|
John80
|
|
Newbie
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/02/12
|
|
Posts: 3
|
|
|
|
RNA Test at 25 days
#264252 - 07/02/12 11:13 AM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
I recently experienced a low risk event, I performed oral on another male individual (approx 20 seconds) that claims he is HIV negative. Shortly after, one week, I started experincing symptoms (night sweats, swollen lymph nodes in groin and neck area,
joint and muscle pain,
Digestive upset,
Loss of apetite).
I got a HIV RNA PCR test at 25 days which came back negative no copies. I also got a oralquick test at 6 weeks that came back negative. I have a ton of axiety and still expeincing the above symptons. Are the above tests conclusive?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
who suggested you to get tested ??
You did not had any risk from the incident you mentioned .!
You are Hiv- !!
Post Extras:
|
|
John80
|
|
Newbie
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/02/12
|
|
Posts: 3
|
|
|
|
|
My doctor suggested the tests. He is also saying that it is no conclusive until 3 to 6 months out. He is my GP.
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Sorry to say but your GP is Idiot ... You are -ve as your results say..
continue to waste your money and time if you want ... your results will not change unless and untill you put your self at risk of Hiv..
That is
Unprotected vaginal or anal
needle sharing
blood transfusion
Good luck
Post Extras:
|
|
John80
|
|
Newbie
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/02/12
|
|
Posts: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the comments. I'm still not sure why I'm experiencing the different symptons.
No risk with oral sex?
Post Extras:
|
bartleby
|
|
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/19/10
|
|
Posts: 650
|
|
|
|
|
no, it's not no risk. but it's extremely low risk. the cdc estimates that receptive oral sex carries a risk of 1 out of 10,000 exposures from a person confirmed positive. so it's extremely unlikely to contract HIV this way.
the negative test results at 4 and 6 weeks are very encouraging. if infected, most people test positive by week 6, so i would consider the 6-week negative result good enough. but if you want to test again at 12 weeks, that's fine. safe bet it'll be negative.
--------------------
Bartleby at The Body
Bulletin Board Administrator
Post Extras:
|
riverprincess
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 12/25/11
|
|
Posts: 1136
|
|
Loc: Jersey Shore
|
|
|
I wouldn't say the GP was an idiot. The dr has a legal right to suggest testing. If he didn't and John showed up pos in due time , then you could label the gp irresponsible. The dr did as he was suppose to.
Post Extras:
|
|
crabman
|
|
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 03/10/11
|
|
Posts: 621
|
|
|
|
|
While the GP should be encouraging all his patients to test yearly if they are sexually active, from a risk assessment basis, there was no real reason to suggest testing for this incident alone.
Nor should the doctor have order an expensive test for this. An antibody at 6 weeks would have sufficed.
There has long been an issue with GP's putting their own fears and bias into their thought process when ordering testing for HIV. Which is why we see PEP being ordered for low/non risks. Excessive testing. Telling patients they need to test out to 6 months, etc. etc.
It doesn't do their patients any good by elevating a low/non-risk activity nor does it help any of us when tests that are unnecessary are order. It just increases all of our health care costs.
Post Extras:
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
