Bigtime Hiv Nightmare

[anotheridiot]

well i just got back from the clinic. my results from the RNA PCR were negative. did a follow up antibody test, which this time was also negative. meaning i was unlucky enough to have two false positives in my previous test.

this was the toughest, most stressful two weeks of my life, and ive learned my lesson. thanks for those posters who replied to my original posting...it was comforting and having an outlet helped me deal with it. the only downside to all of this is that now im probably addicted to valium

[sezze]

A good result for you . The false result was probably due to a mild infection in your blood . If you want to be 100% certain , do the test again in 3 months ( if you can manage the stresslevel ) .

Valium , try to stray off . It is handy if you had a situation like this and i can imagine taking it then but it is extremely addictive and getting of it is very hard . Plenty of people around the world are addicted to valium and its relatives . The sooner you quid the better . If you have trouble sleeping for a few days , try alcohol . After taking valium , it shouldn't be a real problem yet but you might already feel the problem to get alseep . Any day you take it longer the effects will get bigger and bigger and the effect of the valium itself dissappear ( so end up taking more ) . Valium is a relative to heroin , so you can see the danger in it .

[anotheridiot]

yeah i have to test again, but im feeling a hell of a lot more confident. I know about the addictiveness of valium... i consider my flagrant misuse of it these past two weeks to be entirely medicinal and completely necessary .... im looking forward to waking up tomorrow and not having this nightmare hanging over me...sleep wont be a problem tonight!

[wasabi]

I'm very happy for you. I can imagine your terror as I have been through it myself and luckily came out negative. Just try to always remember the anxiety you just felt as time passes and the temptations that led you to make these mistakes occur again. If you must go with bargirls try to stick to hand jobs or some other non insertive activity.

[mommysboy]

I'm not saying this is the case as I have no qualifications and do not know, but what about this as an alternative:

You were never in much danger of contracting hiv as has been shown time and again on this forum, and the hiv tests are rather unreliable as your series of tests may have proven, thus, there is no moral lesson to learn, other than wear a rubber mac til we know different.

Quite a number of us have come on this board convinced we have acquired hiv whilst in Thailand and it's connected to behaviour that may be described as risque and inauthentic, and I increasingly think that this phenomenon is really displacing strong feelings. It's very real and painful, awfully traumatic as I can testify. For many of us sex is honestly best conducted in a genuine relationship especially if one is sensitive.

[anotheridiot]

@mommysboy....

of course sex is best conducted in a genuine relationship. Regardless of sensitivity, i was reacting to getting two positive antibody tests after what many would call a high risk exposure, and what equally as many would call low risk. I too, have heard time and time again, about how hard HIV is to contract from heterosexual sex. I have lived in Bangkok for a number of years, and have seen the blase attitude that many expats,tourists and locals have with regards to unprotected sex, and over the years, i have been drunkenly careless on occasion and yet apparently the majority of all new HIV infections in Thailand are heterosexual?

i dont know how these infections happen, or what kind of heterosexual sex is taking place for them to occur, but its not a myth.

i disagree when you say there is no moral lesson to learn. the lesson is to have respect for yourself, and for the people you sleep with. i could of feasibly passed on a life changing disease to somebody else. i would of been forced to restrict my own future plans for my own life, if my original test was accurate. So there is a moral duty to wear a condom

[mommysboy]

@mommysboy....

of course sex is best conducted in a genuine relationship. Regardless of sensitivity, i was reacting to getting two positive antibody tests after what many would call a high risk exposure, and what equally as many would call low risk. I too, have heard time and time again, about how hard HIV is to contract from heterosexual sex. I have lived in Bangkok for a number of years, and have seen the blase attitude that many expats,tourists and locals have with regards to unprotected sex, and over the years, i have been drunkenly careless on occasion and yet apparently the majority of all new HIV infections in Thailand are heterosexual?

i dont know how these infections happen, or what kind of heterosexual sex is taking place for them to occur, but its not a myth.

i disagree when you say there is no moral lesson to learn. the lesson is to have respect for yourself, and for the people you sleep with. i could of feasibly passed on a life changing disease to somebody else. i would of been forced to restrict my own future plans for my own life, if my original test was accurate. So there is a moral duty to wear a condom

I can quite understand why you were agitated, it might induce a nervous breakdown in others, including myself, and in no way am I criticising you or your morality. I was saying that one after one, time and again guys arrive in Thailand perhaps embark on risque activity and become convinced they get HIV, whereas in fact they do not but clearly suffer some emotional crisis possibly with drink or drugs being a catalyst too; I merely gave my take on why and I think it is worth considering. Check back on the threads.

What we can say is the test was wrong!! which is surely worth at least a raised eyebrow, ie, tests are only considered worthy if they are 100% specific to whatever it is they are supposed to test. If a cold virus, knock on the head, or last night's dinner causes a positive too, then that invalidates the procedure and the test is not predictive on it's own (although it might be considered alongside other evidence). So from your own personal experience with the test we can conclude that maybe you do have hiv or maybe you don't, and I'd say that from the test we can predict Man Utd will win tomorrow and maybe they won't. Get my drift ?!

[sezze]

@mommysboy....

of course sex is best conducted in a genuine relationship. Regardless of sensitivity, i was reacting to getting two positive antibody tests after what many would call a high risk exposure, and what equally as many would call low risk. I too, have heard time and time again, about how hard HIV is to contract from heterosexual sex. I have lived in Bangkok for a number of years, and have seen the blase attitude that many expats,tourists and locals have with regards to unprotected sex, and over the years, i have been drunkenly careless on occasion and yet apparently the majority of all new HIV infections in Thailand are heterosexual?

i dont know how these infections happen, or what kind of heterosexual sex is taking place for them to occur, but its not a myth.

i disagree when you say there is no moral lesson to learn. the lesson is to have respect for yourself, and for the people you sleep with. i could of feasibly passed on a life changing disease to somebody else. i would of been forced to restrict my own future plans for my own life, if my original test was accurate. So there is a moral duty to wear a condom

I can quite understand why you were agitated, it might induce a nervous breakdown in others, including myself, and in no way am I criticising you or your morality. I was saying that one after one, time and again guys arrive in Thailand perhaps embark on risque activity and become convinced they get HIV, whereas in fact they do not but clearly suffer some emotional crisis possibly with drink or drugs being a catalyst too; I merely gave my take on why and I think it is worth considering. Check back on the threads.

What we can say is the test was wrong!! which is surely worth at least a raised eyebrow, ie, tests are only considered worthy if they are 100% specific to whatever it is they are supposed to test. If a cold virus, knock on the head, or last night's dinner causes a positive too, then that invalidates the procedure and the test is not predictive on it's own (although it might be considered alongside other evidence). So from your own personal experience with the test we can conclude that maybe you do have hiv or maybe you don't, and I'd say that from the test we can predict Man Utd will win tomorrow and maybe they won't. Get my drift ?!

In theory yes you are right . This is theory however , nice for in a book but not for real life . Nothing is black and white , in whatever you do . Tests are only tests , and and not 100% . That is why do do a couple of test . If all give the same result , then the test is conclusive . Every body reacts different and some test may at some point in life make a false result , ending up in a inconslusive result ... so further testing needed .

Same like measuring your fever . You do not have the same temp the all day . It varies quite a lot in a 24h period .And If you start running at the time you body temp is allreay raised , you certainly have fever ... but not really . If you have a infection of 1 kind , your amount of antibodies in your blood is raised . Your body is working on the mild infection and will react more to everything . If you do a tsest which checks for HIV antibodies ... well it might give a false result ( inconclusive ) .

About your morality , it is yours and not somebody elses . As long as it is between consenting adults , there is nothing wrong . If you do not like it , bad luck to you . You are not to judge somebody and neither is anybody else .

[mommysboy]

@mommysboy....

of course sex is best conducted in a genuine relationship. Regardless of sensitivity, i was reacting to getting two positive antibody tests after what many would call a high risk exposure, and what equally as many would call low risk. I too, have heard time and time again, about how hard HIV is to contract from heterosexual sex. I have lived in Bangkok for a number of years, and have seen the blase attitude that many expats,tourists and locals have with regards to unprotected sex, and over the years, i have been drunkenly careless on occasion and yet apparently the majority of all new HIV infections in Thailand are heterosexual?

i dont know how these infections happen, or what kind of heterosexual sex is taking place for them to occur, but its not a myth.

i disagree when you say there is no moral lesson to learn. the lesson is to have respect for yourself, and for the people you sleep with. i could of feasibly passed on a life changing disease to somebody else. i would of been forced to restrict my own future plans for my own life, if my original test was accurate. So there is a moral duty to wear a condom

I can quite understand why you were agitated, it might induce a nervous breakdown in others, including myself, and in no way am I criticising you or your morality. I was saying that one after one, time and again guys arrive in Thailand perhaps embark on risque activity and become convinced they get HIV, whereas in fact they do not but clearly suffer some emotional crisis possibly with drink or drugs being a catalyst too; I merely gave my take on why and I think it is worth considering. Check back on the threads.

What we can say is the test was wrong!! which is surely worth at least a raised eyebrow, ie, tests are only considered worthy if they are 100% specific to whatever it is they are supposed to test. If a cold virus, knock on the head, or last night's dinner causes a positive too, then that invalidates the procedure and the test is not predictive on it's own (although it might be considered alongside other evidence). So from your own personal experience with the test we can conclude that maybe you do have hiv or maybe you don't, and I'd say that from the test we can predict Man Utd will win tomorrow and maybe they won't. Get my drift ?!

In theory yes you are right . This is theory however , nice for in a book but not for real life . Nothing is black and white , in whatever you do . Tests are only tests , and and not 100% . That is why do do a couple of test . If all give the same result , then the test is conclusive . Every body reacts different and some test may at some point in life make a false result , ending up in a inconslusive result ... so further testing needed .

Same like measuring your fever . You do not have the same temp the all day . It varies quite a lot in a 24h period .And If you start running at the time you body temp is allreay raised , you certainly have fever ... but not really . If you have a infection of 1 kind , your amount of antibodies in your blood is raised . Your body is working on the mild infection and will react more to everything . If you do a tsest which checks for HIV antibodies ... well it might give a false result ( inconclusive ) .

About your morality , it is yours and not somebody elses . As long as it is between consenting adults , there is nothing wrong . If you do not like it , bad luck to you . You are not to judge somebody and neither is anybody else .

What if we just ditch the bit about morality as it is rather tedious for all concerned, and detracts from the real issue anyway.

WELL that's rich talking about theory when I'm talking actual grounded fact about what happened!!!!

No, I completely disagree about the your take on what is factual: this is supposed to be an absolute, complete, discrete, unequivocal test for a virus and is a test routinely applied, and from this test people are informed of a seismic change in their life expectations- black and white no middle ground. People have nervous breakdowns upon receiving the news- just the thought of it can induce severe anxiety that may lead to stress induced afflictions. We are told that a positive shouts out at you if I remember rightly, and as I say HIV is supposed to have a set of antibodies specific to the virus. False tests indicate fallibility in the test and even a small percentage completely invalidates the test and it should not be used then. I'm not being a purist, nor living in a theoretical world.

Get real will you!

[anotheridiot]

well the initial test result was 'inconclusive'

any positive antibody result needs to be confirmed by other tests. The antibody test rarely gives false positives, but it does happen. Thank god....

[mommysboy]

well the initial test result was 'inconclusive'

any positive antibody result needs to be confirmed by other tests. The antibody test rarely gives false positives, but it does happen. Thank god....

Obviously you have been to hell and back and just feel glad that this awful ordeal is over. But as I say there is a strong counter argument that says you were never in any danger and have been subject to bad science start to finish- and that is that. NO SHADES OF GREY.

Happy that you got through it.

[sezze]

Sorry to say , but like i stated before ... nothing is 100% . You think if you have a flu shot that you will not get it ? You think if you take anti viral HIV that it is not possible to breakout ? If you got sugar in your urine you are diabetic ? It doesn't work like that i'm afraid . Yes they do check for antibodies for HIV , but sometimes the tests are inconclusive , so they have to test more . I guess that many times an inconclusive test is probably automatic being followed by a different test but all before you hear the news of the inconclusive . There is no test in the world who give you a 100% rating , even DNA and fingerprint is not 100% . Everybody is a product of nature and many things are unknown , unmeasurable and undetectable . Tests are improving to give you a more certain result in shorter notice , but you will never get the 100% rating .

[mommysboy]

Sorry to say , but like i stated before ... nothing is 100% . You think if you have a flu shot that you will not get it ? You think if you take anti viral HIV that it is not possible to breakout ? If you got sugar in your urine you are diabetic ? It doesn't work like that i'm afraid . Yes they do check for antibodies for HIV , but sometimes the tests are inconclusive , so they have to test more . I guess that many times an inconclusive test is probably automatic being followed by a different test but all before you hear the news of the inconclusive . There is no test in the world who give you a 100% rating , even DNA and fingerprint is not 100% . Everybody is a product of nature and many things are unknown , unmeasurable and undetectable . Tests are improving to give you a more certain result in shorter notice , but you will never get the 100% rating .

I disagree completely. The argument stands as it is, why bring anything else in to the equation?

[sezze]

Check here ...

http://www.managingdesire.org/hivtaccu.html

http://www.thebody.com/content/art2497.html#accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test

http://www.aids.org/topics/hiv-testing-101-part-1/

Many more to choose from .

I wish it was 100% certain , same like with any other test but it isn't . That is why they perform multiple tests in the 1st place , because they know it is extremely important and nerve wrecking for people . I did bring up the others because it is basically the same . Not 1 test gives you a 100% certainty , however really checking for virus itself is close to it , but that would be extremely time and money consuming , Human bodies are living cells and virusses are also very adaptive . Minor fluctuations here and there are always possible and in some cases may end up in a false result . Hiw 1st result wasn't false , he had a inconclusive . They did perfrom a better test and while this was a extremely painfull experience , it happens from time to time .

[mommysboy]

Check here ...

http://www.managingd...g/hivtaccu.html

http://www.thebody.c...7.html#accuracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_test

http://www.aids.org/...ing-101-part-1/

Many more to choose from .

I wish it was 100% certain , same like with any other test but it isn't . That is why they perform multiple tests in the 1st place , because they know it is extremely important and nerve wrecking for people . I did bring up the others because it is basically the same . Not 1 test gives you a 100% certainty , however really checking for virus itself is close to it , but that would be extremely time and money consuming , Human bodies are living cells and virusses are also very adaptive . Minor fluctuations here and there are always possible and in some cases may end up in a false result . Hiw 1st result wasn't false , he had a inconclusive . They did perfrom a better test and while this was a extremely painfull experience , it happens from time to time .

I guess you are in the biz so to speak, and as I am not I can't really argue with great certainty. I can only suggest you think again.

I didn't use your links as for every link that says one thing there is another that says differently.

What I'm sure is certain is that to be deemed reliable a test must be specific, repeatable and must cross reference to a viral test. Obviously this did not happen, and this is the second such test I have encountered in real life. And of course there have been some high profile cases.

As we know no less than 70 agents can actually cause a false positive!!! That's worrying.

An area of mitigation: obviously someone usually presents themselves as ill when in need of a test, and the test merely confirms what is suspected.

Perhaps test is too strong a word, and it should really be regarded as an indicator of possible immune problems.

IMHO OP never was in much danger if any of contracting HIV, and was the victim of poor science.

[Englander]

I know about the addictiveness of valium... i consider my flagrant misuse of it these past two weeks to be entirely medicinal and completely necessary .... im looking forward to waking up tomorrow and not having this nightmare hanging over me...sleep wont be a problem tonight!

I was speaking to a drug counsellor who works at a local prison recently and she was telling me that the purple Xanax that is so easily purchased for 1-200bht apack over the counter in Thailand, is about 1-2% of the actual drug its supposed to be and the rest is absolute garbage put in to give you a hit as its knocked up in a backstreet somewhere in SEA, hence why they dont actually chill you out as actual valium does more it knocks you clean out and gives you a nasty drowsy on edge feeling the following day.

She also said its renowned for thinning the blood, hence if you are cut badly and it wont stop bleeding to tell whichever hospital youre at that youve been taking it as even in England Thai valium is known as being a menace.

So if youre going to take valium in Thailand get a prescription from a doctor and go to Boots so youve a better chance of getting what you think youre taking.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Englander

[nephron]

mommysboy: You are very certain of what you think, and I don't know that you are very amenable to changing your mind but nonetheless- very few medical tests are 100% accurate, which doesn't mean that there is no point doing them. If we didn't test, we wouldn't have any idea what was going on and what to treat for. Knowing that someone is "sick" isn't very helpful when you don't know what they are sick with, and some illnesses don't show clear symptoms until it is either too late to treat or treatment has a much lower success rate and is much more invasive.

[mommysboy]

mommysboy: You are very certain of what you think, and I don't know that you are very amenable to changing your mind but nonetheless- very few medical tests are 100% accurate, which doesn't mean that there is no point doing them. If we didn't test, we wouldn't have any idea what was going on and what to treat for. Knowing that someone is "sick" isn't very helpful when you don't know what they are sick with, and some illnesses don't show clear symptoms until it is either too late to treat or treatment has a much lower success rate and is much more invasive.

Much is fair comment but doesn't actually relate to what I have written, and you treat the matter in rather nefarious terms.

Yes nothing is 100% in life. Do you think that in my 50 years I've been wandering around gazing at the daisies growing?

As I have stated it quite possibly deserves the status of indicator , but I think it is quite fair to emphasise this particular test as opposed to other medical procedures may be unaccaptably flawed.

But I do not have any qualifications, I assume you to are in the biz? I can only urge you to look at this issue anew.

[Sheryl]

.... this particular test as opposed to other medical procedures may be unaccaptably flawed.

...

It is not a single test but a testing procedure carefully developed to minimize cost and delays while still ensuring accuracy. As such, it involves a series of tests, starting with the quickest and cheapest and then proceeding to another if the first is positive and so on.

It is not in the least "flawed', the testing procedure is very well designed and yields very reliable results -- no chance of false positive since positive antibody results are followed up by testing for the viral material itself. Possibility of false negative does exist if exposure was recent, and this is explained in the counselling so that people can understand what the results do and do not mean.

That the process of getting testing is nerve-wracking is not the fault of the science. Nor is it within the power of science to alleviate. Many medical tests are nerve-wracking to undergo. The testing procedure has been designed to minimize unnecessary anguish insofar as possible. This is why people have to come back in several hours for the result when in fact the first test (and the only one performed in most cases) is instantaneous: it allows time for further testing of initially positive results without putting the patients through the anxiety of knowing that an initial result was positive.

The OP's case was unusual in that after 3 initial antibody-based tests it was not possible to definitively rule out HIV infection, necessitating the most time consuming and costly type of test, at which point the patient has to be told since a delay of several days becomes necessary. If you review the initial post it is clear that the staff did their best to explain this to him in as reassuring a way as possible, he was told that this does happen sometimes and that there was a good chance he was actually fine. That is as much reassurrance as could in conscience be given until the results were in.

Should avoid projecting one's own fears, anxieties and conflicts onto the medical science. They are 2 separate things. Medicine can determine, accurately, if you have the virus. Your feelings about the possibility of this, the circumstances leading to the need for the test, etc etc are another matter. It is sometimes necessary and helpful to see get psychological help with that. Particulalry, Mommysboy, if those feelings persist long after the test is over. That would help you much more than displacing these feelings onto medical science.

[mommysboy]

.... this particular test as opposed to other medical procedures may be unaccaptably flawed.

...

It is not a single test but a testing procedure carefully developed to minimize cost and delays while still ensuring accuracy. As such, it involves a series of tests, starting with the quickest and cheapest and then proceeding to another if the first is positive and so on.

It is not in the least "flawed', the testing procedure is very well designed and yields very reliable results -- no chance of false positive since positive antibody results are followed up by testing for the viral material itself. Possibility of false negative does exist if exposure was recent, and this is explained in the counselling so that people can understand what the results do and do not mean.

That the process of getting testing is nerve-wracking is not the fault of the science. Nor is it within the power of science to alleviate. Many medical tests are nerve-wracking to undergo. The testing procedure has been designed to minimize unnecessary anguish insofar as possible. This is why people have to come back in several hours for the result when in fact the first test (and the only one performed in most cases) is instantaneous: it allows time for further testing of initially positive results without putting the patients through the anxiety of knowing that an initial result was positive.

The OP's case was unusual in that after 3 initial antibody-based tests it was not possible to definitively rule out HIV infection, necessitating the most time consuming and costly type of test, at which point the patient has to be told since a delay of several days becomes necessary. If you review the initial post it is clear that the staff did their best to explain this to him in as reassuring a way as possible, he was told that this does happen sometimes and that there was a good chance he was actually fine. That is as much reassurrance as could in conscience be given until the results were in.

Should avoid projecting one's own fears, anxieties and conflicts onto the medical science. They are 2 separate things. Medicine can determine, accurately, if you have the virus. Your feelings about the possibility of this, the circumstances leading to the need for the test, etc etc are another matter. It is sometimes necessary and helpful to see get psychological help with that. Particulalry, Mommysboy, if those feelings persist long after the test is over. That would help you much more than displacing these feelings onto medical science.

Sometimes I have to pursue a course of action if I feel it is justified, even if I don't really want to. That is just part of being a person with a developed social conscience.

We try to check our own fears and prejudices of course. Another great fear of mine is dental pain, but I look at this area and see clearly that it is something that I must deal with on a psychological level, as the science is beyond dispute, and I have derived a great deal of benefit from.

I doubt I will ever reach this conclusion about AIDS science in all honesty, at least at this juncture.

Got a feeling that OP and many others may agree Sheryl. But in all sincerity thanks for your great advice on a rang of topics and I appreciate you too have your vald opinion which I must defer to as I have just intuition and life experience and no scientific background.

( I really do take on board what people say, and I will take this matter up with my GP back in UK, and possibly the local hospital if I still feel the same way about the subject.)