Quote:
Originally Posted by epitome
Why not do both? If someone has a low viral count they likely won't pass it on. If you are undectable you won't pass it on. It's sort of weird because the information they give to people without it is scary but when you have it the epidemiologist will start telling the truth because you need to know it.
OraQuick has an 8% chance of missing HIV. Do you find that to be an acceptable risk? No thank you.
Edit: to make matters worse if someone is positive and they are showing as negative there is a good chance they are in early stage where they can most easily infect someone else. Not what this industry needs.
|
Both is fine but that 8% chance is wrong its actually less than 1% when done by someone trained to do it properly (me).
And the odds of getting HIV from an infected person who tests negative are prolly about the same as a false negative anyway. Truth is HIV isnt even anything Im all that concerned about, HPV, HEP both are just as deadly, more common and HEP is now more likely a death sentence.....and we dont even test for it