risk factor for HIV infection. Having unprotected oral sex is a theoretical risk, as it is considered possible, but has never been shown to be an independent risk factor for HIV infection.

Here's a good way to think about theoretical risk: In theory, it is possible that while walking down the street, a meteor will fall on your head and kill you instantly. This is because meteors do occasionally fall to earth. People live their lives above ground, so there is a theoretical risk of being hit be a meteor. In fact, there have been reports of a few people being hit by meteors. But because the risk is so small, given that few meteors fall to earth and the large number of inhabitants of this planet, the risk is purely theoretical. The same principle holds true with oral sex – millions of people all over the world are believed to engage in unprotected oral sex and there have only been a handful of documented cases of HIV transmission. In turn, fellatio, and other types of oral sex (see below), remains a theoretical risk for HIV infection.

There have been a number of studies that have closely followed MSM and heterosexual couples, in which one partner was HIV positive and the other partner was HIV negative. In all of the studies, couples that used condoms consistently and correctly during every experience of vaginal or anal sex – but didn't use condoms during oral sex – did not see HIV spread from the HIV positive partner to the HIV negative partner.

There have been three case reports and a few studies suggesting that some people have been infected with HIV as a result of unprotected oral sex. However, these case reports and studies all involved MSM – men who were the receptive partners (the person doing the "sucking") during unprotected oral sex with another HIV-positive man. There haven't been any case reports or studies documenting HIV infection among female receptive partners during unprotected oral sex. Even more importantly, there hasn't been a single documented case of HIV transmission to an insertive partner (the person being "sucked") during unprotected oral sex, either among MSM or heterosexuals.

Is insertive oral sex a possible route of HIV transmission? Yes. But is it a documented risk? Absolutely not.

Oral-Vaginal Sex

Like the study of fellatio, evaluating the risk of unprotected oral-vaginal sex (cunnilingus) is difficult, given that most people surveyed in studies did not avoid other types of unsafe sexual activity. However, there have been case reports highlighting one case of female-to-female transmission of HIV via cunnilingus and another case of female-to-male transmission of HIV via cunnilingus. Both of these cases involved transmission from receptive partner (the one receiving oral sex) to the insertive partner (the one performing oral sex). There haven't been any documented cases of HIV transmission from the insertive partner to the receptive partner.

Oral-Anal Sex

Oral-anal sex is often referred to as analingus. Analingus, or "rimming," is not considered to be an independent risk factor for HIV. However, it has been shown to be a route of transmission for hepatitis A and B, as well as parasitic infections like giardiasis and amebiasis.

Digital-Anal or Digital-Vaginal Sex

Digital-anal or digital-vaginal sex is the clinical term for "fingering" either the anus or the female genitals (including the vagina). While it is theoretically possible that someone who has an open cut or fresh abrasion on his or her finger or hand can be infected with HIV if coming into contact with blood in the anus or vagina or vaginal secretions, there has never been a documented case of HIV transmission via fingering.


NOW LET ME KNOW the part where protected, or getting oral is.....I think I missed that one.

Not trying to be rude, but honestly there are people on this forum with a TRUE risk. On top of that you have tested negative FIVE weeks after the window!!

Get a grip, get some mental help, and good luck to ya!



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195818 - 06/13/06 03:11 PM

Looks like the old Daisey story is still in play!! I have followed her posts and I can tell you they make no sense what so ever including her last. She said the Oraquick person misread the results!!!!!! Come-on its a LINE. A three year old can read a line!! No,, I'm sorry but if one could go back and read all of her posts nothing she said makes sense. As far as none of our business, her story is all over the place as a reason to not believe a very reliable test. So in fact that story is alot of peoples business. D.J.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Virgo
Grand Master

Reged: 06/01/06
Posts: 171
Loc: Massachusetts
Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195819 - 06/13/06 03:16 PM

Yeah well like you said, and after looking into it a little it doesnt completely add up. But let it be is all I am saying DJ! I see no need at all to go on and on about this story!

You need to remember ANON reposted this!! This has ALREADY been a topic many many times!!

ANON DID NOT HAVE A RISK!! THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON FOR HIM TO BE POKING AROUND IN OTHER PEOPLES STORIES!!

ALL THAT IS DOING IS PUTTING A LITTLE SCARE INTO THE PEOPLE WHO USED ORAQUICK!!!

mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Is Oraquik as accurate as regular Elisa test? new
      #195822 - 06/13/06 03:35 PM

From what she says - she was last unprotected in MAY, and tested postive in 1/23/2006 for the first time via oraquick thats almost 9 months there is something very wrong with this story.

and in another post below it shows she got faint lines 2 times on oraquick! comon something is up with this story either she is lying or leaving out details, or the test was done incorrectly. faint lines on oraquick are considered accurate, you just have to look at the line if anything is there, then you are postive.

"IT SHOWED A FAINT POSITIVE. not understanding why it was only faint i waited a month and went back to the original clinic and retested by the oraquick.... it was negative. the gal told me that the oraquick was 99% accurate and that i was negative. if it would make me feel better i could come back in 3 months and retest. i never told her i had already tested positive by the eia/ifa/ and western blot.
yesterday i went back to the same clinic, by request of an anonymous poster.... i tested again. it was a FAINT positive again. the clinic worker almost told me i was negative, until i told her she need to look at the test closer...... and the rest of the story is here posted.
daisey "



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


What's New at TheBody.com

Additional Information
0 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: 16340

 
Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3