Safe Sex

3-minute home test kit for HIV

The Canadian company MedMira received preliminary FDA approval, and is about to receive final approval, for a new easy-to-use HIV-1 test kit called MedMira Reveal that gives results within 3 minutes (compared to OraQuick's 20 minutes). The company's previous fast HIV-1/2 test kit MiraWell has been available in Europe for years.

Reveal is of particular interest to the idea of prescreening providers, not only because it is much faster, but also because it seems to have its eye on the do-it-yourself market. From the [url=http://www.ahdnet.net/products.asp#5]web page[/url] of the US distributor:

"The Reveal test is soon to be the only FDA approved rapid diagnostic test for detection of HIV in serum/plasma that can give results in 3 minutes. With distribution contracts in place, this rapid test kit will be used by hospitals and health care facilities, [b]and will soon be sold to the general public[/b]."

Let's hope the dummies at FDA don't take their sweet time on this.

Which one of the following would provide the greatest amount of safety along with highest chance of approval from a provider;

1) With the man lying on his back, start with a piece of Saran wrap large enough to cover from the lower abdomen to the top of the knees. Cut a small hole and slide 3/4 of the way down shaft. Apply condom so that there is 1/4 overlap at the base. The woman could then provide service in whatever female superior position she preferred.

2) Heat bathroom up to temperature needed for comfort while completely lathered-up. Couple could then have full body contact while maintaining a soap barrier between them.

Would either or both methods provide complete protection from all types of STI's? If not, please list the ones that might still be a problem and why. Any other techniques or modifications would be appreciated.

TIA ... wrist

spit or stick?

The reference below confirms that OraQuick works with either saliva or finger stick. I contacted the manufacturer to ask about this. Since they applied for FDA approval for finger stick only, they cannot market it in the US for use with saliva.

The following reference explains the background and catalogs different HIV fast test kits. Only OraQuick has FDA approval, and MedMira Reveal is on its way.
[url=http://www.medadvocates.org/diagnostics/cdc/rapidtest.html]
http://www.medadvocates.org/diagnostics/cdc/rapidtest.html[/url]

Quite a comprehensive reference, albeit a bit old (the year 2000 is now old :) ).

Prices for PocKit

Here is an e-mail response from a small US distributor of PocKit (the herpes 10-minute test kit). It's about $20 per kit, but I suspect one can get a better price from other outlets.

[i]
Thank you for your interest in the POCkit HSV-2 Rapid Test. First of all, you will
have to name a physician, medical professional, medical institution, clinic, or
anywhere with similar for which to address the shipment to.

The tests are sold in towers containing 5 kits. The cost is $97.50 per tower plus
$15 S&H within the continental United States. Please return the number of towers you
will request, your address and country, and we can give you a purchase and shipping
estimate.

Thank you again.
[/i]

I have one quick rather simple questions.

Upon reading numerous posts in this forum, if I were to believe you all, I would come to the conclusion that aids is virtually impossible to catch. My questions is simply this. Then why or how are so many fricken people catching this virus? Now you must remember it is a VIRUS! Viruses, in general, are fair to quite easily passed from one person to another. Why does over half the continent of Africa have aids, why does 32% of Asia have aids, why do males in America under the age of 25 today have a 36% chance of contracting aids in their lifetime? People get real, it's easy to catch! It's a fricken virus, yes you can get it from a BBBJ, male to female sex or from eating out a pussy! Get real, already! Most HIV positive people these days, do not engage in anal sex, do not use IV drugs,
Best estimates place 65-85% of all new HIV cases were contracted from prostitutes, world wide. A west pack tour coming back from Thailand usually has 8% of it's crew test positive for HIV in the coming months.
TANG!

Bullshit.

That's a whole lot of scare tactic stats which contradict information that is simply everywhere, and which you just throw out as if it actually means something. Please cite where your information comes from, as some of your numbers are clearly baloney and don't agree with known and reliable sources.

Half of the continent of Africa does not have HIV/AIDS, for example, (29 million estimated cases, 800 million people -- you do the math) and your numbers on Asia are also ridiculously off (7 million estimated infected, population base of multiple billions.) UNAIDS/WHO say that Cambodia has the highest infection rate on the continent, and that's 2.6%. Sex workers there are the worst, and they're at a 40% infection rate. The rest of Asia is generally far lower in all aspects. Thailand's overall percentage of infected population in 1999 was 1.2%, and things are supposed to have improved since then due to aggressive condom education. It's very well documented that Thailand has had major success in reducing the HIV/AIDS rate since 1993 through aggressive education and condom distribution campaign. Non-brothel sex workers there are infected at vastly lower rates, and most tourists are not using brothels in Thailand.

As to why people catch it, well, people fuck a lot, and plenty of people still don't use condoms, particularly in third world areas, where the cost of condoms makes it virtually impossible. There's obviously a cumulative effect to exposure, in that most of the statistics quoted here regarding transmission look at individual encounters. There's also a big difference between theoretical risk and documented risk.

The CDC says that, yes, AIDS can be transmitted via oral sex, but even in its "definitive" study about this it says it's impossible to rule out that the examples cited came from other sexual practices, and in fact its primary findings were about [i]giving[/i] blowjobs, not receiving. Its fact sheet on eating pussy says, "The risk of HIV transmission during cunnilingus is extremely low compared to vaginal and anal sex. However, there have been a few cases of HIV transmission most likely resulting from oral-vaginal sex." Hardly definitive, and hardly something to send anyone into a panic. HIV is not known to be transmitted through saliva, so transmission via oral sex has to be direct contact with a mouth sore or wound. There are NO clearly documented cases of someone getting infected from [i]receiving[/i] a blowjob -- if you have evidence otherwise, please point me to it.

Just because something is a virus doesn't mean it's out there infecting you every time the wind blows. AIDS has been described as a "tremendously inefficient disease" in terms of its transmission. Obviously, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be very worried about it, since it can be a death sentence, but that also doesn't mean people should run around screaming that the sky is falling.

Joe-you're right on point, as there is no way that Tang can corroborate his outlandish claims with any sort of factual documentation.

In fact, because his assertions are so off the wall, he is actually performing a disservice to this board, if his intent is to encourage people to practice safe sex, as people will ignore the underlying message due to the high BS quotient. thor

[quote]
Originally posted by gettingtang
[i]Upon reading numerous posts in this forum, if I were to believe you all, I would come to the conclusion that aids is virtually impossible to catch. My questions is simply this. Then why or how are so many fricken people catching this virus? [/i][/quote]

The probability for a man to catch HIV from a single covered vaginal encounter with an infected woman is estimated to range from one in several thousand to one in tens of thousands. It is seven times worse if the encounter is bareback, and about ten times worse for a woman. There are billions of people on this planet having sex, and tens of millions of already infected people. That's why "so many" are catching the virus.

[quote][i]Why does over half the continent of Africa have aids, why does 32% of Asia have aids, why do males in America under the age of 25 today have a 36% chance of contracting aids in their lifetime?[/i][/quote]

I'll be happy to provide references for the numbers that I mentioned. Could you kindly provide references for your numbers so that readers can independently verify the information?

[quote] [i]It's a fricken virus, yes you can get it from a BBBJ, male to female sex or from eating out a pussy![/i][/quote]

Yes, and you can also get hit by lightning. What matters is the PROBABILITY. That's what determines the risk-reward tradeoff.

[quote][i] Best estimates place 65-85% of all new HIV cases were contracted from prostitutes, world wide. A west pack tour coming back from Thailand usually has 8% of it's crew test positive for HIV in the coming months.[/i][/quote]

Again, could you please provide the references? Thank you.

I guess the scariest number of all is 1, as probability does not matter if it would directly affect you. Rather than probabilities, we should be exercising more caution. Maybe I am just anal (no, not that way!), but I ask all my girls to shower, not just splash some water on her pubic hairs, before and after- even if we do it again afterwards. I guess this is a custom I picked up in Asia and have not found as common elsewhere.

Secondly, I like any other man with a pair of genitals attached enjoy BBBJ when possible. However, I limit my time my finishing with the BBBJ when pleasure is most heigthened. I think I got sick once from one girl who sucked me so hard for 20 minutes, my member had turned pink and red from the fricition from being inside her mouth so long. Just a UTI but scared the shit out of me nonetheless. So after finishing with a BBBJ, I proceed to go clean up immediately and drink lots of fluids. It feels so good to [url=http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140][CodeWord140][/url] just after sex as this too reduces the chances of catching something.

Lastly, there are some activities which do no seem to be mentioned here which although I do not participate in or seek, others are putting themselves in a higher risk category. Anything anal for me is just not really right. I even wash my own ass after a girl rims me but when one girl asked me to rim her, I almost burst out laughing. No way I am going in there even when I introduce the finger, I make sure to have alcohol wipes or soap nearby to clean up. I suppose it is not so much getting AIDS that worries me in that zone, it is something like hepatitis which is more common and easier to catch and which is transmitted through fecal matter. The AIDS virus does not live long outside of the human body but I always make sure the condom is still on right before I cum. Great sensation too pulling it right before you cum and right at that moment slowing putting it it again. Or even better, cumming all over her tits!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hysteromania
[i]
Lastly, there are some activities which do no seem to be mentioned here which although I do not participate in or seek, others are putting themselves in a higher risk category. Anything anal for me is just not really right. I even wash my own ass after a girl rims me but when one girl asked me to rim her, I almost burst out laughing. No way I am going in there even when I introduce the finger, I make sure to have alcohol wipes or soap nearby to clean up. I suppose it is not so much getting AIDS that worries me in that zone, it is something like hepatitis which is more common and easier to catch and which is transmitted through fecal matter. [/i][/QUOTE]

Also there is the fact that it smells like shit.

From a post by Zidaho in another section:

[i] Information found on this WSG site regarding the herpes test kit, "PocKit" was GREAT! However, my initial investigation and contact with the company Diagnology indicates I must find a local physician to order the kits for me. The OraQuick for HIV testing can be ordered in 25 lots directly off their web site: www.orasure.com in that quantity they are $300. or $12.00 per kit.
[/i]

And the winner is ......

I have been researching the subject of testing versus covering in order to quantify the risks involved and have a fair comparison between the two scenarios (see my February 26 post for background), and it's time to post the results. I will start with the conclusions, and then give the details and references. Although the conclusions are similar for HIV and herpes, the reasons are quite different.

[b]Bottom Line[/b]
[size=3][i]
1. As far as catching HIV is concerned, an uncovered vaginal encounter with a provider who tested negative for HIV using OraQuick or MedMira Reveal is about three times safer than a covered vaginal encounter with a provider who was not tested.

2. As far as catching herpes-2 is concerned, an uncovered vaginal encounter with a provider who tested negative for herpes-2 using PocKit is about three times safer than a covered vaginal encounter with a provider who was not tested.
[/size][/i]
[b]Main Components[/b]

The components of the calculation are:

1. The probability that an infected provider tests negative. These are [url=http://www.aegis.com/news/bw/2002/BW021104.html]one in 250 for OraQuick[/url] and [url=http://www.pockit.com/pockitpro/herpes_prod_pubs.htm]one in 25 for PocKit[/url].

2. The relative risk of uncovered versus covered vaginal encounter, which is [url=http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/global/hiv/01072004.htm]a factor of seven for HIV transmission[/url].

3. The "seronegative window" risk, that is the initial period after infection when a person can infect others with the virus, but still tests negative for antibodies (see [url=http://www.thebody.com]thebody website[/url]). The risk is affected by the length of the window, and the infectiousness during it.

It is component 3 that took most of the research. The details follow for herpes-2 (straightforward) and HIV (quite involved).

[b]Herpes[/b]

Most of the risk in the testing scenario comes from the one in 25 sensitivity of PocKit. The seronegative window for herpes-2 is 13 days (median) which is very short compared to the professional lifetime of a provider, not to mention that it is the period of the first (and worst) outbreak that should be quite notable hence avoidable. Therefore, the added risk of the seronegative window is very small, and the "three times" estimate comes from comparing 7 for condoms to 25 for PocKit, rounding in favor of condoms.

[b]HIV[/b]

This is where it gets a bit complicated. The one in 250 sensitivity of OraQuick is so large that the risk mostly comes from the seronegative window. First, I thought the only factor of that risk was the length of the seronegative window compared to the professional lifetime of an HIV+ provider (since this would give us an estimate of the percentage of HIV+ providers in their seronegative window). That would have made test kits MUCH safer than condoms.

Then came bad news for test kits: Providers are [url=http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidsline/2000/jun/A0061887.html]more infectious during the seronegative window because of the high viral load[/url]. The[url=http://www.natip.org/viralload.html] viral load[/url] measures how much HIV there is in the blood stream. The higher the viral load, the more infectious the person is, which makes sense since there are more viruses to go around. It also makes sense that the viral load gets high during the seronegative window since the antibodies that fight the virus have not formed yet, hence the virus is having a field day multiplying.

Then came some good news for test kits. The [url=http://www.thebody.com/cfa/rita_winter02/images/figure1.gif]profile of the viral load[/url] is high only for a short period, and the resulting infectiousness [url=http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2002/18mar02/18male.html]increases slowly with the viral load[/url]. By calculating the average infectiousness from the profile, we get that the seronegative window is equivalent to 80 days of post-window infectiousness. If the professional lifetime of an HIV+ provider is about 5 years, we arrive at the "three times" estimate, again rounding in favor of condoms. If it is more than 5 years, the edge of the test kits will be higher.

Like the herpes initial outbreak (but definitely less dramatic), there are symptoms for the seronegative window in the case of HIV. This is something that I did not know before as I assumed HIV to be totally asymptomatic until full blown AIDS develops. The most common symptoms are [url=http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/recent/primary/053102e.html]fever and rash[/url] which should be somewhat notable. Although this factor magnifies the edge of test kits, it was not considered in the "three times" estimate as it is a bit subjective.

One more factor that favors test kits but was not considered in the calculation is that [url=http://www.thebody.com********AIDS/Labs/Archive/Science/Q145347.html]higher viral loads seem to trigger antibody formation[/url], hence shortening the dangerous "blind" period for the test kits.

[b]Final Word[/b]

I tried my best to seek out credible references, and to make an unbiased calculation. I would welcome any remarks that criticize or support my references or reasoning, any relevant information that can be verified, or any questions about any aspect of this post. If I made an error, please tell me. My real goal here is to know if I should go the testing route. For that, my vital interest lies in what is the correct conclusion, not who arrived at it.

The flaws I see are:

1) The odds of catching HIV or Herpes with a provider using a condom is an unknown number. It is almost totally dependent upon the rubber breaking - which is an individual statistic for each man - what type or size of condom, how you use it, your sex technique, etc.

2) Whether your provider is going to allow you to administer medical tests in a bar or hotel room.

3) Whether your provider is going to let you have sex with her without a condom no matter WHAT tests you give her and yourself. How does she know that you don't have HIV? How does she know if your testing is real or bogus? Maybe in Thailand but most professional professionals I know in the US or Mexico want it covered. No exceptions. And by using these ladies, your odds of having an HIV infected provider is very low. When you seek out providers who are willing to have unprotected sex, you are already in a high risk pool

Good Luck . . .

Personally, I find the bottom line to be this -- three times safer is still substantially lower than the degree of safety you get using condoms. You want to combine testing with condoms and you're safer still, but one missed per 25 or one missed per 250 is still pretty lousy when you consider the potential consequences.