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

      #207120 - 09/14/06 08:51 AM

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: true new
      #207139 - 09/14/06 11:46 AM

Did you bother to read the disclaimer under the article. Did you see these words - they were in RED so they would STAND OUT.

"Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1994."

Says it all don't you think.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: true new
      #207161 - 09/14/06 02:00 PM

While is dated it is still a history based and despite how long ago it happened the fact remains that this type of events do happen are being documented but not presented to the general population. A summary of what is being said is: that some people are not producing detectable antibodies for years after infection. And regardless of what test is being used those people will remain undectable for more than 3-6 months after exposure.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Reged: 08/18/06
Posts: 245
Loc: fort myers, florida
      #207164 - 09/14/06 02:33 PM

Okay, You seem to think you are a "late seroconvert"! You so badly want to have AIDS that because your test is negative, you have decided to look for some old info to back up your case!

Sorry to tell you, you are neg. Due to the tests available today it is conclusive.

I for one wish you would leave the forum because you are causing unneeded stress for those whom need this forum!

I have posted in this forum a link to the CDC training manual, there is NO mention of "late seroconverts".
A 3 month test is conclusive unless the person is still engaging in risky behavior!


Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: FALSE new
      #207178 - 09/14/06 04:04 PM

You of all people suprise me with your responses. No one is trying to scare anyone here, just sharing information. We both now that the CDC is just a training manual is just a General information. You also know that while testing has improved to detect the smallest about of antibodies, it has nothing to do with how fast the body will respond to the virus. In the case of this article, there was no sign of antibody nor was the virus dectected by PCR, which indicates that the virus was hiding for sometime during this study. Fear vs. Truth, I prefer truth. That is why I've come to this site, but all I get is just BS. Thanks for nothing.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: FALSE new
      #207180 - 09/14/06 04:29 PM

I'm surprised anyone is bothering to debate this.

Not only was the data gathered from prior to the article date, but there were several errors in how the samples were handled. They do admit to the mistakes which is good, but mistakes in ANY study invalidates the results as credible.

To the poster that first posted this.

OK you win. You have HIV and are a late seroconverter. After all, you know your body better than us. But since we now concede that you have HIV, it's time for you to go. It would seem pretty stupid of you to continue posting here to try and convince everyone of your status because

a) we just don't care; and

b) it's not us you need to convince in the first place. You need to be convincing a doctor you have HIV. We can't put you on treatment. Better rush right down to your local ID doctor.

Think we're laughing at you. Good luck finding a doctor to take you seriously.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: true new
      #207182 - 09/14/06 05:06 PM

Let's try something from this century.

From UCSF.

Please note the following sentences when reading this.

"3,4Atypical seroconversion or immunosilent infec-tion has generally been discounted. Several studies in the
late 1980s reported high rates of HIV culture or polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) positivity among seronegative per-
sons,5,6and, in the early 1990s, it was suggested that up to10 percent of persons with HCV infection may be
immunosilent (PCR-positive, antibody-negative) carriers.7These results were subsequently proven to be artifactual"

or this part,

"...nucleic acid amplification testing (NAT)
have failed to substantiate these alarming reports of fre-
quent immunosilent infection."

See the problem with consulting old studies is that it's possible that more studies have been done and discount the older work.

I have a feeling you already knew that. You seem to be spending about 20 hours a day researching ,so I figure you already saw this, but discounted it because it blows your theory to hell.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: true new
      #207201 - 09/14/06 08:43 PM

in posting your link you omitted the following information pertaining to seroconversion:
{With respect to the exposure-to-seroconversion window
period in HIV infection, an analysis of data from health care
workers who acquired HIV after nocosomial exposures
yielded an estimated median time to seroconversion of
approximately 40 days.13In about 5 percent of these cases,however, seroconversion did not occur for more than 6
months after exposure. In these prolonged window-period
cases, specimens collected before seroconversion consis-
tently tested negative by PCR and p24 antigen assays until
only a few weeks before seroconversion} they used the 6 months or more for 5% of those exposed by needle. There is data out there that indicates that sexual exposure takes longer because its not directly exposed to the blood stream.

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: 2102

Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

UBB.threads™ 6.2.3