[Guest]

i'm trying to be very strong. i feel so much better than i did a month or two ago. i can see light at the end of the tunnel, but i am having some negative thoughts. (pun may or may not apply). ok, i had a negative 3rd generation hiv 1/2 and pcr rna and antigen tests at roughly 12 weeks after possible exposure. all negative. i really don't think i could be so special to escape detection with all of those tests. but, like i said, i am second-guessing and need some reassurance i guess. i mean, i have seen that antigen and pcr tests are more meaningful within a few weeks of exposure, then your VL goes down. if neg on the pcr/antigen tests, would i have detectable antibodies yet? i feel like maybe i tested too late with the virus tests and possibly too early for the antibody test. is it possible or does it happen that people can be in a pickle of sorts in this scenario. like a few weeks between the two types of tests where nothing would be found? is this conclusive or is further testing warranted? thanks!

[Guest]

No, you won't have the viral level drop to undetectable after the initial burst of viral replication. It will go from over a million to between 20 and 100 thousand/cc on average. So if you were infected, the pcr would definitely be positive at 12 weeks. The elisa would be too. GR
[quote] i'm trying to be very strong. i feel so much better than i did a month or two ago... [/quote]

[Guest]

I greatly appreciate your reply to my post. you gave me the answers I was looking for. One last itty-bitty question so I can put this whole issue to rest. I have read that some labs when running pcr tests will pool samples together for cost reasons or what have you. If my serum/plasma was pooled with other samples, is it likely it would be diluted enough to slip by at 12 weeks? Obviously I would think the labs have this angle covered, and I know the tests are very sensitive, and as you say my VL would still most likely 10k minimum x 12 weeks. Ok, now I’m answering my own questions, am I right? Even if the samples are pooled, it just couldn’t slip through, could it? It is so easy to come up with all of these what-if scenarios with HIV infection. But, I have had enough and ready to move on with your answer to my question. I know you know this, but thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us, I am truly grateful. I will sleep good tonight for once.
[quote] No, you won't have the viral level drop to undetectable after the initial burst of viral replication. It will go from over a million to between 20 and 100 thousand/cc on average... [/quote]

[Guest]

I know of NO lab tests that are pooled in that way.
GR
[quote] I greatly appreciate your reply to my post. you gave me the answers I was looking for... [/quote]

[Guest]

I now know what your reference was to the pooling of samples. The July AIDS issue of JAMA had an article talking about pooling samples when screening donated blood for hiv. The idea is that instead of doing pcr on each sample, you could put 10 or 20 or 100 samples together in areas where the prevalence of hiv should be <1/100,000 or so. That way you could test once instead of say 100 times. Most of these would be negative. The one in 1000 that would be positive would require going back and testing each sample in that individual pool. That way you could test 1001 samples to find the 1 positive in 100,000, rather than testing all 100,000. This is NOT DONE or being suggested to test people who come for HIV testing. GR
[quote] I greatly appreciate your reply to my post. you gave me the answers I was looking for... [/quote]