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

[guptasa1]

Thank you, Gio. You put some things better (with more authority and knowledge) than I ever could have, specifically about the effects of HIV infection and how quickly it turns into AIDS without treatment, which I have little knowledge of.

 

Ryan, I respect that you have your beliefs, and I may research those sites some more at some point. Quite frankly (and honestly), I find it very disturbing to read. As I stated, it flies in the face of everything I've ever read about HIV/AIDS from reputable sources. The arguments I have seen (and I grant I haven't read a ton of it yet) so far seem to be "Look here - PROVE this."

 

I can't even prove anything outside of myself exists (if I can even prove that!). That doesn't mean that nothing else DOES exist. Sometimes you just have to take a correlation and realize that it means something. Just my opinion.

[sfnewbie]

RE: Trinity confused about its own test?

 

I'm glad you included that brochure from the drug company. This subthread was starting to seem like a replay of Who's on First?

 

Our New York Stud is basically correct that nearly all tests test for antibodies and not infection with the virus.

 

As the brochure states, though, the virus will be present for a time without antibodies being present.

 

(And I guess from what the Stud is saying, even the expensive test will not show results until a month after HIV infection.)

 

So how then can this be an instant test when there is a needle stick? Here's how: you don't test the stick-ee. You test the person who supplied the blood the stick-ee was stuck with. That is what is missing or missed from the coverage Tampa Yankee read.

 

However, there is still the risk of the blood "donor" having been infected with HIV recently enoungh not to test positive for antibodies, but still be able to transmit the virus.

 

So where the instant test would save money in the case on a health worker getting stuck is if it came back positive, then they would not need to do the expensive test (on the blood "donor") that detects virus presence prior to the presence of antibodies.

 

(Whether a negative result on the instant test would be followed by performing the expensive test, I do not know. Presumably most "donors" would test negative, so I'm not sure that would save all that much money except in big cities with high infection rates like SF.)

 

I agree completely with the Stud that a negative result in the test does not mean one can safely bareback. I would agree even if other STD's did not need to be taken into account. And all because of the delay between infection and detectable antibodies.