the fact that jessica apparently got the wrong result in the first place and wasnt hiv +, nothing suspicious to me and not attention whoring
Quote:Window period
Antibody tests may give false negative (no antibodies were detected despite the presence of HIV) results during the window period, an interval of three weeks to six months between the time of HIV infection and the production of measurable antibodies to HIV seroconversion. Most people develop detectable antibodies approximately 30 days after infection, although some seroconvert later. The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing
Thought i was right with up to 6 month. But certianly up to 3 months:
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/HIV/Pages/Diagnosispg.aspx
Always thought this talk of days wasn't quite right.
(12-04-2012 19:21 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]the fact that jessica apparently got the wrong result in the first place and wasnt hiv +, nothing suspicious to me and not attention whoring
Whilst i was reading, I noticed there was a problem with false positives, quite common.
May i just point out that going around telling everybody you may be HIV to boost your porn career seems to be like runner shooting themselves in the foot to get publicity.
Just saying is all.
(12-04-2012 19:21 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]the fact that jessica apparently got the wrong result in the first place and wasnt hiv +, nothing suspicious to me and not attention whoring
I dont know Rammy...I dont think you can honestly use "Fact" and "apparently" in the same sentence in this case
From what i understand none of this is factual at this point but hearsay!
(12-04-2012 17:47 )rj242 Wrote: [ -> ]According to the latest twitterposts, the second test has come back negative - apparently Jessica was given the wrong persons blood results initially.
How can that be true? No clinic would tell someone they were HIV positive without checking and double checking to make sure they were giving out the right test results. Are the clinic mad? I think in the twitter frenzy something got lost in translation and it shows that anything you read on twitter needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. More likely it was just a false positive of which there is it seems always a 1.5% chance. I read that it happened twice in California that porn stars had false positives, so that 1.5% chance does come up sometimes.
(12-04-2012 20:13 )tony confederate Wrote: [ -> ]How can that be true? No clinic would tell someone they were HIV positive without checking and double checking to make sure they were giving out the right test results.
As I said earlier, there are a lot of false positives. A test is a test, if you have a test and it's positive, that's all they can say. You only know it's a false positive when you get tested again and it's negative.
If you've gone for a test, they can't let you go with out saying the result of that test.
.....so how does she know the second test gave the true result and not the first?
(12-04-2012 20:36 )simplymarko Wrote: [ -> ].....so how does she know the second test gave the true result and not the first?
She doesn't know for CERTAIN. But false negatives are much rarer than false positives, so the odds are very much in her favour. A false negative only occurs in 3 cases out of every 10,000 HIV tests, so if she's received a negative test now that means there's a 99.97% chance that she doesn't have HIV.
(12-04-2012 21:09 )george lusk Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012 20:36 )simplymarko Wrote: [ -> ].....so how does she know the second test gave the true result and not the first?
She doesn't know for CERTAIN. But false negatives are much rarer than false positives, so the odds are very much in her favour. A false negative only occurs in 3 cases out of every 10,000 HIV tests, so if she's received a negative test now that means there's a 99.97% chance that she doesn't have HIV.
this may be true....however 50% of the tests she has taken suggests she has HIV