Re: Antibody testing

Thread View: net.motss

3 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

3 total messages Started by John Smallberries Fri, 14 Mar 1986 15:08

#2141

Author: John Smallberries
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1986 15:08

17 lines
1472 bytes

I am interested in asking a related question to whether or not to be tested.
Should someone who tests positive tell a potential sex partner?  Or are
safe sex guidelines sufficient that such disclosure isn't necessary?  People
who argue that testing is superfluous would, I think, also believe disclosure
to a potential/current sex partner is unnecessary.

I don't know what my answer is to any of the questions so far.  I do know
that I was very upset to hear retroactively a repeated partner had Hepatitus-B,
and we hadn't heard much of safe-sex at the time.

This question is important to me since I have the oppotunity to participate
in some AIDS data gathering experiments at an area clinic.  They are very
confidential.  It is also important since a friend recently told me he tests
positive and is choosing to err on the side of candor with partners.  
\bob
/\

Re: Antibody testing

#2154

Author: Rob Bernardo
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1986 14:03

23 lines
1905 bytes

In article <237@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.UUCP writes:
>I think a person has the obligation to tell somebody else if he has AIDS
>if he is planning to be sexual with him. I am in a monogomous relationship,

The originally posted question was whether you have ought to tell a sexual
partner if you had a positive HTLV-III test. A positive antibody test does
*not* mean you have AIDS.

>of us test positive). But if I were single, or (God forbid) to break up
>with my s'other, I would get tested before I carried on sexual relations
>with another person. It's a painful thing, but I believe it's a responsibility.

To whom? What would be the benefit? If you tested negative, you *still* should
practice safe sex, for your partner's sake (since some people who shed the
virus test negative on the antibody test) and for your own (since
your partner may infect you). If you tested negative and you had
other-that-safe-sex, the test results would no longer be valid.

As far as our current knowledge of the significance of the test, I can
see only one reason for being tested, that being reassurance that one
has not been exposed to AIDS.

Rob Bernardo, San Ramon, CA    (415) 823-2417    {ihnp4|dual|qantel}!ptsfa!rob

Re: Antibody testing

#2161

Author: Christopher Young
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1986 00:45

43 lines
3159 bytes

>In article <237@isl1.ri.cmu.edu> cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu.UUCP writes:
>>I think a person has the obligation to tell somebody else if he has AIDS
>>if he is planning to be sexual with him. I am in a monogomous relationship,
>
>The originally posted question was whether you have ought to tell a sexual
>partner if you had a positive HTLV-III test. A positive antibody test does
>*not* mean you have AIDS.

The intention had to do with whether or not one should be tested to determine
whether one could transmit the virus which causes AIDS. If it was not believed
that HTLV-III causes AIDS (or someother such problem), then the question
would undoubtedly not been ask. Therefore, though I will admit I was verbatim,
I caught the underlying meaning of the question and therefore I think this
point is irrelevant.

>>of us test positive). But if I were single, or (God forbid) to break up
>>with my s'other, I would get tested before I carried on sexual relations
>>with another person. It's a painful thing, but I believe it's a responsibility.

>To whom? What would be the benefit? If you tested negative, you *still* should
>practice safe sex, for your partner's sake (since some people who shed the
>virus test negative on the antibody test) and for your own (since
>your partner may infect you). If you tested negative and you had
>other-that-safe-sex, the test results would no longer be valid.

Obligation to others. If I was infected, I would not practise sex. Period.
Others might choose safe sex, though. I think there is no guarantee of
anything being safe. Positive results definitely suggest the capability to
infect others, negative result are more questionable, especially several
tests over a period of time with all neg. results. I covered the rest of the
points in another post.

>As far as our current knowledge of the significance of the test, I can
>see only one reason for being tested, that being reassurance that one
>has not been exposed to AIDS.

This seems to be to contradict sentence 3, the section in the first set of
parentheses. I may not understand, though. Please clarify. It seems to
me that if a neg. result says the subject has not been exposed to AIDS
(I assume the virus here since AIDS is a syndrome, not something a person
can be exposed to (I think)), then s/he could not have had the virus to
shed in the first place. And what do you mean "shed". As I understood it,
there is no way currently to get rid of the damn thing.

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads