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
In stark terror

I'm Afraid to get tested
      #92577 - 03/19/04 11:10 PM

Sometime during the last week of may of 2003, I had an unprotected 1 night stand with a lady of unknown status. It lasted for maybe a minute. I've had 2 tests. an elisa at 4 weeks and an oraquick at 5 weeks. Both came back negative. The problem is, is that I'm afraid to go back and get tested because I fear the results will come back diffrently. It is now going on ten months and I am still worried. I keep checking my temperture, have nightmares. The symptom I feel most is puffyness in my groin and my temperture somtimes goes as far as 99.5. Please someone rescue me from this nightmare. Can anyone please give me some words of comfort.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: I'm Afraid to get tested new
      #92578 - 03/19/04 11:29 PM


Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print

Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.

Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.

The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood.

Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the role of HIV in AIDS.

From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and pre-AIDS
are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)

Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."

This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test (Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June 2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from

According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in just the last three years.

Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV infection.'
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy for people who doctors assume are infected.�

Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test
manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.

At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be confirmed with follow up testing. This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests� is widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that
medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in labor

Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester M Crawford. The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)

These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother not to breastfeed. Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal
feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of her child.

Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test. Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even evaluate their product in multiparous women.

Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection, doctors may want to retest women in labor who�ve previously come up negative just to
be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."

Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora�s box of potential life-altering situations.

"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start prophylactic chemotherapy right away. Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives' with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and treatment manufacturers."

The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: I'm Afraid to get tested new
      #92591 - 03/20/04 12:01 AM


First of all, reading a Dr. Bob post awhile back he quoted the risk of a one-time encounter f to m exposure as less than 1%. This, coupled with the estimate that 1 in 250 people have the virus (that equals about 0.4% of the American population) puts your risk pretty low- although obviously it was still a risk.
I myself am going through worry right now over a possible exposure, but the scientific facts comfort me a bit. You are outside of the window period now by quite a few months, and have had two negative results past the "average" window period of 25 days (thats when 50% of people would test positive) I myself am still within the conclusive window period of 3 months, and although everyday it's tempting to go get the test, believe what I think will be the negative result and go on with my life. But, I really only want to go through it all one time, and will wait for the 13 weeks to be up. Your worrying will not stop until you've gotten tested. If it's negative, you will learn from your experience and hopefully be safer next time (like I am sure going to if everything is OK) If it's positive, all the worrying in the world you will do now and in the future until you get tested would not have changed that, and at least now you would have a good headstart on fighting the disease, a chance many people don't get. That's the outlook I have, anyway. You have a really good chance of being negative, you should take that, get tested, and then move on with life, be safe and happy. Best of luck.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  

Re: Don't Listen to The Denialist new
      #92638 - 03/20/04 02:18 AM

This person has no idea what he it talking about. As if people with HIV or AIDS "choose" to live with this disease is absolutely ludacrous. I would love to see this person walk a week in my shoes and tell me about "conspiracy" and lies.

Just do what you need to do. Maybe go and see an HIV clinic to get some good answers to some serious questions. Most likely you will be just fine.

Keep in mind, the "mind" is an amazing thing. It can play tricks on you. I know.

Just keep the faith, and realize that not everything is necessarily HIV related.

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
New User

Reged: 07/02/04
Posts: 22
Re: I'm Afraid to get tested new
      #111770 - 09/21/04 07:18 AM

I had to reply to this statement.
You have what I call AIDS anxiety! I had it in 1988 and was negative. It is best to wait 6 months to a year before getting another confirmatory test.
I too checked my temp and thought I had pufineess in the groin so believe me, you are not alone

Post Extras: Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1

What's New at

Additional Information
2 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: 2234

Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy Statement The Body

UBB.threads™ 6.2.3