Also..Over the counter Aids Test

This topic was created in the Miscellaneous forum by LetltB on Sunday, April 7, 2013 and has 18 replies.
:-)
After decades of controversy, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new H.I.V. test on Tuesday that for the first time makes it possible for Americans to learn in the privacy of their homes whether they are infected.
The availability of an H.I.V. test as easy to use as a home-pregnancy kit is yet another step in the normalization of a disease that was once seen as a mark of shame and a death sentence.
The OraQuick test, by OraSure Technologies, uses a mouth swab and gives results in 20 to 40 minutes. A previous test sold over the counter required a user to prick a finger and mail a drop of dried blood to a lab.
Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the longtime AIDS researcher and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the new test a ???positive step forward?? and one that could help bring the 30-year-old epidemic under control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/health/oraquick-at-home-hiv-test-wins-fda-approval.html?_r=0
details
Posted by tiziani
That is good news, right?


Hell yes!! They need a stick for all the other std's too. I'm sure that won't be too off either. It's about damn time!

details
Posted by ellessque
I don't know if this is such a good idea.
Swab tests have been known to produce "false positives" and create a lot of unnecessary stress and anxiety. The only proper way to test for HIV is a blood test.
Of course, if someone produces a positive result with a swab test, they should follow up with a visit to a physician to take a blood test to confirm.
Plus, there really needs to be follow up if someone is tested positive. A blood test in a doctors office or clinic offers aftercare and counseling for those that are tested positive.
This disease is also tracked in a database trough the CDC.....testing at home, you lose that traceability....I see alot more stories of lots of people being unknowningly infected and nobody ever knowing the source.
Something about taking a private test for a terminal illness in the comfort of your own home with nobody around....doesn't set well with me. What's next? Cancer?
The reactions after a postive (possibley a "false positive")....really need to be dealt with.
Unless they've made great strides in the swab testing method, it still makes me a little uncomfortable.


"Researchers found the home test accurate 99.98 percent of the time for people who do not have the virus. By comparison, they found it to be accurate 92 percent of the time in detecting people who do. One concern is the ???window period?? between the time someone gets the virus and begins to develop the antibodies to it, which the test detects. That can take up to three months."
Those numbers ^^are just as good as the pregnancy tests. The CDC has nothing to do with it, they aren't there when you are about to have sex with someone who doesn't give a rats ass about himself or you and is NOT in the data base.
details
...and YES!! Regarding Cancer tests like this would be a VERY positive thing to catch early. Shit how many more miles do we have to walk/run, billions donated to find a cure for cancer? At least they would be taking a good chunk of that donated money and giving it back to people who cannot afford doctor's visits and tests without health insurance? If cancer cells are found with a home test, then medical aid can be applied for and the person can hopefully get treated without losing a roof over their heads. The cost of health care alone would go down when early detection is available. Same with the AIDS issue. It's about time they are giving us options to protect ourselves.
details
Posted by ellessque
My fear is follow up and aftercare. I've experienced being in the same room with someone who tested positive from a blood test, it's devastating. If the medical staff wasn't there to deal with the trauma....and I wasn't there on the ride home....he later admitted he probably would have committed suicide.



I would assume it depends on the individual. Would a person rather die in a hospital around strangers when they can do so with respite care in the comfort of their home? It IS comforting to be able to do this on your own and it is also common sense to get your ass to a doctor for follow up care. You have to ask yourself, what kind of person would put a loaded gun to their head after taking a test like this and getting a positive result? Very small percentage. No difference if a strange clinic or doctor tells you. You're going to leave that facility with the bad news and make a choice..blow your brains out or try and save yourself. All depends on the person.
details
Posted by handinhand
I'll still take a regular test too


Does that mean you sleep around a lot?
details
Posted by ellessque
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by ellessque

The US still has a long way to go with education of HIV. Many people STILL think HIV = AIDS. AIDS is the conclusion of HIV....but someone can live a productive and responsible life with HIV.


Yes I agree with this. Thank god for the drugs that are available now so that people who do have HIV can live normal productive lives. We have come a long way.
It's a virus...mutable. Do you think they will ever have a cure?


a cure? not likely. I do also believe that it is a man made disease originally created as a means of genocide. Man made diseases have a lot of karma associated to them.
However, I do believe a vaccination is quite possible.......but will take another generation to really transpire. We are still dealing with the idiot generation that created this mess.
click to expand


people in the past thought the same about typhoid(sp?) & tb and look where we are now. They'll find a cure, just like they did with all other mass killing diseases.
details
Posted by ellessque
Posted by xygeneration
Do they still give AZT for treatment?


I don't know. The ex was prescribed Trizivir.
click to expand


here in south africa they are given azt and arvs.
details
Posted by xygeneration
Posted by WaterCup
Posted by ellessque
Posted by xygeneration
Do they still give AZT for treatment?


I don't know. The ex was prescribed Trizivir.


here in south africa they are given azt and arvs.


Do you know the side effects of azt? And is it free? Is it available to everyone?
click to expand


yes & yes. I dont know the side effect thou.
details
Posted by ellessque
Posted by xygeneration
This is not a solution in tackling aids/hiv/std or even looking at the health and wellness of people.



no, it's not. It's a step backwards, quite honestly.
Those who run to Walgreen's to buy this "test" is probably not someone who has great health insurance.....so even if they "do" test positive, it doesn't mean they will get proper treatment.
Sure, it looks "nice" to the general public but it's more a slap in the face than anything else with all the money that's been funded to manage this disease.
click to expand



I absolutely do not see this as a step backwards, especially now before I'm about to be intimate with someone I have the opportunity to make a choice AFTER I have him take a test that I bought. This is about people being able to take control of their own well being, and an added benefit to condoms. If that strip comes up with a plus sign..I'm able to make a choice and say "sorry fella, I'm not up to the risk." Being responsible is not going backwards imo.
details
Posted by tiziani
In the context of world healthcare, yes it is furthering the whole agenda of letting people take better care of themselves with prevention/intervention in their hands. The world is only getting bigger and living longer, so there really have to be more options available for self-supply.



Exactly!
details
Posted by feb16aqua
Posted by xygeneration
The question is; if someone tested negative will the person trust the result?
Normally when people take the prego stick they still go to the docs to confirm.
This is just another way to make money.


I'm actually not sure a false negative is possible, given the test was done correctly. A false positive, possibly.
click to expand


"Researchers found the home test accurate 99.98 percent of the time for people who do not have the virus. By comparison, they found it to be accurate 92 percent of the time in detecting people who do. One concern is the ???window period?? between the time someone gets the virus and begins to develop the antibodies to it, which the test detects. That can take up to three months."
Those are decent numbers^^^ and worth every penny imo. It's a tool added to the condom and one cannot argue against prevention. I mean if you don't give a crap about yourself/body, great! This product just put the power into my hands because I do care about myself and well being.
details
Posted by ellessque
Posted by xygeneration
But what if someone tested positive and since its a home kit test its not recorded? Then that person didnt tell their sex partner. You cant arrest the person bc they can easily say they didntknow they had it.



Yep, this ^^^^^^^^^^
what if they decide to infect lots of people because they are bent out of shape they have it?
not to say that someone can do that even if they have a "formal" test....but at least there are measures there with education and support that could deter such behaviour.
what if someone borrows someone else's test to "prove" they are negative and they aren't?
there are way too many damn risks that I wouldn't be willing to deal with.
click to expand



This is exactly my point!!! For instance, lets say this person, who wants to intentionally infect people comes into my circle, we hit it off, go back to my place (not in a million years..but just to get the point across...) we have a couple of drinks, he starts to hit on me, I would immediately pull that test out and say... GOTTA TAKE THIS TEST FIRST, and I'm going to take one with you. Guess what? That 98 perecent comes into play and I'm gonna see it before he lays a hand on me, OR this guy is gonna laugh and leave. I've just prevented a potential infection. I'm in control of screwing this guy or not. That tool gave me the power to stop him. It's a simple swab, you wait 20-40 minutes..and it's done. I know I'm std/hiv free, but if I'm expecting him to take one, I'd take it with him. What harm is that? In this guy's case it's not only prevention but intervention.
details
Posted by handinhand
Posted by XXMR2NICEXX
Posted by handinhand
I'll still take a regular test too


Does that mean you sleep around a lot?



No I haven't sex in more than a year. Like zero sexual contact so NO
click to expand


I was joking. Peace!
details
Anything that raises awareness to this virus is a good thing, in my book.
Kids today are raw screwing each other left and right and think "Oh they LOOK healthy...so they must be"
Preventative measures are best, IMO. smile
details
Posted by ellessque
Posted by LetltB
Posted by ellessque
Posted by xygeneration
But what if someone tested positive and since its a home kit test its not recorded? Then that person didnt tell their sex partner. You cant arrest the person bc they can easily say they didntknow they had it.



Yep, this ^^^^^^^^^^
what if they decide to infect lots of people because they are bent out of shape they have it?
not to say that someone can do that even if they have a "formal" test....but at least there are measures there with education and support that could deter such behaviour.
what if someone borrows someone else's test to "prove" they are negative and they aren't?
there are way too many damn risks that I wouldn't be willing to deal with.



This is exactly my point!!! For instance, lets say this person, who wants to intentionally infect people comes into my circle, we hit it off, go back to my place (not in a million years..but just to get the point across...) we have a couple of drinks, he starts to hit on me, I would immediately pull that test out and say... GOTTA TAKE THIS TEST FIRST, and I'm going to take one with you. Guess what? That 98 perecent comes into play and I'm gonna see it before he lays a hand on me, OR this guy is gonna laugh and leave. I've just prevented a potential infection. I'm in control of screwing this guy or not. That tool gave me the power to stop him. It's a simple swab, you wait 20-40 minutes..and it's done. I know I'm std/hiv free, but if I'm expecting him to take one, I'd take it with him. What harm is that? In this guy's case it's not only prevention but intervention.


well, if that's your cup of tea, more power to you.....but it's selfish to think everyone is going to think like that or is expected to.
click to expand


It is my cup of tea, and not once did I say other's should think like that,(where did you pull that out of?) in fact the entire point of my opinion is that this test is a tool for myself and how I would handle it.
details
Also for those unfamiliar with the stages:
STAGE 1 : Primary HIV infection This stage of infection lasts for a few weeks and is often accompanied by a short flu-like illness. In up to about 20% of people the HIV symptoms are serious enough to consult a doctor, but the diagnosis of HIV infection is frequently missed.
During this stage there is a large amount of HIV in the peripheral blood and the immune system begins to respond to the virus by producing HIV antibodies and cytotoxic lymphocytes. This process is known as seroconversion. If an HIV antibody test is done before seroconversion is complete then it may not be positive.
STAGE 2 : Clinically asymptomatic stage This stage lasts for an average of ten years and, as its name suggests, is free from major symptoms, although there may be swollen glands. The level of HIV in the peripheral blood drops to very low levels but people remain infectious and HIV antibodies are detectable in the blood, so antibody tests will show a positive result.
Research has shown that HIV is not dormant during this stage, but is very active in the lymph nodes. A test is available to measure the small amount of HIV that escapes the lymph nodes. This test which measures HIV RNA (HIV genetic material) is referred to as the viral load test, and it has an important role in the treatment of HIV infection.
details
STAGE 3 : Symptomatic HIV infection Over time the immune system becomes severely damaged by HIV. This is thought to happen for three main reasons:
The lymph nodes and tissues become damaged or 'burnt out' because of the years of activity;
HIV mutates and becomes more pathogenic, in other words stronger and more varied, leading to more T helper cell destruction;
The body fails to keep up with replacing the T helper cells that are lost.
Antiretroviral treatment is usually started once an individuals CD4 count (the number of T helper cells) drops to a low level, an indication that the immune system is deteriorating. Treatment can stop HIV from damaging the immune system, therefore, HIV-infected individuals on treatment usually remain clinically asymptomatic.
However, in HIV-infected individuals not receiving treatment or on treatment that is not working, the immune system fails and symptoms develop. Initially many of the symptoms are mild, but as the immune system deteriorates the symptoms worsen.
Symptomatic HIV infection is mainly caused by the emergence of certain opportunist
details

Leave Your Feedback

We'd love to hear your thoughts! If you're not logged in, you can still share your feedback below. Your input helps us improve the experience for everyone. To post your own content or join the conversation, please log in or create an account.

Home Astrology Comments Forums Search

©1997-2025 dxpnet.com. All Rights Reserved.
Advertising Contact Terms of Use Privacy Policy