FDA Approves HIV Home-Use Test Kit

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Food and Drug Administration has approved the first over-the-counter HIV test kit, allowing people to test themselves in private at home and get preliminary results in less than 30 minutes. The test, which works by detecting antibodies in a swab from the gums, should not be considered final — in trials, the test failed to detect HIV in 1 in every 12 patients known to be infected, and returned false positives in 1 in 5,000 cases. The new at-home test, called OraQuick, will be sold in supermarkets and pharmacies and manufacturer, OraSure, has not said how much the test will cost, only that it will be more than the $18 cost for the professional kit. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that of the 1.2 million people in the U.S. with HIV, 1 in 5 is not aware of the infection and that a disproportionate number of the 50,000 new cases of HIV each year is linked to people who have not been tested. Chip Lewis, a spokesman for Whitman-Walker Health, which provides AIDS care in Washington, says at-home testing could reach some people who didn't want to go to a clinic but removing medical professionals from the process could cause problems. 'It's not like a home pregnancy test,' says Lewis. 'You need really a lot of information about how to read the test, how to use the test properly.'" Back in May, we reported that a panel of FDA experts recommended approval of an over-the-counter HIV test.

Comments

Come here baby...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets test if you are clean.

Oh women will love that...

Use it on someone else?

[goodmanj]

Nobody seems to have noticed the "best" thing about this test: it should be possible to use it on your partner. With or without their consent. So you can invite that random girl at the bar home for a drink and a swab, or secretly swab your boyfriend while he's sleeping, just in case he's lying to you about being clean.

Unethical? Yes. Unromantic? Yes. False sense of security? Yup. But potentially lifesaving? Also yes.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really clever at all. You'd better use condom, which is 99% safe if you use it properly (test fail in identifying 1 in 12 individuos)

After all, taking body fluids from someone without his/her consentiment is illegal.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

In what way is your sleazy, deceitful, unethical, and probably illegal behavior more life-saving than simply requesting the woman take the test? Hell, she'll probably thank you because she gets to see you take it, too. Never mind that it is a really stupid way to use this test. This test should be used to give yourself piece of mind before you go see a doctor to actually get tested. That's really the only thing such an unreliable test can do for you.

Don't even get me started on the twisted thinking that sees one side of it as "a false sense of security" and the other side "potentially lifesaving". The words you were looking for are "potentially fatal."

And try to remember there are other STDs out there that, while not as deadly, are permanent and life-altering.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

What i like about this is the possibility of social pressure :-)

and being "at home" possibly some who would never get tested will take one (for curiousity or due to this pressure) and if that catches a few positives (even a few false positives) that go get checked up at the doctor, that should be an overall win to society.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[hawguy]

Nobody seems to have noticed the "best" thing about this test: it should be possible to use it on your partner. With or without their consent. So you can invite that random girl at the bar home for a drink and a swab, or secretly swab your boyfriend while he's sleeping, just in case he's lying to you about being clean.

Unethical? Yes. Unromantic? Yes. False sense of security? Yup. But potentially lifesaving? Also yes.

If you distrust this partner so much that you're willing to give them an HIV test without their consent, do you really want to bet your life on the 1 in 12 chance that the test will give a false negative result?

Besides, there are lots of other diseases you can pick up from this partner even if he/she is not infected with HIV. Better to be safe than sorry.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you sound like a tremendous asshole.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[santax]

Do not worry son, with your attitude you will never get the AIDS. Here's a new hyper-link and a fresh box of tissues. Carry on son.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, he's just looking out for your best interests. No saying what the fag you brought home from the Linux users group has. So while he's shooting in your ass as you scream "Oh Linus!" you can have some peace of mind.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[santax]

You are mistaken sir, you are referring to Linus User Groups and not Linux User Groups.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Unethical

Terrible spelling. You got most of the letters in ILLEGAL wrong.

Seriously? You think that doing invasive medical tests on somebody without their consent is only "unethical"?

Re:Use it on someone else?

[fermion]

It is not a pregnancy test. The setup is quite complex and seems highly susceptible to human error. Latex condoms seem highly effective to reduce the risk of infection when engaging in risky sex, or at least better than a test.

I remember a time when condoms were considered absolutely unromantic.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Frankie70]

Steps
1) Get partner home from bar
2) Get them to sleep as soon as they reach your home
3) Test them for HIV
4) If they test negative, wake them up and have sex.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[backslashdot]

AIDS is the only currently incurable life threatening disease you can get that I know of. You may get herpes, which is incurable .. but its not usually life threatening. You may get hepatitis C, which is life threatening but the cure rate is fairly high (and improving) with modern treatment regimens.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Riceballsan]

Or skip the wake them up phase and wind up with a good news bad news scenerio. Good news, you aren't getting aids... bad news your new cell-mate might.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[arth1]

AIDS is the only currently incurable life threatening disease you can get that I know of.

You have cures for Hepatitis, Creutzfeldt-Jakob, Alzheimer's, Leukaemia, Parkinson's, Huntington's, Polio, Lupus and Diabetes?

And influenza too - even though the fatality rate is low, the infection rate is so high that it kills an awful lot of people every year.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[joaommp]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about sexually transmitted diseases... Therefore, apart from Hepatitis, which have vaccines and and some very effective treatments, all the other one's become irrelevant in this discussion...

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back of the envelope says that if the test turns out negative, the probability of them having HIV (in the US) is about 1 in 1700.

Remember, kids, practice safe stats. Use a Bayes' Rule.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[DarkOx]

Might not stay that way thought. I heard on the radio there is an extremely antibiotic resistant clap from Japan making its way to the west coast.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[DarkOx]

1) Slip some GHB into your partners drink at the bar.
2) Take them home
3) Test for HIV while they are still unconscious
4) If they test negative, rape

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, they've got that licked. The ads clearly state "Clap on! Clap OFF! the Clapper!" no problem, right?

Re:Use it on someone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 33,300,000 of AIDS as well as HIV positive single people worldwide. If you are one of them and you are prepared to become a little brave then You may find that PositiveFishes.com is just for you. For you will come across new individuals who will certainly become life long friends or Love of life and achieve a degree of self-belief you never would have believed possible.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[backslashdot]

Although the chance of a false negative may be 1 in 12, the actual probability of getting AIDS is less .. because you have to account for the probability of encountering an HIV positive person. Also, many false negatives are for cases where the person may have been recently infected so the immune system has not created enough antibodies. If you have been dating your partner for a while and can be sure he/she hasn't had an HIV exposure within a recent time frame .. the chance of false negative reduces. What this test allows you to do is have an added layer of security. It's like this, when you get in a car .. you can reduce your chance of getting seriously hurt in an accident by being a good driver, driving a safe vehicle, and wearing a seatbelt. Does it offer a guarantee of safety? No. I'm pretty sure people have died with their seatbelt on, in fact i recall hearing that some side impact collisions resulted in fatalities BECAUSE the person was wearing a seatbelt. However, seatbelts have saved many lives, so it's a good idea to use one. It reduces the probability of serious injury. That's what this test is about .. it's helping people who can't help but engage in a particular behavior pattern reduce the risk from that behavior -- yes for maximum benefit it must be coupled with other things like not choosing a high risk partner etc. But simply telling people to just plain abstain has not worked for everyone. So in combination with all the other things such as abstinence education, this test is a good thing.

Note, I am not in blanket favor of testing someone for HIV or anything else without their consent.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[hawguy]

Although the chance of a false negative may be 1 in 12, the actual probability of getting AIDS is less .. because you have to account for the probability of encountering an HIV positive person. Also, many false negatives are for cases where the person may have been recently infected so the immune system has not created enough antibodies. If you have been dating your partner for a while and can be sure he/she hasn't had an HIV exposure within a recent time frame .. the chance of false negative reduces. What this test allows you to do is have an added layer of security. It's like this, when you get in a car .. you can reduce your chance of getting seriously hurt in an accident by being a good driver, driving a safe vehicle, and wearing a seatbelt. Does it offer a guarantee of safety? No. I'm pretty sure people have died with their seatbelt on, in fact i recall hearing that some side impact collisions resulted in fatalities BECAUSE the person was wearing a seatbelt. However, seatbelts have saved many lives, so it's a good idea to use one. It reduces the probability of serious injury. That's what this test is about .. it's helping people who can't help but engage in a particular behavior pattern reduce the risk from that behavior -- yes for maximum benefit it must be coupled with other things like not choosing a high risk partner etc. But simply telling people to just plain abstain has not worked for everyone. So in combination with all the other things such as abstinence education, this test is a good thing.

Note, I am not in blanket favor of testing someone for HIV or anything else without their consent.

Or does it act like a false layer of security like an airbag. Drivers may think "Oh hey, I don't need a seatbelt, I have an airbag!" even though the seatbelt is what keeps them in place so the airbag is most effective.

Likewise, is someone who is in a high-risk group for HIV going to take this test, come up with a negative result, and then go out and tell his partners "Don't worry dude, I'm clean, I was tested". While if he'd had a test at a clinic (even if they use the same test), they would have explained that a clean result doesn't necessarily mean that he's HIV negative. While I'm sure that the literature packed with the test will tell them the same thing, most people don't read the literature, but at least they have to sit there and listen to the doctor.

Re:Use it on someone else?

[backslashdot]

Yes it is possible to come up with scenarios where this test results in infection. But how common is that scenario going to be? Overall this test may save lives.

Good and bad

[Anrego]

This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.

You need really a lot of information about how to read the test, how to use the test properly.

That would to me seem the least of the problem. The whole finding out you (might) have a terminal illness while alone in your bathroom might cause some issues. I know I'd probably be a tad upset.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but you're already half expecting to get it. its not like you just randomly contract it

Re:Good and bad

[LordLucless]

This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.

On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole finding out you (might) have a terminal illness while alone in your bathroom might cause some issues.

HIV is not the death sentence it once was. In fact in the gay community it's almost a badge of honor.

The pharmaceutical companies have gotten real good at <strike>keeping these people alive</strike> sucking money out of desperate people and insurance companies.

Re:Good and bad

[spike hay]

Haha, no it's not a badge of honor in the gay community. There's a huge stigma that actually keeps people from getting tested.

Re:Good and bad

[hawguy]

This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.

On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.

And it's not just the fact that they won't go to a clinic for themselves, but now those 1 in 12 will proclaim to future partners "Don't worry, I'm clean, I was just tested". And if there's a biological reason that makes an individual more likely to get a false negative, this makes the problem even worse as he continues to get negative results, test after test despite being infected.

I'd feel better about this test if the false positive and false negative rates were reversed. Sending 1 out of 12 people to the doctor because they got a false positive (and missing just 1 out of 5000 actual HIV infections) sounds a lot better than the reverse.

Re:Good and bad

[amiga3D]

Maybe he got it from the toilet seat?

Re:Good and bad

[amiga3D]

I doubt living with a ticking time bomb is that much of an honor. Survival rates are up but not everyone does as well as Magic Johnson.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV is not a terminal illness anymore with modern antivirals. It's manageable similar to herpes. People with HIV are living old now and dying of other causes. Not to diminish the seriousness of the disease, but it's not the death sentence it was in the 1980's..

Re:Good and bad

[lessthan]

I don't get it. Yours is the third or fourth comment I've seen lamenting the failure rate. If you are sexually active, with multiple partners, you should be getting tested every 6 months minimum. With an over-the-counter version for about $20, I'm probably going to do it every month. (I'm a bit of a hypochondriac, but I do get laid occasionally.) I like to think of myself as unusually unlucky, but 6 times in a row? That is rather improbable.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact in the gay community it's almost a badge of honor.

Citation fucking needed. And no, "my pastor told me" isn't going to cut it, nor will citing websites with an obvious religious or homophobic agenda. Nor will anecdotal evidence, as my anecdotal evidence is just as valid as your (i.e. not) and a 180 opposite from what you're claiming.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a gay subculture I've never seen that treats an aids diagnosis as a badge of honour. Or more likely there's a meme that such a subculture exists, and that meme is transmitted among the portion of the population that doesn't so much talk to gays as it does preach at them.

Re:Good and bad

[arth1]

It is possible, although extremely unlikely to get the HIV virus from fly bites (but not from mosquitoes). Plus some people who got infected through blood transfusions before testing became ubiquitous, and who have not developed AIDS.
Not enough so that one should be concerned about it, but still one should not jump to the conclusion that HIV positive means someone has had unprotected sex or shared needles.

Also, you may get false positives from people with type1 diabetes or certain auto-immune diseases.

So don't jump to conclusions.

Re:Good and bad

[arth1]

People with HIV are living old now and dying of other causes

They've always died of other causes. AIDS in itself isn't fatal, but you easily contract other conditions that will kill you.
Much like many auto-immune diseases, it's not the disease itself that will kill you. But it is a (or the) significant factor.

Re:Good and bad

[dargaud]

this makes the problem even worse as he continues to get negative results, test after test despite being infected.

Is this the case ? Or only the 1st time right after contamination when the body hasn't produced enough antibodies yet ? Can someone be (1) a carrier and (2) a spreader while (3) having no antibodies ?

Re:Good and bad

[TheCarp]

> That would to me seem the least of the problem. The whole
> finding out you (might) have a terminal illness while alone in
> your bathroom might cause some issues. I know I'd probably be
> a tad upset.

except you probably shouldn't be. The number of people without HIV dwarfs the population with it enough that there are many many more false positives than true positives, even with a very low false positive rate.

So even if you test positive, you are actually far more likely to be one of the people who got a false positive than a true positive.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, for about 3 months after contraction the body hasn't produced enough antibodies to be detectable by most tests.

Re:Good and bad

[mcgrew]

It's no longer terminal with today's antiviral drug regimens. However, it is still incurable, and if you have HIV you'll need to take a very large cocktail of some very dangerous drugs for the rest of your life.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like a really good idea in that a lot of people who really should get tested never will due to the stigma of going to a clinic.

You need really a lot of information about how to read the test, how to use the test properly.

That would to me seem the least of the problem. The whole finding out you (might) have a terminal illness while alone in your bathroom might cause some issues. I know I'd probably be a tad upset.

It goes beyond stigma of having to go to a clinic. In DC and VA doctors are required to report a positive score to the government. Also if you want to go to a freebie clinic instead of seeing your doctor you have to prove you can't afford a doctor. These are some pretty big barriers to entry for a lot of people.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, it seems like now 1 in 12 will never go to a clinic because the home test gave them a clean bill of health when really, they were carrying the virus. I understand that a false positive is going to be hugely upsetting to the individual, but on a society-wide level, such a massive false negative rate is really much more concerning. In my opinion, it makes the test not only useless (as a high false-positive rate would) but counter-productive.

Part of the reason for the higher false negative (1 in 12) is to reduce false positives. The in-clinic versions have lower false negative rates but also significantly higher false positive rates (2-3 in 1,000 vs 1 in 5,000). When you get a positive on a quick test in-clinic it is considered a "preliminary positive", you receive immediately counseling and usually they will collect a secondary sample immediately that you can get a more accurate test.

I'm posting anonymously because I want to let you know that I had a false positive on a quick oral test and if that happens to you, it's going to be the worst week of your life ever until you get the negative test result back.

Re:Good and bad

[BBTaeKwonDo]

I'm pretty sure the GP meant "dying of other causes unrelated to AIDS." E.g., accident, heart disease, stroke, etc.

Re:Good and bad

[Carnildo]

I'd feel better about this test if the false positive and false negative rates were reversed. Sending 1 out of 12 people to the doctor because they got a false positive (and missing just 1 out of 5000 actual HIV infections) sounds a lot better than the reverse.

This is a general screening test intended to be used by the population at large, rather than a diagnostic test. As-is, it's got good positive predictive value and a reasonable negative predictive value: if given to the entire US population (minus those who already know they're HIV-positive, so 300,000,000 people, 240,000 of whom are HIV-positive and unaware of it), it will generate about 60,000 false positives for a PPV of 78% (ie. if it says "yes", you've got a 78% chance of being HIV-positive) and 20,000 false negatives for an NPV of 99.99% (ie. if it says "no", there's a 99.99% chance of you being HIV-negative, but you knew that already).

If we go with your desired rates, the test will have a PPV of 0.95% with 25,000,000 false positives (ie. if it says you're HIV-positive, it's almost certainly wrong), and a NPV of 99.99998% with 48 false negatives. For comparison, a test that simply always says "you are HIV-positive" isn't much worse at identifying HIV-positive people, so you might as well not bother with the home test, and just send everyone to the doctor's office.

It's much like screening for terrorists at airports: if you're looking for a very small needle in a very large haystack, you want to be very, very good at identifying things that aren't needles. Otherwise, you're generating a lot of work for little benefit.

Re:Good and bad

[arth1]

I'm pretty sure the GP meant "dying of other causes unrelated to AIDS." E.g., accident, heart disease, stroke, etc.

Pneumonia is one of the notable causes of death for people with AIDS. You don't have to have AIDS to get that. It's just way more lethal when your immune system is out of whack.

Another is suicide.

Re:Good and bad

[ToddInSF]

It's useful in that it keeps the focus on the exaggerated HIV threat and justifies more funding.

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absolutely ridiculous...they want to do the test themselves? Its like a huge neon sign going "HI I MAY BE HIV POSITIVE!!!". EVERYONE is going to want to do that now and they will know what it means, just like a pregnancy test, so the whole "do it at home to not feel ashamed" thought process goes right out the window. Not to mention that without the proper treatment, the people who are infected will have a bad life expectancy, won't live normal lives...just so many issues with this. I don't know what the FDA is thinking about releasing this. Sure it sounds nice if you think about it, its VERY convenient but there is a REASON why people have to go through medical professionals to get tested. Because they will know what to do to TREAT a person who is infected, both with medication and therapy to get over the very obvious, very dark taboo that society itself pinned on HIV positive people and their own fears and emotional baggage as well.

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what mail order is for...

Re:Seriously?

[Georules]

So, you do know there's a thing called the internet where you can order products and have them shipped to your house right?

Re:Seriously?

[Osgeld]

oh yea thats even better, rather than the local pharmacy know, now google, facebook and every single one of their ad whores know. a few hours later their friends start noticing "HIVStick" ad's on every page

Re:Seriously?

[hawguy]

That is absolutely ridiculous...they want to do the test themselves? Its like a huge neon sign going "HI I MAY BE HIV POSITIVE!!!". EVERYONE is going to want to do that now and they will know what it means, just like a pregnancy test, so the whole "do it at home to not feel ashamed" thought process goes right out the window. Not to mention that without the proper treatment, the people who are infected will have a bad life expectancy, won't live normal lives...just so many issues with this.

I think that's the problem this test is supposed to solve - one out of 5 people with HIV don't realize it, so the sooner they take the test, the sooner they can begin treatment since the longer they wait the harder it is to treat.

I don't know why you think that picking up a home test "for a friend" from the pharmacy or ordering it through mail order is more of a stigma than making an appointment at a clinic or with your doctor for the test.

Re:Seriously?

[DavidTC]

And right now there's an even bigger advantage: After testing positive, you can then proceed to buy health insurance. ;)

And as for 'stigma'...yeah, that's dumb. It's not a prescription, it doesn't even require ID. Just drive a few towns over and buy it with cash. Or, of course, buy it online.

If I were this company, I'd have mail-order forms in the box, with a way for people to set up a 'subscription' where they got sent a new test every three months.

Incidentally, I think instead of trying to figure out ways 'around' the 'stigma' of AIDS, we should, you know, stop it from having one. What is this, 1986?

Hell, I had plenty of surgeries in the mid-80s, right when it was coming into the public eye and not yet being tested for in blood. I could have gotten AIDS from blood transfusion. I didn't, but I could have.

And, you know what, it's time we stop using the 'they could have gotten it without sex' excuse, anyway. Even people who got it via unprotected sex...well, they engaged in risky behavior and hit a landmine. That does not mean they are, in any way, bad people, or we should think worse of them. Until I see the same critizism of people injured in car accidents (Driving is pretty risky also), I'm forced to assume this is some sort of homophobia bullshit. (The fact the other thing mentioned was pregnancy test is, I think, telling. Homophobia _and_ misogynistic slut shaming, hand in hand, as God intended.)

Not that I'm suggesting the GP is those things. I'm suggesting he's listening to people who are, that he lives in a place where gossiping about other people is reasonable. Next time that happens, he should just punch them in the face and tell them to mind their own business about medical conditions of others.

This will end badly...

[multiben]

1 in 12 failure rate is absolutely *far* too high. It's marginally better than rolling a die to see if you have HIV. People (as a group), who have proven themselves to be not the best logicians time and time again, will take this as proof they are in the clear and start spreading it around. It is a very irresponsible product. If you think you have HIV then go to a doctor and find out for sure.

Re:This will end badly...

[ShanghaiBill]

People (as a group), who have proven themselves to be not the best logicians time and time again, will take this as proof they are in the clear and start spreading it around.

People who feel they need to use this test are already spreading it around. If this stops 11 of 12, that is a good thing. Just because something isn't perfect, doesn't make it worthless. Life is not black and white.

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

^^ this

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they stop doing that behavior? Do they have HIV-Positive swinger parties? Do you get f ree needles when you get HIV?

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you knowingly transmit HIV without consent, you can be charged with murder.

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. A Type 2 Error rate of 8 percent is unacceptable. Maybe its ok if it's only supposed to be an initial screen and you have to get another slower test afterwards.

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

But it wasn't me who gave them hiv.... I figured with such a high false positive rate, I didn't have it.

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, you're explaining that to a judge, for a murder trial. Which means even if you're successful, you have months (years?) of lost work opportunity, lawyer fees, and your name permanently tarnished if, in fact, you go with the defense you suggested. You'll be ruined financially.

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not convinced the people who most need this test will take it. Tests are already available and for whatever selfish reason they'd rather risk sentencing someone else to death than find out for sure.

Re:This will end badly...

[multiben]

Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Why on earth would you assume that people who are seeking an HIV test are already spreading it around?!? The other (far more likely) scenario is that they are concerned they may have contracted HIV and are looking for confirmation one way or the other *before* engaging in activities that may spread it further. Prior to the existence of this test you could go to the doctor and find out *for sure* if you had it or not. Now with this test people may miss that very important step. Follow this:

Scenario 1
A person is worried they have HIV. They go and purchase a home test kit. The test turns up negative. Then they release there is a chance the test is not right and go to the doctor to find out for certain.
Scenario 2
A person is worried they have HIV. They go and purchase a home test kit. The test turns up positive. Then they release there is a chance the test is not right and go to the doctor to find out for certain.

Whatever happens, the patient has to go to the doctor at some point. The test is worse than useless because of the potential that people will not make that final step and go to the doctor!

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why people don't get tested. Nobody wants to find out they can never have sex again.

Re:This will end badly...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the target market has a low enough prevalence of HIV, a high false negative rate is fine. Almost every test has false positives and false negatives, but the importance of that depends on the rate of true positives in the population.

In general, for low risk groups we want to minimise false positives more, and for high risk groups we want to minimise false negatives more (assuming in both cases that the true positive and true negative rates is high enough to be useful).

Therefore, this is a useful test in populations that don't take HIV tests because they're at a relatively low risk for it, and know it. High risk populations need a different test with lower false negative rates, but can tolerate more false positives.

Re:This will end badly...

[DarkOx]

You are making a big assumption this will stop them. Lost of people go around having unprotected sex with multiple partners. They should therefore get tested for a variety of STDs regularly so as not to put others at risk but they don't.

These are people to embarrassed to ask a medical professional for an HIV test or to narcissistic to bother. Do you really think they are going to either start telling partners, sorry I am HIV positive we should use protection, or change their life style for more than a few weeks just because they get the bad news?

you .. you ...

[Anonymous Coward]

DOUBLE NIGGER!

It's only 92% accurate ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... lest you guys start thinking that this kit is a heavenly sent, that you guys will be 100% protected ...

This test kit is only 92% accurate

While 8% does not seem to be a big number, it still matters in this case for AIDS is still incurable
 

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[ColdWetDog]

No test is 100% accurate. Even ones done in a lab setting. In particular, these HIV tests require the body to produce antibodies to the virus. No antibodies, no positive test. You don't make antibodies instantly - it takes on the order of 10 - 14 days. So, if you were in contact with an HIV positive person and then ran out and got tested you would test negative. A couple of weeks later, the story might be different.

Wrap the rascal.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could (gasp!) stop buttfucking other men, stop using dirty needles for your drug habit, and stop sleeping with everything that walks. Before everyone mods this as a troll, you can also cut down your lung cancer risk by not smoking, lower your risk for diabetes by not eating too much sugar, and lower your risk for obesity by not hitting the buffet line three times. How is this any different?

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless the 1 in 12 figure includes some large number of "zOMG, I might have been infected, I'm going to get tested immediately, days before I could conceivably actually show what the tests look for!" morons(who really need to get to somebody qualified to tell them why that is stupid, now...), that is a dreadful false-negative rate...

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Eh, this isn't the 1980s anymore. Are hard-partying homosexual intravenous drug users still a high risk demographic? Sure.

Has AIDS become something of a crossover hit, especially but not exclusively in the developing world, with substantial uptake among behaviorally prosaic demographics? Oh yes, yes it has...

At the risk of sounding blunt to the point of crassness, if the 'AIDS = Ass Cancer' theory of epidemiology were actually accurate, we wouldn't still be talking about it. It's hard for a virus that has no significant animal vectors and can't survive outside the body worth a damn to hang on if it can only burn its way through crazy-high-risk demographics. There just aren't that many of those, and they tend to die.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's beyond me why people cannot grasp that AIDS is behaviorally transmitted, and in the USA its incidence is multiples higher in the homosexual-- specifically male to male-- community, and in people who shoot up, than heterosexuals. This is not debatable; you can go to the CDC website and see for yourself.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[amiga3D]

It's not politically correct to mention that.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[ooshna]

A big part of that was the lack of condom use among homosexuals in the 70s and 80s. Who is going to wear a condom when there is no risk of anyone getting pregnant. Another risk was the fact that the homosexual community was so small and hidden back then. If one guy caught AIDS it wouldn't take long for it to make the rounds in that area due to lack of choice in partners.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[wmac1]

In addition to that, during the window period of 1-3 months it might not be detected at all. Not detecting HIV does not mean the person is not infected at all.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a surprise I am more shocked breathing isnt too difficult for your tiny little brain redneck.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[tnk1]

Yes, in this case, I'd prefer a 1 in 12 false *positive* rate. That way, if it is false, all I did was waste some time and money at a clinic to make sure. With this, if I come up negative, it might just be a false sense of security which is much worse for everyone involved.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Breathing *is* difficult sometimes. I have asthma, and the good old FDA here in the USA has seen to it that Primatene Mist inhlalers can never harm the environment again with their horrible 1/5th of an ounce of CFCs. Now go forth and fuck another man!

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Mr. Freeman]

It doesn't matter who is at the most risk for transmission. Sure, you're more likely to be infected if you shoot up a syringe full of infected blood, but that doesn't mean that having vaginal intercourse is no-risk.

ANYONE can get aids from ANYONE who has aids if you have ANY TYPE of sex. End of story.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never been happier about the FDA keeping a product from one specific person. Here's hoping you fail to draw breath tomorrow.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[tnk1]

CDC figures still indicate that half of all new HIV infections are in men having sex with men (gay or bi). From what I can tell, the factors that you mention are actually still in effect and did not end in the 70s and 80s. While there is more knowledge of risk factors, that appears to be offset by the complacency of younger gay or bi men to the risks, as AIDS is no longer front page news, nor necessarily a death sentence.

2009 CDC Fact Sheet
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

From the summary:

* MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an estimated 580,000 total persons).
* MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).
* While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[grouchomarxist]

"specifically male to male" - actually only in the male to male community. In the lesbian community it is lower than the heterosexual community.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep it classy faggot. The world is watching. Now go pork a young boy.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[ColdWetDog]

The test kit comes with a booklet that the manufacturer and the FDA spent quite a bit of time going back and forth about. It attempts to clearly delineate what the test can and cannot do and impresses the need to get repeat testing. Remember, this took years to get cleared and not because of the technology itself - that's pretty cut and dried.

The hard part was setting the false positive and negative rates and trying to educate the general public on how to approach this issue. Whether or not their decisions were correct remains to be seen.

The big issue, IMHO, is the fact that you're only testing for one disease. If you went into a doctor's office or an STD clinic, you would typically get tested for the other communicable diseases that tend to ride along with HIV (gonorrhea, chlamydia and to a lesser extent, syphilis and Herpes). While these won't kill you right off the bat, they are important enough in their own right.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[darkshadow88]

... lest you guys start thinking that this kit is a heavenly sent, that you guys will be 100% protected ...

This test kit is only 92% accurate

While 8% does not seem to be a big number, it still matters in this case for AIDS is still incurable

The test's accuracy is much higher than 92%. The test has 92% recall (it will correctly detect 92% of the true positives). In determining the accuracy, you need to take into account all the people who don't have HIV (which it will correctly detect 99.98% of the time). Based on the CDC's numbers, about 1 in 250 people in the U.S. have HIV, so the accuracy of this test would be (249/250)*99.98% + (1/250)*92% = 99.95%. The precision here (the probability that a positive returned by the test is a true positive) is the probability of a true positive detection over the total probability of a positive test result, or (1/250)*92% / ((1/250)*92% + (249/250)*0.02%) = 95%. In other words, if the test says you have HIV, there's a 95% chance it's correct. Doing the same for a negative result, you'll find that a negative result is correct 99.6% of the time.

Your point that the test fails to correctly detect 8% of the true positives is a reasonable one, but accuracy is not the metric you should be using to evaluate. To better illustrate why accuracy is a terrible metric to use, consider a test that always returns "no". Since 99.6% of people do not have HIV, the test is 99.6% accurate, yet totally useless (0% recall and undefined precision due to no positive results). Precision and recall are what you should care about.

TL;DR:

• Accuracy: 99.95%
• Precision (positive): 95%
• Precision (negative): 99.6%
• Recall: 92%

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not end of story. What you are appealing for is black & white thinking, no grey, and a stop to the discussion.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, homosexual have the lowest incidence AIDS.

Maybe dudes are just gross? ;)

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Pecisk]

I'm confused, correct me if I'm wrong but it's 92% accurate for positive, and 99% accurate for negative. That's it, if you get positive hit, you can still be in 8% with false alarm.

Or I misread BBC article about it. If so, nevermind.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[ooshna]

I do wonder if part of that has to do with the fact that gay men also are more likely to get tested for AIDS regularly than straight guys. I live in Lakewood Ohio that has a huge openly gay community that probably rivals San Fransisco on a per capita basis. In fact the nursing home I work in has twice as many gay male employees than straight. While talking to them there seems to be a trend of being very open about multiple partners or sharing partners while they were young and usually settling down in monogamist relationships around their late 30's early 40's. But even with all the promiscuous sex there is a get tested and get tested often mentality in the community.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but if it's wrong 1/12 of the time, that means that you still need to get tested at the lab at which point the question is "why bother?".

This isn't like with pregnancy where if it fails to show that you're pregnant it eventually becomes obvious.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because the sex ed in schools and what's available from doctors is woefully inadequate. There are different risks and different techniques involved with same sex safe sex and if we're not being provided with adequate information the infection rates are going to be higher.

Plus, with same sex marriage being banned and it still being a serious taboo, keeping relationships secret isn't likely to help either.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[FrootLoops]

you can go to the CDC website and see for yourself.

Indeed, here's a summary from the CDC from the end of last year. The most relevant part to your point:

While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).

I have that link somewhat handy since I'm a gay male. For any other gay guys, to protect yourself...
1. Be monogamous; if you can't,
2. Skip anal and go for oral, which has a much smaller HIV transmission risk to both partners (basically 0 to the guy who's getting head); it's safest not to get cum in your mouth; if you can't,
3. Always use a condom and top--bottoming has a far higher transmission risk; if you can't,
4. Never fucking bareback with a guy you're not absolutely certain is HIV negative no matter what you asshole. You make us all look bad. If you can't,
5. Test yourself often (1-3 months). When you become positive, only have sex with other positive guys. There is no more "if you can't".

It should be noted that condom usage is highly effective but also imperfect. Depending on the study, they reduce exposure risk by only around 80%. For more precise transmission statistics, the Transmission section of the HIV/AIDS Wikipedia article has a good summary and good sources (though you usually need journal access to read them). The Prevention section is also worth reading.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[gay358]

IMHO, getting tested every 1-3 months is overkill if you practise safe sex (as everyone should). And I would never have anal sex without condom, even with a person who "absolutely certain is HIV negative", because there cannot be absolute certainty and there are other STDs as well. And because condoms are not 100 percent reliable, I refuse to have sex with persons who seem to be interested in bareback sex (if they aren't already HIV postive, they will be soon), are HIV positive or persons that I suspect might have high risk of being HIV positive.

I am sad that there seems to be so many gays who have bareback sex. I have never been able to understand why they do something so stupid. Even when two HIV positive persons have sex together, they should use condom to minimize transmitting new HIV strains which might be drug resistant.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[FrootLoops]

I agree with all of your points. I do not agree that they were all actually relevant to my post (for instance, my 1-3 months remark was in the context of someone having bareback sex with multiple partners [note the "If you can't"'s], in which case it's perhaps even generous), but oh well. Actually, I do contest one point--"absolute certainty" about being HIV negative, while not 100%, can be extraordinarily close. One would need several tests after months of 0 risky behavior. I mostly meant to cover the case of eg. two pairs of married guys who want to bareback amongst themselves. And even then, my discussion completely ignores other STDs.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[gay358]

Sorry, I didn't read your message carefully enough. Although I do think there is some relevance. For example:

If being monogamous means that you have sex with only one person, it doesn't guarantee that the other person doesn't have sex with other persons. It is worth to remember that about 40 percent of straight persons are unfaitful and I suspect that it is even more commong among gays (and larger percentage gays are HIV positive and anal sex transmits HIV more easily than vaginal intercourse, which probably makes being cheated higher risk factor for gays than straight).

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[Angostura]

Precisely. The false negative rate is sufficiently large to make it pointless. Would anyone here have unprotected with someone on the basis of this test's result?

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[specific]

No test is 100% accurate.

However, the 99% will accept it & our market research has shown strong possibilities for the 99% dollar. BIG dollar! They're very smart to go after that dollar.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[brit74]

In other words, if the test says you have HIV, there's a 95% chance it's correct.

That's almost correct. If you have an average risk of contracting HIV and you've never tested yourself before, then the numbers would be 95% (well, okay, that's not quite true for reasons below). If you're in a low-risk group (e.g. you don't get laid or are in a long-term monogamous relationship), then you are less likely to have HIV and there's less than a 95% chance it's correct if it says you have HIV. Conversely, if you're in a high-risk group, it could be more than 95%. And, just to be through, even if 1 in 250 people in the US have HIV, the odds that any single person will have HIV and not know it is less than 1 in 250. I'm unsure what percentage of HIV-infected don't know it, but assuming half of all Americans with HIV don't know it, then you're really doing the test on a section of the population which has a 1 in 500 chance of having HIV and not knowing it (which is the whole reason you'd take an HIV test in the first place, since the "I know I have HIV" group isn't going to be taking more tests).

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[wganz]

When I worked in a major hospital in Plano, Texas several years ago; anyone that came through ED as a trauma patient was given a drug scan, HIV, and HepC tests unbeknownst to the patient. It was done to protect the staff from these diseases. The drug scan was to give us a measure what the patient had on board so as to not overdose them with pain medicines and judge their tolerance for opiates.

The HIV rate was ~12% and HepC was > 50%. So, there is a definite need for this. There is a greater need for a HepC test.

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[brit74]

Update to my previous post: according to the HIV-test manufacturer "More than 1.1 million people in the U.S. are infected with HIV and 232,700 don’t know it." (http://www.orasure.com/products-infectious/products-infectious-oraquick.asp) This would mean that only 21% of the people with HIV don't know they have it. This means that of the US population which [doesn't have HIV + has HIV and doesn't know it] only 0.1% of them actually have HIV (this is the population where the test would be used).

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[whitroth]

And your point is? Are you arguing that we need to completely throw away all the Bush-era "chastity only", and all controls on selling condoms, and teach real sex ed in schools, including how to use birth control/STD control methods?

No, I thought not. You're a right wing hypocrite who wants to control everyone else's sexuality, because no one wants to lay you.

              mark

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[bkcallahan]

How hot is she, and will she come to my basement?

Re:It's only 92% accurate ...

[FrootLoops]

Yup, excellent point. I haven't actually seen statistics on how many people get infected that way, but it's of course a possibility. I remember reading an "advice to cheaters" guide that brought this up--it said that, if you're going to cheat, at *least* wear protection so the poor guy you're screwing over doesn't get sick.

The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have sex with niggers.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I know he's trolling, but there's actually a ring of truth to it. Approximately half of all black homosexuals have HIV.

One study of five major cities found that nearly 50 percent of all Black gay and bisexual men were HIV-positive

Pretty staggering number.

source: (it's a PDF)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/NHAS.pdf

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're a nigger.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

I met a woman recently who claimed to have HIV. Her virus load was "undetectable", and I think the hepatitis C and depo-provera-induced osteoporosis (that's the 3-month birth control injection) was much more significant in her daily life than HIV ever will be.

Majic Johnson is still alive, afaik... So what else is going on with people who test positive for HIV? What is the difference between someone who dies, and someone whose body successfully keeps the virus in check?

HIV never blew up like it was supposed to. /methinks we are being lied to.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're a slut's butt probe. We all have our thoughts.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[AlphaWolf_HK]

HIV is still as deadly as it ever was. The only thing that changed in the 90's is big pharma produced some drugs that inhibit the HIV virus from reproducing. Trouble is, no one drug works indefinitely. The virus adapts to the drug the patient is currently taking, and once it does, they have to switch to a new one. The side effects of these drugs are terrible, and they aren't completely effective; you still have a significantly diminished immune system.

When the virus mutates to resist drugs, it does lose some of its potency of being able to reproduce. However this is ultimately a losing battle. Some strains of the virus have recently shown up that are resistant to multiple drugs, and retain their ability to spread every bit as effectively as the wild form of the virus (that is, the one that hasn't been exposed to drugs that killed everybody in the 80's.)

Some people think that having sex with another HIV infected person is harmless, but they're dead wrong. You're liable to end up with two strains of the virus; one resistant to one drug, and one resistant to another. Or worse, you could end up with the multi-drug resistant variant.

Sure, HIV hasn't blown up....yet.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the first long term survivors of AIDS figured this out on an intuitive level. Instead of taking the "I've got it, I might as well screw around with other people who've got it" approach, he instead became celebate. He ended up being studied by researchers to find out why he lived so long. There may have been some genetic advantage. There are people running around who have nearly complete immunity; but I don't think he was one of those guys. The name escapes he.

Anyway, from what I recall having studied this a number of years ago, the drugs are not perfect. You can end up with weird fat deposits and other problems. HIV might not be a death sentance, but it will still tie your body down like diabetes or asthma. Oh, and let's not forget that the drugs aren't cheap. So yeah, I'm SoooooO eager to get a chronic condition and another financial hassle. Not!

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are indeed being lied to. Read the book 'Science Sold Out', or just Google 'HIV does not cause AIDS' and start READING.

The reason so many gay men died in the 80s was because they were either taking so many recreational drugs and partying so much that they ruined their immune systems, OR they were being poisoned to death by AZT and the other 'life saving' drugs which the pharmaceutical industry foisted on them.

Magic Johnson is still alive because HIV does not cause AIDS, and he is on a low enough dose of the toxic drugs that they don't kill him.

Read the article 'The trouble with Nevirapine', freely available online.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a stigma associated with being a male gay/bisexual that still exists and this is higher in the south and in black and hispanic communities. Men who are gay must still have a wife and kids to fit in. Men who are bisexual cannot admit it or they will be excluded by both gay and straight communities since they cannot be trusted. This leads to a lot of dishonesty and less communication since you cannot discuss what is going on with others until perhaps it is too late.

Don't think that's true - go to one of the hook-up sites and see how many single women or couples are ok with you being a male bisexual. Suddenly everyone is straight with nary a male bisexual in sight.

Same goes for drug users. On a hook-up site everyone is drugs/disease free. Amazing how that can be true. It's almost as if someone were being less than truthful so they are not excluded.

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm like that - I got raped in a bad incident and got infected that way. Pretty much gave up on dating after that (for loads of psychological reasons, but I got over that). Pretty much had three short term partners in the last 17 years. I don't want to be responsible for randomly infecting someone, especially without their knowledge. Is being celibate the way I saw my life? Nope, but there might be something to it. I've had it for 17 years now and you wouldn't know it to look at me. Oh yeah - no meds in years. Posting AC for the usual reasons. I wish I was brave enough to post under my real /. id, but I'm not. Maybe someday :) I've been on /. too long to have my rep ruined by some idiot :(

Re:The solution to the AIDS problem is simple:

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV is still as deadly as it ever was. The only thing that changed in the 90's is big pharma produced some drugs that inhibit the HIV virus from reproducing. Trouble is, no one drug works indefinitely. The virus adapts to the drug the patient is currently taking, and once it does, they have to switch to a new one. The side effects of these drugs are terrible, and they aren't completely effective; you still have a significantly diminished immune system.

When the virus mutates to resist drugs, it does lose some of its potency of being able to reproduce. However this is ultimately a losing battle. Some strains of the virus have recently shown up that are resistant to multiple drugs, and retain their ability to spread every bit as effectively as the wild form of the virus (that is, the one that hasn't been exposed to drugs that killed everybody in the 80's.)

Some people think that having sex with another HIV infected person is harmless, but they're dead wrong. You're liable to end up with two strains of the virus; one resistant to one drug, and one resistant to another. Or worse, you could end up with the multi-drug resistant variant.

Sure, HIV hasn't blown up....yet.

What is frightening is going on to those amateur porn sites like xtube and youporn and seeing most of the gay men their having raw, unprotected sex.

The environment for creating a super-strain of HIV is already in place and percolating away.

50,000 new cases of HIV each year

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lot of buttsex.

Who was bribed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. 1 in 12 failure rate is far too high. I'd also call the 1 in 5000 far too high.

What I want to know is who was bribed to allow this product to be brought to the market?

Re:Who was bribed?

[backslashdot]

Uh nobody was bribed, I am sure the packaging will explain the failure rate. This will save more lives than those it may result in infections with. It is a safeguard for people who might otherwise engage in risky sex. It's like using a condom. Condoms are not 100% either. The 1 in 12 failure rate is because new/recent infections wont show up. So if you are really paranoid about htat you can wait for a 6 months period. Also, the 1 in 12 failure is not that high in the context of the probability of encountering an HIV positive partner .. which is fairly low unless you are in a high risk group.

Error Rate High, but Still Useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the error rate is very high, but consider that this test might catch a large fraction of folks who might never get tested. That's a net win.

Re:Error Rate High, but Still Useful

[arth1]

Yeah, the error rate is very high, but consider that this test might catch a large fraction of folks who might never get tested. That's a net win.

Not if it leads to Typhoid Marys who go on infecting a large number of people because tested negative!

mod 0P

[Anonymous Coward]

IT sIMPLE,

good thing for the affordable care act or this wh

[Joe_Dragon]

good thing for the affordable care act or this would of been a easy new way to get on the blacklist aka the per-existing conditions list.

They should sell these

[Lord Kano]

in night club/bar bathrooms.

It's 1:40 and you've hooked up with your last resort, you go back to your place but before you put yourselves at risk, take 5 minutes and show each other that you don't have HIV.

I say this is all around win!

LK

Re:They should sell these

[lessthan]

That is the most awesome idea ever.

Re:They should sell these

[Hatta]

And then you take her home and catch incurable gonorrhea.

Re:They should sell these

[royallthefourth]

Or just wear a condom. Duh.

Re:They should sell these

[Lord Kano]

Would you have sex with someone that you knew was HIV positive, even with a condom? I wouldn't.

So yeah, wear a condom anyway to protect against other things, but if you can take a cheap, fast and east HIV test. Do that too.

LK

cool I think I'm going to invest some money

[Anonymous Coward]

... into pharma. Looks like there'll be a lot more people recruited into HIV "treatments" ;-)
Muhahahaha the slashdot 'lameness' filter doesn't let me laugh as much online as I am
laughing at you gullible sheeple offline. Anyhow its a good idea, disease is a growth industry.

Republican policies at work

[antifoidulus]

The HIV rate in the US is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the country. The HIV infection rate is massive compared to pretty much every other rich country on the planet, for instance in Germany there are about 3,000 new cases per year, and considering Germanys population is roughly 1/4 of the USs, we can see that the US rate is over 3x as high as Germanys per capita. Why the huge disparity? Probably has something to do with the fact that in the US there are a large # of people who secretly want "sinners" to get infected as punishment for their "deviancy", we call these people Republicans.

We can see it in the massive farce that is "abstinence only" education, turns out kids are having sex anyway and since they cannot get, or do not have access to condoms(and have been told that they fail most of the time anyway) they are going about it without them. Results? Highest STDs and teen pregnancy rates in the rich world.

And lets not forget our hardon for "justice" that results in a massive # of people(mostly men) in prison at any given time, where, surprise surprise, HIV runs rampant. And perhaps related refusal to admit that people are going to shoot up, and if they do they should have clean needles ends up in a lot of drug users contracting HIV(a very large % of those infected with HIV in the US are also infected with hep-C, indicating that needle-born HIV infections in the US are much more common than other first-world countries)

And of course lets not forget the massive amount of homophobia that basically ensures a large # of homosexuals will be ostracized from their family and community, and thus have a very low level of self-worth. This translates into many gays engaging in self-destructive behavior in the US, including but not limited to risky sex.

Congrats Republicans, largets HIV infection in the rich world, you worked hard to get to this point, might as well celebrate.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I modded your worthless oversized-anus ass "overrated." George Bush gave more money to AIDS relief for Africa than Obama has. You want to take it in the pooper, that's fine. Get out of my face, and stop whining about how your own stupid behavior got you infected. I don't know about your self-worth, but I don't value you very highly at all. You want to smoke? Accept the risk of lung cancer. You want to engage in self-destructive behavior? Then accept the consequences.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth hurts so you mod it down eh asshole? Just another pathetic american redneck it seems.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes! Never mind that these are all features of the American psyche built over centuries. It is those darn Republicans.

Never mind that both Republican and Democrats want the government in our (quasi-mandatory public) schools which is specifically what enables "abstinence only" policies to be put into place by Republicans. It's Republicans all the way down!

Never mind that the Democrats are just as hard on drug users and sellers as the Republicans. It's those darn Republicans at it again!

Never mind that gays make their own decisions and that any sense of self worth derived from external sources isn't "self" worth at all. Obviously only Republicans are religious and against homosexuality, so it's the Republicans again!

Here's a hint: Any power you want for your precious Democrat overlords to "fix" things can also be used by Republicans to "unfix" them. Maybe you live in a fantasy world where you believe everything will be alright as long as the "right people" are in charge, but surely you realize that the Republicans still manage to get elected and do stuff. So maybe the solution isn't to try to find the "right people" but to limit the government's ability to make things worse. After all, if the government has less power, those "Republican" policies can't hurt anybody. And if those policies aren't "Republican" at all, you'll be killing two birds with one stone.

Oh, and just for the record, I'm pretty much on your side about the actual issues (but your hate is something else entirely). Abstinence only education is stupid. Access to clean needles and condoms is a must (though not necessarily at taxpayer expense). Homophobia is stupid (but that's their choice). But the anti-cheerleading against the Republicans isn't helping and it's not even accurate.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon since there is still a huge stigma with being HIV positive...

I am HIV positive. I am a registered Republican. And I am an atheist.

Not all Republicans are religious nutjobs in the same way that not all Democrats are hippie nutjobs.

I am getting sick and tired of the "my team = good, your team = bad" divisiveness which is tearing this country apart. We can't even have intelligent debates on ideas anymore if one person discovers the other is a "libtard" or a "teabagger".

The above post contains assumptions and sweeping generalizations and is just one more example of the desired squabbling in what appears to be the ruling-class' plan of divide and conquer. It seems to me that the swine who call themselves Democrats and Republicans in government want the people to blame the "other side" for all the ills in the world--and the only way it can be fixed is to grant them more power (be it Republican or Democrat).

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

I modded you down too. I have three points left from the original 15. Now go suck a cock.

Re:Republican policies at work

[antifoidulus]

And your shithead reasoning that giving money is the same as helping is why you are a Republican, i.e. a shithead. Money if spent on the wrong things can not only be useless, it can be harmful. But then again, arguing facts and logic with a Republican won't do any good, shitheads will be shitheads.

Re:Republican policies at work

[antifoidulus]

Um, since when did denigrating Republican policies automatically constitute an endorsement of the Democrats, I must have missed that meeting. Your little libertarian pseudo-intellectual rant is cute, for a 3rd grader, but guess what, in countries where the government has even less power HIV rates are higher, Germany's very highly developed public health system and government sponsored campaigns to distribute condoms and clean needles are a big part of why the HIV rate is so low. So yeah, those pesky facts and logic getting in the way again.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'll try not to let your "logic" get in my way.

Re:Republican policies at work

[antifoidulus]

First and foremost, stop reading things in my post that are not there. I did not ONCE mention the Democrats, not once. My post wasnt intended to praise their policies per se, but rather praise the policies of countries like Germany who have kept the disease relatively under control. Democratic support for these various policies varies considerably, but unlike Republicans there arent very many Democrats that are downright hostile towards policies that have been EMPIRICALLY PROVEN to reduce HIV rates. That is solely the domain of the radical right in the US.

Theres conservatism, and then there being a Republican, you don't have to be the latter to be the former. The problem isnt conservatism per se(though like any ideology it can become problematic when you ignore any empirical data that contradicts your ideology), but the Christian facism of the modern Republican party is not conservatism, its facism pure and simple. Whatever tax plan or economic ideas they have dont really matter in light of the fact that they are trying to force Americans to adopt Christianity against their will.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

First, some of the smartest and most astute men and women I've met are gay, and they are indeed ostracized, and they do indeed act in self-destructive ways (I include myself partially in this category, unfortunately.)

Second, homophobia: I just moved from a rather well-off, prominent gay/bi/diverse community in Chicago out into the suburbs.
I went from guys and gals walking down the street, arm in arm, kissing each other occasionally, to... this. Ugh. Mainstream America, what is wrong with you?
My neighbors there were FABULOUS (in every sense of the word) guys, always there to chat, help out. I can say I knew my neighbors and would absolutely help them out in a pinch. My neighbors now are a pair of middle-aged richies too snooty to give the time of day.
There, kids would run around on the sidewalk and play, ride bikes, and people would stop and compliment your garden and chat.
Out here... my god. It's devoid of any caring or heart, community mostly based on status and how much stuff you have, and what DOES seem to be a very rigid need for conformity.
Homophobia is one result it seems; It's not just that it's a phobia, it's a sort of obliviousness that there's actually a world out there full of diversity and life.
So, it's not about gays... it's about recognizing other people as human beings, and we don't seem to be doing a very good job of that in our country in many different ways. Perhaps that's standard human nature, though.

In short, I couldn't be my deviant, fun-loving self out here at all if I wanted. So... I'll just wear girlie clothes UNDER my "normal" clothes, and smile proudly inside every time I take my bi-self out in public. And yes, I have had sex with a statistically high number of people, had the time of my life, and am totally clean still. You stuck up prudies out there don't have the foggiest idea what you're missing out on.

Hugs,

An Anonymous Coward (for good reason)
(And I totally modded the parent up)

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no empirical proof that your pet policies work. There has been no scientific test of the same. There is a suggestion by you that they work because they appear to work in a different culture under many other different variables that they are universal.

Regardless of your rationalization, the crux of the matter is you hate Republicans to the point that you don't even see Republicans, just your own twisted version of Republicans. This lets you concoct some crazy ideas about how the spread of AIDS is the fault of Republicans. You sound as crazy as those people who think AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. And you're just as bad because you want to use force to force people to act the way you want them to act - just like those folks demonize.

Even if the statistics agree with your positions and you can account for all variables, that doesn't mean your way is the correct way. We can end AIDS tomorrow by testing everyone and killing the infected. Yet this is obviously not the right way to go about it. We have morality, individual sovereignty, human dignity, and a million other things to consider as well. If statistics were the be all end all of decision making, we'd simply hand government over to computers.

And finally, you are so fixated on the Republicans and their policies, that you fail to see that those policies are a reflection of our shared culture. If there were no Republicans, those issues would still remain. Demonizing Republicans not only is pointless, but it alienates you from the very people whose minds you need to change if you want the Republicans to change.

tl;dr: Good, good. Let the hate flow through you.

Re:Republican policies at work

[misexistentialist]

Maybe we just have 3x as much (normal) sex as Germans? Maybe the factors you mention are relevant, but you seem to be doing the same thing that you are criticizing--looking for a moral explanation for disease.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Hatta]

I am HIV positive. I am a registered Republican. And I am an atheist.

Not all Republicans are religious nutjobs in the same way that not all Democrats are hippie nutjobs.

I guess not. Apparently some of them are dumb enough to vote for a party who isn't even interested in making good policy to slow the spread of a terminal disease you suffer from, and whose leaders barely even consider you a citizen. In short, you're even dumber than the average republican.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

USA? First world country?
lol. Good joke.

Re:Republican policies at work

[compro01]

I am HIV positive. I am a registered Republican. And I am an atheist.

Not all Republicans are religious nutjobs in the same way that not all Democrats are hippie nutjobs.

So you're either delusional and think Goldwater and his ilk are still in charge of the Republican Party, you're delusional and think you're going to change the party from within and wrest control back from the religious nuts, you're wealthy and look to benefit from the tax policies the Republicans endorse, or you're delusional and think that IT (The Dream Job, The Lottery Win, The Inheritance, etc.) will happen to you and you'll then benefit from the aforementioned tax policies.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

That's weird, because I see the republican party as a microcosm of everything wrong with America.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Another possible factor is resistances.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-03/uol-bdw031005.php

And in some areas, I'm sure that number is even higher.

Not to mention that Germany is a much smaller, more heterogeneous population. Comparing Germany to the US is rather flawed. Better compare the US to the entire European Union - and even then you still have disparities in population makeup.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

To follow up. France has a far higher HIV rate than Germany too, and I doubt this is due to prudishness.

Then there's Africa where rates are, across the board, 100-200x that of Germany even in the more well-off parts of Germany and despite the huge amount the US has spent on combatting AIDS in Africa (actually quite a bit of that due to George W Bush). There is a mix of factors, and people should be wary of simplistic analysis.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no rational reason for you to support the Republican Party. The fact that your defense of them is completely devoid of any attempt to present such a reason indicates that you stipulate my assertion.

Re:Republican policies at work

[mcgrew]

Why the huge disparity? Probably has something to do with the fact that in the US there are a large # of people who secretly want "sinners" to get infected as punishment for their "deviancy", we call these people Republicans.

As much as I dislike Newt, Rush, and Mitt, I just don't see any evidence of that. More liikely, the reason we have so much more AIDS is that poor prople simply don't go to the doctor; they can't afford it. They go to the ER when they're at death's door, and by then have likely infected many, many people.

It's not that the Republcians are Christians (I can't believe that the above named individuals aren't closet athiests, because everything they preach is the opposite of what Christ taught), it's the fact that they's stingy bastards who don't care about other's suffering.

We can see it in the massive farce that is "abstinence only" education

That was ignorance, not malice. They actually believed that they could lower the rate of teenaged sex. Republicans think only the rich should have any fun or enjoyment in life, and that there's nothing at all wrong with imprisoning someone for getting stoned.

Re:Republican policies at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh... HIV isn't the only hypocritical sex issue. 60% of Americans favor more restrictions on abortions including removing public funding for them but 40% of American women have had at least one abortion by age 40.

Are you positive this will work? I'm not just po..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you positive this will work?

I'm not just positive, I'm HIV positive.

Common sense....

[InspectorGadget1964]

If you go around doing stupid things, you are likely to die. Werther it is playing with explosives, driving carelessly or having unsafe sex. Just make sure you know who you are with and don't be stupid enough to get into drugs. Then you will be fine.

Re:Common sense....

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure those who were infected via transfusions, rape or medical accidents would disagree.

Re:Common sense....

[InspectorGadget1964]

They can sue. That is what the courts are for...

Re:Common sense....

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I got it by being raped and the cops didn't take it seriously. I have now dealt with it for 17 years. Who exactly do I sue?

Sensitivity is only part of the story

[wickerprints]

To review, sensitivity is the probability of a positive result given that the tested individual is actually positive; specificity is the probability of a negative result given that the tested individual is actually negative. The OraQuick swab test has a rather low sensitivity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 12 chance that an HIV-positive individual incorrectly tests negative (type II error). But it has a relatively good specificity, meaning that there is a roughly 1 in 5000 chance that an HIV-negative individual incorrectly tests positive (type I error).

The value in granting FDA approval for OTC sales of OraQuick, then, is to address the need for the vast majority of the population, which is HIV-negative, to feel reassured that they are in fact negative. Historically, one of the biggest challenges in HIV education has been overcoming the fear and stigma of testing. Making testing available OTC greatly improves the likelihood of getting regularly tested.

But what of those pesky type II errors? Yes, given that an individual is actually HIV-positive, the chance that the test fails to detect is is 1 in 12. But that is NOT the same thing as saying that given a negative test result, the chance the person is actually HIV-positive is 1 in 12. For the general population, that probability is much smaller. In fact, I leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate the negative predictive value (which would require the prevalence of HIV in the US population). Now, if we were talking about using OraQuick on a very high-risk group, we would expect many more false negatives, so a more appropriate test would be the standard ELISA blood test, followed by a confirmatory Western Blot. But remember, FDA approval of OTC OraQuick is targeted at the general population. If you know you're in a high-risk group, you presumably would be getting regularly tested at a public health clinic, and OraQuick isn't necessarily your best choice. But it's still better than not getting tested at all.

Finally, remember that any reasonable person who tests positive with OraQuick would want a follow-up test to be sure. (Someone who tests negative, however, is much more unlikely to want a follow-up test.) So we don't really need to worry about type I errors, except for the panic and anxiety such a rare outcome might cause.

Re:Sensitivity is only part of the story

[Hatta]

If you know you're in a high-risk group, you presumably would be getting regularly tested at a public health clinic, and OraQuick isn't necessarily your best choice.

If you know you're in a high-risk group, you're probably not making the best decisions anyway. In fact, you're probably looking for an excuse to continue your destructive behavior. Why would such a person go to a clinic instead of popping one of these in their mouth just before hooking up with a new partner?

Re: Sensitivity is only part of the story

[gidds]

Here's the maths.

From Wikipedia, the background rate of HIV in the USA is 0.375%: 1,200,000 people are HIV+ and 310,800,000 are HIV-.

From the sensitivity: of those 1,200,000 who are HIV+, 100,000 (1 in 12) would test -ve, and 1,100,000 will test +ve. And from the specificity: of the 310,800,000 who are HIV-, 310,737,840 would test -ve, and 62,160 (1 in 5000) would test +ve.

This means that of those 310,837,840 who test +ve, 94.7% would actually be HIV+. And of those 1,162,160 who test -ve, 99.97% would be HIV-.

So while the test isn't totally accurate, it seems good enough for general use. Certainly, a +ve test result would necessitate proper medical advice.

(Of course, the calculation's simpler if you use Bayes Theorem directly, but filling in the numbers can be easier to follow. And the conclusions only apply in general; if you're in a high-risk group, then a -ve test result will be less reassuring.)

Re: Sensitivity is only part of the story

[Carnildo]

If you remove the people who are HIV-positive and know it from the groups, the numbers shift: of the 240,000 people who are HIV-positive and don't know it, 20,000 will test negative. The positive predictive value drops from 94.7% to about 78%, while the negative predictive value rises from 99.97% to about 99.99%.

Hmm...HIV remains 99% in its original risk groups

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p-ttLfkZHQ

Re:good thing for the affordable care act or this

[wickerprints]

Anonymous HIV testing has long been available in the US. And approving OraQuick for OTC sale will make it even easier to be tested without your health insurer, or anyone else, knowing. But yes, in a single-payer system, we wouldn't have to be so guarded about pre-existing conditions, and one would be able to get the treatment(s) they need for preventing and transmitting disease without having to wonder if they could be blacklisted.

Re:If you distrust this partner so much

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah, though maybe not while asleep, but if you just wanna hook up, this is miles away better than just taking their word for it or if they even agree, waiting weeks for a test.

quarantine

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it... When it a disease is sexually transmitted. Suddenly we forget all about our quarantine procedures that stop shit from being transmitted....

Stuff can kill people and oh.. you got it with your fun parts? we're gonna pretend it's your problem only.

People should be careful how they pay for the test

[Anonymous Coward]

I would caution people to pay Cash only for these tests.

I remember a while back on /. there was an article on how Credit Card companies would offer people better rates if they bought some obscure combination of items at least yearly (showing they cared for their household, etc .... bird seed I seem to recall was one of the items).

Food for thought anyways.

you are such a baby

[Anonymous Coward]

HIV does not define who you are or what type of person you are. HIV does not rob you of your desires, your goals, or your personality. 70 million are afflicted with STD in the U.S. alone and an estimated over 400 million worldwide. www.positivechats.com is a warm STD dating site for 680,000+ singles with hiv and other STDs. 100% anonymous.

It's stupidly easy to get tested (for free)

[Y-Crate]

But many people can't bear to ask someone to perform the test on them.

If you want to find out your HIV status, there's really no substitute for having it performed by someone trained to do it, and trained to privately answer every random question you have with zero judgement. For those of you who haven't done it, it's literally the most banal, undramatic process ever. HIV testing is absolutely routine and doesn't make anyone think less of you.

I mean, in some places, you can even get it done for free while shopping at a thrift store.

If you want to be tested at home, the Home Access brand kits will run about $50, and offer 99.9% reliability. The catch being the 72 hour turnaround time. I'm not thrilled with OraSure's reliability. 1 false positive in 5,000 isn't too bad, while 1 false negative out of 12 is kind of terrible. This isn't testing for high cholesterol, it's literally "Hey baby, no need to use a condom, I'm clean!"

Re:It's stupidly easy to get tested (for free)

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. Here in Europe even when a girl would say the line to me "Hey baby, no need to use a condom, I'm clean!" I would still use one if she is a new sex partner. ofc I'm on slashdot so this has and will never happen :)

Unfortunately my brother didn't have the same common sense and has HIV now from procreating with African women who are super-catholic religious and the pope said condoms is a no-no. But their super religion does not hinder their promiscuity

Re:It's stupidly easy to get tested (for free)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone lives in the type of city/state that you live in.

Re:It's stupidly easy to get tested (for free)

[Anonymous Coward]

Can one have a test done anonymously by a professional?

Re:It's stupidly easy to get tested (for free)

[Y-Crate]

Can one have a test done anonymously by a professional?

Yes. It's incredibly easy to do, and you're unlikely to get charged for it.

Re:It's stupidly easy to get tested (for free)

[Y-Crate]

Not everyone lives in the type of city/state that you live in.

There are resources for anonymous HIV testing within reach of just about any community in the nation. Reply back if you're trying to find it in a particular city, and I'll do some digging.

Cool exactly what i wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you asshole well whoop de do,glad I wasted your point, care to mod this down, and waste another one. If you had any fucking balls you wouldnt post such drivel as an AC. (: Sorry but unlike yourself I dont suck cocks and lick asses.

Re:Cool exactly what i wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont suck cocks and lick asses.

Could've fooled me.

Who needs specificity, with such poor sensitivity?

[zedrdave]

Given basic human psychology, releasing an HIV test with admittedly low false positive rate, but such ridiculously high false negative (type II error), is borderline criminal.

Let's not forget that the target demographic for such a test is people who are not very keen (for any sort of reason) on taking the test in the first place, otherwise they would just get tested for free at one of the many locations that do it.
Giving these people a false positive (with attached warning regarding reliability of the test) would result in a bit of anxiety and a visit to their local clinic, wherein they'd be told they are actually fine: not much harm done.
Giving them a false negative: the vast majority will breath a sigh of relief and never ever consider going for a real test.

You can tell people "this test is not final, it has a high error rate" all you want (forget even trying to explain the concept of false negatives to the average user): people see what they want to see... In this case, they see a big blinking "you are fine, don't worry", followed by small print they won't bother reading. Meanwhile (for 8.3% of them), their HIV goes untreated.

Re:Who needs specificity, with such poor sensitivi

[zedrdave]

Damn, posted too quickly: 8.3% type II error does not mean 8.3% undetected HIV... Obviously the number would be much lower for an even moderately at-risk population. That is still a rather unacceptable compromise imho.

Re:Who needs specificity, with such poor sensitivi

[wickerprints]

Granted, you have a point in that people who test negative are unlikely to seek further confirmation that they are in fact HIV-negative, whereas designing a test with a high sensitivity but low specificity would result in many more follow-ups with more specific tests.

But where I think your argument treads on somewhat shaky ground is that (1) HIV is not the only STD out there, and there are lots of other very things you could catch through unprotected sex, such as hepatitis (which may lead to liver cancer); and HSV, which often leads to becoming a lifelong carrier. (2) Most everyone knows that there is a window in which one could be HIV-positive but the concentration of antibodies is below the detection threshold. (3) People who are responsible enough to bother getting tested AT ALL are also generally responsible enough to know better than to consider a potentially unreliable test as definitive justification for unprotected sex--that is, the ones who never get tested because of avoidant coping are the real high-risk group.

Basically, I'm not entirely convinced that the people who would go and purchase OraQuick OTC are the kind of people who would see a negative result as an excuse to subsequently engage in high-risk behavior. In any population, yes, you'll have some idiots. But to be able to test them at all is far more preferable than no test. The benefit of being able to reach those 11 out of 12 who do correctly test positive far outweighs missing the extremely small proportion of the population who might get a false negative, and the even smaller proportion of those who think a negative result is a license to become reckless.

Ultimately, frequent, widespread, and regular testing is the single best approach to HIV detection, even if the test has low sensitivity, because the more often you can test, the better chance you have at catching infection early enough to limit further transmission. And the easiest and safest test to administer at present is the oral swab--drawing blood through the arm is difficult, time-consuming, and carries risk of injury. Combined with prevention through education, widespread testing is the ONLY way we are going to reduce infection rates. Vaccines and cures are just too far off; we've been battling HIV for nearly 30 years now, and despite all the drug advances, all we have managed to do is to turn HIV into a chronic condition with lifelong complications, with the potential for multidrug resistance.

Re:If you distrust this partner so much

[Belial6]

Exactly, and if the failure rate is per test, and not per person, if that infected person has multiple partners, the chances of them finding out and ending their promiscuity goes way up.

Step 6:

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay out of Sweden.

HIV is not the cause of AIDS...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and 99% of you don't even know what 'AIDS' is.

Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/product-reviews/1556436424/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Read this article:
www.tig.org.za/The%20trouble%20with%20nevirapine.pdf

Re:People should be careful how they pay for the t

[GameboyRMH]

Huh, good point. I didn't think that credit card companies would adjust your credit score based on what you buy but I guess there's not reason they can't and they have an incentive to do so.

Hardly geek-relevant

[GameboyRMH]

Might as well bring up a new BackTrack release at an Amish town meeting...

5) spend 10 years hiding in embassies

[peter303]

If you do this in Sweden

Reason why 1 in 12 fails

[Kaptain Kruton]

There is a reason why 1 in 12 tests fail to detect it. From what I have been told in the past (which may have changed over the years), the HIV virus has a period of time in which it cannot be easily detected. This window can be a few months long. If somebody finds out that their partner has the virus and immediately takes the test, then it may not detect it if they have not been with that person long.

Also, I saw an interview about this a few nights ago. The doctor repeatedly stated that most people should go to a doctor's office to get the test. However there is a small group that do not go to a doctor's office (it may be out of embarrassment or fear of stigma or something else). This test is aimed at that small group... doctors and the makers of the test figure that a test like this (that may not be as informative as a consultation with a doctor) is better than not test at all. The doctor also stressed that the makers of the test will have a hotline to provide information on how to find a real doctor and get immediate treatment.

Re:People should be careful how they pay for the t

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a damn good observation. I could easily imagine risk models that would cut someone's credit lines off right quick after a purchase like that.

With so many people perpetually unaware

[ToddInSF]

of their HIV status being positive in the US, why is it that we aren't seeing the kid of crisis we saw back in the 80's, or the half of all Americans infected that Oprah promised us, back in the early 90's ?

On thing Americans can be counted on for is our remarkable selective amnesia.

Or could the estimates that a million and a half people in the US are HIV positive, but don't know it wrong. Again.

I wonder what has changed which makes it a good idea to hand-out HIV tests to anybody without any kind of screening or support.

Used to be, you couldn't even get your test results over the phone, without going in to talk to somebody.

This will make another drug company with FDA ties some big bucks, but it will do so at the cost of lives. I wonder why it is all those HIV/AIDS not for profits are not in an uproar over this - then again, they get the bulk of THEIR funding and perks from the drug companies, too.

So who is it that's doing real patient advocacy nowadays in the US, because it's sure not the not for profits, the government, or our doctors.

The only people that benefit by the flurry of false positives tests like these create are the people that insist that AIDS funding in all it's manifestations in the US is justified, even though it represents WAY more spending per person affected than with ANY other disease.

These tests are a scam, but not anything new, when it comes to the scam that is HIV/AIDS.