Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!usenet
From: KARYPM%SJUVM.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Paul M. Karagianis)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Antibody reaction time.
Message-ID: <1991Apr22.211533.1693@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 18:03:32 GMT
Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 22
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 3100

seen a satisfactory response in the six months I've been following this
group so I guess it's time to ask it again.  What would be a realistic
estimate of the time between HIV infection and having anti-bodies show
up in typical (Elisa) testing?  Last weeks TIME had a report of a study
that tracked both virus and antibody levels in patients that the
researchers could make a strong case for having been recently infected.
Maximum antibody levels (judging from a simple graphic) appeared to
occur around 2 months after infection.  I also recall the CDC using >90
days in studies of needlesticks.  The NYC Department of Health suggests
6 months.

    "Everybody" (by which I mean I see it echoed in the standard news
media) seems to know that "it can take over a year" to develop
antibodies; I'm wondering how they know this.  There seems to be a
boogeyman quality to this disease in that the same people who worry      the
about the race being obliterated by HIV infected mosquitos, dentists
and toilet seats seem to perpetuate anecdotal stories of victims who
didn't test positive for extended periods after the infection.  I also
speculate that there is a second problem in that we tend to correlate
guilt with date of transgression.  i.e. I'm more culpable for what I did
yesterday that what I did umpteen months/years ago when "I was younger",
or "less informed" or "before I found Christ (and/or You)".