We’ve been hearing about this method of testing for HIV called pooled rapid HIV evaluations.
But what does it really mean in terms of accuracy?
Since testing of pooled samples can decrease costs. This we know. Okay, but what about safety?
“Based on these results, pooled testing methods were evaluated for screening patients admitted to hospital in San Diego, California. Evaluation of pooled antibody testing on samples collected from individuals with known HIV infection found only a modest reduction in sensitivity.”
Only a modest reduction in sensitivity? Really? I mean a modest reduction in sensitivity sounds kinda like a big deal to me. How about you? But even worse it turns out those that are likely to not show up are the people who are the most infectious.
“These false negative results were only found among samples with very low optical density readings, and therefore likely correspond to samples collected during acute infection.”
In other words, they gave these guys a bunch of blood to test with people they knew for a fact was HIV positive and the tests didn’t detect it. Their excuse was, because they were probably acute HIV which we learned from Cameron Bay meant that was the time they were the most infectious! So with pooled testing a person who is the most infection, is probably the most likely to test negative under the pooled testing system!!!!!
That’s kind of a big deal, don’t you think?
If a person has HIV and is extremely likely to pass it on as they are at the most infectious stage of their infection and pooling blood doesn’t really work well on those kinds.
“Further evaluation of pooled testing of samples collected from individuals during recent infection, found that mini-pool testing of five samples detected HIV antibody in 86% of samples taken within 60 days of the initial infection and 92% of samples taken within 90 days of the initial infection.”
So in other words, they gave them more samples of people who they knew for a fact had HIV and where in the acute stage – again the most infectious time, and the pooled blood test only came back with a positive 86% of the time of samples taken within 60 days of the initial infection and 92% of samples taken within 90 days of initial infection.
This pooled blood testing works fine and is most cost effective method of testing, as long as the person hasn’t caught HIV in the last 90 days. If so we are all fucked.
So in other words, Cameron Bay could have been positive prior to June or earlier. Have all of those people been notified?
Has Xander Corvus been testing using another type of test to prove he for sure doesn’t have HIV? Has he gone anywhere besides cutting edge testing?