Coming soon: over-the-counter oral HIV/AIDS test

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/201.../120139970

Would you be offended if your date asked you to take a mutual HIV test before things potentially got sexual?
Meet up, swab, have dinner, and see where it goes from there based on the results?

I'd feel amazed and pleased that

a) I have a date

and

b) the date assumed that I had sex before.

$20 bucks will surely scare many people over here.

LF>10$ or less price.

Still, I like the idea.

if there was only one pocket in my wallet, i'd put one of these before a condom.

that much do want.

$20 bucks will surely scare many people over here.

I think 20$ is a much better price point than the horrible ones you have to pay $50 for and mail them off after jabbing yourself and hoping you've bled correctly.

b) the date assumed that I had sex before.

Now now, the date could assume you're a needle sharing addict or your mama was.

Is the test accurate? If it is, $20 is definitely nothing compared to piece of mind.

Is the test accurate? If it is, $20 is definitely nothing compared to piece of mind.

They're the same test that most clinics use as a first level triage, so yeah. I have a friend who found out he was positive due to an oral swab test last year.

This happened to me twice already.
I'm not offended at all, on the contrary I find it awesome that my sex partners take care of themselves so much.

This sounds good for responsible adults in a sensible dating scene. Casual impromptu sex on a cocktail of alcohol and/or recreational drugs usually doesn't wait 20 minutes for the results of a test though, and I was under the impression this was the more common way of contracting HIV in the developed world (correct me if I'm wrong).

That's fantastic. Definitely approve.

The only concern I have is this leading to increased rates of other STIs. If two people swab themselves, wait 20 minutes, find out they're both HIV negative, and proceed to have unprotected sex, then the one who is unaware of the gonorrhea infection they picked up from their casual partner the night before just infected this new partner.

I still think this is a phenomenally useful test and should be approved and sold as it would definitely slow the HIV infection rate if used properly, but it should be strongly advised of new/casual sexual partners that condoms still be used to prevent other potential infections.

The only concern I have is this leading to increased rates of other STIs. If two people swab themselves, wait 20 minutes, find out they're both HIV negative, and proceed to have unprotected sex, then the one who is unaware of the gonorrhea infection they picked up from their casual partner the night before just infected this new partner.

I still think this is a phenomenally useful test and should be approved and sold as it would definitely slow the HIV infection rate if used properly, but it should be strongly advised of new/casual sexual partners that condoms still be used to prevent other potential infections.

Agreed. This doesn't negate the use of condoms at all. I hope that is noted in sex-ed classes if they mention this new procedure.

One more concern: proliferation of HIV antibodies, which are what all of these procedures test for, don't reach detectable levels until at least six weeks after initial infection with the virus (to be absolutely sure waiting 3 months is ideal, as antibodies appear in 97% of infected individuals by that time, but I've been told by public health officials that six weeks is often fine enough with modern testing methods). That's why you can't get a definitive HIV test within a day, week, etc. of a sexual encounter and thus need to wait. For this reason OraQuick would be pointless if people are using it to "prove" they didn't catch HIV from a partner a day or a week prior, when in actuality they could have still been infected.

Now combining this with my previous post I feel even more unsure of the efficacy of this test in the face of reality, simply given its gross opportunities for ignorant misuse. Still, it should be available having because an OTC option would help MANY people (such as those with access to a Walgreens but not a free/comparatively cheap HIV testing center) in determining their status, but again, it in no way negates the use of condoms.

This sounds good for responsible adults in a sensible dating scene. Casual impromptu sex on a cocktail of alcohol and/or recreational drugs usually doesn't wait 20 minutes for the results of a test though, and I was under the impression this was the more common way of contracting HIV in the developed world (correct me if I'm wrong).

THe most common way to contract HIV in the developed world is fool around with someone who just assumes they don't have it but have never bothered to get tested.

Agreed. This doesn't negate the use of condoms at all. I hope that is noted in sex-ed classes if they mention this new procedure.

They may note it, but that doesn't mean people will listen to it D:

OT: I think it's a good idea..however has society really come that low that hiv is that common for the tests to need to buy otc?

o_o just a thought...

however has society really come that low that hiv is that common for the tests to need to buy otc?

What does lowness have to do with it?

Has society truly fallen so low that breast cancer infects ~12% of women?

See what an illogical and oddly blaming question that is?

That's because certain agendas have made HIV/AIDS an "At Fault" illness.

The point of any preventative measure, including early testing, is to help prevent an illness from being that common, because there are no visible obvious signs of this one, you can be infected and never know. All it takes is trusting the wrong person, who could've done something as simple as trusting the wrong person too. Assuming you're safe and healthy in the absence of any evidence otherwise is the norm. Knowing your own serostatus is the first step to not spreading it unintentionally. Very few people know they have it and continue with risky behavior with people they believe don't have it. Unfortunately many people have it and don't know because they're not comfortable going in for a test, can't afford a test by a physician, are too ashamed to go to a free clinic for a test, or simply have never even considered they may have a reason to be tested. Making testing more available in more ways can only help.

What does lowness have to do with it?

Has society truly fallen so low that breast cancer infects ~12% of women?

See what an illogical and oddly blaming question that is?

That's because certain agendas have made HIV/AIDS an "At Fault" illness.

The point of any preventative measure, including early testing, is to help prevent an illness from being that common, because there are no visible obvious signs of this one, you can be infected and never know. All it takes is trusting the wrong person, who could've done something as simple as trusting the wrong person too. Assuming you're safe and healthy in the absence of any evidence otherwise is the norm. Knowing your own serostatus is the first step to not spreading it unintentionally. Very few people know they have it and continue with risky behavior with people they believe don't have it. Unfortunately many people have it and don't know because they're not comfortable going in for a test, can't afford a test by a physician, are too ashamed to go to a free clinic for a test, or simply have never even considered they may have a reason to be tested. Making testing more available in more ways can only help.

I understand completely what you're saying, and like I said, I think it's a good thing
I just think it has to do with a lack of responsibility to not know your own body or take care of it, much less spread it to others.

Like I said, I'm not against it by any means, but I don't see why someone can't either man up and go to a doctor, or have some humility and go to a free clinic; imo it's all a matter of taking care of the body you were given.

Like I said, I'm not against it by any means, but I don't see why someone can't either man up and go to a doctor, or have some humility and go to a free clinic; imo it's all a matter of taking care of the body you were given.

Some people can barely buy NX card's, you think they are going to be able to go to a doctor and go "Hey I f`ucked something pretty dirty so uh, am I clean or what"?

Edit:

It's just unreasonable to not expect people to be self concious about something like this.

Some people can barely buy NX card's, you think they are going to be able to go to a doctor and go "Hey I f`ucked something pretty dirty so uh, am I clean or what"?

Edit:

It's just unreasonable to not expect people to be self concious about something like this.

There are free clinics for a reason.
That, and health>nx ._.

I'm not saying people aren't going to be self-conscious about it, but it really comes down to how much you are concerned about your own well being O-o

Edit: Also, whenever you have bloodwork done, or a urinalysis for a job or whatever, they can check then, too. So I really don't see money being the major problem. It comes down to lack of self responsibility or, as you said, self-consciousness

There are free clinics for a reason.
That, and health>nx ._.

I'm not saying people aren't going to be self-conscious about it, but it really comes down to how much you are concerned about your own well being O-o

Edit: Also, whenever you have bloodwork done, or a urinalysis for a job or whatever, they can check then, too. So I really don't see money being the major problem. It comes down to lack of self responsibility or, as you said, self-consciousness

Where was money ever an issue o_O. It's the fact some people feel so ashamed they even have to ask the question. I mean is buying tampons/pads fun for you .

[video=youtube;GlWB6_9kkfI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlWB6_9kkfI&feature=relmfu[/video]

Prob best example.