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

HIV Transmission and Education >> Am I Infected?

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

Neg EIA @ 8 wks & 'non-detectable' PCR @ 7 wks
      #7012 - 07/11/00 03:58 PM

i have currently tested negative EIA (ELISA i guess, am i correct) at 8 weeks and also had a 'non-detectable' PCR at 7 weeks. the whole stuff does show some signs of hope for me. but can someone who has an idea about these help me please !!

Can I hope to test negative at 3 months ?




Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: Neg EIA @ 8 wks & 'non-detectable' PCR @ 7 wks new
      #7013 - 07/11/00 04:03 PM

The median for time from infection (not infectiousness---there's a difference: infectiousness is the criterion for blood supply window period studies, when a person is not only infected but able to infect someone else) to production of antibodies on the ELISA is 2.1 months. This is quoted from the Seroconversion Study Panel, one of the very very few studies on the window period. So you are in good shape; not conclusive but in great great great shape. I would breathe a sigh of relief because you also had the PCR.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Neg EIA @ 8 wks & 'non-detectable' PCR @ 7 wks new
      #7014 - 07/11/00 04:06 PM

It's hard to find anyone other than the testing commercial companies (like Quest Labs and the HIV Testing Center; so-called "800" number place) to say that your PCR is "conclusive." If anyone knows of any medical authorities that use the word "Conclusive" with any testing other than antibody tests, please let us know.
THe ELISA is still being called the "gold standard" by most M.D.s I am open to any corrections as I am not an MD (only a microbiologist studying soil bacteria---not viral expert)



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Neg EIA @ 8 wks & 'non-detectable' PCR @ 7 wks new
      #7015 - 07/11/00 04:14 PM

thanks a lot for the update/info folks. i will keep my fingers crossed and pray for not only myself but for all of you !!




Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

To Not-scared: new
      #7018 - 07/11/00 06:03 PM

I thought the average time of seroconversion was 25 days, So is this already old history??Please respond. Does this mean the the average is now moved up to 60 something days?



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: To Not-scared: new
      #7021 - 07/11/00 06:47 PM

Average or Mean can be different than Median. Median is the value in the middle. Averages can be skewed by outlier values. Also, I also believe the "average" in the context that you are using it in, is time of infectiousness to the time of antibody production, not time of infection to time of antibody production. A difference obviously exists because if you injected yourself with the virus right now, the virus needs time to disseminate sufficiently to cause you to be able to infect others if you were to inject your blood in someone else (or engage in risky behaviours with others). MOst studies were calculating antibody production from time of infectiousness not infection.





Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: To Not-scared: new
      #7024 - 07/11/00 08:20 PM

I am sure some knucklehead will scoff at the year of this reference but then that person must not understand how science works... especially in this area of window period studies. The reference that I hope everyone worried enough will get from their local college science library is as follows: Busch MP, Lee LLJ, Satten GA, et al.
TIME COURSE OF DETECTION OF VIRAL AND SEROLOGIC MARKERS PRECEDING HIV-1 SEROCONVERSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR SCREENING OF BLOOD AND TISSUE DONORS.
This title is found in the journal called: TRANSFUSION 35 (2) 91-7 (1995). The article is five years old. So what? the study was done correctly and concludes inter alia that the 45 days was the "WINDOW PERIOD" that the data pointed towards as the average time from INFECTIOUSNESS (not infection) to ANTIBODY PRODUCTION. This article mentions (I believe; but I don't have it in front of me; what I am about to say may have been in Busch's earlier article on the subject of seroconversion which should be referenced in this article's bibliography) THAT THE MEDIAN (not the mean/average) time from infection to antibody production is 2.1 months. This article looks at how the newer generation ELISAs based on synthetic peptides or/recombinant DNA sources for antigen lowered the window periods dramatically. THis article is chock-full of information for all those knuckleheads that keep insisting that the first generation tests are no longer used. IN FACT, THEY REPRESENT THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIV-1 TESTS ADMINISTERED AT PUBLIC HEALTH DEPTS ACROSS THE USA.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Infected = Infectiousness new
      #7032 - 07/11/00 10:23 PM

You can infect someone from the moment you are infected. There is no difference between infection and infectiousness.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7040 - 07/11/00 10:52 PM

KNUCKLEHEAD: Where did you get the notion that infection equals infection? Let's say you had sex with someone with full-blown AIDS and with high viremia (i.e. high viral load) and you got infected. 24 hours later you would not be able to pass on HIV even if we took some blood out of your vein and transfused it directly into someone else. TOO SOON. Busch's study suggests it takes about a little less than two weeks before you can infect others after YOU ARE INFECTED!
GO read Busch's article, the Medical Doctor who taught me and the rest of the intelligent world that infection doesn't equal infectiousness. That's the basis for the theory upon which the article and all the SEROCONVERSION studies rest, you knucklehead



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Anonymous
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7044 - 07/11/00 11:11 PM

This is completely wrong. As soon as you are infected, you can infect others. The chance may be slight, but it is there because the virus is present in you, like any other virus.

Talk all you want about Busch - - - his research has been essentially discredited. Wolinsky, et al. have all concluded subsequently that 3 months is nearly definitive.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7049 - 07/11/00 11:37 PM

Could you get me the WOlinsky cite? Also, someone might be infectious sooner than someone else. Biochemical and physiological individuality is the reason. NONETHELESS, Petersen et al showed that it is about a week and a half after infection before the infected can then become infectious.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7052 - 07/11/00 11:47 PM

What aspects of Busch's research have been discredited? Certainly not his (obvious) observation that infection doesn't spontaneously equal infectious. That was shown time and time again.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bullshit
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7053 - 07/11/00 11:48 PM

You post nothing worthwhile here. You are clearly wrong about the virus. Look back to some earlier posts by people like Worried 2000 and Dude, who legitimately and honestly know what they are talking about. I'm sure you're trying to help, but you are simply inaccurate.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7056 - 07/11/00 11:54 PM

OK, I am wrong....sorry but it's not really me. You see I depend on scholarly articles written by MD's in charge of protecting our nation's blood supply. I better go notify them that they are full of it!! Especially Drs. Busch and Satten. They only have more years of medical experience than all your years of posting baloney posts.



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Not_scared
Unregistered

Re: Infected DOESN'T equal Infectiousness new
      #7058 - 07/12/00 12:00 AM

To Mr. Bullshit, Go look for the articles cited under my posting name with subject heading FINAL WORD ON SEROCONVERSION. YOu can go look up the articles at your medical library (after you come out of your room and the voices stop telling you to stay inside your house).



Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (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: 4743

 
Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

*
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3