Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds Want Routine HIV Testing For Americans
AP ^ | September 21 2006

Posted on 09/21/2006 9:49:28 AM PDT by jmc1969

All Americans between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for HIV to help catch infections earlier and stop the spread of the deadly virus, federal health recommendations announced Thursday say.

"We know that many HIV infected people seek health care and they don't get tested. And many people are not diagnosed until late in the course of their illness, when they're already sick with HIV-related conditions," said Dr. Timothy Mastro, acting director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

"By identifying people earlier through a screening program, we'll allow them to access life-extending therapy, and also through prevention services, learn how to avoid transmitting HIV infection to others," he said.

The announcement was hailed by some HIV patient advocates and health policy experts. They said the guidelines could help end the stigma of HIV testing and lead to needed care for an estimated 250,000 Americans who don't yet know they have the disease.

"I think it's an incredible advance. I think it's courageous on the part of the CDC," said A. David Paltiel, a health policy expert at the Yale University School of Medicine.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: behealthypeasant; forthefatherland; govwatch; nannystatecrap
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: jmc1969

Forget about it.


21 posted on 09/21/2006 10:17:21 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

HIV infection can be a death sentence; even when the time of death is greatly delayed by modern medicine.

States should make it a crime to spread the HIV virus, period.

That should be based soley on someone with HIV infecting someone else with HIV, whether the one who infected the other knew they had HIV or not. Because, even if they had HIV and did not know it, then they behaved recklessly, negligently by first knowingly having unprotected sex (or sharing drug needles) and not following up with an HIV test afterwards, and then going on to have unprotected sex (or sharing needles) again with someone else.

If persons who do this knew they could be prosecuted if they passed the HIV virus by negligent behavior, knowingly or not (because it is negligent not to know), then all kinds of negligent sexual behavior would go out of favor over night.

There was a time when this kind of view helped end the extent to which negligent sexual behaviors had made syphillus a major disease (carried for many years and then passed to a new spouse). People getting a marriage license had to present a blood test.


22 posted on 09/21/2006 10:35:05 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Follows on the heels of the recommendation that ALL adolescent girls receive the genital warts vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. All this is an effort to make us all "equal."

Dontcha know that ANYONE can come down with cervical cancer and AIDS? Sheesh ... must be in the air or sumthin.

23 posted on 09/21/2006 10:36:33 AM PDT by PLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
I'll offer a compromise - I promise to get checked after every night of wild anonymous passive anal bathhouse sex I have. Yes, I realize that's a lot of testing...

Seriously, it doesn't hurt to get tested as a part of a regular physical but it's an extra expense for a low-risk population. If you're a health-care professional subject to needle sticks or a recent transfusion recipient or anything else that might change that low-risk status you'd be silly not to be tested, IMHO.

24 posted on 09/21/2006 10:41:47 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldleft

Yes, and you also should know "recommended" will eventually be replaced with "required".

BTW, what is your social security number? /sarc


25 posted on 09/21/2006 10:42:06 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

No


26 posted on 09/21/2006 10:42:48 AM PDT by fml
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
Ridiculous. It is still a disease of gays and intravenous drug users. Most of the population never comes in contact with either group in a fashion that would communicate HIV.
27 posted on 09/21/2006 10:55:30 AM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

I don't think so.


28 posted on 09/21/2006 11:06:22 AM PDT by darkangel82 (Higher visibility leads to greater zottability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; freepatriot32

Nanny state and libertarian ping


29 posted on 09/21/2006 11:07:26 AM PDT by darkangel82 (Higher visibility leads to greater zottability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
No thanks...I do not need unnecessary tests and especially tests conducted by the government.
30 posted on 09/21/2006 11:13:05 AM PDT by Dallas59 (Muslims Are Only Guests In Western Countries)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82; freepatriot32

I was under the impression that this is a fairly common practice already. It was a standard part of the routine bloodwork I had done while I was pregnant, and I am in no way in a high risk category for it.


31 posted on 09/21/2006 11:23:57 AM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Go down to the Blood Bank and donate. They will test for that for free.


32 posted on 09/21/2006 11:25:43 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969
All Americans between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for HIV

Drive by hit piece from the AP.

Yeah and all Americans should get a tetanus shot.

That's a far cry from jack booted thugs showing up at your house at 3:00am for a blood sample.

I say, "All AP reporters between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for terrorism connections".

33 posted on 09/21/2006 11:27:50 AM PDT by dinasour (Pajamahadeen and member of the Head SnowFlake Committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

"Free AIDS/HIV tests under "universal health care plan" masquerading as "helping you!".


34 posted on 09/21/2006 11:31:23 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinasour
I say, "All AP reporters between the ages of 13 and 64 should be routinely tested for terrorism connections".

Now there's a test I can and do support.

35 posted on 09/21/2006 11:32:41 AM PDT by steveegg (Let's make the deeply-saddened Head KOmmie deeply soddened in Nov. - deny the 'RATs the election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Now there's a test I can and do support.

And we are the clinic.

36 posted on 09/21/2006 11:34:18 AM PDT by dinasour (Pajamahadeen and member of the Head SnowFlake Committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wbill
"Wonder what the false positive rate is?"

That's a good question. A related, and even better, question is what is the positive predictive value (PPV) of the test? In other words, what is the probability that someone who tests positive really is HIV-infected? The answer depends on the false positive rate *and* the prevalence of HIV in the tested population. The CDC claims that about 1 million people in the U.S. are HIV- infected. Let's assume that all of them are among the 230 million people in the targeted test population of 16 to 64 year olds. So, the claimed prevalence of HIV is 1/230 = 0.00435, or slightly more than 4 per 1000. The CDC also says that the false-positive rate (one minus the "specificity") for the rapid HIV test that is being recommended is 0.2% or 2 per 1000. (The false positive rate is essentially zero.) That means that the PPV is 4/6 = 0.66, so one-third of all people who would be tested under this plan will test positive even though they are really HIV-negative.

Testing the entire population for a low-prevalence disease when there is a non-trivial false-positive rate is a huge waste of money. It's why we don't routinely test everyone for TB.
37 posted on 09/21/2006 11:34:26 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
"I was under the impression that this is a fairly common practice already."

Pregnant women, blood donors, and applicants for non-group life insurance are routinely tested, as are most health professionals who may have contact with infected patients. The rest of us are not now routinely tested.
38 posted on 09/21/2006 11:41:06 AM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

"Ridiculous. It is still a disease of gays and intravenous drug users. Most of the population never comes in contact with either group in a fashion that would communicate HIV."

***

Sure, most of the population may not, but I believe the largest growing population of HIV infections is among heterosexual black women. I have known at least one to die as a result of her husband passing it along.


39 posted on 09/21/2006 11:42:38 AM PDT by Ganymede
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jmc1969

Here's a recommendation:

Call for the testing of all:

- men who practice anal intercourse and oral sex with other men.
- men who have sex with women who have multiple partners.
- women who have sex with multiple partners.

For those who are virgins, and after having sexual relations chose to only have sex with one person, don't worry, the chances of you catching AIDS are infinitesimal.

For those who advocate 100% testing for AIDS/HIV, examine their brains to see if they are still present and functioning.


40 posted on 09/21/2006 11:45:23 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson