Comments on: Would routine yearly blood tests show indications that there is something wrong like AIDS/HIV?

By: hippie

hippie — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:57:49 +0000

A routine yearly test wouldn’t necessarily test for HIV/AIDS. You should have to sign a waiver to be tested for HIV.

BUT you do not have a high risk for the virus.

By: reddhotz2000

reddhotz2000 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:57:49 +0000

Prenatal HIV/AIDS testing is done routinely by many doctors as a screening tool, just for safety. If your history is true, the chances of you being HIV + are slim to none. Stop worrying. If you are this paranoid now, you will ruin your whole pregnancy worrying about minuscule things. Enjoy being pregnant and the changes in your body every day! I only wish I could go back and do mine over again.

By: Silverbullet

Silverbullet — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:57:49 +0000

You would almost certainly have SOME symptoms after this period of time. Don’t worry about it.

By: redneckbyinj

redneckbyinj — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:57:49 +0000

The routine tests that your doctor orders would not show if you had AIDS or HIV ,however they could show changes that would lead your doctor to further testing. Your possibility of exposure is very small I wouldn’t worry yourself! Enjoy your pregnancy and rest up babies are wonderful and exhausting!

By: B.J. C

B.J. C — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:57:49 +0000

From what you have stated, you are at an extremely low risk for being HIV+, however Low risk is not No Risk.

As far as whether routine annual blood tests would include HIV testing, the answer is probably no. And, anyways, a doctor is required by law to have your informed consent for HIV testing BEFORE they test, and so if it did happen, you should be aware of it. Not that every doctor gets informed consent (there have been too many cases where this did not occur).

The CDC recently changed the recommendations for HIV testing to suggest that every person (from young adults to the elderly) get an initial HIV test, to screen for infections, and then repeat testing depending on a person’s risk factors. But it may take a while for some doctors to change their protocol.

It is also possible (in contrast to the first answer) that you can be HIV+ for 7 years and show no symptoms of HIV infection. People can remain asymptomatic (no symptoms) for, on average, 8-10 years (some people show symptoms earlier, and some show symptoms later, but the average is 8-10 years)

It is possible for some blood tests to see indicator’s of underlying infections (including HIV), but they are often missed as they are non-specific (they don’t point to one disease, they point to many).

Aside from very early symptoms of acute infection — called acute retroviral syndrome — which not everyone experiences, the only fairly common (not universal) symptoms for many years following acute infection is thrombocytopenia (which can be seen on some blood tests) and general lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes in various parts of the body).

The reason we test (or should test) all pregnant women early on in pregnancy is that we can reduce the chance of mother to child HIV transmission from about 25-29% (without medical intervention) to under 1% (with full pre-natal, obstetric, and pediatric care). Basically, we can almost PREVENT HIV transmission if we know a mom is positive…..and even if they don’t find out until she is about to deliver the baby, they can still drastically reduce the risk by providing a medicine to the mom when she is in labour. So, HIV+ women, today, can easily deliver an HIV- baby…and many do successfully.

Hope this helps