HIV test takes 10 seconds

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 7:30 AM GMT
    Yesterday I had the "instant" HIV test. The doctor had a chat with me about my sexual history in the past few months (in my case this went on for quite a long time) then we discussed the possible outcomes and then I gave my consent.

    He pricks your finger and fills a small vial with your blood which he then squeezes into what looks like a contact lense case. He pours a little jar of blueish fluid into it and ten seconds later one of two dots appears. You're either pregnant or not, oh, sorry, that's the other test.

    Anyway, it was all painless. No waiting a week for results. Worth doing if you don't want to hang around for a week. The clinic also gave me useful information about PEP and the various odds of transmission.

    An unprotected fuck from an HIV+ top is a 1 in 33 chance of transmission while a unprotected fuck by a top of an HIV+ bottom is something like 1 in 1300 chance of transmission.
  • Fusion98102

    Posts: 164

    Jan 09, 2009 5:47 PM GMT
    Interesting information. I am assuming this is checking for antibodies and not viral load? If so, then just remember that the average time it takes for antibodies to appear is 25 days, though they say waiting 3 months is the safest bet. So if you get tested and its negative, but your last unprotected or dangerous exposure was less than 25 days (or 3 months if you wanna go by CDC regulations) then you're not necessarily in the clear, so don't go having a fuck-fest to celebrate! Only the viral load test can detect the actual virus, in which case it can pretty much detect it within days, but that test is more expensive and is not usually the one the clinics use unless you request it. The rapid tests, like the one you mentioned, or the others (some are even oral tests) are checking for antibodies which have to build up in your body, over time. Everyone's immune system is different so seroconversion (the build up of antibodies) takes time.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing the new technology! I hadn't seen this one used before. Glad it was painless and simple and hopefully we can get more people to get tested and know (and share) their status.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 6:10 PM GMT
    I thought it took six months... just to be sure.

    Meaning if u want to have un protected sex with ur boyfriend lock up both ur dick's in a chasity belt for six months (pee through a cathadar) and strap on a "one way value-hole: for the ass.

    Then, after the results come back, you and you boytoy can have bareback sex for one night.

    How many would do that? lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 6:13 PM GMT
    "The doctor had a chat with me about my sexual history in the past few months (in my case this went on for quite a long time) then we discussed the possible outcomes and then I gave my consent."

    Wow, good for your doctor, Mine never brings up my sexual health whenever i have a phsyical each year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 6:19 PM GMT
    These are doctors who specialise in sexual health. They are not your usual doctor who you would see for a health check up.

    The based in STD clinics and screen you for everything.

    The 1-minute test is actually screening you for anti-bodies to HIV. You have to remember that all these tests are 3 months out of date as there is a 'window' period where the antibodies take time to develop. Something like that anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 6:36 PM GMT
    redheadguy said
    An unprotected fuck from an HIV+ top is a 1 in 33 chance of transmission while a unprotected fuck by a top of an HIV+ bottom is something like 1 in 1300 chance of transmission.

    Huh.....that's interesting. I didn't know it was that "hard" (relatively speaking) to contract HIV when all of the general info I've come across, both in school when I was younger and in my adult life, seem to stop just short of saying you need to get tested if someone who's HIV+ breathes on you wrong. What do the respective stats change to when condoms are involved?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 7:58 PM GMT
    Texian said
    redheadguy said
    An unprotected fuck from an HIV+ top is a 1 in 33 chance of transmission while a unprotected fuck by a top of an HIV+ bottom is something like 1 in 1300 chance of transmission.

    Huh.....that's interesting. I didn't know it was that "hard" (relatively speaking) to contract HIV when all of the general info I've come across, both in school when I was younger and in my adult life, seem to stop just short of saying you need to get tested if someone who's HIV+ breathes on you wrong. What do the respective stats change to when condoms are involved?


    I really wouldn't even give that much thought to those numbers. HIV tests are pretty cheap and easy to get through. If someones having sex, then they ought to have an HIV test at least every 3-6 months. If you're not having any clear symptoms of stds, then at least get an STD examine every 6-12 months.

    I just don't understand people who don't test. Having unprotected sex or any sex at all. Hey, we're human, but testing is when we take responsibility for our behavior/health.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 9:19 PM GMT
    Texian said
    redheadguy said
    An unprotected fuck from an HIV+ top is a 1 in 33 chance of transmission while a unprotected fuck by a top of an HIV+ bottom is something like 1 in 1300 chance of transmission.

    Huh.....that's interesting. I didn't know it was that "hard" (relatively speaking) to contract HIV when all of the general info I've come across, both in school when I was younger and in my adult life, seem to stop just short of saying you need to get tested if someone who's HIV+ breathes on you wrong. What do the respective stats change to when condoms are involved?


    HIV is not a very hardy virus. It dies instantaneously when exposed to atmosphere. It's fairly difficult to contract HIV, but all it takes is one bad day when the odds are not on your side. Don't let this deter you from practicing safe sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2009 10:07 PM GMT
    CitizenSol saidI just don't understand people who don't test. Having unprotected sex or any sex at all. Hey, we're human, but testing is when we take responsibility for our behavior/health.

    The two biggest factors, I would guess, are arrogance and fear. Arrogance that one is somehow immune or in some other way incapable of having contracted anything. Fear of knowing the truth, preferring to keep one's head in the sand where it's "safe" rather than facing a potential positive test result for some STD as if refusal to acknowledge it keeps it from being true.

    As for the numbers, it was just curiosity on my part. Nothing that'll really influence my behaviors, but I was pretty astonished to learn the unprotected stats, so curiosity demanded to know what the related protected stats were.

    rezdylan saidDon't let this deter you from practicing safe sex.

    No worries there. Did my stupid stuff in college and got lucky. Since then it's been condoms every time.