Home HIV Testing Kits for Potential Sex Partners
-
If you do choose to bareback with sexual partners, there is now a new level of protection that has not been available until a month ago.
It's called the OraQuick In-Home Rapid HIV test. It is the first FDA-Approved Home-HIV testing kit for testing potential sex partners. It's quick, easy and painless. No blood involved. Prior to sexual activity, you obtain an oral swab from your partner. You place it into the kit and get the results in 20-40 minutes. And it's 99.98% accurate!!
The study the FDA used to approve the kit followed participants over the course of 3 months. What they found was that 72% agreed to take the test, while 16% refused outright, likely because they knew they were positive or too fearful to find out (+12% were never asked or tested). Of those who agreed to take the test, almost 10% tested positive for HIV and the majority, 70%, of these people didn't even realize they were positive. So close to 15% of sex partners were likely HIV positive, that's 1 in 6 partners in a big city area.
The test can also be used to test yourself, in the privacy of your own home. Though highly accurate, like an initial screening blood test, any positive needs to be confirmed with a more accurate second test - the Western Blot blood test taken at your doctor's office. The risk of testing positive using this test when you actually don't have the virus is nearly zero –- 1 in 5,000 people. It should also be noted, if someone does have HIV with good suppression of the virus because they are taking medications, this test may not indicate they are positive. However, if someone is taking medication and the viral load is totally controlled, your risk of infection is already significantly reduced by a whopping 96%. It's not 100%, but it's a lot better than someone not being on medications.
Each kit costs $40 (which should reduce some in time), but whether someone is willing to take the test or tests positive, it provides you the most at risk information that you otherwise wouldn't have. People lie that they have HIV and you cannot tell whether someone has it or not. If you decide to bareback, you owe it to yourself, and others, to play as safe and as knowledgeable as possible. But remember, this only tests for HIV, not other STDs.
This oral kit specifically detects HIV antibodies, so as Mr. Mazda always advises, if someone just contracted HIV, it takes the body a little time for the immune system to detect it and start producing antibodies against it. Typically this takes the body between 2-8 weeks, with an average of 25 days (50% will test positive by 1 month). By 3 months, 97% of individuals are producing detectable antibodies. In very rare cases, it may take up to 6 months to produce them and thus go undetected by screening antibody tests. The confirmatory blood test, the Western Blot, which is significantly more expensive and take 1-2 weeks in order to get the specialized tests results, detects the actual presence of the virus itself. It tests for RNA, which is the "DNA" of a virus. Since it detects the virus itself, it can test positive in only a matter of 9-11 days after someone actually contracts the virus. So, whenever getting test results of either type, you must be aware of the window when someone's test will say negative, but they are really positive.
Home page for OraQuick >>>> hXXp://www.oraquick.com. This provides loads of information about HIV risks and all about the kit. You can order directly from them by mail, or can shop for it in the pharmacy sections at Wal-Mart, CVS, Kroger, Rite Aid and Walgreens.
-
As a matter of fact 40$ don't seem an insurmountable bareer to the achievement of something we could deem as important Andy :).
Since he seems always well prepared about these topics though, I would like to hear MrMazda's opinion about it ^-^ -
this does seem little problematic to me.
I mean, picture this:
you take this gorgerous litte sweetie home, do the mutual tests so you can ditch the condoms and go for broke. Only, his turns up positive, and he completely breaks down in tears. Would you be up to dealing with that situation?Or, how about this:
you take the sweetie home and to the tests, come up clean and go for it. Then, a few weeks later someone tells you the sweetie is POZ, and your next test shows that now so are you? Could you take responisbility for your own actions instead of blaming the sweetie? Hell, did you even ask him? And, would you stop and consider if you got it someplace else?Or, what if you had all-out bareback with someone else after that, and now the next guy also turns out POZ at his next test. Where does the blame go? It's certain to come up.
Sure, this little DIY kit does have obvious advantages. But sadly, people tend to stop using their head when there's a pill/shot/test you can take instead.
I'm just sayin…
~ Neo
-
Good points of thought, Neo. They go to the core of the issues with barebacking. . . you just never know for sure.
Barebacking has similarity to gambling. You can take certain steps to improve your odds of protection and reduce risk, but you can NEVER get rid of the risk. The kit is a tool that could be helpful to evaluate those risks, but never with absolute certainty.
-
From the perspective of someone who was well educated on the subject when they found out, I can tell you this for sure. No matter how well educated you are on the subject, there is absolutely NOTHING that can prepare you for finding out you're HIV+. It's also a proven fact that the majority of people who discover their status end up going on a mental break that in a lot of cases, without the right people being around IMMEDIATELY to give them the proverbial slap across the face that they will need, they would go suicidal. I know this for fact… I was one of them.
While the concept of such a test does seem like a great idea, I cannot stress enough that they have great potential to become a home suicide kit real fast, especially for people who engage in random sexual acts with partners of an unknown status. It has also been scientifically proven that a person can have contracted HIV and be infectious to others, but not show a positive test result. This "problem" comes directly from how the test works. The test in itself has the unique flaw that it tests for the anti-bodies that the body produces when it becomes infected. These antibodies however are not produced in the body until the virus breaks the system down to this critical "rock bottom" point, at which point the body begins the process of seroconversion, which generates these anti-bodies. In most cases, this can take 2 - 3 weeks, however this is not a concrete time frame. The body can begin seroconversion in as much as 3 months...
In other words... If a person engages in more than 1 sexual fling every 3 months, there is potential for this test to render a false negative, thereby potentially resulting in the transmission of HIV without the knowledge of either person. The sad reality is, this is a common occurrence that happens far too frequently... More frequently than you might expect. Don't let that get you bogged down though. Medical research has proven that the risk of HIV transmission for someone who is on antiretrovirals and has a viral load below 1500 (preferably closer to undetectable) engaging in bareback sex where ejaculation occurs is actually lower than the risk of engaging in protected sex with an HIV+ partner with a high viral load (such as 60,000) and no antiretrovirals. What a lot of the tests and other publications fail to take into account when examining risk assessment is simply this:
Nowadays HIV is a lot like TB… It's only infectious if left untreated!
All in all, it is also proven that the average risk factor for unprotected receptive anal sex where ejaculation DOES occur only constitutes approximately a 1% risk of infection (or 1 in 100). These numbers are based on a viral load of approximately 57,000 and no antiretrovirals. The only time that the risk becomes damn near absolute certainty is in a case where either the top's dick has a sore that exposes a bloody discharge, or if any of the lining of the rectum walls are torn or otherwise aggravated sufficiently to present an abrasion of some sort. These cases are not as common as you may think, and generally only occur when either insufficient lube is used, or when doing something stupid like being the virgin to try and take a 13" and thick cock. Don't fool yourself though because a person's highest transmission potential actually comes BEFORE the point of seroconversion, and generally lasts until a couple of months after they begin antiretrovirals. This directly means that regardless of any test and regardless of any medication, it is always safer to either pull out to bust a nut, or to otherwise wrap it up.
As for the proposed concept behind the test, I must say that I do much prefer the concept of the test from a public health stand point. My reason for this is quite simple really… When going to a doctor's office or to a public health office, once a test result comes back positive, there is a government mandate within North America that requires that the attending medical staff (doctor, nurse, etc) report the results of the test to the public health officer. From my own personal experience, these "public health officers" do not have a sufficient understanding of STI's, and as such, they like to push their own stupid ways onto the person, trying to force them into a number of things (some of which they actually legally can). From this stand point alone, I completely agree with implementing a way to by-pass this Public Health BS, and deal with it under your own terms. It's great to see that there actually are some people out there in the medical field who actually may believe that Public Health has no business in our bedrooms.
-
Updated information on how long it could take for a test to detect whether you've contracted HIV after exposure:
OraQuick In-Home HIV Test –- 3-month window period after infection with 92% detection rate after window.
Clinic-Based Blood HIV Test –- 2 week window period after exposure to HIV with >99.9% detection rate.
So, today, if you get a blood test from a doctor's office/health clinic, you can be sure you don't have HIV after 2 weeks. Before, there was uncertainty lasting out to 3-6 months depending on the type of testing kit used. This is no longer the case and only a misconception.
-
i don't believe in it
-
No, would not use it.
There were good points against it mentioned already here.
HIV is no fun, even if it not lethal any more. And as for the medication, the side-effects can be very heavy, influencing the mood and health in many ways. HIV meds are not like vitamines.
-
Being an expat in a Middle Eastern country where HIV is taboo and a positive status will surely land you an immediate deportation (unless you're a local which they won't do anything hence the high, but covered up HIV rate) this test could be the difference between being able to pack your bags and leave the country at your own terms or sitting in jail for 3 days and get deported losing all your belongings.
I do agree with the previous posts with using this kit as a "oh I know I'm safe" and some people would turn to bareback as the norm… But as long as the participants are aware of the actual risks involved there's probably no harm in this...
-
nothing can replace a profesional test in a laboratory. if you think your partner will accept to take the home test, why dont ask him for take the lab test? it might take more time to get the results but both o you will be 100% sure theres no risk (aasuming you'll get tested too)
-
HIV isn't the only STD in the world.
