>STUDY EXPOSES MYTH OF SEXUAL TRANSMISSION
>
>The 10-year Padian study observed sexually active couples in which one
>partner was HIV positive.
This is a COMPLETE lie and not what Padian said at all.
You should be sued for libel for this--and having repeated it OVER AND
OVER AND OVER despite being repeatly shown that this is a complete and
utter distortion.
George M. Carter
> STUDY EXPOSES MYTH OF SEXUAL TRANSMISSION
<snip>
> We observed no seroconversion [infection] after entry into the
> study."
Alternatively you can read this report:
378 serodiscordant couples, no other risk factors for HIV outside of
exposure to their HIV+ partner.
130 stopped having sex. Of those 130, 40 died (average followup 20
months, quite a death rate).
Among condom users: zero transmissions in 124 couples.
Among inconsistent or non-condom users: 12 seroconversions in 121
couples. Taking into account followup times that was around 4.8% per
year.
Try not to cherry pick your evidence young man.
Cheers
Bennett
******
A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by
heterosexual partners. European Study Group on Heterosexual
Transmission of HIV.
de Vincenzi I.
European Centre for the Epidemiological Monitoring of AIDS, Hopital
National de Saint-Maurice, France.
BACKGROUND. Worldwide, the predominant mode of human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) transmission is heterosexual intercourse, but the risk of
heterosexual transmission and the effectiveness of measures to prevent
it are not well defined. METHODS. We conducted a prospective study of
HIV-negative subjects whose only risk of HIV infection was a stable
heterosexual relationship with an HIV-infected partner. Every six
months the subjects were interviewed, tested for HIV, and counseled
about safe sexual practices. RESULTS. A total of 304 HIV-negative
subjects (196 women and 108 men) were followed for an average of 20
months. During the study, 130 couples (42.8 percent) ended their sexual
relationships, most often because of the HIV-infected partner's illness
or death. Of the 256 couples who continued to have sexual relations for
more than three months after enrollment in the study, only 124 (48.4
percent) used condoms consistently for vaginal and anal intercourse.
Among these couples, none of the seronegative partners became infected
with HIV, despite a total of about 15,000 episodes of intercourse.
Among the 121 couples who used condoms inconsistently, the rate of
seroconversion was 4.8 per 100 person-years (95 percent confidence
interval, 2.5 to 8.4). Eleven couples refused to answer questions about
condom use. The risk of transmission increased with advanced stages of
HIV infection in the index partners (P < 0.02) and with genital
infection in the HIV-negative partners (P < 0.04). Withdrawal to avoid
ejaculation in the vagina had a protective effect in uninfected women
(P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS. Consistent use of condoms for heterosexual
intercourse is highly effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.
Among couples not using condoms regularly, the risk of HIV transmission
varies widely.
PaulKing - 19 Mar 2005 09:58 GMT
AS OF 1999, IT WOULD SEEM THE ROCHE AMIPLICOR HIV-1
MONITOR TEST IS THE MOST POPULAR PCR "VIRAL LOAD" TEST.
"The Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor(TM) test kit, approved by the FDA, was
used by more than 70% of the laboratories reporting results."
http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/MPEP/pdf/rna/9902rnaa.pdf
The test kit list: http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/testkits.htm
AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR(TM) TEST
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test is not intended to be used as a
screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm
the presence of HIV infection."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/p9500054.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/PMAlabel/P9500054LB.pdf
NucliSens(R) HIV-1 QT -- HIV QT Nov. 13, 2001
"The NucliSens(R) HIV-1 QT assay is not intended to be used as a
screening test for HIV-1 nor is it to be used as a diagnostic test to
confirm the presence of HIV-1 infection."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/p0100010.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pmalabel/P0100010LB.pdf
COBAS AmpliScreen HIV-1 Test, version 1.5
Approval Date: 12/19/2003
"This test is not intended for use as an aid in diagnosis."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hiv1roc121903.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hiv1roc121903LB.pdf
Procleix(R) HIV-1/HCV Assay -- IN0076-01, Rev. A
Approval Date: 6/4/2004
"The Procleix HIV-1 Discriminatory Assay may be used as an aid in the
diagnosis of HIV-1 infection."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hivhcvgen060404.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hivhcvgen060404LB.pdf
GENETIC SYSTEMS (TM) rLAV EIA
"The rLAV EIA is intended to be used as a screening test for donated
blood or plasma and as an aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV-1."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hiv1gen062998.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/sba/hiv1gen062998S.pdf
VIRONOSTIKAT(R) HIV-1 PLUS O MICROELISA SYSTEM
"System is intended for use as an aid in diagnosis of infection with
HIV-1. It is not intended for use in screening blood donors."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pmalabel/P020066LB.pdf
THE CAMBRIDGE BIOTECH HIV-1 WESTERN BLOT KIT
"Accurate diagnosis of HIV-1 infection is important in determining an
individual's risk for developing AIDS. Accuracy is complicated by
false-positive and false-negative (EIA) results. It would appear that in
some limited infections, a compartmentalized response occurs in which
expression of HIV-1 or its respective Immune response is limited to a
restricted number of organs and tissues.(17)"
"Slight ambiguities exist in the designation of the molecular weights of
the HIV-I antigens. The designations listed in Figure 1 have been
established by both internal testing with known markers and consensus of
published
literature.(5-10)"
"Although a blot POSITIVE for antibodies to HIV-1 indicates infection
with the virus..."
"POSITIVE blot results using any specimen type (serum, plasma, or urine)
should be followed with additional testing. Such testing may rely on
alternative test methods or specimen types. The clinical implications of
antibodies to HIV-1 in an asymptomatic person are not known."
"The sensitivity ... using urine was evaluated by comparing the urine
results to the results obtained from testing paired serum specimens
collected from individuals who were HIV-1 seropositive and from
individuals clinically diagnosed as AIDS patients."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hiv1cam052898.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hiv1cam052898Lb.pdf
OraSure(R) HIV-1 Western Blot Kit
"The OraSure HIV-l Western Blot Kit is an in vitro qualitative assay for
the detection of antibodies to individual proteins of the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-l) in human oral fluid specimens
obtained with the OraSure HIV-l Oral Specimen Collection Device.
The OraSure HIV-l Western Blot Kit is not intended for use with blood,
serum/plasma or urine specimens, or for screening or reinstating
potential blood donors."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P950004.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pmalabel/P950004Lb.pdf
Reveal(TM) Rapid HIV -1 Antibody Test
"The Reveal" Rapid HIV -1 Antibody Test is intended for use as a
point-of-care test to aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV -1. This
test is suitable for use in multi-test algorithms designed for
statistical validation of rapid HIV test results."
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/p000023.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cber/pmalabel/P000023LB.pdf
Bennett - 19 Mar 2005 16:56 GMT
So you quote a bunch of sreening tests that can't be used for
diagnosis, and a bunch of diagnostic tests that can't be used for
screening....your point being?
HIV tests are no different from any other diagnostic test (or "aid to
diagnosis" if you prefer). Go learn about molecular diagnostics. Go
learn about FDA approval and restrictions. They are ultra-paranoid and
have no common sense, but this errs heavily on the side of protecting
the public.
Once again you're quoting selectively, but at least with some semblance
of accuracy. The trouble is you seem to be making entirely irrelevant
points.
E.g. "The OraSure HIV-l Western Blot Kit is not intended for use with
blood,
serum/plasma or urine specimens"
Err...but it's intended for testing on saliva. Sheesh.
At least you managed to track down the product literature on the FDA
site. Maybe there is hope for you yet, if you can be bothered to
understand it.
Bennett