Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 16, 2014, 09:26:47 PM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 619908
  • Total Topics: 46702
  • Online Today: 258
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval  (Read 10055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,176
  • 30 Years Poz
Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« on: July 03, 2012, 04:49:22 PM »
New York Times
July 3, 2012

Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

A new H.I.V. test for home use that gives quick results was approved on Tuesday by the Food and Drug Administration, giving Americans the first chance in the epidemic’s 30 years to learn in the privacy of their own homes whether they are infected.

The test, made by OraSure and called OraQuick, uses a cheek swab and gives results in 20 to 40 minutes, so it is as easy to use as a home pregnancy kit.

Previous over-the-counter H.I.V. test kits allowed users to swab their own cheeks or prick their own fingers, but the sample had to be mailed to a lab.

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the longtime AIDS researcher who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the OraQuick test a “positive step forward.”

Each year about 50,000 Americans become infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, and about a fifth of the 1.2 million Americans who are now infected do not know it, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Getting an infected person onto antiretroviral drugs early lowers by as much as 96 percent the chances that he or she will pass the virus on to someone else, studies have shown, so treatment has become a form of prevention that could shrink the epidemic.

“If this enhances the number of people you can get into care, the advantages outweigh any objections,” Dr. Fauci said in an interview.

Testing for AIDS has been more fraught with controversy than testing for any other disease because of the unique history of the epidemic. It emerged in the 1980s wrapped in a shroud of stigma because it was mysterious, was transmitted through sex, drug injection and blood transfusions, was inevitably fatal, and often afflicted gay men and drug abusers. —

Being tested for AIDS was seen as tantamount to a public disclosure that one was homosexual or a drug addict, so maintaining privacy became paramount and some gay rights groups warned men to avoid testing.

Tests for flu and cholesterol long ago became routine parts of medical care. Pregnancy kits allowed testing in one’s own bathroom. And tests even for heavily stigmatized sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis were once routine in applying for a marriage license. But testing anyone for AIDS in most states required a separate counseling session and often a signed consent form — all of which added to the air of dread.

Even when lifesaving antiretroviral drugs emerged in the 1990s, states were slow to rewrite laws governing testing, and medical associations took years before suggesting that AIDS tests become part of routine care. The F.D.A. has been considering versions of the home test since 2005.

The new kit will allow anyone who suspects he or she is infected to test in privacy.

Some objections have been raised. When used by average consumers, rather than by health care professionals, the test is accurate 99.98 percent of the time for people who are not infected, but only 92 percent of the time for people who are H.I.V.-positive.

That means about one infected person in 12 would get a false negative, but only about 1 in 5,000 uninfected people would get a false positive.

Any positive test needs confirmation in a doctor’s office, the F.D.A. said. It approved the test not to replace medical testing but because many Americans never get tested at all. The hope is that the home test will encourage infected people to seek medical care earlier, helping save lives and slow the spread of the epidemic.

The home kit “provides another option for individuals to get tested,” said Dr. Karen Midthun, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the F.D.A.

In the past, some advocates have opposed home testing on various grounds: that finding out one is infected is so stressful that it should be done only in the presence of a counselor, that the uncertainty around the test would be stressful, and that getting a false negative could encourage someone to have unprotected sex.

But since the disease is no longer an inevitable death sentence and it is clear from the epidemic’s continuing spread that Americans are having unprotected sex anyway, those objections began to pale.
Life is what happens, when you are busy making other plans.

Though you may be only one person in the entire world, to one person, you may be the entire world.

I wish to become half the man, that my dog thinks I am.

Remember me with simple acts of kindness and I will live forever.

Online Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,475
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2012, 05:56:08 PM »
This will make for great foreplay.   ::)   "Before we fuck, let's have some fun with this swab."

I guess I have mixed feelings about this.  Why is HIV so special that it merits an in-home test?  Or, alternatively, is this the wave of the future, and at-home tests for other STIs are on their way?






"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,017
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2012, 06:44:08 PM »
All in all this is a good thing but this part concerns me..

the test is accurate 99.98 percent of the time for people who are not infected, but only 92 percent of the time for people who are H.I.V.-positive.

So 8% of those whjo are positive will get a false negative reading? This will potentially cause them to continue spreading the virus, by thinking they are negative.

-Will



« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 06:47:43 PM by WillyWump »
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%
8/9/12, CD4 not taken, UD.
2/13/12, CD4- 904, UD 42%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,176
  • 30 Years Poz
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2012, 06:52:56 PM »
I'm divided on the logic behind this move.  There is already so much mis-information about HIV/AIDS and relying on a home test kit for accurate results, seems misguided to me.  Let's face it, a lot of people are not that capable of using these tests and I think the possibility of false positives, may cause more confusion than clarity.  Like Buckmark, I see this as possibly a slippery slope to home testing for all sorts of things.  I also doubt the ability of most people to use the test correctly.

We all know what goes on in the Am I Infected forum.

Joe
Life is what happens, when you are busy making other plans.

Though you may be only one person in the entire world, to one person, you may be the entire world.

I wish to become half the man, that my dog thinks I am.

Remember me with simple acts of kindness and I will live forever.

Offline LM

  • Member
  • Posts: 409
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2012, 06:55:49 PM »
This will make for great foreplay.   ::)   "Before we fuck, let's have some fun with this swab."

I think exactly the same thing, I'm sure some people will do that.

I don't know it is in the US, but over here, when you receive a positive result, you have separate conversations with a doctor and a psychologist. They try to calm you down and inform you about HIV. I fear some people will test positive at home and do stupid things, like maybe commit suicide. Or perhaps they will be too scared to seek medical help. I don't know, I just don't think it's a good idea.

Offline NY2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2012, 07:28:02 PM »
Why couldn't this fucking home test have been available NINE fucking months earlier?!?!? I'm fucking fucking pissed right now. Goddamn CDC. I may have been able to save my life, and others could have too, rather than them sitting around and fucking squabbling about a few percentage points!!   

The day I got this news, I told my sister that they are going to find the FUHHCKKKING cure for this thing the day after I die.

Whatever, I'm glad it's released.  Now you can keep your sons and boyfriends the hell away from me, for sure...confirmed right there in the bedroom.  It's not up to me to just practice safe sex.  Nope. Now I've got to be vetted, the same way I would have been testing everyone with that kit it if I wasn't positive.  What a day.

I've got a relic of a disease.  The writing is right there on the wall. 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 07:57:04 PM by NY2011 »
10/26/2011 - SEROCONVERSION (hi fever+rash)
10/31/2011 - CD4= 154  VL>500,000 
10/31/2011 - started on Truvada+Prezista+Norvir
12/14/2011 - CD4= 750 VL=6412 (45%)
01/27/2012 - switched to Atripla
04/23/2012 - CD4=1,221 VL= 140  (47%)
06/22/2012 - CD4=1,224 VL= ud    (49%)
12/18/2012 - CD4=1,031 VL= ud    (51%)
09/16/2013 - CD4=1,151 VL= ud   ( 49%)

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2012, 07:52:01 PM »
Why couldn't this fucking home test have been available NINE fucking months earlier?!?!? I'm fucking fucking pissed right now. Goddamn CDC. I may have been able to save my life, and others could have too, rather than them sitting around and fucking squabbling about a few percentage points!!   

The day I got this news, I told my sister that they are going to find the FUCKKKING cure for this thing the day after I die.

Whatever, I'm glad it's released.  Now you can keep your sons and boyfriends the hell away from me, for sure...confirmed right there in the bedroom.  It's not up to me to just practice safe sex.  Nope. Now I've got to be vetted, the same way I would have been doing with that kit it if I wasn't positive.  What a day.

Um. Yikes?
"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2012, 07:56:58 PM »
Why couldn't this fucking home test have been available NINE fucking months earlier?!?!? I'm fucking fucking pissed right now. Goddamn CDC. I may have been able to save my life, and others could have too, rather than them sitting around and fucking squabbling about a few percentage points!!    .

I'm struggling to understand your reaction to this news ... HIV test are available for the asking without them having to be delivered to your bedroom  .  :-\ .

Offline NY2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2012, 08:03:42 PM »
What's so difficult to understand? On-the-spot testing vs. doctor office testing every few months.   You have instant results.  Instant results means you're INSTANTLY aware that the person standing before you has HIV, vs. giving a person, or ME, the ability to practice safely and disclose when I'M comfortable to do so.

 Look, as self-centered as I am coming off right now, I'm not an idiot.  It's a good thing for the population, especially the gay population, to have and to use.  I feel like this very effective tool will be the thing that drastically drives down infection rates.  My beef is that it should have fucking been fucking released a long ass fucking time ago.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:10:49 PM by NY2011 »
10/26/2011 - SEROCONVERSION (hi fever+rash)
10/31/2011 - CD4= 154  VL>500,000 
10/31/2011 - started on Truvada+Prezista+Norvir
12/14/2011 - CD4= 750 VL=6412 (45%)
01/27/2012 - switched to Atripla
04/23/2012 - CD4=1,221 VL= 140  (47%)
06/22/2012 - CD4=1,224 VL= ud    (49%)
12/18/2012 - CD4=1,031 VL= ud    (51%)
09/16/2013 - CD4=1,151 VL= ud   ( 49%)

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2012, 08:06:54 PM »
What's so difficult to understand? On-the-spot testing vs. doctor office testing every few months.   You have instant results.  Instant results means you know INSTANTLY that the person is a threat, vs. leaving it up to me to practice safely and disclose when I'm comfortable.

NO , its not that simple because of the window period between infection ,  and a positive antibody test . Your response is one more reason HIV home testing kits may not be the best idea ... among many in my opinion .

Knowing someones HIV status is only one factor in practicing safe sex , condoms and personal responsibility is another huge factor . 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:10:39 PM by jg1962 »

Offline tednlou2

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,598
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2012, 08:17:39 PM »
I'm still confused about the difference between the 20 minute tests given in health department vans, and this new home test.  It seems most do not have problems with those given in the vans.  If those are more accurate, why didn't they just market that test for home use?  I don't get it. 

I'm all for new means of testing.  I, too, am concerned about the accuracy.  There are many who would be much more likely to test at home.  We were just at gay pride.  The health department or some organization had one of those 20 minute testing vans, right in a high profile location.  I was trying to imagine who would get tested at such an event, when they were going there to have fun.  It seemed like a great way to ruin the festivities, if they tested poz.  And, if they did test poz, they would have to leave the "AIDS Trailer" in a sea of people.  How would you compose yourself?  If you came out crying or looking worried, everyone would know you just got a positive result.  You would have to be a great actor to come out and act like everything went well.  But, as the guy running the van said, anything that gets even a few people to test is worth it.  I watched the van for several hours.  I never saw anyone going in to get tested.  I actually felt it could be seen as insensitive to park the testing van with hundreds of people around it.  I would not want to get a positive result and then have to come out with everyone watching and analyzing my expressions.  And, I'm sure many had former sex partners watching.  That could stir up a huge hornets nests, right when the person just learned their status and hadn't even begun to process it.

My point, I think there will be a higher percentage of people with the means to buy the test, who would take a home test over a health dept/testing van test.  And, the internet has helped facilitate many infections, beginning with AOL to Manhunt and A4A.  By just reading the profiles and interacting with people on those sites, you know many will go bareback, as long as you say you're neg.  If a home test allows those people to take a test first, then it is better than nothing--even with the issues with accuracy.  I mean, they were going to go raw anyway.  Of course, a condom is the best protection, besides abstinence.  But, many just refuse to wear them.  I would hope to see better accuracy.     

Offline NY2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2012, 08:19:08 PM »
Jg..you raise a good point. If I take my situation as an example, the guy I topped that night, unprotected, still had not experienced seroconversion sickness.  Actually, two days later, he came down with what he thought was a severe case of tonsilitis and flu. He ddnt know it was seroconversion until two weeks later, when I was sick as a dog, in the doctor's office, being given the worst news of my life.

 So, if I would have tested him in my bedroom that night, he could have tested negative.  So, again, it's a valid point.

As for the other posts, enough about not understanding the time frame!  Get real. no one runs to the doctor every time he/she sleeps with someone.  But you can, ostensibly, swab every person's cheek that you hook up with.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 08:30:48 PM by NY2011 »
10/26/2011 - SEROCONVERSION (hi fever+rash)
10/31/2011 - CD4= 154  VL>500,000 
10/31/2011 - started on Truvada+Prezista+Norvir
12/14/2011 - CD4= 750 VL=6412 (45%)
01/27/2012 - switched to Atripla
04/23/2012 - CD4=1,221 VL= 140  (47%)
06/22/2012 - CD4=1,224 VL= ud    (49%)
12/18/2012 - CD4=1,031 VL= ud    (51%)
09/16/2013 - CD4=1,151 VL= ud   ( 49%)

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2012, 08:24:55 PM »
Jg..you raise a good point. If I take my situation as an example, the guy I topped that night, unprotected, still had not experienced seroconversion sickness.  Actually, it happened two days after we had met.  He came down with what he thought as a severe case of tonsilitis and flu.  So, had I tested him, he may have still been negative that night.  So, again, it's a valid point.

Thanks , I'm not trying to be argumentative but there are things about this home testing kit that I have my doubts about and I'm still trying to sort it all out myself .

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2012, 08:42:21 PM »
Ted, if you recall Ann already broke down the specifics previously.
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2012, 09:41:22 PM »

As for the other posts, enough about not understanding the time frame!  Get real. no one runs to the doctor every time he/she sleeps with someone.  But you can, ostensibly, swab every person's cheek that you hook up with.

There going to have to change the name of the test to home orgy kit ... it will come with party hats but no condoms  ;) . All kidding aside and getting real about it I seriously doubt this kit is intended to quick screen hookups because that is a recipe for disaster and leads to false sense of security . Condoms used correctly are a far better reasonable alternative .

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,710
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2012, 10:10:31 PM »
Is the average joe going to assume the home test means that he swabs, waits a bit, get an "HIV Negative" reading, so he is "clean" and can bareback.

Rinse.  Repeat.  So there will be MORE barebacking, and more people spreading HIV during the window period between infection and HIV positive antibodies.

Also, people will assume they can bareback, unless there is a positive.  So the mind set shifts from safesex "let's always try to play safe, unless there is trust" to "let's always bareback, unless there is glitch." 

How much does the thing cost?  So he takes it on Friday and is "clean" (I'm purposefully choosing this offensive terminology) and what does he do the next Wedneday? Repeat the test? But he was just clean!  Surely every couple of weeks is enough.

How many joes will think like that???
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 07:38:37 AM by mecch »
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,176
  • 30 Years Poz
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2012, 10:22:02 PM »
How many joes will think like that???

Assuming the kits have a moderate cost, who has the $$$ to be testing every trick?

Joe
Life is what happens, when you are busy making other plans.

Though you may be only one person in the entire world, to one person, you may be the entire world.

I wish to become half the man, that my dog thinks I am.

Remember me with simple acts of kindness and I will live forever.

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2012, 10:35:37 PM »
Assuming the kits have a moderate cost, who has the $$$ to be testing every trick?

Joe

^ this , and if I was invited for a romp and some guy pulled out a swab to test me I would want to know why he assumed we were getting ready to BB or at least I would think he was misinformed about HIV testing . I would probably tell him to go fuck himself .

Serosorting works a heck of allot better between two poz people and not so well between two people who want to believe each other HIV negative so they can do the bump and grind without latex . 

Offline NY2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2012, 10:54:00 PM »
There are plenty of people that want to know if their mate is positive, and not just for unprotected sex, but under the auspice of making an informed decision. Look, as ridiculous as this may sound now, I ended up meeting a guy about 4 months before catching this.  In all the years of dating guys, he was only the second guy I had come across  that was HIV positive, or at least admitted it.  Well, I didn't want him giving me a bj, I was apprehensive about deeply kissing him, and I was reluctant to do a lot of things to him, other than to have sex while wearing a condom.  I don't think I was thinking any differently than a lot of other people, which is why I think that when things are about to get sexual, people will use the kit.  I don't believe that it's because they are looking to automatically jump to unprotected sex. 

The reason that I'm  upset is because I'm still fairly new to this, and I haven't dated much as a result. So, if someone I just met does pull out the testing kit in that situation, I don't have control over my privacy.  They have a right to know, I ge that, which is why I think It's going to become standard practice to use these kits the way we've been discussing.  Don't trick yourself into thinking it isn't.  A few years back, I was dating a doctor for a while, and the first night we got sexual, he pulled out one of the cheek swabs.   
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 11:15:00 PM by NY2011 »
10/26/2011 - SEROCONVERSION (hi fever+rash)
10/31/2011 - CD4= 154  VL>500,000 
10/31/2011 - started on Truvada+Prezista+Norvir
12/14/2011 - CD4= 750 VL=6412 (45%)
01/27/2012 - switched to Atripla
04/23/2012 - CD4=1,221 VL= 140  (47%)
06/22/2012 - CD4=1,224 VL= ud    (49%)
12/18/2012 - CD4=1,031 VL= ud    (51%)
09/16/2013 - CD4=1,151 VL= ud   ( 49%)

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2012, 11:09:28 PM »
NY2011 , it takes a big man to admit when you are wrong so I'm going to step up and admit that you are in fact wrong , mighty big of me isn't it   ;) .

Offline Rockin

  • Member
  • Posts: 491
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2012, 01:27:36 AM »
I can only think of the amount of time and money devoted to this thing...is this going to make any difference whatsoever? People who are scared to death of taking the test won't change their minds just because they can do it indoors.

Stigma and shame will go on as long as people still believe its a death sentence and I blame doctors for that. 15 years later and everyone still thinks were Tom Hanks.

Offline Rockin

  • Member
  • Posts: 491
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #21 on: July 04, 2012, 01:32:32 AM »
There are plenty of people that want to know if their mate is positive, and not just for unprotected sex, but under the auspice of making an informed decision. Look, as ridiculous as this may sound now, I ended up meeting a guy about 4 months before catching this.  In all the years of dating guys, he was only the second guy I had come across  that was HIV positive, or at least admitted it.  Well, I didn't want him giving me a bj, I was apprehensive about deeply kissing him, and I was reluctant to do a lot of things to him, other than to have sex while wearing a condom.  I don't think I was thinking any differently than a lot of other people, which is why I think that when things are about to get sexual, people will use the kit.  I don't believe that it's because they are looking to automatically jump to unprotected sex. 

The reason that I'm  upset is because I'm still fairly new to this, and I haven't dated much as a result. So, if someone I just met does pull out the testing kit in that situation, I don't have control over my privacy.  They have a right to know, I ge that, which is why I think It's going to become standard practice to use these kits the way we've been discussing.  Don't trick yourself into thinking it isn't.  A few years back, I was dating a doctor for a while, and the first night we got sexual, he pulled out one of the cheek swabs.

Trust me, this will not become standard practice. No one wants to know, period. Thats why people use condoms and refrain from discussing health issues when having sex.

This guy you dated was doctor, hence his behavior. Not common though.

And man its kinda sad that you were so scared of dating a poz guy that you were even afraid of him giving you a bj, which man, its kind of insane as that poses no threat to a negative person whatsoever.

I know you're just being honest but its people like you that leads me to believe sometimes that Im gonna stay alone forever.

Online Buckmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,475
  • Would you like to tie me up with your ties, Ty?
    • Henry's Home Page
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2012, 05:02:11 AM »
There going to have to change the name of the test to home orgy kit ... it will come with party hats but no condoms  ;)

Lulz.

But I believe Jeff is right.  The purpose of the home test kit is to find out if you are HIV+ so you can get the appropriate medical care you need.  The purpose is not to screen tricks and determine whether or not you should use a condom.  Duh. 

The at-home test doesn't eliminate the need to practice safer sex.  But apparently the test is being misused before it is even available.

I can already envision a slew of new questions  in the "Am I Infected" forum about convoluted sexual encounters either preceded by or followed by an at-home test.   It's just a matter of time.



"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things:
     One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell.
     The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."
- Butch Hancock, Musician, The Flatlanders

Offline NY2011

  • Member
  • Posts: 138
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #23 on: July 04, 2012, 07:05:52 AM »
I've got nothing but respect and admiration for those of us who have been living with this for a long time, and I hope to be just like you.  But, I also think that you are only looking at the issue as a person on this side of the fence.  The fear of this disease is real. The fear exists despite the perception of changing attitudes. I strongly feel that most people will use it the way that the guy I dated used it, as another layer of precaution.  Hell, there was a time when I asked him if he could get a box for me!

Here's something else... say two people use the home test, but AFTER they had sex.   If any "surprises" show up, the exposed person could rush to get PEP within the 72 hr timeframe.   

We live in a world now that loves to collect and process data.  This test is a good thing.  A great thing, even.  I'm pissed that I didn't have a chance to use it, and no matter how much I write, squawk, bitch or complain, I have hiv now and it's not going away.   I think the widespread use of it as a precursor to even meeting up will probably box me in.  Sucks, but there's not much I can do.  I'm in the vast minority here on this planet.. a gay guy with HIV.



« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 07:34:19 AM by NY2011 »
10/26/2011 - SEROCONVERSION (hi fever+rash)
10/31/2011 - CD4= 154  VL>500,000 
10/31/2011 - started on Truvada+Prezista+Norvir
12/14/2011 - CD4= 750 VL=6412 (45%)
01/27/2012 - switched to Atripla
04/23/2012 - CD4=1,221 VL= 140  (47%)
06/22/2012 - CD4=1,224 VL= ud    (49%)
12/18/2012 - CD4=1,031 VL= ud    (51%)
09/16/2013 - CD4=1,151 VL= ud   ( 49%)

Offline mecch

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,710
  • red pill? or blue pill?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #24 on: July 04, 2012, 07:44:45 AM »
I am sure there are plenty of situations in which this test is a good idea.  But also plenty in which it is maybe a gimmick not to mention a money maker.  And as I said above, (edited now for clarity, sorry), there are some situations in which it may be counter productive in preventing HIV transmission. 

Kind of like this whole idea of truvada as pre-exposure protection. A mixed bag.
“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 800
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2012, 08:04:12 AM »
I'm still confused about the difference between the 20 minute tests given in health department vans, and this new home test.  It seems most do not have problems with those given in the vans.  If those are more accurate, why didn't they just market that test for home use?  I don't get it. 

The tests are basically identical. It's not that the Oraquick In-Home test is less sensitive, it's that more self-testers in the clinical trial jumped the gun and used the assay before the close of the window period. In studies in which professionals screened individuals and then conducted the tests, there were fewer false negatives, which helped to improve the overall sensitivity score.

The bottom line here is that the In-Home test absolutely, positively should not be considered reliable until 90 days have passed since the last possible instance of risky behavior (which, obviously, can be a tricky thing for some people going it alone to figure out, without professional guidance). I mean, we've already received one "Am I Infected?" post from someone wondering how soon after possible exposure will the test be reliable, despite plenty of black-and-white media coverage indicating, in no uncertain terms, that the test shouldn't be done before the three-month window period is up. This rush for results, despite the risk of false negatives, is what we're going to be dealing with here -- and that's a problem.

Tim 
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 08:06:57 AM by Tim Horn »

Online bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,253
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2012, 10:58:49 AM »
I think anything that increases the number of people testing is a good thing.  This is simply another Public Health tool.  Will it be mis-used by some?  Undoubtedly.  Will it be used, as intended, by most - of course.

Look -- anyone who actually uses this to "screen tricks" and sees a negative as permission to bareback, well, they would have found some other reason without the test and will, very likely, be joining us in these rooms -- whether or not this test was available.

False negatives happen on ALL HIV tests -- it's unfortunate, but it is the reality.  Yes, professionals can do some screening to help ascertain if someone might be in a window period -- but they are completely reliant on info provided by the patient.  We all know that patient's can lie to get what they want.  Additionally, even if they are thought to be in a window period, I think it would be rare for a test to not be given if the person insists (if they had one "risky" event, they could very likely have had previous ones too) -- so, I'm no more concerned about false negs at home than I am in a testing site.
The one area that does bother me a bit -- home testing minimzes/eliminates the ability to help folks find support and care services if a positive result is received.  However, I still think it is better to know than not.

Pretty much every home-testing analysis has caused hand-wringing and "what-ifs".  From pregnancy testing, to glucose monitoring, to cholesterol testing,  to anti-coagulant monitoring -- hell, even at home BP monitoring is fraught with "what-ifs".

I am happy this is available to those who would otherwise avoid testing.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline bufguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 159
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2012, 11:40:44 AM »
I think this approval is great. Some people including me kept putting off testing because of embarassment, scheduling and sometimes inconvenience. I kept saying to myself tomorrow I'll go get tested. Tomorrow would come and I would put it off. Finally I ordered a home access test kit where you prick your finger, mail in a blood sample and call in a few days later for the result. I was positive. It obviously prompted me to get treatment.
Some people just want the opportunity to do it in the privacy of their own home.
5/29/08 confirmed HIV+
6/23/08 Vl 47500  CD4 511/29% CD8 .60
start atripla
8/1/08 Vl 130  CD4 667/31% CD8 .70
9/18/08 Vl un  CD4 not tested
12/19/08 Vl un CD4 723/32% CD8 .80
4/3/09 Vl un CD4 615/36% CD8  .98
8/7/09 vl un CD4 689/35% CD8 .9
12/11/09 vl un CD4 712/38% CD8 .89
4/9/10 vl un CD4 796/39% CD8 1.0
8/20/10 vl un CD4 787/38% CD8 1.0
4/6/10 vl un CD4 865/35% CD8 .9
8/16/10 vl un CD4 924/37% CD8 1.0
12/23/10 vl un CD4 1006/35% CD8 .9
5/2/10 vl un CD4 1040/39% CD8 .9
8/7/13 vl un CD4 840/39% CD8 .9

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2012, 01:53:36 PM »

Here's an article related to this matter which virtually describes how I feel regarding this "development".

An HIV home testing kit won't give you emotional support

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/05/hiv-home-testing-kit
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline CraigMKE

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2012, 02:06:47 PM »
While I do think knowledge is power, I also worry about the mental side of a positive result.  It took me months to be comforable with what was going on, I also had friends and family.  What about those that take this at home and decide it is not worth living?

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2012, 02:10:35 PM »
While I do think knowledge is power, I also worry about the mental side of a positive result.  It took me months to be comforable with what was going on, I also had friends and family.  What about those that take this at home and decide it is not worth living?

Or, given that so many heads think that these things can be used to test their random trick of the night on the spot, can you imagine the DRUUUUHMA that would ensue if someone tested positive in your bedroom?  Would the average queen be actually equipped to provide any valuable support to a person who sees a plus+ sign on their test.  I highly and seriously doubt it.
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline bufguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 159
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2012, 02:21:56 PM »
I think taking a test to determine whether you are going to have sex with someone is questionable at best. I do question people's objection to home testing because of the lack of emotional support however. As I stated previously I found out through a home access test and the amount of support you can get over a telephone is pretty useless. The woman on the phone was very nice. She simply said that the test was positive for HIV. She then asked whether I had a doctor anad if I needed any kind of support.
My point is: If that kind of testing has been allowed with that kind of "support" for years, how much worse is it finding out for yourself.
I think it gives another way for people to find out there status...knowledge is power.
5/29/08 confirmed HIV+
6/23/08 Vl 47500  CD4 511/29% CD8 .60
start atripla
8/1/08 Vl 130  CD4 667/31% CD8 .70
9/18/08 Vl un  CD4 not tested
12/19/08 Vl un CD4 723/32% CD8 .80
4/3/09 Vl un CD4 615/36% CD8  .98
8/7/09 vl un CD4 689/35% CD8 .9
12/11/09 vl un CD4 712/38% CD8 .89
4/9/10 vl un CD4 796/39% CD8 1.0
8/20/10 vl un CD4 787/38% CD8 1.0
4/6/10 vl un CD4 865/35% CD8 .9
8/16/10 vl un CD4 924/37% CD8 1.0
12/23/10 vl un CD4 1006/35% CD8 .9
5/2/10 vl un CD4 1040/39% CD8 .9
8/7/13 vl un CD4 840/39% CD8 .9

Offline CraigMKE

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2012, 02:37:22 PM »
Don't be misled, I am certainly not against it.  I just hope that the emotional aftermath for that individual can be dealt with in the privacy of his/her home.  Many still think this is a death sentence.

Offline Solo_LTSurvivor

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,176
  • Twerk Baby Twerk
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2012, 02:52:46 PM »
Or, given that so many heads think that these things can be used to test their random trick of the night on the spot, can you imagine the DRUUUUHMA that would ensue if someone tested positive in your bedroom?  Would the average queen be actually equipped to provide any valuable support to a person who sees a plus+ sign on their test.  I highly and seriously doubt it.

Case in point: here's a real life situation with someone who tested in a medical healthcare setting:

Counseling? When I was dxd, the doc said "you have AIDS, what's that mean to you?" At first I was speechless and then I mumbled something about knowing it's not a death sentence anymore. He said "OK...any questions" to which I responded "not right now." That was it!

Another doc from MD Anderson Cancer Center came in the next day and said "hey, I was treating this in NYC in the 1980's. It's not the same disease, we can reverse these numbers, you are going to be OK."

It took me two months to get into a psychiatrist and get on prozac.

In reality, a home test is probably not a bad idea, per se, in that it at least gives people another opportunity to test. Taking into consideration everything you folks have said about counseling, false negatives, false positives and so on, at least it makes it more available.

Just imagine someone testing at home alone with NO support and seeing a positive result and their possible reaction?  And again, as I said before -- I still think these tests will lead many people to having a sense of false security where they will not test with any regularity: and we will continue to see on hookup profiles "Neg as of 10/2012" and it will be 2016  ::)
don't equate intelligence with lack of masculinity
Jim Phelps, Mission Impossible
____________________________

Seroconverted: Early 80s
Tested & confirmed what I already knew: early 90s

Current regimen: Atripla. 
Last regimen:  Epzicom, Sustiva (since its inception with NO adverse side effects: no vivid dreams and NONE of the problems people who can't tolerate this drug may experience: color me lucky ::))
Past regimens
Fun stuff (in the past):  HAV/HBV, crypto, shingles, AIDS, PCP

Jan 2012: 818/21%
Apr 2012: 964/22%
Jul. 2012: 890/21%
Oct. 2012: 920/23%

Still UD after all these years

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2012, 04:02:21 PM »
All the worry wells with the aids phobia are going to be really impressed with this new miracle test when they have a trick over for a swab and shag and end up with a false positive and a trick running out the door to tell the world you got the aids .

That's when its going to hit the folks that misuse this test that ... WOW , maybe I should have gone to a confidential clinic for that test after all . Stigma Baby . 
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 04:05:09 PM by jg1962 »

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2012, 05:00:30 PM »
we will continue to see on hookup profiles "Neg as of 10/2012" and it will be 2016  ::)

All the worry wells with the aids phobia are going to be really impressed with this new miracle test when they have a trick over for a swab and shag and end up with a false positive and a trick running out the door to tell the world you got the aids .

That's when its going to hit the folks that misuse this test that ... WOW , maybe I should have gone to a confidential clinic for that test after all . Stigma Baby .

Oh, and how about the typhoid Maries?  They're probably gonna carry the same old used-up swab for months and months.  Put it back in the box, seal it with some Elmer's glue, and pretend it's new.   They'll be all like, "See? I'm negative!  Let's bareback ASAP!!!".
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2012, 06:32:44 PM »
Oh, and how about the typhoid Maries?  They're probably gonna carry the same old used-up swab for months and months.  Put it back in the box, seal it with some Elmer's glue, and pretend it's new.   They'll be all like, "See? I'm negative!  Let's bareback ASAP!!!".

Honestly, anyone who uses this test as a preamble to barebacking is an idiot. Especially with the rather high rate of false negatives.

So yeah, AM I INFECTED is going to be fun.

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline Rev. Moon

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,782
  • Smart ass faggot ©
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2012, 06:37:02 PM »
So yeah, AM I INFECTED is going to be fun.

IKR?  You know it won't be long before we need to answer to some idiot who'll be in a panic wondering whether the swab that was used was legit, or if it was an expired kit, etc. 

Joyful times ahead.
"I have tried hard--but life is difficult, and I am a very useless person. I can hardly be said to have an independent existence. I was just a screw or a cog in the great machine I called life, and when I dropped out of it I found I was of no use anywhere else."

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,948
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2012, 06:52:33 PM »
IKR?  You know it won't be long before we need to answer to some idiot who'll be in a panic wondering whether the swab that was used was legit, or if it was an expired kit, etc. 

Joyful times ahead.

Might be a good idea for those patient moderators of the "AM I" fun house to put together a lessons/fact sheet of FAQS (Frequently Asked Questions) - maybe call it  "Home Testing: FAQS for Worried FUQS" or something along those lines.....    ;D
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2012, 06:55:22 PM »
Honestly, anyone who uses this test as a preamble to barebacking is an idiot. Especially with the rather high rate of false negatives.

So yeah, AM I INFECTED is going to be fun.

AMEN to that  ;D
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2012, 07:05:11 PM »
Might be a good idea for those patient moderators of the "AM I" fun house to put together a lessons/fact sheet of FAQS (Frequently Asked Questions) - maybe call it  "Home Testing: FAQS for Worried FUQS" or something along those lines.....    ;D

The patient moderators? What about the rest of us?

:)
"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Offline phildinftlaudy

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,948
  • sweet Ann what you think babe...
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2012, 07:09:08 PM »
The patient moderators? What about the rest of us?

:)

Oops!  I'm falling on my sword --- Sorries   :(
September 13, 2008 - diagnosed +
Labs:
Date    CD4    %   VL     Date  CD4  %   VL
10/08  636    35  510   9/09 473  38 2900  12/4/09 Atripla
12/09  540    30    60   
12/10  740    41  <48   
8/11    667    36  <20  
03/12  1,041  42  <20
05/12  1,241  47  <20
08/12   780    37  <20
11/12   549    35  <20
02/12  1,102  42  <20
11/12   549    35  <20

Offline Hellraiser

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,110
  • Semi-misanthropic
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2012, 10:35:15 PM »
I absolutely would have been more likely to get tested had I been able to do it in my own home.  Like a pregnancy test I doubt one result would have been enough to convince me either way.  I think there are both pros and cons about people finding out their HIV status without being immediately reported to the DHHS in their state.

However, I have no idea what I would have done had I found myself positive.  I probably would have tried to find someone who was positive to talk to (Hello, poz.com) and proceeded from there to get medical attention.

I do not see this development as a bad thing just one more tool in the arsenal to hopefully let more people who are already positive know that they are.  I don't think anyone will be testing tricks with it, but I suppose someone will do that.

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2012, 10:47:53 PM »
I think there are  I don't think anyone will be testing tricks with it, but I suppose someone will do that.

There have already been post here on the forum excited about the prospect of using this test for this  purpose  :o . A couple of post is not a good representation of what the masses will do but its discouraging none the less .

 

Online Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,176
  • 30 Years Poz
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2012, 10:54:23 PM »
IKR?  You know it won't be long before we need to answer to some idiot who'll be in a panic wondering whether the swab that was used was legit, or if it was an expired kit, etc. 

Joyful times ahead.

Come on, give those Am I Infected folks some credit.  Just wait until they ask you if they can get teh AIDS from the kit itself.  You just know someone will be this paranoid.

Joe
Life is what happens, when you are busy making other plans.

Though you may be only one person in the entire world, to one person, you may be the entire world.

I wish to become half the man, that my dog thinks I am.

Remember me with simple acts of kindness and I will live forever.

Offline jkinatl2

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,007
  • Doo. Dah. Dipp-ity.
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #45 on: July 05, 2012, 10:57:22 PM »
Come on, give those Am I Infected folks some credit.  Just wait until they ask you if they can get teh AIDS from the kit itself.  You just know someone will be this paranoid.

Joe

Seeing as how this already happens with both blood and rapid tests, it's going to be a seamless transition.
"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

-Kimberly Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH

Welcome Thread

Online Jeff G

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,200
  • How am I doing Beren ?
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #46 on: July 05, 2012, 10:59:57 PM »
You better stock up on pussy beer JK , your gonna need it .

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,020
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #47 on: July 05, 2012, 11:12:25 PM »
I wonder if I can keep testing until I get a false negative and justify some clean man on man bareback sex without internal moral objections?

Wolfie
Judging someone does not define them, it defines you. 

True peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.

Offline madbrain

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,208
  • No longer an active member
    • My personal site
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2012, 12:05:13 AM »
I think this is a very positive development.
More testing is a good thing. The more people know their status, the better.

Yes, the test could be misused, but I believe the benefits far outweigh the potential problems.

The high rate of false negative is worrisome. However, unfortunately, that is true with all HIV tests due to the testing window and the need for retesting to confirm one is truly negative. I know some people who really feared testing even once, but even after an initial negative result, having them get retested at 3 months was a herculean task. The availability of an in-home test should make it easier for people to confirm.

I really hope the information in in-home kit properly explains this -the only 2 results are really "negative 3 months ago" and "positive now". Not "negative now" and "positive now". Ideally the kit should have multiple swabs so this retesting can be done by everyone.

I hope the kit will not be too expensive.

Offline madbrain

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,208
  • No longer an active member
    • My personal site
Re: Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2012, 12:23:39 AM »
There going to have to change the name of the test to home orgy kit ... it will come with party hats but no condoms  ;) . All kidding aside and getting real about it I seriously doubt this kit is intended to quick screen hookups because that is a recipe for disaster and leads to false sense of security . Condoms used correctly are a far better reasonable alternative .

Just read that the price will be between $40 and $60 .
I don't know which orgies you attend, but that would be a hell of an entrance fee.
I doubt even a Costco discount is going to help with that.

I wonder if any insurance is going to cover this, seeing how the very inexpensive condoms are not covered. It is a bit unsettling that even Obamacare does not cover condoms, seeing how it covers birth control for women.

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.