do i have aids if the doctor siad my red bloods cells are prefect?

Question

i got blood tested in decmber 4 diabeates and the doctor said everything in my blood was perfect includeing my red blood cells so does that mean i don't have aids?

got blood tested in decmber 4 diabeates and the doctor said everything in my blood was perfect includeing my red blood cells so does that mean i don't have aids and other stds and agian i'm 15 i only had sex twice but i recivce oral sex from 2 differnt girls and 1 of the girls everybody said had something but she said she didn't

Answer 1

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print


Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.

Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.

The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood.

Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the role of HIV in AIDS.

From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and pre-AIDS
are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)

Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."

This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test (Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June 2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from

http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm

According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in just the last three years.

Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV infection.'
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy for people who doctors assume are infected.�

Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test
manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.

At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be confirmed with follow up testing. This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests� is widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that
medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in labor

Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester M Crawford. The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)

These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother not to breastfeed. Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal
feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of her child.

Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test. Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even evaluate their product in multiparous women.

Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection, doctors may want to retest women in labor who�ve previously come up negative just to
be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."

Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora�s box of potential life-altering situations.

"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start prophylactic chemotherapy right away. Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives' with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and treatment manufacturers."

The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.

Answer 2

If you have HIV you might not have any symptoms and your red blood cells would be normal. BUT if you actually have AIDS, you might have some red blood cell problems, like anemia..
Especially if you have had AIDS for a long time. Checking your red blood cells wouldn't be much help in diagnosing AIDS.
What you would want to look at is the white count, it is usually low with aids.

***THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR ADDED DETAILS:***

NO, IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE AIDS OR OTHER STD'S. You must be tested specifically for STD's

It may be hard to tell your doctor you are sexually active but this has to be done. Let him know and ask him what tests he would suggest. Most can be covered with just a urine sample and a blood test. But they have to know what they are looking for. So you tell the doctor you are sexually active and he will choose the tests.
.

Answer 3

Just because your red blood cells "are prefect" doesn't mean that you are not HIV positive. Ask your doctor to do an HIV test or check around and see who is offering free HIV testing. In most cases the people doing the blood work will never know your name, and you can sleep better at night. From now on remember the 2 praises and you will live a long and healthy life. On me Not in me, and most important
No glove No Love. Trust me HIV/AIDS is not something to mess around with. I have been living with it for more 15 years and I wish someone would have talked to me as I have just talked to you. Don't be fooled there is no cure just hand fulls of drugs everyday! Good luck and be safe.

Answer 4

No. the test for HIV-AIDS is different and specific. You can have perfect red blood cells and still have aids.

If you are concerned about having AIDS you should ask your doctor to do a specific test for it.

Answer 5

If he didn't say anything about the AIDS virus, you probably don't have it. Unfortunately, AIDS doesn't kill red blood cells, it affects white blood cells and their production. If you are still worried, call the doctor and specifically ask about HIV/AIDS

Answer 6

The blood test that you had does not measure what is inside your each of the cells. HIV can exist in your cells for some time before your body begins to recongize the virus and begins to produce antibodies.

The fact that you consider that you could have HIV suggest that you need to look at your behaviours that put you at risk.

If someone lies to you above their HIV status and infects you -- call the police. They need to charged.

Answer 7

yes I dont think he would tell you you are perfect if u had aids. =/ but you have to ASK him because doctors wont tell you out of the blue.