Have you ever had an HIV test ???

[sabio]

josh_ingu said:There is a lot out there, and a dose of herpes, say, or warts, could severely limit your enjoyment of anything

Just a specific comment that the data on condom protection against herpes is iffy, and against warts is more iffy. It stands to logic that a condom will offer some protection there, but it is not clear how much.

[dvarpala]

Has anyone tried one of those HIV self-test kits that the Google Ads box has come up with?

 

Just thought I'd share my experience, for those that are contemplating it...

 

I recently booked a full check-up at our local clinic, and found out that the wait is 6 weeks - clearly not acceptable given my recent exploits, and the fact that I've just met someone special here in the UK.

 

This waiting time, and my general sense of responsibility (no, don't laugh - some things you have to take seriously...), led me to buy one of these kits online.

 

It is illegal to sell them in the UK,(personal imports/web purchases are OK) and after using one, I can see the reasoning for this rule.

 

OK, having sat down and unpacked the kit, you just prick your finger, let a drop of blood fall into the well on the kit, add water, and wait 15 mins. for the result.

 

Sounds really easy, doesn't it?

 

What the kit fails to mention is how long it will take you to pluck up the courage to open the kit, and how horrible it is to sit alone for 15 minutes in limbo, waiting to find out if you're going to die a fairly unpleasant and slow death.

 

Back to the reason for the law against these the sale of these kits in the UK - what would I have done if, sitting here on my own, the test had come back +ve? I would definitely say that you need someone with you in that situation, and I think the law tries to achieve this by making you go to a clinic....back to square one.

 

Thankfully, I've got a negative result BTW, but I will still go to the clinic for the rest of the tests.

 

 

[Guest lazyphil]

I felt the tension coming from Colchester out here in Cambridge--go celibrate with jellied eels tomorrow! (good news btw!)

[lembeh]

 

thats why I am against the home test kits (and vehemently against those who take testing kits around with them to test the girls!!). There *is* a false positive rate, as well as other factors (which strain the kit is for, as one point). I am, however very strongly *for* cheap, readily available, professional *anonymous* testing...

-j-

(and glad to hear the good news on the result, but you may well need a second one in a few months to be certain).

[dvarpala]

josh_ingu said:....other factors (which strain the kit is for....

 

The kit that I used tested for three different strains.(How many are there, for fuck's sake?)

 

I feel OK about it now, but it seriously messed with my head yesterday.

 

Just out of interest, but what would you have done in my position? You need to know now, but no appointments for professional test for 6 weeks ?

 

I agree with you about the tests, but there is a place for them..

[lembeh]

 

>Just out of interest, but what would you have done in my position? You need to know now, but no appointments for professional test for 6 weeks ?

 

Same same probably. But also remember that your not 100% clear until you have had two tests, separated by 3 or so months..

-j-

[thamachat]

I fully agree with Josh that it is outrageous to test bar girls before you shag them. What are you going to do if she jumps out the window after you test her? It will be on your conscience.

 

What bar girls need, more than anything else, is to be educated to the fact that all of these so called "facts" about Hiv have been credibly challenged by hundreds of doctors and scientists with impeccable credentials.

 

People need knowledge, not Hiv tests. But tremendous censorship of this alternative point of view keeps them in the darkness, and Hiv terrorism continues.

[thamachat]

Sorry I?ve been too busy in recent weeks to return to this discussion. However, because I was concerned about Josh Ingu?s critique of the assertion in my article about unmedicated HIV + Ugandans living as long as their medicated counterparts in the developed world, I made an inquiry to Dr. Rodney Richards, who is the source for that assertion.

 

I provided him with the full text of Josh Ingu?s critique. Here are excerpts from his reply. In a nutshell, Josh Ingu cited the wrong paper in support of his argument.

 

?Most of the confusion you detail below is the result of the "pro-HIV doctor" [Josh Ingu] quoting you information from a paper that is not even referenced in my piece on survival times in Africa vs. the West. In fact, until just now, I have never seen the paper he quotes from, nor does it even pertain to the subject matter I speak of in my article.

 

?For this reason, I thought maybe it was posted with the wrong reference. But I checked it out here:

 

?http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrugandastudy.htm

 

?and everything is posted correctly. So somehow, the pro-HIV doctor simply got his/her hands on the wrong reference. Further clarification below:

 

??Also for clarity, the Collaborative Group study covers 13,030 [western] individuals with known dates of seroconversion before 1996 when HAART became available. In other words, those who seroconverted prior to 1983 would have had immediate access to nothing (including a so-called HIV test. Their date of seroconversion was determined from stored blood samples, or in some cases contact tracing, date of transfusion due to

surgery, etc). Those who seroconverted between 1984 to 1986 would have had immediate access to prophylaxis drugs for PCP and MAC. Those who seroconverted from 1987 to about 1992 would have had immediate access to AZT and other monotherapies; and those who seroconverted from 1993 to

1996 would have had immediate access to double combination therapy. And the key finding: ?We found no evidence of a difference in survival or time to the diagnosis of AIDS for individuals who seroconverted in 1983-96.?

 

?In other words, all the developments in technology, patient management, and antiretroviral therapy over this period were absolutely worthless in slowing disease progression to AIDS or death. The only group that had significantly longer survival times in this study were the lucky ones who seroconverted before 1983; and therefore had at least a few extra years

before they started consuming ?life-saving? medications.

 

?How about survival times for those who seroconverted after 1996 when they would have had immediate access to HAART? [HAART is ?triple therapy?] I don't know because as far as I am aware such data has yet to appear in the scientific literature.

 

?It is also interesting to note that initially the authors of the Morgan et al study in Uganda concluded, ?Survival with HIV-1 infection is similar in Africa to industrialized countries before the use of antiretroviral therapy.? Shortly after my piece was posted on various web-sites, the principle investigator of this study (JAG Whitworth) published another article changing this conclusion to, ?The natural history of the disease in this population is comparable to that in industrialized countries before the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).?

(Mahe et al. Int J Epidemiology 2002; 31: 985-90.) In other words, the principle investigator now also confirms the conclusion of my article that starving Ugandans without access to antiretroviral therapy are surviving just as long as those in the West who had access to prophylaxis drugs, AZT, other monotherapies, and double combination therapies. [but not HAART]

 

?I don't know when, if ever, we will see data for those in the West who had seroconversion dates after 1996 when HAART became available. One would think if these persons were doing significantly better, the mainstream would be eager to get the good news out.

 

Josh Ingu:

>"OK. Loooks good for you right? *Except*, when we go

>to

>the actual paper (which I did), we get this bit from

>the discussion (first paragraph):

 

?Again, for whatever reason, she/he got the wrong paper. Makes me wonder if they have ever actually read my article.

 

>"The median survival from developing AIDS in this

>rural

>African cohort was only 9.3 months.

 

>With HAART both the incidence

>of AIDS has been reduced further and the survival with

>AIDS has been prolonged.19, 20

>

>"Above a direct quote taken from the paper:

>

>"Survival by AIDS defining condition in rural Uganda.

>Morgan D, Malamba SS, Orem J, Mayanja B, Okongo M,

>Whitworth JA.

>

>"Sex Transm Infect. 2000 Jun;76(3):193-7.

 

?Indeed the quote is accurate, just comes from the wrong paper and has nothing to do with the time from seroconversion to AIDS or death.

 

>"So, in Uganda, the survival rate *in the absence of

>medication* is roughly equal to the survival rate in

>the west, ***in the abasence of medication***. So, the

>guys work is being quoted in the exact opposite of

>what he says in the paper. Typical virus myth

>distortion, mis represenation and absolute

>fabrication."

 

?I wonder if she/he will even be embarrassed when you let him/her know that this vitriolic statement is based on his/her own mistake of quoting from the wrong reference. I would predict that the reaction will rather be to try and change the subject.

 

?Indeed, this incorrect reference does not support my conclusions, nor does it even address the subject matter important to my conclusions.

 

??I assert the fact remains that starving HIV-positive Ugandans without access to life-saving antiretroviral therapy are surviving just as long as their counterparts in the West with full access to such therapy; at least for those who seroconverted before 1996 when HAART became available. After that time, we don't know because the data, to my knowledge, has yet to come forth.

 

Rodney.?

 

I admit I did make two small wording mistakes in my article. I said that ?two recent studies from Uganda,? the 2002 Morgan et al study and the Collaborative Group on AIDS Incubation and HIV Survival Group study ?found? that unmedicated HIV+ Ugandans live as long as their medicated counterparts in the developed world. In fact, the Collaborative Group study was not from Uganda, it was the study that analyzed survival in Westerners. And these studies did not ?find? that the unmedicated, malnourished Ugandans were living as long as the medicated, well-fed westerners. Rather, their data, analyzed, supports this conclusion.

 

You can read Dr. Richards study at http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/africa/ugandan_study.html

OR

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrugandastudy.htm

[thalenoi]

ikkrang said:

Thalenoi >I had a relationship (no condom) with a heroin addict.

3 months in our relationship I had her checked for infectious diseases, she had siffilis stage 2 and HIV pos. <

 

dare I ask: Did this affect you?

 

Sorry for late reply, being on a trip to Chiang Mai...

 

Negative, had numerous tests since.

Might be males are less at risk in heterogeous relationships, but I would not bet on that....some do though

[lembeh]

 

 

>http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrugandastudy.htm

 

Now why did I just f*cking KNOW that we would end up back at virus myth.

 

However, I will re check, but there is very little likelyhood that I mis cited a reference, as the source I use to get to papers is PubMed which is the "gospel" source of referencing (from the National Library of Medicine).

 

More later (its a saturday night, and I *really* have better things to do than argue with virus myth people).

-j-