> > Why get tested every 6 months?!
BECAUSE THE BITCH CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
> > How about getting tested together before having sex?
1) Where does the penis go?
A) Hand.
B) Mouth
C) Cooter
D) Pooter
E) All of the above except D.
F) All of the above except E.
Answering questions like these ahead of time prevents
a lot of confusion.
>... tested for
> > sexually transmitted infections including human immunodeficiency virus.
"Because we wouldn't want to waste any perfectly good sluts."
-- Phil Maher
> > Here's a collaborative blog
> > The strategy. Get tested together before having sex
> > http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
>
> A good idea in theory, for those who are able to. However, many
> peoples' sexual behavior patterns preclude this arrangement,
Getting tested is usually the last thing on a drunk person's mind.
> thus it
> makes more sense for them to be tested on a regular basis, regardless
> of how many sexual partners they might have in a given time period.
It's a simple sampling issue. If you are unsure if you should be
tested, your annual physical will probably suffice.
--oTTo--
Adam Funk - 07 Apr 2005 19:38 GMT
>> thus it
>> makes more sense for them to be tested on a regular basis, regardless
>> of how many sexual partners they might have in a given time period.
>
> It's a simple sampling issue. If you are unsure if you should be
> tested, your annual physical will probably suffice.
If you're unsure how many partners you've had since your last test, you
should probably get tested more than once a year.
> > Why get tested every 6 months?!
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> > The strategy. Get tested together before having sex
> > http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
Hey Don,
There is nothing more stable that what you write about getting
tested.
What I can't figure out is when and why you write what you do. Don't
see any postings from you for
months and then there you are posting as expected.
The issue you haven't touched upon is one of liability. If you are a
young man and you don't know your hiv status, then you cannot be liable
for what you do not know. However, if you get tested as you say, there
are those that say you can be criminally liable for not sharing such
knowledge with your partners. Some say you can be sued civilly for
paying for the drugs and care for the people you have infected if they
sue you. Knowing you status probably requires you to tell your insurer
whom can probably legally promptly cancel your health insurance. If
you employer knows you are hiv positive and knows you have yet to take a
wife, he may feel it is in his corporation's best interest to eliminate
your job and that may affect your employment.
Can you now remind me why anyone should find out their hiv status versus
why most anyone should not find out their hiv status? Let me remind you
that nobody who takes all the safe sex precautions is necessarily at
risk for becoming hiv positive regardless of whom they have sex with.
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu - 09 Apr 2005 02:16 GMT
> Can you now remind me why anyone should find out their hiv status
> versus why most anyone should not find out their hiv status?
> Let me remind you that nobody who takes all the safe sex
> precautions is necessarily at risk for becoming hiv positive
> regardless of whom they have sex with.
The correct term is always... safer
There is never zero risk.
See also a collaborative blog
The strategy. Get tested together before you have sex
http://NotB4WeKnow.EditThisPage.com
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu - 09 Apr 2005 06:36 GMT
How many people are dying each year of AIDS/complications?
How many people have been fired/sued/charged in situations you
describe below each year?
Would your personal choice be to kill someone versus being
fired/sued/charged as described below?
What would people without a conscience, or concern for the
lives of others, do in these situations?
> There is nothing more stable that what you write about getting
> tested.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> necessarily at risk for becoming hiv positive regardless of whom
> they have sex with.
PaulKing - 09 Apr 2005 23:50 GMT
You keep on as if there is such a thing as an 'HIV' test.
The truth as the manufacturers clearly state is there are simply non
specific tests intended ONLY AS AN AID TO DIAGONISIS.
In other words the test are quite useless and can lead to a false belief
that you have some disease and death via lethal meds.
My strong advice: Don't fall into the deadly testing trap.
NEVER TEST - NEVER!
GMCarter - 10 Apr 2005 10:23 GMT
>You keep on as if there is such a thing as an 'HIV' test.
There are several.
PaulKing - 09 Apr 2005 23:52 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
GMCarter - 10 Apr 2005 10:24 GMT
>AS OF 1999, IT WOULD SEEM THE ROCHE AMIPLICOR HIV-1
>MONITOR TEST IS THE MOST POPULAR PCR "VIRAL LOAD" TEST.
It's 2005. But essentially that is true.
Bennett - 10 Apr 2005 14:49 GMT
Surprise surprise, a viral load monitoring test isn't approved for
diagnosis!
And my 7-seater car isn't approved to carry 30 people! OMG - it must
be useless!
Makes you wonder if Paul has a literacy problem. The FDA won't approve
non-tested uses of anything - HIV tests are simply another example. If
the test was developed to screen blood donors you can't use it for
diagnosis, and if the test was developed to aid diagnosis you can't use
it to screen blood donors!
Why on earth he's quoting FDA labels that say that western blots are
tested against AIDS patients is beyond me...surely that's precisely
what the dissidents have been calling for? To test the tests against
real patients? Sheesh. I really can't see the point he's making...
Bennett