A Not So Hypothetical Question... Or Is It?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Apparently the FDA has approved has approved a 10-minute HIV test that will cost $10. According to the article:

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=541&ncid=541&e=3&u=/ap/20031229/ap_on_he_me/hiv_test

 

"the test requires one drop of whole blood, serum or plasma. In the company's trials of more than 9,000 patient samples, the Trinity test detected 100 percent of the HIV positive specimens and was 99.7 percent accurate on the negative samples. "

 

The article is ambiguous with regard to whether it tests for the presence of the antibodies or the virus. The target market is hospital workers that get needle pricked in the line of duty. In the presence of a postive result the worker would immediatley start a regiment of anitviral drugs to reduce the likelyhood of infection. Ideally, for the intended use among medical workers, a viral test is of much greater significance. However, it would be a much bigger leap in testing technology.

 

Either way this is a good news and a great step forward in terms of testing.

 

However, one doesn't have to be a rocket scentist to see that this test could be put to use in the general population, especially the gay segment as part of dating preliminaries to the start of a bareback evening. Or by escorts and clients as a prelude to a potential barebacking appointment. Assuming that the press is accurate with respect to reliablity, cost, and ease of use, and the assumption that it tests for the presence of the virus what is your view of this practice. (Let me state the obvious that if the test only checks for the antibody then this test presents little in the way of risk reduction.)

 

So boys and boyfriends, clients and escorts, would you make use of this test as a prelude to a night of barebacking lust or an hour appointment?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Clarity

 

I just want to provide some clarification for this hypothetical question:

 

This test, nor the other rapid test (which was discussed on this site twice previously), are approved for home use; here is a list of FDA approved HIV tests which are available for home use.

 

http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/test.html

 

NONE of these are either marketed nor approved as one hundred percent accurate.

 

The particular test in this post is approved and the manufacturer intends to go after a market of governmental agencies and health care providers as a means of dealing with "needle stick" and other such situations that may require a quick response for potential post exposure prophylaxis (PEP). In such instances, PEP treatment is readily available. It does not exist, by and large, for non-occupational treatment other than in a few pilot and clinical levels, far from broadly based to make this question practical on any real or significant level.

 

Ultimately, this question falls down to what risks individuals here might be willing to take, either as escorts or clients or in their individual life. I suspect that nearly all of the people who are or believe they are sero-negative and even a fair number of those who have sero-converted, would make the choice to simply continue to practice safe sex practice.

 

A more interesting and pertinent news release with more practical day to day information for most people was released early last month; in it, it was clearly proven that latex condoms prevent HIV transmission. It can be found in full here:

 

http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidswkly/2003/AW031107.html

[Guest ncm2169]

No.

[guptasa1]

If the test was really accurate (and especially if it gets FDA approval), I might make use of it to test myself on a regular basis, but as far as barebacking with an escort, I just think it's a bad idea period. MAYBE it would change things if this test was FDA approved, considered conclusive, and detects the virus almost immediately upon infection as your post seems to imply, but a test like that almost seems too good to be true, and condoms still protect against other things, so I really don't know how I'd feel. (I do currently practice oral sex without a condom since I consider that to be very low risk, but everything anal requires a condom with me.)

 

I'm very curious about how this test works. I would think it would be much more expensive if it tested for the virus itself, but maybe I'm wrong - it would be wonderful if there actually was a cheap viral test available to the public.

[Guest Tristan]

RE: Clarity

 

The South Beach Aids Project advertises a rapid HIV test that gives you preliminary results within one hour. Franco, do you (or anyone else) know whether this is one of the two rapid tests you mentioned, or yet another test?

[Doug69]

RE: Clarity

 

>The South Beach Aids Project advertises a rapid HIV test that

>gives you preliminary results within one hour. Franco, do you

>(or anyone else) know whether this is one of the two rapid

>tests you mentioned, or yet another test?

 

I don't see what's so new about this test. For years - at least 5 - there have been clinics in most major cities (NYC and LA for certain) which administer HIV tests where you receive the results 15 minutes after giving blood.

 

Although they say formally that a negative result on such tests is 100% certain and a positive result is roughly 98% certain (and requires a more thorough follow-up test), the doctors who administer the test will tell you that both the negative and positive results are 100% accurate.

[Guest Tristan]

RE: Clarity

 

Doug, thanks for the information. The test may not be new, but my question was whether it was one of the tests to which Franco referred. Also, the Gay Community Center in Ft. Lauderdale does regular testing, but does not yet do a rapid test. I don't know if any clinic in Lauderdale does, though I honestly haven't checked out all the gay health clinics. So not everyone is benefiting from rapid testing yet. Not all of us live in NYC or LA.

[guptasa1]

RE: Clarity

 

Another story on this:

 

http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html?2003/12/30/4

[guptasa1]

RE: Clarity

 

Another story on this:

 

http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/article.html?2003/12/30/4

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

A Hot Potato Too Close to Home or What?

 

Given the energetic discussion in closely related threads (Brent Everett bareback thread) http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=62819&mesg_id=62819&page=

 

and the ("Escorts and Clients into death-chasing sex.") http://babydb.male4malescorts.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=63063&mesg_id=63063&page=

 

and more recently others...

 

I found it a little surprising that this topic generated so little expressed interest -- seven responses, two of which addressed the question directly, the other five addressing a tangent. True the question is currently hypothetical but not by that much. The technology is close at hand if not already here and if not yet approved for home use, and the cost ultimately may be in line with that of a single blue diamond. This medical technology potentially would have a very significant impact on dealing with the subjects of the referenced threads -- yet so little discussion here?

 

The question does raise issues of privacy, peer pressure, the desire of an individual to want to know his own status, individual responsibilty and probably other issues. It raises to the level of concrete discussion with verfication the often unspoken thoughts or the too easily spoken answers between to individuals. In addition, ancillary issues regarding STDs in general are raised as has been pointed out in other threads. Although common STD prophylaxis and birth control were the original reason for condom use, most discussion these days focuses on the HIV issue leaving the other STDs as an apparent lesser issue on the minds of most.

 

Lots of fodder, yet so little (essentially none!) discussion. Given the assumption that the test is accurate, it is more desirable to assume all sex partners are positive than to know with 99% probability that the one in front of you is positive or not? It is more desireable to decide that an escort is positive because he barebacked his boyfriend in a video or at home for that matter, or just because he is an escort -- if recently cited statistics are in the ball park? Is this something to be used for that special person you want in your life but don't want to wait six months? Or used for the few 'quality guys' you meet in search for Mr. Right?

 

Is it politically incorrect to ask for instant verfication? Is it any more politcally correct to ask for verbal assurance which is done frequently but which gives no assurance at all? It does put one's privacy on the line and maybe reputation too. How does a political correctness issue counter individual safety issues. I don't have a firm position on all of these questions but the potential for an instant test caused me to begin to ponder the issues involved, issues on both sides -- some easy and some not so easy.

 

The lack of interest was surprsing and because of that interesting -- the more so with the current discussions underway.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

This will come as a surprise to you, I'm sure, but I'm very, very knowledgable about these tests, because I've volunteered for an AIDS organization for about 7 years. I'm STD free and HIV negative, I want to point out.

 

There is not a single test on the market approved to diagnose HIV infection. Not one, period...You can verify that yourself by reading any of the package inserts included with these "HIV tests."

 

As for using them prior to having unsafe sex with any partner, that's USELESS. The HIV dogma has it that HIV takes up to 6 months to cause your body to manufacture antibodies against HIV...useless for testing a potential partner if you are at all concerned about their actvities in the last year.

 

All "HIV tests" are actually non-specific tests for antibodies. These are antibodies "assumed" to be "caused" by HIV. Again, you can verify my claims by reading the package inserts of any "HIV test." They are rather shocking admissions of unreliability.

 

Most people are shocked to learn all this, I sure was. But once you start reading AIDS research literature, if you have a brain, you realize quite quickly how much non-sense there exists on the subject...

 

Finally, you miss the most essential point of the arguments in favor of safer sex: HIV is not the only thing , or even the main thing you are at risk for...There is herpes 1, herpes 2, herpes 6a, herpes 6b, herpes 8, hepatitis A, B , c, genital warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, amoebas, crabs,chlamydia...etc.

 

The key is not condoms or unreliable instant "HIV tests," the key is assessing a person's lifestyle risks -- stay away from escorts on drugs, into extreme sex practices, who exchange body fluids, have this as their main career, seem stupid, etc.

 

This is my advice, this is how I live.

 

Ciao for now. - RYAN

[guptasa1]

>This will come as a surprise to you, I'm sure, but I'm very,

>very knowledgable about these tests, because I've volunteered

>for an AIDS organization for about 7 years. I'm STD free and

>HIV negative, I want to point out.

 

I have never worked for an AIDS-related organization, nor have I had any formal education on the disease, but I have read a lot and researched a lot about it on the web (simply to learn more about it; as of my last test, I too am HIV-).

 

>There is not a single test on the market approved to diagnose

>HIV infection. Not one, period...You can verify that yourself

>by reading any of the package inserts included with these "HIV

>tests."

 

I'm not sure if there's a technicality here I'm not seeing or what. I know for a fact the Home Access (regular and Express) test (http://www.homeaccess.com/02/01/) is FDA approved and has a track record of being incredibly accurate (99%).

 

>As for using them prior to having unsafe sex with any partner,

>that's USELESS. The HIV dogma has it that HIV takes up to 6

>months to cause your body to manufacture antibodies against

>HIV...useless for testing a potential partner if you are at

>all concerned about their actvities in the last year.

 

True...current antibody tests are only considered to be conclusive after 6 months. Actually, from what I've read, a lot of people consider 13 weeks to be conclusive within a percent or two, but the FDA says 6 months.

 

>All "HIV tests" are actually non-specific tests for

>antibodies. These are antibodies "assumed" to be "caused" by

>HIV. Again, you can verify my claims by reading the package

>inserts of any "HIV test." They are rather shocking admissions

>of unreliability.

 

From the Home Access site:

Q: What exactly is an HIV antibody test?

A: The human body makes antibodies to fight all kinds of infection. If you become infected with HIV, your body creates HIV antibodies. Just like doctors' offices and clinics, Home Access tests your blood for HIV antibodies.

 

I see no such shocking admission there. Antibody tests have a great track record.

 

>Most people are shocked to learn all this, I sure was. But

>once you start reading AIDS research literature, if you have a

>brain, you realize quite quickly how much non-sense there

>exists on the subject...

 

I'm not sure I believe that. Everything I've read has been to the contrary. Do you have any sources?

 

>Finally, you miss the most essential point of the arguments in

>favor of safer sex: HIV is not the only thing , or even the

>main thing you are at risk for...There is herpes 1, herpes 2,

>herpes 6a, herpes 6b, herpes 8, hepatitis A, B , c, genital

>warts, gonorrhea, syphilis, amoebas, crabs,chlamydia...etc.

 

Absolutely right. But, in my opinion, HIV (along with maybe syphilis and hepatitis) is the most serious. The others certainly aren't pleasant and should be avoided at all cost, but they also aren't as dire.

 

>The key is not condoms or unreliable instant "HIV tests," the

>key is assessing a person's lifestyle risks -- stay away from

>escorts on drugs, into extreme sex practices, who exchange

>body fluids, have this as their main career, seem stupid, etc.

 

I agree that assessing risk is important. However, I personally feel condoms and HIV testing is just as important.

 

Just commenting and posting my viewpoints based on what I've read and learned.

[ted]

I think there are some very specific tests which do detect the virus, rather then viral antibodies. They actually detect the presence of the virus RNA, hence of the virus itself. I believe these test are not generally used for the diagnosis of HIV infection, so you may not be aware of them. They are generally used during treatment to detect changes in the virus and suggest possible modifications of treatment regimens as the virus builts up resistance to the various drugs.

[guptasa1]

Forgot about these. Yup - you're right - I think they're called PCR DNA tests. They're quite expensive to run, but supposedly if memory serves they can pick up the virus within a month or so after infection (maybe sooner). I'm not sure if they're FDA approved or not.

 

>I think there are some very specific tests which do detect

>the virus, rather then viral antibodies. They actually detect

>the presence of the virus RNA, hence of the virus itself. I

>believe these test are not generally used for the diagnosis of

>HIV infection, so you may not be aware of them. They are

>generally used during treatment to detect changes in the virus

>and suggest possible modifications of treatment regimens as

>the virus builts up resistance to the various drugs.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

You are both incorrect. The package inserts of all of these diagnostic tests quite specifically disclaim your contention they diagnose or confirm the presence of HIV. Read the fine print.

 

Ted, detecting fragments of RNA is not detecting virus. Although you are justified in making your erroneous claim, since probably 95% of doctors and clinicians are not aware of this reality -- they were misled by the ads themselves.

 

Guptasa1, I stand by my assertion. There exists not one test approved by the FDA to diagnose or confirm the presence if HIV infection. Read the fine print on the package inserts, not the blatantly misleading advertisement literature.

 

- RYAN

[AdamSmith]

Trinity confused about its own test?

 

>I think there are some very specific tests which do detect

>the virus, rather then viral antibodies. They actually detect

>the presence of the virus RNA, hence of the virus itself.

 

This is what's strange about the Trinity announcement. It's a test for antibodies, not the virus itself. But the company's own mention of needle-stick diagnosis would seem to confuse instant-reading (which this test is, but so are others) with instant-virus-detection (which this is not). That confusion was evident in the original press coverage that prompted TY's post.

 

I can't find any mention of this vital point anywhere in the health or business media. Are we the only people to notice this howler?

 

This is from Trinity's materials on the FDA site (emphasis added):

 

5. A Reactive result by Uni-GoldTM Recombigen® HIV should be interpreted as preliminary positive for HIV-1 antibodies.

6. A Reactive result by Uni-GoldTM Recombigen® HIV suggests the presence of anti-HIV-1 antibodies in the specimen. Uni-GoldTM Recombigen® HIV is intended as an aid in the diagnosis of infection with HIV-1. AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical symptoms and their diagnosis can only be established clinically.

7. A Non-Reactive result with Uni-GoldTM Recombigen® HIV does not exclude the possibility of infection with HIV. A false negative result may occur in the following circumstances:

· Recent infection. Antibody response to a recent exposure may take several months to reach detectable levels.

· The test procedure has not been correctly followed.

· Infection with a variant of the virus that is less detectable by Uni-GoldTM Recombigen ® HIV assay configuration.

· Antibodies to variant strain of HIV-1 in the patient that do not react with specific antigens utilized in the assay configuration.

· Adverse specimen handling conditions.

· Failure to add sample.

 

http://www.fda.gov/cber/pmasumm/P0300250S.pdf

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

RE: Trinity confused about its own test?

 

Oh no, there are organizations who have for YEARS pointed out the vast non-sense that is found in AIDS science...There is HUGE amounts of crap put out there...

 

check out http://www.aliveandwell.org , or http://www.virusmyth.net (the FIND page)

 

and click on the HIV test links...you don't have to agree with everything these people say, but the science they have linked on that site about the "HIV tests" and on AIDS meds is just unbelievable, in my opinion.

 

And I'm just offering that web-site as an interesting site...

 

I have no doubt this will prompt several attacks on me. I am telling you right now I won't respond to any of them.

 

- RYAN

[guptasa1]

>You are both incorrect. The package inserts of all of these

>diagnostic tests quite specifically disclaim your contention

>they diagnose or confirm the presence of HIV. Read the fine

>print.

 

I stopped using these Home Access Express tests because I found a clinic that does the same thing for free, but I still have the documentation. It's an ELISA test...very reliable and the same thing used in labs for antibody testing. It has an FDA Approved sticker with number right on the box. Many major drugstore chains sell this test and only this test because it IS FDA-approved. I see nowhere that it disclaims to detect HIV. It does say not all people who test positive are necessarily positive and not all people who test negative or necessarily negative, but it HAS to say this as there's always the chance of a false result. It's been proven over 99% accurate, however.

 

>Ted, detecting fragments of RNA is not detecting virus.

>Although you are justified in making your erroneous claim,

>since probably 95% of doctors and clinicians are not aware of

>this reality -- they were misled by the ads themselves.

 

I don't know enough to argue against this effectively unfortunately, but everything I've read about RNA testing is that it does indeed look for the virus in the bloodstream. This information was found on AIDSmeds.com I believe. I find it hard to believe 95% of doctors are wrong about this. Again, sources?

 

>Guptasa1, I stand by my assertion. There exists not one

>test approved by the FDA to diagnose or confirm the presence

>if HIV infection. Read the fine print on the package inserts,

>not the blatantly misleading advertisement literature.

 

I have looked. It says it's FDA Approved and detects HIV-1 antibodies. If you tell me where to look for this fine print, I'll gladly do so.

[guptasa1]

RE: Trinity confused about its own test?

 

>check out http://www.aliveandwell.org , or http://www.virusmyth.net (the

>FIND page)

 

From Virusmyth:

 

"A growing group of bio-medical scientists claim the cause of AIDS is still unknown. These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless. Most of them think AIDS is also not sexually transmitted; it probably has toxic causes. People die because they are poisoned to death by toxic antiviral drugs. Part of the AIDS dissidents even question the existence of a virus entity. These HIV skeptics say that the AIDS virus has never really been isolated, and the AIDS tests are worthless..."

 

I'm sorry, and I'll try to respect your opinion and conclusions, but evidence aside, this seems absolutely ludicrous to me (if this is your belief - I'm not saying it necessarily even is). I knew groups like this existed, but I personally can't even fathom believing something like this.

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

>>You are both incorrect. The package inserts of all of these

>>diagnostic tests quite specifically disclaim your contention

>>they diagnose or confirm the presence of HIV. Read the fine

>>print.

>

>I stopped using these Home Access Express tests because I

>found a clinic that does the same thing for free, but I still

>have the documentation. It's an ELISA test...very reliable

>and the same thing used in labs for antibody testing. It has

>an FDA Approved sticker with number right on the box. Many

>major drugstore chains sell this test and only this test

>because it IS FDA-approved. I see nowhere that it disclaims

>to detect HIV. It does say not all people who test positive

>are necessarily positive and not all people who test negative

>or necessarily negative, but it HAS to say this as there's

>always the chance of a false result. It's been proven over

>99% accurate, however.

 

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/hivtests.htm

 

There is what is printed on the Abbott ELISA. Take a look.

 

ELISA is both unreliable and non-specific. These two terms have specific scientific meaning, I'm not going to go into it. "99% accurate" has almost no scientific meaning, although it sure sounds good in ads.

 

This is a test for antibodies "assumed" to be "caused" by HIV, NOT HIV. There is a difference. I'm chicken pox antibody positive. But I don't have chickenpox.

 

 

>

>>Ted, detecting fragments of RNA is not detecting virus.

>>Although you are justified in making your erroneous claim,

>>since probably 95% of doctors and clinicians are not aware

>of

>>this reality -- they were misled by the ads themselves.

>

>I don't know enough to argue against this effectively

>unfortunately, but everything I've read about RNA testing is

>that it does indeed look for the virus in the bloodstream.

>This information was found on AIDSmeds.com I believe. I find

>it hard to believe 95% of doctors are wrong about this.

>Again, sources?

 

I gave you the reading, check it out. I'm not here to win an argument though, unless you want to pay me for my time. hehe. I've been reading this literature for about 8 years at this point. since i was in my first year in college...17...

 

>

>>Guptasa1, I stand by my assertion. There exists not one

>>test approved by the FDA to diagnose or confirm the presence

>>if HIV infection. Read the fine print on the package

>inserts,

>>not the blatantly misleading advertisement literature.

>

>I have looked. It says it's FDA Approved and detects HIV-1

>antibodies. If you tell me where to look for this fine print,

>I'll gladly do so.

 

 

You just made my point... "antibodies" are not virus, and do not prove current infection with any virus. All scientists know this.

 

The DNA and RNA fragment (not whole virus) tests were created precisely because whole, infectious HIV is undetectable in most AIDS patients...Go figure... - RYAN

[guptasa1]

>http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/hivtests.htm

>

>There is what is printed on the Abbott ELISA. Take a look.

>

>ELISA is both unreliable and non-specific. These two terms

>have specific scientific meaning, I'm not going to go into it.

>"99% accurate" has almost no scientific meaning, although it

>sure sounds good in ads.

>

>This is a test for antibodies "assumed" to be "caused" by HIV,

>NOT HIV. There is a difference. I'm chicken pox antibody

>positive. But I don't have chickenpox.

 

Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here even though I don't believe this...nor frankly would I believe anything that site could tell me. But, even via your argument (and by the way - nowhere in the literature with the Home Accest Test have I seen anything about assuming...it simply says the antibodies *are* caused by HIV), it implies the presence of HIV at one time or another. If HIV does indeed cause AIDS (which I do believe it does), then this argument is moot if you accept that infection with HIV is permanent. I did take a look at the link you gave me, and frankly, I simply don't buy it. One of the articles state that people who gets AIDS are reinfected with HIV over and over again, and that changing their lifestyle (no drugs, safe sex, etc.) can make them go back to being HIV-. I simply can't believe if that were the case, most of the major medical resources wouldn't know about it.

 

>>I have looked. It says it's FDA Approved and detects HIV-1

>>antibodies. If you tell me where to look for this fine

>print,

>>I'll gladly do so.

>

>You just made my point... "antibodies" are not virus, and do

>not prove current infection with any virus. All scientists

>know this.

 

First of all, you specifically said there are no FDA-approved tests out there. This one is FDA-approved. I don't think it can be argued differently. Antibodies indicate the presence of a virus at one time or another. With the exception of the article(s) you pointed out, most things I've read cite HIV as being non-curable. Those two things together mean you have the virus (or the effects of the virus) if you're positive.

 

By the logic that mainstream science is wrong, this test probably would indeed be useless. I just personally don't accept that the mainstream science is wrong. I still may read more of what you've cited (I haven't read that much yet, but I have looked at some), but it just goes so far against everything else I've read...from what I consider very reputable sources...that I can't even fathom it truthfully. (I'm not being sarcastic or anything of the sort - just honest here).

 

>The DNA and RNA fragment (not whole virus) tests were created

>precisely because whole, infectious HIV is undetectable in

>most AIDS patients...Go figure... - RYAN

 

This part is true. I've read that before at well-reputed sites. HIV antibodies are most easily detected in the years after exposure, but once it becomes full-blown AIDS, it can be harder to find them. No argument there.

 

(With sincere well-wishes. I have no wish to antagonize you or anyone - I'm just writing my honest opinion. I certainly don't want to come off as knowing everything. I don't - I'm just finding this REALLY hard to swallow. Nothing would please me more than to believe HIV doesn't exist or doesn't cause AIDS, but I just don't believe that to be truth.)

[giovoni]

>This is a test for antibodies "assumed" to be "caused" by HIV,

>NOT HIV. There is a difference. I'm chicken pox antibody

>positive. But I don't have chickenpox.

>

You are not chicken pox antibody positive. You may be antibody positive for Varicella Zoster virus which is the causative agent for the disease 'chicken pox.' No one has antibodies to 'chicken pox' just as no one has antibodies to "AIDS," rather they are positive for antibodies directed against the causative agent of AIDS, that being HIV. Unless your antibodies were produced by the Varicella vaccine, you very likely still have Varicella Zoster virus lying dormant in your sensory nerves. If in the future some stress causes you to have "shingles" or 'Zoster' the causative agent will again be VZV.

 

Ryan, I'm confused by what point you are trying to make. Though you quite correctly speak about the abundant dangers in addition to HIV infection that sexual intercourse presents to all of us, you also seem to be very close to advancing the notion that HIV does not cause AIDS. None of the antibody tests as you say test for HIV itself and I'm not sure where you are getting your doubts about the sensitivity and specificity of these tests. Nor do I understand what you have read that would lead you to conclude that these tests are useless. If I'm missing something obvious please elucidate for me.

 

Gio in Denver

[Guest HOTnySTUDRYAN]

>>This is a test for antibodies "assumed" to be "caused" by

>HIV,

>>NOT HIV. There is a difference. I'm chicken pox antibody

>>positive. But I don't have chickenpox.

>>

>You are not chicken pox antibody positive. You may be antibody

>positive for Varicella Zoster virus which is the causative

>agent for the disease 'chicken pox.' No one has antibodies to

>'chicken pox' just as no one has antibodies to "AIDS," rather

>they are positive for antibodies directed against the

>causative agent of AIDS, that being HIV. Unless your

>antibodies were produced by the Varicella vaccine, you very

>likely still have Varicella Zoster virus lying dormant in your

>sensory nerves. If in the future some stress causes you to

>have "shingles" or 'Zoster' the causative agent will again be

>VZV.

 

My semantics were incorrect. You are right. I agree with you here.

 

>

>Ryan, I'm confused by what point you are trying to make.

>Though you quite correctly speak about the abundant dangers in

>addition to HIV infection that sexual intercourse presents to

>all of us, you also seem to be very close to advancing the

>notion that HIV does not cause AIDS.

 

 

I implied nothing of the sort in anything I wrote. But I knew these rhetorts would come...I'm not going to respond substantively to the slew of crap coming my way...hehe...I can feel it coming...hehehe....woo hooh!

 

 

None of the antibody

>tests as you say test for HIV itself and I'm not sure where

>you are getting your doubts about the sensitivity and

>specificity of these tests. Nor do I understand what you have

>read that would lead you to conclude that these tests are

>useless. If I'm missing something obvious please elucidate

>for me.

>

>Gio in Denver

 

 

Well you didn't read any of the links to the scientifically referenced articles I provided, did you? Otherwise, you would know. And Guptasa1, before dismissing the entire web-site as prima facie asburd, admitted he hadn't read much anything of it either!

 

But I'm just not going to get into an argument about it...not a chance. Read all you want on those web-sites, or ignore them all you want. It's a free country, sorta.

 

I'm of the opinon that majorities are most often wrong about most things controversial.

 

I'm not interested in the emotionalism of it all, just the science...and living a healthy life! Thus far, I'm succeeding. Good luck to everyone. I'm retiring from this conversation now. ~~

 

I'm a bad boy. Somebody spank me. But be warned, I can probably spank harder.

 

- RYAN }(

[giovoni]

>One of the articles state that people who gets

>AIDS are reinfected with HIV over and over again, and that

>changing their lifestyle (no drugs, safe sex, etc.) can make

>them go back to being HIV-. I simply can't believe if that

>were the case, most of the major medical resources wouldn't

>know about it.

 

Indeed if there were ever a 'cure' for HIV infection one would always have HIV antibodies in their bloodstream and if were tested the was testing is done now the antibodies would be detected and one would be HIV+. If a vaccine is ever successfully produced it too would produce antibody production to HIV and these individuals, without infection with HIV, would be HIV antibody positive. (note that since there is as of yet no cure or vaccine and a huge majority of people are diagnosed by the use of antibody testing the 'antibody' part of "HIV antibody positive" is always dropped in conversation. This is because today the only way to become HIV antibody positive is to have ongoing HIV infection.)

 

>By the logic that mainstream science is wrong, this test

>probably would indeed be useless. I just personally don't

>accept that the mainstream science is wrong.

 

People who are HIV antibody positive (who in the absence of cure or vaccine today ARE infected with HIV) and who do not get HART (high activity retroviral therapy) die in a mean of about 10 years. This isn't disputed by any reputable medical organization or any doctor who treats HIV who has any interest in keeping his license or his personal fortune. I haven't explored the link that Ryan provides but I have read several articles that advance the same sort of ideas that you allude to in your response and I will probably go and read some of them later tonight. One article I read mentioned that there haven't been randomized controlled double blind studies that prove that people who are HIV antibody positive progress to AIDS without therapy. If you think about it this is a patently ridiculous argument. How long do you think such a study would be allowed to run? On one hand we have patients who are HIV+ getting no therapy, in another arm we have HIV+ patients getting effective HART. This study would be no more humane (or allowed for that matter in this country at least) then studying whether people who are denied oxygen in the air that they breath eventually suffocate.

 

Gio in Denver

[giovoni]

>But I'm just not going to get into an argument about it...not

>a chance. Read all you want on those web-sites, or ignore them

>all you want. It's a free country, sorta.

 

That's not fair to anyone here. You are presenting evidence (which as I suspected I have read most, if not all, of already) which is very controversial and in my opinion extraordinarily dangerous. To throw it out here where people admittedly come for much of their information about these risks and then to turn away and say you won't argue anything is absurd. We deserve to know just what you believe in this evidence and what exactly if anything you've read from the other side that may sway people into believing what the admitted majority of science believes.

 

 

>I'm of the opinon that majorities are most often wrong about

>most things controversial.

 

That's a dangerous way to begin your thinking on any issue.

 

 

>I'm not interested in the emotionalism of it all, just the

>science...and living a healthy life! Thus far, I'm succeeding.

>Good luck to everyone. I'm retiring from this conversation

>now. ~~

 

I agree that from what you've said about condom use and safe sex that no matter what the truth is on these matters you're conducting yourself in a similar matter that I do/would. However I would reiterate that retiring from such a complicated/contraversial/important conversation simply because you want to is not fair and not to be too repetitive, dangerous.

 

 

Gio in Denver