New In Home HIV Test.....what will this lead to?

[Westheangelino]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/oraquick-first-rapid-take_n_1646648.html


As described in the article, the FDA has approved an oral rapid test for over the counter sale. Basically, you swab your mouth and wait for the results that come in about twenty minutes.

So, my question is this.....will this lead to changes in people's behavior? You know the old scenario: "C'mon, baby. I'm clean! I swear! Lemme hit it raw!" So, with this available there is the option that other party will be like, "Ok, put up or shut up and take this test in front of me."

Now, it seems obvious that this test is far less useful than the NAAT/PRC and likely has the same multiple month window of any other rapid test. Knowing that people are often most infectious upon initial infection and high viral load, this isn't going to be like scanning someone with a tri corder from Star Trek and instantly proving they are clean or not. Any rational person would realize this. However, there are plenty of irrational and uneducated people out there. So, do you think this will inspire some people to keep a test in their night stand and have a false sense of security? "Well, I tested them! The test said negative! So, I let them hit it raw!!!"

[JenniferParisHusband]

I think it will be good to have, but nothing kills the mood like, hold on while I swab your cheek. I may use it. If it's positive, nothing will ever happen, even with double bagging it. If it's negative, I'll still use protection. I don't hit anything bareback until its celebate with me for a long time, and the professional results have come back clean for a while.

[danthepoetman]

Very good post and very good point, Wes. I’m sure you’re right: some people will definitely get a sense of ease from this, and take some unnecessary risks. There is a probability, that this thing could be more of a nuisance than a help, except for some professionals in the sex industry, maybe –and even then!...
Then again, we are told in the article and the video that many people (if not countless people) are unaware of having the disease. By being able to learn so easily that they are infected, they could avoid infecting others, of course. It could therefore be beneficial.
All in all, I agree with you that it is a two edge sword. You can make the best or the worst out of it. But I prefer knowing that this thing exist and is there rather than not, personally…
JPH is also right though: what a terribly prosaic way to start a romantic evening...

[bottomXOslave]

bottoms are at risk i get numbers from guys and to hit my ass i done some random bare back been lucky haven't got anything ..

[JenniferParisHusband]

Very good post and very good point, Wes. I’m sure you’re right: some people will definitely get a sense of ease from this, and take some unnecessary risks. There is a probability, that this thing could be more of a nuisance than a help, except for some professionals in the sex industry, maybe –and even then!...
Then again, we are told in the article and the video that many people (if not countless people) are unaware of having the disease. By being able to learn so easily that they are infected, they could avoid infecting others, of course. It could therefore be beneficial.
All in all, I agree with you that it is a two edge sword. You can make the best or the worst out of it. But I prefer knowing that this thing exist and is there rather than not, personally…
JPH is also right though: what a terribly prosaic way to start a romantic evening...

Holy smokes, I never thought of that. Could you imagine being a provider and having to break that kind of news to a guy who didn't know? WOW!

[Quiet Reflections]

I think it is a great idea but would be skeptical of the accuracy, however I'm sure they will try to improve that over time.

[GrimFusion]

bottoms are at risk i get numbers from guys and to hit my ass i done some random bare back been lucky haven't got anything ..

I know from the giving end of things, condomless does feel a bit better. It's still not something I'd ever risk with someone I don't totally trust, but I've always kinda wondered if you could notice any difference on the receiving-end between a dude who's wearing a condom and one who isn't.

[gaysian71]

I know from the giving end of things, condomless does feel a bit better. It's still not something I'd ever risk with someone I don't totally trust, but I've always kinda wondered if you could notice any difference on the receiving-end between a dude who's wearing a condom and one who isn't.

When you are a bottom like me. it feels a lot better to have bb sex. Unfortunately it's just not safe to do so. I have only had two bf's and one gf that would bb me on a regular basis. I have even had bb sex with a few guys that I didn't know. I suppose I should consider myself lucky because I have never caught anything. A test like this would be a good thing, especially fpr those that are very sexually active.

[sp fan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/oraquick-first-rapid-take_n_1646648.html


As described in the article, the FDA has approved an oral rapid test for over the counter sale. Basically, you swab your mouth and wait for the results that come in about twenty minutes.

So, my question is this.....will this lead to changes in people's behavior? You know the old scenario: "C'mon, baby. I'm clean! I swear! Lemme hit it raw!" So, with this available there is the option that other party will be like, "Ok, put up or shut up and take this test in front of me."

Now, it seems obvious that this test is far less useful than the NAAT/PRC and likely has the same multiple month window of any other rapid test. Knowing that people are often most infectious upon initial infection and high viral load, this isn't going to be like scanning someone with a tri corder from Star Trek and instantly proving they are clean or not. Any rational person would realize this. However, there are plenty of irrational and uneducated people out there. So, do you think this will inspire some people to keep a test in their night stand and have a false sense of security? "Well, I tested them! The test said negative! So, I let them hit it raw!!!"

It will lead to more false positives since the hiv test is a complete fraud and has been proven. Welcome to 10 years ago.

[barebacker]

we all will die one day might as hell risk it :dancing:

[Quiet Reflections]

I know from the giving end of things, condomless does feel a bit better. It's still not something I'd ever risk with someone I don't totally trust, but I've always kinda wondered if you could notice any difference on the receiving-end between a dude who's wearing a condom and one who isn't.
that is a good question! I wouldn't think a person could feel the difference but maybe they can.

[fred41]

It will lead to more false positives since the hiv test is a complete fraud and has been proven. Welcome to 10 years ago.

...are you saying this one is a fraud....or that ALL HIV tests are a fraudulent?

[brickcitybrother]

The real answer is ...

The people who would think of using the test are the ones that would use protection anyway. As a prior poster said ... if its positive no sexual activity at all ... but if its negative they are still using protection.

Its only a sense of security for someone who's interested in unprotected sex... but it really is a false sense of security ... until they have a foolproof rapid test for ALL DISEASES. I mean yes HIV is the biggest STI/STD ... but who here is interested in a case of Herpes or Warts ... not to mention Chlamydia and the rest?

[fred41]

Things like this are never a bad thing. Some people (for whatever personal reasons) will avoid getting an HIV test done by a doctor or clinic...at least this way they may get one done.
Everyone who is sexually active outside a monogamous relationship should be tested regularly....condoms or no condoms.

[natina]

sites that does report what paris hilton was discussing

http://grindr.com/ (http://grindr.com/)



www.cruisinggays.com (http://www.cruisinggays.com/)


they talk about hooking up with anonymous guys with NO CONDOMS ARE PROTECTION and " bug chasing"

:yayo::hide-1::confused:






Remember Paris Hilton (http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/paris-hilton-370.celebrity)? No? Then let us refresh your memory: She made a sex tape, got a reality show, went to jail, then mercifully faded into obscurity with the rise of the Kardashian juggernaut. Alas, she's back in the news, and (shocker) it's because she's once again said something reprehensible.





This time around, her remarks were directed at the gay community.


Radar Online (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/09/paris-hilton-blasts-gay-men-aids-audio-recordings) has obtained an audiotape of Paris that was made by a cab driver on Sept. 7, when she was in New York for Fashion Week. The snippet was apparently recorded during a ride she took with a gay male model pal, who was showing her the ins and outs of the gay hookup app Grindr.


"Ewww," she responds while apparently looking at the app. "Gay guys are the horniest people in the world. … They're disgusting. … Dude, most of them probably have AIDS."


Paris, sans her usual breathy, baby-doll voice, adds, "I would be so scared if I was a gay guy. … You'll, like, die of AIDS."


As expected, Hilton's rep has an explanation for the comments, tap-dancing to Radar that they "were to express that it is dangerous for anyone to have unprotected sex that could lead to a life threatening disease."


See, "The conversation became heated after a close gay friend told her in a cab ride, a story about a gay man who has AIDS and is knowingly having unprotected sex," continues the mouthpiece. "He also discussed a website that encourages random sex by gay men with strangers. As she was being shown the website, her comments were in reference to those people promoting themselves on the site. The cab driver who recorded this only provided a portion of the conversation."


Besides, it wasn't Paris' "intent to make any derogatory comments about all gays," insists the hole-digging rep. "Paris Hilton is a huge supporter of the gay community and would never purposefully make any negative statements about anyone's sexual orientation."


This is hardly Hilton's first time at the offensive rodeo. In 2004, she was reportedly (http://gawker.com/022417/paris-hilton-and-the-sex-tape-n+bomb) caught on camera using the N-word; in 2007, she was seen on video repeatedly yelling (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_yL61VBOp9wswSjwRzDmZ9L) a gay slur that rhymes with "maggot," along with once again using the N-word; in 2010, paparazzi snapped (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1297753/Paris-Hilton-denies-pulling-Nazi-pose-saying-just-dancing.html) her making what appeared to be a Nazi salute (her publicist claimed she was just dancing and scratching her nose); and a 2011 book by Neil Strauss quoted (http://gawker.com/022417/paris-hilton-and-the-sex-tape-n+bomb) her as sneering, "I can't stand black guys. I would never touch one. It's gross."
In contrast, her 2008 dis of former pal Kim Kardashian seems almost complimentary. Paris referred (http://gawker.com/381060/paris-hilton-is-not-a-fan-of-kim-kardashians-cottage-cheese-in-a-trash-bag-butt) to Kim's posterior as "cottage cheese inside a big trash bag."

http://wonderwall.msn.com/tv/gossip-paris-hilton-caught-on-tape-calling-gay-men-disgusting-1706730.story

http://static.wonderwall.com/image/wonderwall/OTk1YmE5ZGFmNDBlODg5NGE1NTNjMDZkMjNjYzdjNmEvT3JpZ2 luYWwvOTQ5NzJfT3JpZ2luYWwuanBn/94972-original.jpg


sites that does report what paris hilton was discussing

http://grindr.com/



www.cruisinggays.com (http://www.cruisinggays.com/)


they talk about hooking up with anonymous guys with NO CONDOMS ARE PROTECTION and " bug chasing"

:yayo::hide-1::confused:

[QUOTE=natina;1183158]I read about this cure a long time ago on this site.

there is also an aids vacine


http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=68833

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=56366



LOOK


FDA review favors first drug for HIV prevention


A pill that has long been used to treat HIV has moved one step closer to becoming the first drug approved to prevent healthy people from becoming infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

The Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that Gilead Sciences' Truvada appears to be safe and effective for HIV prevention. It concluded that taking the pill daily could spare patients "infection with a serious and life-threatening illness that requires lifelong treatment."
On Thursday a panel of FDA advisers will consider the review when it votes on whether Truvada should be approved as a preventative treatment for people who are at high risk of contracting HIV through sexual intercourse. The FDA is not required to follow the advice of its panels, but it usually does.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47345265/ns/health-aids/




http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55700




FDA review favors first drug for HIV prevention

A pill that has long been used to treat HIV has moved one step closer to becoming the first drug approved to prevent healthy people from becoming infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

The Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that Gilead Sciences' Truvada appears to be safe and effective for HIV prevention. It concluded that taking the pill daily could spare patients "infection with a serious and life-threatening illness that requires lifelong treatment."

On Thursday a panel of FDA advisers will consider the review when it votes on whether Truvada should be approved as a preventative treatment for people who are at high risk of contracting HIV through sexual intercourse. The FDA is not required to follow the advice of its panels, but it usually does.

An estimated 1.2 million Americans have HIV, which attacks the immune system and, unless treated with antiviral drugs, develops into AIDS, a fatal condition in which the body cannot fight off infections. If Truvada is approved, it would be a major breakthrough in the 30-year campaign against the AIDS epidemic. There have been no other drugs proven to prevent HIV and a vaccine is believed to be decades away.

Gilead Sciences Inc., based in Foster City, Calif., has marketed Truvada since 2004 as a treatment for people who are infected with the virus. The medication is a combination of two older HIV drugs, Emtriva and Viread. Doctors usually prescribe the medications as part of a drug cocktail that makes it harder for the virus to reproduce. Patients with low viral levels have reduced symptoms and are far less likely to develop AIDS
Researchers first reported that Truvada could prevent people from contracting HIV in 2010. A three-year study found that daily doses cut the risk of infection in healthy gay and bisexual men by 44 percent, when accompanied by condoms and counseling. Another study found that Truvada reduced infection by 75 percent in heterosexual couples in which one partner was infected with HIV and the other was not.

Because Truvada is already on the market to manage HIV, some doctors already prescribe it as a preventive measure. But FDA approval would allow the drugmaker Gilead Sciences to formally market its drug for that use.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47345265/ns/health-aids/




bottoms are at risk i get numbers from guys and to hit my ass i done some random bare back been lucky haven't got anything ..

[traderbill]

I bought Oraquick last week at CVS for $39. In 20 minutes, I knew my HIV status with 99% accuracy. This is a good product.

[Westheangelino]

I was just about to post a new thread about this. I saw a commercial for Oraquick and it reminded me of the old thread I started.

Here is the link to the product's website

http://www.oraquick.com/?gclid=CLPF38bDk7QCFUdxQgodchcA-A


So....here is my question for you all.....would you ever use this as a way to test a new partner to hook up with? Now, I can bet that the intelligent people of this board will likely say NO, at least in the context of a casual hook up. However, the bigger question is this: do you think that other people will start using this as a hook up tool? Think about it. Plenty of people out there will get barebacked just on someone's word and their own diminished inhibitions. I can imagine someone who likes to raw dog having this at the ready. Now, obviously this might save a few folks because it IS a test rather than someone's word. However, there is also the window period, and as you all do or should know the antibody test is not as effective as a NAAT/PRC test, which has a much smaller window between initial infection and detection.

Thoughts......?

[Westheangelino]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/health/another-use-for-home-hiv-test-screening-partners.html?pagewanted=all