5 Things to Know About the First Drug to Prevent HIV

[grumbler]

Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.

You could certainly make an argument against a home test that measures antibody production, rather than the actual presence of the virus, because 8% of the people who have the virus haven't developed the antibodies for it yet.

The argument then becomes one of weighing the benefits of increased testing against the drawback the people will rely on this test, rather than a lab test, to deem themselves "clean."  I don't know enough facts to weigh in on that argument.

But this is an argument about the type of home test that should be allowed, not whether the government should roll back all home testing because people can't be trusted to know the truth about their own health.

[garbon]

Wiki says 3 in 1,000 for standard lab test. So that looks alarming as not an insignificant difference.

You could certainly make an argument against a home test that measures antibody production, rather than the actual presence of the virus, because 8% of the people who have the virus haven't developed the antibodies for it yet.

The argument then becomes one of weighing the benefits of increased testing against the drawback the people will rely on this test, rather than a lab test, to deem themselves "clean."  I don't know enough facts to weigh in on that argument.

But this is an argument about the type of home test that should be allowed, not whether the government should roll back all home testing because people can't be trusted to know the truth about their own health.

Agreed.

Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

[grumbler]

Only bit I added above is that it does look like home testing has a higher chance of telling individuals they don't have the disease when they do.

This type of home test, yes.  The blood sample home test doesn't appear to have that problem.  However, this test is a lot easier and faster (as well as less painful), so it may be that it will test a lot more people and the benefits of the 92% accuracy on true positives outweigh the drawbacks of the 8% false negative.  As I say above, i don't have the kind of info needed to make that determination.  Some people who do have such knowledge are strongly in favor of this testing, though.

Anthony Fauci and Robert Gallo weigh in as part of this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/health/oraquick-at-home-hiv-test-wins-fda-approval.html?_r=1

[grumbler]

Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

There is home HIV testing that takes blood and then has it sent off to a lab.  That would have the same drawbacks as any other kind of home testing.

[garbon]

Anthony Fauci and Robert Gallo weigh in as part of this story: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/health/oraquick-at-home-hiv-test-wins-fda-approval.html?_r=1

That's actually where I got the stat from.

Personally, I'll doubt I'd turn to this test as 8% error isn't really worth basing my health on.

[garbon]

Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

There is home HIV testing that takes blood and then has it sent off to a lab.  That would have the same drawbacks as any other kind of home testing.

I already mentioned that - however, given Seedster's objection, I don't think he was aware of that.

[garbon]

Personally, I'll doubt I'd turn to this test as 8% error isn't really worth basing my health on.

This, of course, could be completely irrational - but knowing there is easy access to better testing methods, I can't see why I wouldn't avail myself of those.

[CountDeMoney]

Though I think Seedster only complained about home HIV testing.

My concerns were the lack of a context of a clinical support network surrounding such a home test, as I already wrote earlier--

the attendant clinical alternatives, future treatment plans, the risk assessment and education on how to reduce the public safety risk, the attendant health issues that impact the individual such as sex partners, pregnancy, and the variety of future medical implications of HIV, as well as the overall dealing with the behavioral and psychosocial impact of a having a socially stigmatizing health condition

--as opposed to, say, finding out your cholesterol level.

But hey, Languish wants to deal with its HIV on its own with a brochure.  Fuck it, have fun with your AIDS, fellas.  ITS ALL ABOUT MAH FREEDOM

[garbon]

Actually they'd be more likely to develop AIDS if they didn't get tested.

[CountDeMoney]

Actually they'd be more likely to develop AIDS if they didn't get tested.

No, they'd develop AIDS without the appropriate treatment plan and clinical guidance--which is apparently optional.

[garbon]

Well yes people should be free to live or die as they choose.

[CountDeMoney]

With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

[garbon]

With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

I don't really how it changes much if you have someone come into a clinic, get tested, get told the risks and then ignores it.

Besides, you've already plenty who do no testing at all. Don't see how restricting at home testing combats any of those real issues. And by real, I mean verifiable.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, the "so why bother" argument.  Convincing.

[Neil]

With cancer, sure.  With a communicable condition with distinct public health risks, not so much.

You can't reason with a homo when it comes to AIDS.