[Question #1280] Unprotected Encounter And Results

97 months ago

Hi Doc

I am asking this question on behalf of my friend who doesn't want to create a profile online.

Exposure: Unprotected Vaginal with a woman of unkown status.

Results: All RAPID tests and NEGATIVE

34 Days: RAPID Alere Combo/Dual

42 Days: RAPID Alere Combo/Dual

50 Days: RAPID Clearview

54 Days: RAPID Alere Combo/Dual

61 Days: RAPID Oraquick MOUTH swab

Queations:

1. Does he need to test again?

2. They were all RAPID tests, so does that make a difference?

3. Would you rate a 28 day RAPID Alere Combo test as conclusive as a conventional lab test?

I told my friend, based on what I have known till now about the RAPID Alere Combo test, that his 34 days was conclusive. But unprotected vaginal and the nature of the RAPID tests, based on whats floating on the internet, are kind of making him not believe the results.

Regards,

Edward W. Hook M.D.

97 months ago

Typically persons who state that they are asking questions "for a friend" is a ruse or results in responses which are less personalized than our site tries to provide. With that comment, straight to your questions:

1. Does he need to test again?

No, his results were conclusive the first time he tested. Further testing is not needed.

2. They were all RAPID tests, so does that make a difference?

No, rapid tests are evaluated by the FDA using the same standards as laboratory-based tests.

3. Would you rate a 28 day RAPID Alere Combo test as conclusive as a conventional lab test?

Yes

Based on his testing frequency, your friend is anxious. Searching the internet is guaranteed to just make his anxiety worse and mislead him. Take care. EWH

---

97 months ago

Thanks for the response Sir. Two quick questions and unrelated to the previous topic-

1) If for some reason, regardless of the kind of exposure, a RAPID combo test is not available, would an Eight week RAPID Clearview test followed by a 9 week RAPID Oraquick Swab test be considered conclusive? Would there still be a need for the 3 month test?

2) Could we say that for a PROTECTED insertive oral with a CSW, chances of acquiring HiV are Zero? I have read your previous comments on this forum where you have suggested that there is never been a proven case of HiV acquired even through UNPROTECTED insertive oral. But if the protection is available, why not use it so that we could be 100% sure. Hence the question. Also, what about any other dreaded STD/STI one should look for a PROTECTED insertive oral?

This is it from my side, and once again thanks a lot for your time.

Regards,

Edward W. Hook M.D.

97 months ago

With all due respect "what if" questions are of little help to you. Situations and circumstances vary which is part of the reason for this Forum- to answer specific, questions about specific events.

1. Yes, 8 week rapid tests would still provide conclusive information in nearly all cases. there are very rare instances n the past when 8 week rapid tests missed an infection.

2. there has never been a case of HIV documented to have been acquired from receipt of oral sex (fellatio), protected or otherwise. condom protected sex is safe sex irrespective of the sort of contact as long as condoms are used correctly and consistently.

Please, no more "what if" questions. EWH

---

97 months ago

Thanks Doc. No more what if questions. My friend is not sure if the Alere tests were really the combo or if they were just the antibody tests, will verify on Monday.

Does this change your original assesment about being in all clear?

Regards,

Edward W. Hook M.D.

97 months ago

As you know, we provide a total of up to three responses per question. thus will be my final response to "your friend". I hope that you will now be able to accept that you did not get HIV and move forward without having to start a new question.

No, my assessment does not change. Based on the limited information you have provided, you should believe the test results and move forward with a need for additional testing. This ends this thread. It will be closed later today. . EWH

---

97 months ago

Hi Doc,

I guess it was a typo on your part, and you actually meant 'without a need for additional testing' in the last para of your response.

The information is not limited, the exposure was unprotected vaginal with a woman that works in his office. It was almost 2 months ago.

Thanks a lot again for your response.

Regards

Edward W. Hook M.D.

97 months ago

Sorry for the typo. Correct, NO need for further testing. EWH---

97 months ago

Thanks a lot Sir! Keep up the good work that you and Dr Hunter are doing! The thread could now be closed.

Sincere Regards,