Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval - GoFuckYourself.com

marcop · 07-03-2012, 04:02 PM

Will we shooters be using this test as a matter of routine in the near future? Will it blunt the strategy of the AHF who want to mandate condom use? Read all about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/he...l.html?_r=1&hp

epitome · 07-03-2012, 04:21 PM

Pharmacies across the nation are soon going to offer free HIV testing in new agreement with CDC.

Producers have always been able to order the same tests that they use at clinics, you just had to order them overseas. Some used them as an added precaution.

It's a totally different test though and only tests for antibodies, rather than the presence of HIV. It can take months and months to develop antibodies so producers should never rely on at home or even clinic testing unless it's the more expensive test that checks for the presence of HIV.

mikesouth · 07-03-2012, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Pharmacies across the nation are soon going to offer free HIV testing in new agreement with CDC.

Producers have always been able to order the same tests that they use at clinics, you just had to order them overseas. Some used them as an added precaution.

It's a totally different test though and only tests for antibodies, rather than the presence of HIV. It can take months and months to develop antibodies so producers should never rely on at home or even clinic testing unless it's the more expensive test that checks for the presence of HIV.

the old months and months window thing is a red herring really its so small a number as to be insignificant add to that that the current PCR tests that test for the virus are flawed in that an infected person on anti virals will have a viral load too low to detect and can show as negative even though they arent. this is a far bigger risk than the exceedingly rare person who takes more than a few weeks to test positive with oraquick.

I like the idea of oraquick prior to every shoot. I checked and I should be able to get them for around 15 bucks per test in q/100

mce · 07-03-2012, 05:48 PM

Interesting qualifying text that news story comes with...

Grapesoda · 07-03-2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcop

Will we shooters be using this test as a matter of routine in the near future? Will it blunt the strategy of the AHF who want to mandate condom use? Read all about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/he...l.html?_r=1&hp

I have some Marco..

epitome · 07-03-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

the old months and months window thing is a red herring really its so small a number as to be insignificant add to that that the current PCR tests that test for the virus are flawed in that an infected person on anti virals will have a viral load too low to detect and can show as negative even though they arent. this is a far bigger risk than the exceedingly rare person who takes more than a few weeks to test positive with oraquick.

I like the idea of oraquick prior to every shoot. I checked and I should be able to get them for around 15 bucks per test in q/100

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.

mikesouth · 07-04-2012, 11:14 AM

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

07-03-2012, 04:02 PM	#1
marcop Content Producer Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 4,143	Quick At-Home H.I.V. Test Wins Federal Approval Will we shooters be using this test as a matter of routine in the near future? Will it blunt the strategy of the AHF who want to mandate condom use? Read all about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/he...l.html?_r=1&hp

07-03-2012, 04:21 PM	#2
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,158	Pharmacies across the nation are soon going to offer free HIV testing in new agreement with CDC. Producers have always been able to order the same tests that they use at clinics, you just had to order them overseas. Some used them as an added precaution. It's a totally different test though and only tests for antibodies, rather than the presence of HIV. It can take months and months to develop antibodies so producers should never rely on at home or even clinic testing unless it's the more expensive test that checks for the presence of HIV.

07-03-2012, 05:48 PM	#4
mce Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: All Over Posts: 3,917	Interesting qualifying text that news story comes with...