[Question #7027] HIV Rapid Test
8 months ago
|
![]() |
Edward W. Hook M.D.
8 months ago
|
Welcome back to the Forum and thanks for your question. I'll be glad to comment and am pleased to reassure you that your test results prove that you were not infected at the encounter you described.
It was a relatively low risk encounter (most women do not have HIV and even when they do, HIV is transmitted on average only once for every 1200 acts of vaginal intercourse (i.e. 99.9% of the time HIV is NOT transmitted when exposed to an infected partner). More importantly however, your tests prove that you were not infected. The Oraquick tests sometimes take slightly longer to become positive but your test would certainly have been positive by the time you tested at 12, 17 and35 weeks. Furthermore, the finger prick test, which uses a different technology from the OraQuick would have also been positive at 20 weeks. You can be absolutely confident that you did not acquire HIV from the encounter you describe. There is no need for further testing.
I hope that this information is helpful. EWH
7 months ago
|
![]() |
Edward W. Hook M.D.
7 months ago
|
It sounds like you may be looking for answers on the internet- bad idea. Much of what is to be found there is out of date, taken out of context or just plain wrong. Particularly early in the course of infection (the first few weeks) a single OraQuick is not quite as accurate as tests performed on blood. Your three tests, plus the finger stick blood which is as accurate as laboratory based tests however absolutely prove that you were not infected in the low risk encounter that you described, as I said and explained in my original reply. No change in my assessment or recommendations. EWH
7 months ago
|
![]() |
Edward W. Hook M.D.
7 months ago
|