The only thing cut and pasted was the link for the NYTime article in trying  to bring context to this board.  My medical info isn't cut and pasted.  It took a lot of time and experience.

Currently, there is only one single home testing kit for HIV. It is Oraquick by Orasure.  And as the NY Times article said, and I said, it is not yet approved and the FDA has not yet approved.  You cannot get any approved Home Testing HIV kit on line (Hooker Cops of course did not say where).  Hook the  Hooker Cops was more concerned in discrediting me.

So here are the facts:

The home testing kit is not available to you.  Testing kits that are rapid are available to you if you are licensed as an MD, or a clinic.  I think  that  leaves Hooker Cops out.

You cannot get a home testing kit on  line if you aren't, and you cannot go on line and order this kit for personal use, because it is not  FDA approved. If you do  you're  breaking the  law, and then Hooker Cops will encounter real cops and they will be feds.

What Hooker Cops also is blithly unconcerned about is that when Orasure is FDA approved to go on shelves as I said some time this year or next year (they are at this moment hoping for approval but do not have it), you will face to important pieces of information to consider that are also not cut and paste.

1) One is the 93% accuracy in a small pilot survey.  When it fans out for wide sales, that number will be less.
2) The  window of seronegativity. Somehow, I don't see HookerCops and seronegativity in the same senttence of it's own composing in it's lifetime.

Good luck and LOL Hooker  Cops,

JeffEng

Modified by admin

Just wondering, do any providers or has anyone known of providers using a Rapid Oral HIV test?

These things arn't so "rapid" (20 min for: http://oraquickhivtests.com) but hey "20 min" isn't that bad. Also they are kinda pricey if you use them all the time, but you can kick the fee to your customers.

I'm new to the hobby so I'm not sure how the "safety" aspect of things is handled, but I'd defiantly feel better being with a provider I can check on the spot.

If someone can shed some light on if or how providers screen clients/themselves I'd be interested in hearing about it.

PS: Is it ok to ask a provider to show you a recent std check? or is this going overboard/paranoid?

-- Modified on 6/25/2012 11:35:24 PM

It has been  shown in trials to be 93% accurate during home  testing. It's not approved yet for sale to the public, but will be some time later this year or next year.

The first one was approved by unanimous FDA committee vote of 17-0 in early 5/12 called Oraquick by Orasure for home use. The FDA has not voted yet whether to put it on the shelf in stores, but they will sometime this year.  So right now, they aren't available on shelves, so you can't get it yet, and providers can't either.

They've been making them since 2004 for use in medical offices and clinics.  The feeling of the FDA  committee was that wide spread availability beats no test at all, so the more people test with some kind of test the better.

But if you're looking to be sure a partner doesn't have HIV or you don't, you want to have an ELISA test, and then a confirmatory Western Blot and there's one other important caveat that most patients are not aware of, and that is the ******window of time when a person can be seronegative even if they have blatant symptoms, even if they have had both the ELISA and more expensive more complicated Western Blot confirmatory test  That window of time is anywhere from 4 weeks to six months, and for most people practicing heterosexual safe sex the testing frequency should be at least once a year.  

No matter who tests you, or what test you use, if you are human, you should be educated about the window of seronegativity in which you might test negative. Most HIV clinics, even when they are reliable testers, don't educate patients about this window, and some MDs don't but they should, so you are being educated now.  

The Window:

There is a "window period" of seronegativity during which an infected person does not give a positive western blot HIV test or ELISA, even though the viral load is high and the patient may exhibit some symptoms. This seronegative period can last for six months before seroconversion although the latter usually occurs between one and four weeks after infection.

Federal Panel Backs Easier Home Test for H.I.V. New York Times 5/15/12
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/health/research/fda-panel-backs-easier-home-hiv-test.html

My experience and reading suggests while most providers are very meticulous about not contracting STDs, and hygeine as reflected on this board countless times, they would probably not opt to be  offering the OTC oral test when and if it is approved for sale to the lay public given the volume of their customers and the 93% accuracy, but providers would have to tell you if they will have it on the future date when it is available for sale to the public.

The series on the extent to whether providers would use this test for themselves has not been done yet because it's not in the marketplace yet, but I suspect they will stick with the more sensitive and specific two tests that are being used by clinics and offices that they are already using.

Providers can speak for themselves, but I don't believe they consider it their job to do STD/HIV testing on clients at all. They have enough components to consider in their time frame without opening mini-labs, and getting their clients to shower and be clean in all anatomical area/fresh seems to be the focus  on TER boards.

You can certainly purchase it when and  if it gets on shelves either late this year or early next year,  and use it, I just consider it my job  to educate you on their accuracy and the window. Again the accuracy is less than the ELISA and Western Blot most clinics use.  Many physician's offices perform ELISA but not  Western Blot so check with your testing facility.

When it comes to a lethal disease, I don't think you need medical training to realize that 100% and testing often enough to overcome "the window" I just pointed out is the way to go.

You are prescient and heads up to be asking though.

Good luck,

JeffEng16











-- Modified on 6/26/2012 6:31:49 AM

... but anyone can order them online and have been able to for awhile. So, yes, providers and anyone else can get them now if they want.

One of them is that you are NEVER going to know the status of the woman you are seeing in regards to STD's.  The fact is she doesn't know your status either.  That's why you should always practice safe sex.  

Having sex with multiple partners, even safe sex, carries without a certain amount of risk.  If you are not prepared to accept the risk you may be better off staying away from the hobby.  

Asking a girl for current STD test results will not generally go over well.

walking out with it as it does to walk in the clinic with no appt. and get my results in 24 hours.

Word for word. Just look at the "Window" text in your original post.

It's okay. You can give credit to the original author later.

http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv3.htm

Not to mention a complete waste of time.  Any girl who would see you if she knew she had an STD would lie about it if you asked her.  Seeing a well-reviewed TER provider, while it's not insurance, is your safest bet.

...as with most of life look for the good and leave the rest alone. Also note the usual tone of this board by reading other posts. Feel free to ask away.

1) Everytime you shoot off your  mouth you make  a fool of yourself.
2)  Orasure which is not approved yet, misses 7% of HIV cases per year or 3800 of them.  Many of those people have unprotected sex, and some of their condoms break.  93% of HIV is ID'd which makes them worthless for anyone who knows serious  medicine.
The test has been  shown on the other hand, to ID HIV negative patients tested, but that 1% represents about 1000 cases a year missed.
Those are the reasons not to use the test ever, and why a lot of the physician community in this c country is against the approval of them.

3) You keep shrieking that I'm not an MD and you are wrong.
4) A lot of us see a lot of people who for their own reasons don't want to be reviewed. 4 reviews is no indication of how many people I see, and it's absolutely none of your business. Concentrate on making sure your  profile is accurate and your business.
5) Anyone who puts a site on the web and has a link here "See my TER reviews" is inviting the web to look at it, and cannot unless she's a Borderline Personality acuse anyone who does of "stalking her site." That's classic Borderline behavior and it's totally disingenuous. If you don't want your website viewed, take it the fuck down.
6) No on in the world gives a shit what you think when you make it up or refuse to read what is clearly in front of you--with absolutely "no drama." I deal in fact. I'm going  to show you below the figures that you misinterpreted to put  it politely.
7) Unreviewed BP girls were  one, and it was months ago.  The other girl had one phony review, Eva, and if you look at 4/5 of her real reviews they all  agree with me. People continue to get suckered by her because they don't read our 4 reviews here.
That mistake will never be made, and most experienced clients here get burned once in a while. My mistakes were months ago, and they don't happen.  Many providers leave the hobby, and some of them go to civie jobs and don't want to be reviewed for whatever reasons. I respect that when they request it.  I'm  not obligated to review or not to review.

False statement from alleged "health care worker" London Rayne:  

"Rayne" posted:
"Also note the accuracy rate...it's not the 93 percent you said it was."  This is totally wrong, because "Rayne" cannot read medical stats; she has no training or experience in doing so. Until she learns, she shouldn't be interpreting them falsely. A middle school student could read the article I linked and report it accurately, so try it again.

Actual figures on preliminary field testing of Oraquick, the best home test for HIV yet, and one that should never ever be bought or used.


The figures on the Orasure Oraquick test are again posted here, Rayne won't read them but the  OP already has had them for hours so he wouldn 't get confused by 3 prolific flamers.

FDA considers approval of OraQuick In-Home HIV test
May 12, 2012
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57432838-10391704/fda-considers-approval-of-oraquick-in-home-hiv-test/

Direct Quote from  the FDA field tests:

"FDA reviewers said Friday the OraQuick In-Home HIV test could play a significant role in slowing the spread of HIV, according to briefing documents posted online. But they also raised concerns about the test's accuracy.

Public health experts estimate one-fifth, or about 240,000 people, of the 1.2 million HIV carriers in the U.S. are not aware of their status. Testing is one of the chief means of slowing new infections, which have held steady at about 50,000 per year for two decades.

In a trial conducted by the company OraSure Technologies Inc., the test correctly detected HIV in those carrying the virus 93 percent of the time. The FDA estimates the test would miss about 3,800 HIV-positive people per year, if approved for U.S. consumers.

The test was more accurate at correctly clearing patients who do not have the disease. In company studies, OraQuick correctly identified HIV-negative users 99 percent of the time."

3800 HIV positive people a year is a fuckload of people to miss and those people can have sex with a fuckova lot more people and give them HIV Ms. Debate Captain.  I wouldn't run with your assertion that it's not 93% accurate in IDing HIV because that's what it is.

In field tests which will fall short of what happens when it gets on the market it correctly ID'd negative users 99% of the time.""

I really don't care about your opinions, "HookerCops", or this Cyber flamer.  I hate flamers.  I hate people who  get delusional when they get angry as you have tonight, and begin to cast personal aspersions at individuals they don't know. Pparticularly when someone posts accurate information with the intention of helping.  Going off with no facts and hijacking the thread which you all did, is destructive and inappropriate.

Because the three of you wrecked this thread with flames, the OP got a concise summary in answer to his question from a medical professional. And lastly, this isn't about agreeing with me.  My posting here was to convey the medical facts about appropriate HIV testing consistent with CDC and Dr. Anthony Fauci's guidelines at NIH. Google him or not.

HIV testing and use of many medical lab tests for a life threatening illness is not an area where there is a committee of opinion on a website like TER. The facts are in  and I've given them to you straight up.

When you say something as wrong as you have about HIV testing, and the figures on the test we talked about, I'm going to correct you.

Get some sleep and see your shrink.

JeffEng16

Check your PM, as I know you will. I was not going to let 3 beligerant flamers who train wrecked this thread get in the way of anyone's right to accurate medical advice. I never have and I never will.

sbny--

Thanks for your question.

1) Stay away from the oral quick tests. They have been around since the early 1990's but they miss HIV cases too much of the time.  The test you linked  and mentioned is not yet approved by FDA, and many of us in medicine hope it never will. It is available on the web, and the sites advertising it are replete with lies.  The testimonials are not from medical professionals, they are from unwitting suckers who are lay people.

It is for sale on a bullshit websites, and the cases it misses make it dangerous.

If it were 100% ID of HIV and 100% in saying you don't have it, I wouldn't care if Lady Gaga were selling it from Prague. But accuracy is the point, not whether it's approved yet except for medicolegal reasons for us.

The reason most MDs hate those tests and what you need to know is that the best and latest one Orasure's Oraquick in trials done from the FDA will miss about 3800 HIV cases per year. It IDs the people who are negative (No HIV) better 99% but when you're dealing with a deadly disease you want 100%.

Concerns as to Oraquick's Accuracy

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57432838-10391704/fda-considers-approval-of-oraquick-in-home-hiv-test/


2) Go to a clinic or MD office and get tested. They'll do an ELISA and a Western Blot if needed to confirm.

3) Nothing is 100% but they are the best we have.

4) HIV can take 4-24 weeks to show. NIHInfectious Disease Chief Tony Fauci, the best HIV researcher in the country, and my model for a fantastic physician, and former Chief at CDC recommends that heterosexual individuals practicing Safe Sex get tested once per year.

5) The only reason FDA is going to later this year or early next put Orasure Oraquick on the market is the philosophy I and many MDs don't like that if people test at home even though it misses 3800 HIV patients a year (who will have sex with hundreds of other people and potentially spread it, at least it will ID cases of HIV in patients that might not take the time to go to a clinic/MD for testing. That may be true, but we worry about the people who will get a false sense of security.

6) Get tested for HIV once a year if you have heterosexual protected sex. That's the recommendation of CDC, and Dr. Anthony Fauci who is Chief of Infectious Disease and one of the foremost HIV researchers for 30+ years in the world.  

We want you to feel comfortable and free to use the Newbie or any other board. You asked a very good important question and you deserve a straight answer.

Read the link above.

The link above has  the actual figures on the not yet approved Oraquick test and you'll see my concern in the 3800 HIV cases missed a year. It also misses about 1000 people who don't test positive for HIV.  The figures are that it ID's 93% of HIV posistive individuals and 99% of HIV negative ones.  That is 3800 cases of missed HIV a year and 1000 cases of missed people who don't test positive. That is medically totally unacceptable.

Remember people doing HIV tests are for sure having sex and if they think they're free and clear and have unprotected sex that's going to spread hundreds of more HIV cases.

Good luck,

JeffEng16

-- Modified on 6/27/2012 4:45:37 AM

This thread has been edited and some posts removed and/or modified.

Medical information provided on this or any board should not be considered 100% accurate.  While the responses provided may contain valuable information, health concerns and testing questions should be addressed with a licensed medical professional.

The OP asked for the following information due to his concerns about health safety issues:

- should and/or how does he 'check a provider' on the spot;
- how does provider screen clients for STDs
- how do providers test themselves for STDs

This thread is still open for anyone who can provide the OP info his three questions.

I don't see how it makes sense that a well-reviewed girl would be less likely to have an STD. If you think about it, the more risks (bbbj for example) the higher the score. And, some clients rate higher for BBFS, GS, and even scat, as well as multiple partners. Not all, but they are out there in largeer numbers than you would think. As providers, we are rewarded for taking more risks.

The biggest risk-taker I've known was an older, venerable, highly-reviewed lady with 10+ years in the business. Some of her lines: "if he looks clean, he is clean," "spermicide kills germs" and a few others I am forgetting. You would think that someone so experienced would know better - but she let her greed do the thinking for her. More risk, more reward - its true.

Just my two cents....
there are many places which offer rapid oral HIV tests. Testing for both HIV 1 and 2.
And a lot of times, these places ( usually state run clinics) are offered for free or no charge vs blood testing through a doctors office.

Here is how it works:

The test gathers saliva OR a droplet of blood from your finger if you so choose. It is checking for antibodies of HIV 1/2.
It runs what they call an ELISA test... pre liminary screening. If it comes back negative. that is your status as of RIGHT NOW. iF there has been possibility of exposure within the last 8-12 weeks, you should re-test in 3-6 months.

The blood test which is drawn at your doctors office is run the same way...
They take the blood, only test for HIV 1, it is not as sensitive as the ORAL test kits and they run the ELISA test. If the first test is negative, they discard the test and contact your doctor and tell them the results are "negative".

If they are running the test and the first ELISA test is positive, but the second is negative, they again will discard the test and tell you it is negative.
They will only report a positive if they recieve TWO positive ELISA tests...

NOW... further more. This should be followed up with, in the event you have a positive test come back... they will need to do more blood work to confirm the actually diagnosis of HIV and type.

Keep in mind it can take  up to 12 weeks... in some cases even 6 months for HIV antibodies to be present in one's body... so "spot checking" a client or provider isn't exactly going to safegaurd you or anyone against disease.

The only way to thoroughly protect yourself is by checking references and always playing safe. Use a rubber. ALWAYS!!!!!!!!!!!