|
HIV |
From:
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:53 PM
To: drgian@stdweb.com
Subject: Question from Pregnant Lady
Hi,
I found your website and felt you could provide me with some educated
answers to my questions.
I am 8 months pregnant. My husband and I have been married for over 2
years. Since becoming ptegnant I have experienced floaters in my eyes,
yeast infections, dry mouth,cracked and coated tongue. This has been
ongoing since July. I had convinced myself it was HIV based on the
symptoms I have read about related to HIV.
So, I took an antibody test in July and one in August at two different
private labs. Both tests were negative.
My doctors also ran a CBC with WBC differential and everything was
normal.
The only problem my doctors found is that I have a sick and diseased
gallbladder.
I also had my husband take a test in September and his result was
negative.
My questions:
With three HIV tests between us and being in a committed marriage for
over 2 years can these negative results be deemed reliable?
I've heard of HIV 2. How concerned should I be about it?
Thank you. I just need some piece of mind as my baby is due Dec. 16th.
Hi Dear,
it seems to me that you have made a giant and emotional "leap of doubt"
in relating your symptoms to a possible HIV infection. Your symptoms can
also be easily explained with more innocent and trivial causes. The
three negative tests should have tranquillized you.
HIV2 is not routinely checked in the USA.
HIV 2
You need to talk, be
reassured and emotionally assisted in completing this pregnancy. Do also
some self reflection on the quality of your relationship. I hope,
however, that when the baby is born things will be significantly
different.
Happy Holidays
Dr.Gian. |
From: Jamie
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:56 AM
To: drgian@stdweb.com
Subject:
Hi. I was reading your forum and had a couple questions for you. I was
tested for HIV after 3 months from my contact. I was negative and was
told that this was a conclusive test result. While reading on your
website you say that the CDC says the test is difinitive after 3 months.
But then you write that 95% of people will "sero-convert" after 6 mos.
Which is it? NOw I am more confused than when I started testing. Should
I have waited 6 mos?
Greetings Jamie,
I could not find the place where we say "95% of people will "sero-convert"
after 6 mos". If we do we will change the mistyped "after" into
"within".
This is what we have been saying in the HIV page on our website:
"The time period between a person’s contact with
the virus (infection) and when HIV antibodies become detectable in blood
or other fluids is called the "window period". Most people will develop
antibodies detectable within 4-6 weeks after infection with HIV. Some
people may take longer; but nearly all (99%) will have antibodies by 6
months following infection. Therefore, the test may not give an accurate
negative result if a person gets tested too soon after a potential
exposure. People waiting six months from the time of the exposure before
testing will have a 99% accurate test result. Very rarely, cases have
been reported of people taking longer than six months to develop
antibodies to HIV."
This is what the CDC says:
Revised Guidelines for HIV Counseling, Testing, and Referral November 9,
2001 / 50(RR19); 1-58 CDC
"Most infected persons will develop detectable HIV antibody within 3
months of exposure. If the initial negative HIV test was conducted
within the first 3 months after exposure, repeat testing should be
considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the
possibility of a false-negative result. If the follow-up test is non
reactive, the client is likely not HIV-infected. However, if the client
was exposed to a known HIV-infected person or if provider or client
concern remains, a second repeat test might be considered >6 months from
the exposure. Rare cases of seroconversion 6--12 months after known
exposure have been reported (134). Extended follow-up testing beyond 6
months after exposure to account for possible delayed seroconversion is
not generally recommended and should be based on clinical judgment and
individual client's needs."
Words such as "conclusive,
definitive, etc." indeed do have a pacifying effect on people's desire
for certainty. However they should be used cautiously and, obviously,
not to prey on someone's vulnerability. Those in the know, scientists
with knowledge, wisdom and understanding will always help the patient
achieve certainty by embracing also the uncertainties of science.
I hope this helps to clear the matter and thanks for your contribution.
Dr. Gian
|
|
|
