Rapid HIV Test

[mecch]

mecch,

That's true, but evidently he felt more comfortable with the home-test or he would have tested elsewhere.

First of all, you don't know that to be the case.
Second of all, since you don't know, it can't be used as argument in the debate on the merits and disadvantages of home testing. 

[veritas]

mecch,

Thats true, he should speak for himself. However, that doesn't alter the fact that more people should be testing and I believe home-testing to be a viable option.

v

[mecch]

I think "routine testing" for everyone is the idea that should be pushed and supported.  Its quite complicated for a number of reasons - for instance in the USA - how would you provide expensive health care to the all the HIV cases revealed?  And how to secure privacy and nondiscrimination. 

But all these things must improve in tandem.

In rich countries with universal health care, routine testing should be the norm but I'm not sure it is. Wonder why not. I guess because people have a right to decide what they want to know and be known about their bodies and health. I think one of the sticklers is that HIV is transmissible but not socially communicable. I think state health officials can order measures to contain tuberculosis, for example.

Home tests have their value but they are not the panacea.

[veritas]

"Home tests have their value but they are not the panacea. "

 We are in total agreement !

v

[bocker3]

I believe home-testing to be a viable option.

v

This is the main point of contention, IMO -- it is NOT, at present, a viable option.  There are too many technical issues -- that combined with the emotional issues of individuals make this a bad option at this time.  I fear you are minimizing this issues.

When we get to a point that the sensitivity and specificity of the test is such that a confirmatory test is not required, then we get closer to viability.  Until then, I think it is a huge mistake. 

Mike

[veritas]

Mike,

One would have to take a confirmatory test anyway.

v

[RapidRod]

Veritas,
They aren't approved and the decision was main by persons with greater knowlege then you.

[veritas]

RR,

Not approved by the FDA, however, endorsed by other organizations( ie: WHO, UNICEF.).



"A seventh test, iDiagnostics Rapid HIV Test, is performed in the home, but does not require the sample to be sent to a lab. Instead, the patient uses either a blood or urine sample to perform the test on their own. Test results normally appear in about fifteen minutes. This test is not approved by the FDA, but is endorsed by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF"

Those organizations have greater knowledge than you.  Perhaps we should borrow from the rest of the world and not be so arrogant as to think our way is the only way.

http://aidshiv.suite101.com/article.cfm/rapid_screening_tests_for_hiv


v

[RapidRod]

NOT APPROVED TEST.

[veritas]

Your CAPS told me all I wanted to know.

[tednlou2]

This isn't just about barebacking.  I got HIV while using a condom.  I've talked about it before--some laughed.  The guy took it off without me knowing.  He was a long-term good friend.  Now, if I had a very accurate, fairly inexpensive, home, rapid HIV test, we both could have done it.  If he was outside the window period, it would have shown up.  If he was still in the window, I wouldn't have known.  I would still have liked the option to see whether his HIV would have shown up.

About the emotional side of learning your poz.....  would learning you're poz from some bureaucrat at the STD Clinic make it any less horrible?  I understand if you test poz in front of that sex partner then they now know your status.  I would still have liked the option and would like to see a very accurate rapid test for others.   

[Rev. Moon]

About the emotional side of learning your poz.....  would learning you're poz from some bureaucrat at the STD Clinic make it any less horrible?  I understand if you test poz in front of that sex partner then they now know your status.  I would still have liked the option and would like to see a very accurate rapid test for others.   

Tedderz, you are like the embodiment of innocence.  Do you think, knowing how sensitive you are, that you would have been able to provide comfort or support to some screaming queen who just found out about their status in your bedroom?  You'd probably have some sort of nervous breakdown along with them (and become a monk after that encounter).

These are the sort of "news" that, in my opinion, require the right setting and cast of supporting characters before they get delivered.  A trick's bedroom doesn't fiit that definition for me.

[tednlou2]

Tedderz, you are like the embodiment of innocence.  Do you think, knowing how sensitive you are, that you would have been able to provide comfort or support to some screaming queen who just found out about their status in your bedroom?  You'd probably have some sort of nervous breakdown along with them (and become a monk after that encounter).

These are the sort of "news" that, in my opinion, require the right setting and cast of supporting characters before they get delivered.  A trick's bedroom doesn't fiit that definition for me.

I see your point.  This guy was suppose to be a friend.  Even as a friend, comforting him would have been difficult.  I can't imagine having to do that with a complete stranger.  I mean, I know I wouldn't have known what to say to comfort them.  So, I see your point.  I still think the option would be nice to have.  Many people who have been dating someone get pressured into having unprotected sex.  They would have the option to say...here, take this test.  Yes, they shouldn't allow themselves to be pressured and play with their health, but it happens.  Even in relationships, people will lie and say they went and got tested and they are neg.  I have a friend where he and his partner were suppose to go get tested together.  His partner said he was right near the health dept after work and decided to go ahead and get his.  His partner may have told the truth.  However, they were suppose to do it together and get the results together.  I told my friend that seemed shady to me.  If he had a home test, he could say let's take this together to double check without seeming to distrust him too much.  Or, he could insist on both of them testing together at the clinic like agreed.     

I learned my status in the hospital with the doc saying, "You are HIV poz and actually have AIDS.  You should stay away from cats and dogs.  We'll have an infectious disease doctor come see you at some point."  You would have thought in a hospital setting they would send a counselor to talk to you.  I guess that is where I'm coming from on that issue.  Would it make a difference whether you learned your status at home or at the doc?  I'm sure many testing sites have very good counseling.  Having to comfort a sex partner and that sex partner learning your status if you are the one who tested poz is the huge downside.  For people who just won't use condoms, it seems like a good tool even with the downsides.     

[veritas]

Tednlou2,

" For people who just won't use condoms, it seems like a good tool even with the downsides"

Exactly ! However, not only for a nightly rendezvous, but to also eliminate roadblocks to testing in general.  In a perfect world, Da Rev's scenario is ideal with the appropriate cast of characters and right setting. However, this scenario doesn't happen all the time and it's available. Why is that? Furthermore, people, in general, are stronger than most believe when faced with a life-threatening issue. A home test eliminates those roadblocks trenched in fear and allows the process to begin after the  initial "freak". Most will do what's necessary and mobilize themselves. If the status quo was working, the push for additional testing would not be necessary. Lets not cut short the intestinal fortitude of people in general and allow the simplest path toward testing  to be available. If you do the samething over and over again you get the same result. ( By the way, I agree with the Rev, that a trick's bedroom is probably not the best place to test.)

v

[RapidRod]

Then you have those same ignorant people asking if they were at risk of contracting HIV from the test kit. It never ends.

[veritas]

RR,

I have to admit your right. There are those who won't "get it". Those ,we hope, come to the Am I forum. (HELP!!!!). lol

v

[RapidRod]

I work another forum and here is a question just asked today from a guy that used a home test kit.

Sorry to ask why i can't contact HIV from a test kit, I m so scared??? As  the kit "purified recombinant antigens of HIV".  I have gone to government department for checking my blood. The blood test report will be released the coming tuesday or wednesday. but what im concerning now it that kit containing HIV antigens......

[Matty the Damned]

I work another forum and here is a question just asked today from a guy that used a home test kit.

Sorry to ask why i can't contact HIV from a test kit, I m so scared??? As  the kit "purified recombinant antigens of HIV".  I have gone to government department for checking my blood. The blood test report will be released the coming tuesday or wednesday. but what im concerning now it that kit containing HIV antigens......

Don't waste your time Roddles. Whilst AMI is a sewer trap, Living With is exponentially worse.

MtD

[veritas]

He probably didn't read or understand the directions. The silver lining is, it mobilized him to get a second test.

v

[Ann]

Then you have those same ignorant people asking if they were at risk of contracting HIV from the test kit. It never ends.

And how many times have we had people who used the ones you interpret yourself at home - the ones that aren't approved for home use but are available on the internet anyway - and come to us because they got the damn thing out of the garbage an hour or so later "to check it again" and found that the positive line had developed?

This is one of the reasons why the "interpret at home" tests have a high rate of false positives. With many of them, there seems to be a time-specific window in which the result may be read with accuracy. After that, for whatever reason, all the lines come up.

Can you imagine a situation where the trick you've just tested goes back and pulls the test out of the waste-paper basket next to your bed or bath, finds one or both of them are now showing positive results, and proceeds to beat the living crap out of you? I sure can.

He probably didn't read or understand the directions. The silver lining is, it mobilized him to get a second test.

And going by what we see in Am I - as well as other parts of the forum - a lot of people don't have very good reading comprehension skills. And some of the information that comes with the non-approved home tests is not only written in gobbledegook, but they also leave out important information like the fact that the positive line will appear after a certain amount of time, regardless of your status.

[RapidRod]

And how many times have we had people who used the ones you interpret yourself at home - the ones that aren't approved for home use but are available on the internet anyway - and come to us because they got the damn thing out of the garbage an hour or so later "to check it again" and found that the positive line had developed?

This is one of the reasons why the "interpret at home" tests have a high rate of false positives. With many of them, there seems to be a time-specific window in which the result may be read with accuracy. After that, for whatever reason, all the lines come up.

Can you imagine a situation where the trick you've just tested goes back and pulls the test out of the waste-paper basket next to your bed or bath, finds one or both of them are now showing positive results, and proceeds to beat the living crap out of you? I sure can.

And going by what we see in Am I - as well as other parts of the forum - a lot of people don't have very good reading comprehension skills. And some of the information that comes with the non-approved home tests is not only written in gobbledegook, but they also leave out important information like the fact that the positive line will appear after a certain amount of time, regardless of your status.

All time time Ann. That why that guy finally went and had his test done elsewhere. It only took about ten replies to him to convince him to get a proper approved test and you can't contract HIV from a test kit.

[veritas]

Ann,

What you say may be true, however, what about all those who have used the test correctly and have gone on to test again. Also, how many more would test with a confidential home-test readily available?  We just don't know those numbers. Why does the WHO endorse these tests? We do know that more testing should be done, thus zeroing in on the reasons why people don't test ( like fear of exposure) is important. The more options the better.

Why are we knocking  potential members for being uninformed? Everyone has to start somewhere. Look at it as a teaching moment.

Learning is a process, with freeflowing ideas, we don't have to agree.

If new ideas had never evolved, we would still be living in caves.

v

[Ann]

Also, how many more would test with a confidential home-test readily available? 

There already IS one readily available. It's called Home Access. You don't interpret it yourself, you send it in to a lab.

The ones you interpret yourself are just too fraught with chances of wrong interpretation, both negative and positive. You'll never get me to think they're a good idea. And why the WHO endorses them is beyond me.

And the ones you interpret yourself are exactly the ones Ted is talking about. Otherwise, that trick you test in your bedroom would have to hang out for a few days before you could ring up for your results.

[RapidRod]

veritas, what part are you not comprehending? Education doesn't work? How long has HIV Prevention been going on? Take a look at the "I just tested Positive Forum." Is education working? No. Hell no. If people can't do something as simple as using a condom correctly and consistently you expect them to be able to read the instructions to an at home test? Look where you are.. I think that is enough said.  

[veritas]

Ann,

That test is not totally confidential. There's the rub.
By the way, I believe you said something similar about PrEP (your quote went something like this: Any doctor prescribing hiv drugs to someone without hiv should loose their license.)

RR,

Education just doesn't work? Perhaps the methods need to be changed. Look, I certainly understand the frustrations with trying to convey what we take for granted, but your only looking at a small percentage in that forum. How many has it worked for?This doesn't mean we give up on the difficult ones. We try to find other ways. That's why these forums "work'. If one person's explanation doesn't do it, another might chime in with the "Aha" moment. Same for home-testing.

By the way, I'm comprehending a lot in this thread.

v

[RapidRod]

Ann,

That test is not totally confidential. There's the rub.
By the way, I believe you said something similar about PrEP (your quote went something like this: Any doctor prescribing hiv drugs to someone without hiv should loose their license.)

RR,

Education just doesn't work? Perhaps the methods need to be changed. Look, I certainly understand the frustrations with trying to convey what we take for granted, but your only looking at a small percentage in that forum. How many has it worked for?This doesn't mean we give up on the difficult ones. We try to find other ways. That's why these forums "work'. If one person's explanation doesn't do it, another might chime in with the "Aha" moment. Same for home-testing.

By the way, I'm comprehending a lot in this thread.

v

Just in the US alone,there are apx. 250k people walking around with HIV that don't know their status and you have 52k diagnosed with HIV each year in the US. Home Rapid Testing is not the fix. How many of the 52k contracted HIV from excessive drinking or drug use and had unprotected sex or shared works? How many after all these years say, "it won't happen to me I'm not like those people?" Who is going to go out to the bars or to a shooting gallery make a pickup come home drunk or stoned and both take a rapid HIV test which there is no possible way to know if the results would be true because of the sexual history of the other person. Sure you would know your own but you wouldn't get a realistic and believeable result from the other person and don't say you would have to take their word on their last test results or there word on when they last had unprotected sex. I can see you in a back room shooting gallery one needle and go wait, " I have to do a rapid test on you first before we share works." veritas how many threads have you read this year that someone was jailed for having unprotected sex when they knew they were positive and didn't disclose their status? How many threads have you read in the Living With Forum that the poster won't disclose to his/her family their status let alone to friends? The answer is use condoms correctly and consistently until you are in a monogamous relationship and both have tested negative together and don't ever share your works with anyone. There is no reason that we have this many exposures a year. There will always be a few exceptions such as rape, a cheating lover and medical screw ups but not to the degree we have now. Rapid Home Testing is not the fix.

[veritas]

RR,

Actually, our views on quite a few of what you posted, are similar. I wouldn't take anyone's word as to their status and I would always use a condom. You also reiterated that which I said earlier about the "It can't happen to me syndrome". I agree, that scenario is difficult to overcome in the throws of passion. Don't you think that not knowing one's status is a major cause of 52000 infections a year? Sure there will be those who will wantingly infect others, any test won't help. Thank god they are in the minority.
The drug scenario is another issue that has not been very successful.. "Just say no" doesn't work. If the billions spent on that program had been funneled into aids research, we might have had a cure.

 I don't believe that I said home-testing is the end all, it is just another tool to make testing easier and more acceptable. Test-- anyway you want-- but test! There's the slogan.

v

[bocker3]

Veritas -

I think you are simply glossing over the fact that the administration and interpretation of these tests are complex.  Look, I went to college for 4 years to be able to work in clinical labs.  I had to sit for a national certification exam and many states require licensing for laboratory professionals.  Yes, there are "simpler" test, e.g. home pregnance tests, but these took years to get to a point that they were allowed as true "home" tests.  If doing lab tests at home were as easy as you are suggesting, then why all the regulation and education requirements for clinical laboratories??  It's quite simple -- because many things can go wrong in the testing process -- this is why labs run Quality Control samples throughout the day (manufactured specimens with "known" results), as well as quality assurances processes throughout the day.  This is just the technical argument against this kit.  Hopefully, at some point in the future, the technology can actually help insure that these concerns are minimal -- but that ain't today.  Once that happens, of course, there are a multitude of other issues to tackle.

Ultimately I think you are assuming a "happy path" -- everything done correctly, things done for the right reasons, followed by all the correct next steps.  That isn't real life.  Ann, being the wise one that she is, correctly points out that if a "trick" re-reads your result after the deed is done and see's it's now showing "positive" -- I fear there will be more than mere beatings going on -- someone is going to end up DEAD.

Finally, your "confidential testing" argument has big holes in it -- I believe I pointed this out earlier, but you haven't addressed.  There are plenty of anonymous testing sites, where your identity is never known.  If you come up negative, no one will know you took the test.  If you come up positive, well -- at some point that anonymity will disappear, if you follow up on the result.  The same would hold true with the at home testing.  Who cares about anonymity on a negative result?  It's the positive result that has reprecussions -- and that can only remain a "secret" if one does nothing about the result.

Your heart is in the right place -- more testing is a goal that, I hope, most would be for -- however, home testing should not be part of that, at this time.

Mike

[veritas]

Mike,

I respect your education and especially the field your in. We need more dedicated people such as yourself.

That being said, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ann ( who by the way I respect for her humanity): Why does the World Health Organization endorse the rapid home test? Sure, things can go wrong but they go wrong in the lab also. Does that mean we shouldn't have labs? I believe your arguement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
My arguement with respect to "confidential testing sites" is the fact you have to face another person, instead of the privacy of your own home. And the mail-in is another unnecessay barrier to be overcome.
This trick scenario is way out of proportion. Could it happen? perhaps. Is it likely? no

Unfortunately, the "correct " steps aren't working. There is another way.

I wish you were doing my labs.

v

[bocker3]

Mike,

I respect your education and especially the field your in. We need more dedicated people such as yourself.

That being said, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ann ( who by the way I respect for her humanity): Why does the World Health Organization endorse the rapid home test? Sure, things can go wrong but they go wrong in the lab also. Does that mean we shouldn't have labs? I believe your arguement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
My arguement with respect to "confidential testing sites" is the fact you have to face another person, instead of the privacy of your own home. And the mail-in is another unnecessay barrier to be overcome.
This trick scenario is way out of proportion. Could it happen? perhaps. Is it likely? no

Unfortunately, the "correct " steps aren't working. There is another way.

I wish you were doing my labs.

v

I have no idea why WHO endorses these tests.  Maybe, for countries where there are physical barriers to testing (i.e. few places, high cost??) vs. the fear barrier here in the US, makes it more sensible.  I really don't know -- but as my mother always said, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge, would you do it too??".  Just because WHO endorses it, doesn't make it right here.
You are correct -- lab professionals actually do make errors.  So, if that can happen with highly trained individuals, utilizing multiple QC/QA safeguards, imagine the increased frequency of occurence with the average person doing these tests!
Now I understand where you are coming from with "confidential testing".  My thought on that is that there SHOULD be someone else there, to help educate and deal with the shock of a poz result -- but I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Unfortunately, I could not do your lab testing.  I haven't worked in a lab for a number of years now -- the pay simply didn't cut it for me.  I've found a better paying job.  I'm certainly not passionate about this job, like I was in the lab, but it does allow me to pursue my other passion -- travel.  Maybe some day, once my retirement nest egg is sufficient, I can return to it.

Mike

[tednlou2]

I just wanted to point out that I said I would like to see a rapid test manufactured that is very, very accurate.  If it isn't, then I can see so many problems obviously.  Removing the whole trick senario--many people are afraid and/or embarrass to get tested even at a clinic where they don't even know anyone.  I'm sure with the test you mail in, people are afraid their identity will be known with those.  With a rapid home test, you are the only one who will know if you take it by yourself.

About false positives--- When I first went to my HIV doc, I was told they were sure I had a false positive.  They told me they were sure I was actually negative.  Well, stupidly, my partner and I had risky sex after that thinking they knew what they were talking about.  I felt so much joy.  When it was confirmed again, it was like being told all over again.  So, from my experiences with health officials, I would rather test at home if there was a very, very accurate test.  I guess if they can't get the one at doc offices right, then I suppose they'll never perfect a home test.   

[bocker3]

I just wanted to point out that I said I would like to see a rapid test manufactured that is very, very accurate.  If it isn't, then I can see so many problems obviously.  Removing the whole trick senario--many people are afraid and/or embarrass to get tested even at a clinic where they don't even know anyone.  I'm sure with the test you mail in, people are afraid their identity will be known with those.  With a rapid home test, you are the only one who will know if you take it by yourself.

About false positives--- When I first went to my HIV doc, I was told they were sure I had a false positive.  They told me they were sure I was actually negative.  Well, stupidly, my partner and I had risky sex after that thinking they knew what they were talking about.  I felt so much joy.  When it was confirmed again, it was like being told all over again.  So, from my experiences with health officials, I would rather test at home if there was a very, very accurate test.  I guess if they can't get the one at doc offices right, then I suppose they'll never perfect a home test.   

Ted,

Apparently the one at the clinic DID get it right.  What went wrong was someone stupidly telling you that they were "sure it was a false positive".  Quite frankly I'd be shocked to hear someone say that in this setting -- it was beyond irresponsible.

Mike

[bufguy]

vBufguy here....I took the home test because I was going to schedule a physical...which I hadn't had in yearrs...and I felt uncomfortable asking a doctor for the test. Basically I wanted to go in with a "clean bill of health". After testing positive it became to me a life or death issue...any embarrasment aside.
I have a great primary care doc who is also my ID.

Bottom line...Anything to get people to test is worthwhile. I might still be walking around not knowing.

[veritas]

Bufguy,

Thanks for your reply.

I'll bet there are many out there who would test, if a rapid test that showed results in 15 minutes was approved by the FDA for home use. The will to live usually wins, not to mention all those potential infections avoided.

Test -- any way you want -- but test. Your life depends on it!

My gut told me we were in-sync !

v

[RapidRod]

Bufguy,

Thanks for your reply.

I'll bet there are many out there who would test, if a rapid test that showed results in 15 minutes was approved by the FDA for home use. The will to live usually wins, not to mention all those potential infections avoided.

Test -- any way you want -- but test. Your life depends on it!

My gut told me we were in-sync !

v

And how many suicides would there be because of false positives?

[leatherman]

And how many suicides would there be because of false positives?

since you brought that up, what's the percentage now of people who test positive and commit suicide instead of getting treatment? I would imagine the percentage would be the same for these people taking the home test and getting a positive (false or not). (Just like it should be the same percentage for those who test positive and go home to abuse their partner for "giving it to them".)

obviously that kind of person has much greater issues than just possibly being HIV, if they would go to the lengths of testing for an illness and then kill themselves rather than treat it? Wonder how that compares with other illnesses? How many cancer diagnosees find out and kill themselves rather than try any treatment?

besides it seems like a lot of people put a lot of faith into after-diagnosis counseling. (for disclosure sake, I received no counseling from the OH health dept when they gave me my results in 1992. They didn't even tell me to have safe sex. The nice RN just implied that this diagnosis meant I was going to die soon.) Just because your doctor will talk to you a few minutes about treatment options after giving you that kind of diagnosis doesn't always mean you get lifted out of the despair of receiving that diagnosis. Although I do agree that counseling after receiving a positive HIV result would be the best way to go, it's obviously not the only way as there are many stories of people who received no support after getting their positive results and yet who went on to get treatment rather than commit suicide

[phildinftlaudy]

RR,

Not approved by the FDA, however, endorsed by other organizations( ie: WHO, UNICEF.).



"A seventh test, iDiagnostics Rapid HIV Test, is performed in the home, but does not require the sample to be sent to a lab. Instead, the patient uses either a blood or urine sample to perform the test on their own. Test results normally appear in about fifteen minutes. This test is not approved by the FDA, but is endorsed by both the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF"

Those organizations have greater knowledge than you.  Perhaps we should borrow from the rest of the world and not be so arrogant as to think our way is the only way.

http://aidshiv.suite101.com/article.cfm/rapid_screening_tests_for_hiv


v

I searched the WHO website, couldn't find their endorsement of home test -- could you direct me there?
The only thing I found was their policy statement regarding HIV testing:
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/vct/en/hivtestingpolicy04.pdf
which basically states the need for confidentiality and for appropriate counseling to occur.

I would have to agree that at this time, home testing, as discussed on the posts on this thread doesn't seem like a wise option.  I think testing should be more accessible, including the ability (as is in some places) to have a counselor/tester come to your home or other mutually agreeable location.  The Home Access test, which does have you mail in and then call to get results, still has its flaws (but at least there is a "counseling component" and, hopefully, and effort to ensure linkage to treatment).

I think that many people who would self test and determine their own results may be in the same group of people whose anxiety, fear of stigma, etc. would keep them from following up for a Western blot, as well as following up for treatment.

-Phil

[RapidRod]

since you brought that up, what's the percentage now of people who test positive and commit suicide instead of getting treatment? I would imagine the percentage would be the same for these people taking the home test and getting a positive (false or not). (Just like it should be the same percentage for those who test positive and go home to abuse their partner for "giving it to them".)

obviously that kind of person has much greater issues than just possibly being HIV, if they would go to the lengths of testing for an illness and then kill themselves rather than treat it? Wonder how that compares with other illnesses? How many cancer diagnosees find out and kill themselves rather than try any treatment?

besides it seems like a lot of people put a lot of faith into after-diagnosis counseling. (for disclosure sake, I received no counseling from the OH health dept when they gave me my results in 1992. They didn't even tell me to have safe sex. The nice RN just implied that this diagnosis meant I was going to die soon.) Just because your doctor will talk to you a few minutes about treatment options after giving you that kind of diagnosis doesn't always mean you get lifted out of the despair of receiving that diagnosis. Although I do agree that counseling after receiving a positive HIV result would be the best way to go, it's obviously not the only way as there are many stories of people who received no support after getting their positive results and yet who went on to get treatment rather than commit suicide

I was diagnosed in 84 and was given a notebook with a lot of Q&A and telephone numbers to all the ASO in my area. In 2005 when I was hospitalized a rep from the Dept of Health came to the hospital. Gave me another note book full of all the programs available and more phone numbers to state agencies. They also submitted the paperwork for SSI and Medicaid. All of that was done before I got released from the hospital. I guess it is different in parts of Ohio.

[veritas]

RR,

" Although death from suiciide is common in advanced HIV infection, notification of a positive HIV test does "NOT" appear to lead to a sudden and substantial rise in suicide death".

RR where are you getting your info? I'll give you the link to this study and please read it, however, if you want to save some time go directly to the conclusions.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q5mySSDUbokJ:www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/slides/5-4190s1_10.ppt+Suicides+with+an+hiv+diagnosis&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

v

ps: The above study was submitted to the FDA.

[RapidRod]

RR,

" Although death from suiciide is common in advanced HIV infection, notification of a positive HIV test does "NOT" appear to lead to a sudden and substantial rise in suicide death".

RR where are you getting your info? I'll give you the link to this study and please read it, however, if you want to save some time go directly to the conclusions.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q5mySSDUbokJ:www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/slides/5-4190s1_10.ppt+Suicides+with+an+hiv+diagnosis&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

v

For gods sake if you are going to quote something can't you at least try to find something that is more up to date.

[veritas]

Let's see, that was 2005. You still haven't provided your studies. Please, update me.
Don't you think suicides would be greater when diagnosis was a death sentence? Your response is a dodge!


v

[leatherman]

I was diagnosed in 84 and was given a notebook with a lot of Q&A and telephone numbers to all the ASO in my area. ... guess it is different in parts of Ohio.

yeppers. I had to handle all my own paperwork and medical issues (along with those of two partners in 1994 and 2008) as there wasn't even an ASO within a 3-5 county range. I thought we were lucky just to have one ID doc in the county. On the second day I was released from the hospital having PCP, I was bundled up sitting all by myself in the waiting room of the Human Services dtp (welfare) praying I could get some help in paying my new medical bills. It took two months just to get access to HIV meds. In 2008, by the time an SS agent finally arranged to interview my last late partner, I had already completed the paperwork myself. (He died before the paperwork could even be completed by the agency, and I had to, along with the hospital, file legal papers to get SS to retroactively cover those hospital expenses. Thank goodness I had started the paperwork earlier rather than relying on them) Ryan White issues were handled through one agent in a "Family Services" agency as one of her "secondary" duties. I think I spoke/saw her all for 4 times in 20 yrs.

It was until I moved to SC, in an area with a population across three counties nearly double the size of my one Ohio city, before I had an ASO to work with. Go figure. I used to think I would have to move to a larger city to get assistance like from an ASO, but it took was moving out into the countryside of SC.