Columbia Researchers Develop HIV Detection Cards

Status
Not open for further replies.

rad666

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2010
23
0
18,560
It may only cost a dollar to produce, but they way businesses operate these days (profit over anything), they'll probably charge hundreds of dollars to buy one.
 

Soma42

Distinguished
Aug 11, 2010
23
0
18,560
This will most likely never hit American clinics and only be used in developing nations where ARTs are provided through organizations like PEPFAR or UNAIDS. Pharmaceutical companies are greedy bastards when it comes to American health and they get away with it because enough people can afford it.
 

burnley14

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
306
1
18,940
[citation][nom]rad666[/nom]It may only cost a dollar to produce, but they way businesses operate these days (profit over anything), they'll probably charge hundreds of dollars to buy one.[/citation]
Unfortunately you are probably right, but remember that you aren't just paying for production, you're also paying the millions spent in R&D to make a product so useful.
 

fyend

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
57
0
18,580
[citation][nom]rad666[/nom]It may only cost a dollar to produce, but they way businesses operate these days (profit over anything), they'll probably charge hundreds of dollars to buy one.[/citation]

In just about every country on earth besides the USA it'll cost about $5. In the USA it'll be $600. Thanks HMOs, corrupt politicians and the greedy drug companies that lobby them! :)
 

Kryan

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2008
130
0
18,630
4-5% false positive rate ...hmmm not enough for me to take my chances with that hot, but suspiciously flirtatious and easy to catch young dame I brought home...now where did I put those con....
 

Kryan

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2008
130
0
18,630
the 15 minute wait is also very fun to imagine! :D /taps foot while waiting for damn test so I can get my freak on! talk about a mood killer! LOL
 

Burodsx

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
89
0
18,580
So now we'll be exchanging blood samples before engaging in random encounters. I guess that can't be a bad thing.
 

sunsetsky

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2011
2
0
18,510
I just had to comment, to clarify what appears to be some misunderstandings about HIV testing and HIV transmission.

The above detection card is nothing absolutely nothing novel in science. The exact same technology to detect HIV is used by thousands of clinicians and outreach programs throughout the country on a daily basis. For those of you who live in the gay areas of West Hollywood or Castro, you would know that outreach vans park in front of clubs, and offer 15 minute my swab hiv tests, more specifically called an "HIV RAPID TEST." It is similar to a pregnancy test, in that you swipe your inner cheeks with a dip-stick, you go have a drink in the bar, you come back out, and you either have no lines meaning HIV Free, or a line meaning HIV Positive antibodies were detected. Again, the card above is nothing novel, but rather interesting because of it's size and convenience, although Rapid dip sticks are just as small and convenient, and don't require draws of blood, only a mouth swab.

Secondly, all HIV test, even the most sophisticated and expensive HIV test in the world, knows as the NAAT HIV test will statistically have false results including false positives.

Third, an individual may have been recently infected with HIV, but may have not developed HIV antibodies yet. What does this mean? This means, your little bedroom hook-up buddy could test negative, although they are in fact positive, and still pass on the HIV virus. From the last time a person was sexually active, there is a 6 month window where this individual could have been infected with HIV yet test negative, however they can be completely infectious to others during this 6 month window. Basically what I'm trying to say, just because someone tests negative doesn't mean they are. If you test negative today, and you don't have any more sexual partners for 6 months, and you get retested again in 6 months, then you are most likely negative for sure.

An exception to the above is getting a NAAT test, which uses a different technology to detect HIV infection. Instead of testing for antibodies, NAAT detects HIV nucleic acid. What does this mean? This mean the 6 month window is reduced to 1-2 weeks. If you had sexual activity with someone, you wait 2 weeks without having sex with anyone else, and you get a NAAT test, if it shows up negative, you are most likely negative. The NAAT test is very sophisticated and expensive, so chances are your insurance or doctor will not offer or cover a NAAT test.

So again, this card is nothing revolutionary. Mouth swab dip stick "rapid" tests are used every single day in doctors offices, in HIV testing clinics, and even outside in-front of clubs and bars by HIV outreach programs.

Couple more things. HIV can be transmitted via oral sex, for both the individual receiving and giving oral sex. HIV can also be transmitted by kissing, although this is rather rare. HIV can also be transmitted by pre-cum or anal-oral play.

Remember to always use a condom, even if someone tested negative...there is that 6 month window, don't forget!
 

azgard

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2002
52
0
18,580
[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]Unfortunately you are probably right, but remember that you aren't just paying for production, you're also paying the millions spent in R&D to make a product so useful.[/citation]

Honestly, that line is way overused. See here for a great example of the industry abusing its power.
 

whatisupthere

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2010
17
0
18,560
[citation][nom]leandrodafontoura[/nom]A false posive is ok...a false negative would be a problem.[/citation]
You are correct in that this combination (sensitive test) is best for an initial screening test. However, this can cause major problems if there is no access to a specific test like a western to distinguish the false positives from true positives. 5 percent of people taking the test will falsely think they have HIV.
 

sunsetsky

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2011
2
0
18,510
[citation][nom]whatisupthere[/nom]You are correct in that this combination (sensitive test) is best for an initial screening test. However, this can cause major problems if there is no access to a specific test like a western to distinguish the false positives from true positives. 5 percent of people taking the test will falsely think they have HIV.[/citation]

When someone tests positive, a Western Blot shouldn't be used, a Western Blot is looking for HIV proteins and is not as reliable and affirmative of infection as testing for the actual HIV nucleic acid. A positive test should ONLY be confirmed by a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT).

 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
197
0
18,640
[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]Unfortunately you are probably right, but remember that you aren't just paying for production, you're also paying the millions spent in R&D to make a product so useful.[/citation]

With all due respect, that argument has been busted for years as bullplop. The Pharma companies are ALWAYS saying that they 'put load of dollars into creating new breakthroughs' but the real blunt fact: GOVERNMENT PAYS MOST, IF NOT ALMOST ALL, OF THE COSTS!
 

K-zon

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2010
179
0
18,630
You are given now the "power" of say diagnostic compabilities for what is a very decent issue all in the place of the fact of a card.

Just remember that in some ideas of its use thing seem to be placed outside some ideas of "seperate" uses for the idea of interest for use for an idea of interest. But of it though probably carries more then one use of interest and probably reusable

Which is fine, cause even say being cheap can just throw them away. .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.