Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Hiv: Notice of flaw in governance - research and discuss

  1. #1
    Cyberpunk as Fuck Punk to the bone read fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,160

    Hiv: Notice of flaw in governance - research and discuss

    ESSAY ON ASSAY
    NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
    A GLARING FLAW IN HIV GOVERNANCE people are not being adequately tested for HIV at all times of testing. In the United States there is no current mandate set in place to ensure complete HIV testing each and every time a person is tested for HIV.
    When you go get tested for HIV, the health care providers you are trusting, may or may not run a complete test for HIV, but will base your result on the possible fragmented test. If HIV were hiding in your house and the only person looking for it (your doctor) did not feel like checking under the bed, yet came out and told you the coast is clear..... well, why wouldn't you trust that doctor? If only that doctor would just be honest up front and tell you that most was checked but not 100%, so at least you know what your dealing with here!
    The governing body for HIV testing in the U.S. is CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL or CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/ Their motto: 24/7 Saving lives, Protecting people
    The governing body in the U.S. for the actual HIV tests, which are called assays, is U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION or FDA. http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byau.../ucm117922.htm Their motto: Protecting and promoting Your Health
    According to the CDC, Human Immunodeficiency Virus has two types, HIV -1 & HIV-2 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6029a3.htm That is HIV-1 = HIV aaand HIV-2 = HIV
    In the United States the only entity that must under law screen for HIV-1 & HIV-2 are blood donation centers. It is only deemed absolute necessary for each and every blood donation contributed to be screened for HIV-1 and HIV-2 both, separately (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038078.htm) (and that did not start until 1992 at the FDA recommendation). Why? Cause this is very important, right? What if......?
    In the United States the CDC recommends that for most other HIV tests, clinics only have to screen for HIV-1, if that one test is completely negative, then we can assume you are HIV negative (without checking for HIV-2) and more importantly say, "You do not have HIV."
    A very large portion of people in the United States who have been tested for HIV, may never have been tested for HIV-2. Some people in the United States may have HIV-2 and not be aware because they were told they did not have HIV when tested.
    CDC recommendations for not routinely screening for HIV-2 are contributed to various reasons.
    Statistics, they say HIV-2 is rare in the U.S. but how would they even know when they are not even checking for HIV-2 routinely? Most all HIV-2 infections are in people in West Africa or in people from West Africa, but how would they even know when they are not even checking for HIV-2 routinely in the U.S.? Most of the time when a person is infected with HIV-2, they are also infected with HIV-1. BUT not all the time.
    Cost, yep, not enough dollars. The CDC recognizes how costly it can be to test for HIV-1 and HIV-2 both so, they give a free pass on the routine tests for HIV-2. The follow up visit for review of a complete test, cost of paying more employees for counseling specifically for HIV-2, , using legit laboratories, and paying all the scientists performing HIV=2 specific tests and or the extra cost in the test itself is, the justification CDC offers. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038078.htm

    Part 2 will be up later and delves deeper into all areas of this notice, there is much more to say.

  2. #2
    Cyberpunk as Fuck Punk to the bone read fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,160
    ESSAY ON ASSAY PART 2
    NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
    A GLARING FLAW IN HIV GOVERNANCE people are not being adequately tested for HIV at all times of testing. In the United States there is no current mandate set in place to ensure complete HIV testing each and every time a person is tested for HIV.

    There are a lot of HIV testing procedures. I would like to emphasize and start out with the first step of HIV testing. The initial routine screening for HIV in a person in the United States.

    Real scientists in a real laboratory screening for HIV1 and HIV2. They look for antibodies that the body produces when having HIV. Each type and group of HIV produces unique antibodies. There are two types of HIV; HIV type 1 & HIV type 2. In HIV type 1 there are 4 groups I have found thus far. HIV type 1 group "M" is the most popular in the United States, therefore, tests have been created to only look for the more popular strains. Of group "M" there are 10 subtypes. Of the ten subtypes of group "M" type HIV1, HIV testing was developed to look for only one, clade (subtype) "B". That is : IN THE UNITED STATES HIV TESTING WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED TO LOOK FOR: ONE SPECIFIC CLADE OUT OF 10 CLADES, OF ONE SPECIFIC GROUP OUT OF FOUR GROUPS, FROM ONE SPECIFIC TYPE OUT OF TWO TYPES OF HIV. TESTING FOR A FRACTION OF HIV. A SMALL ONE AT THAT. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/sea...assay&x=16&y=5 The government agreed to this by weighing out cost vs. undetection in the public. There is chance that a if a person is positive for any of the non tested HIV antibodies in specific, it may askew the HIV type1 B clade tests in anyway to create abnormal findings to send specimen for more detailed testing. It is certain and proven there are people HIV positive but get a clear negative on these tests because they are not positive for that specific clade. The rare strains of HIV1 are most commonly left out of "routine HIV screening tests" here in the United States, possibly globally. Recently HIV 1 initial testing is including more groups and clades, still not all. More on this later.
    So, the best case scenario if getting a routine initial HIV test is making sure HIV Type 1 (even though not all groups are being screened) and HIV Type 2 tests are both being checked. That is the closest the average public is going to get in the United States at getting a HIV screen to make sure of no HIV infection before onset of symptoms/ early detection. What part of the public gets this best case scenario screen (beside the ones that ask for it)?

    ~These tests are usually ordered in general by thorough and ethical practitioners of medicine. Awesome doctors.
    ~These tests are ran automatically if an even more fragmented HIV test was abnormal
    ~These tests are automatically done if you are from West Africa. Or have risk from being exposed to someone from West Africa.
    ~Blood donors.

    "DIP STICK" testing. AKA RAPID testing devices. Think of pregnancy tests, blood sugar tests, drug tests, the at home kind or the kind used in clinic instead of being sent to a real laboratory. Note: Now days even scientists in labs are using these first before real tests if requested by the ordering doctor.
    The rapid HIV test is designed to screen people who most likely would not seek a traditional medical institution for HIV testing, unconventional testing areas, http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsro.../ucm364480.htm with exceptions such as accidental contamination with known and available source blood. The latter usually is a hospital patient.
    The FDA only approved of the partial HIV 1 rapid test. The FDA says if rapid test are used in the United States then they must ony test for select groups of HIV Type1 only. In addition to extreme partial-ism these tests were not as sensitive in early detection. That is, a real laboratory test could be positive and a rapid test negative at the same time same specimen due to timing of infection. In 2011 the CDC sent out thousands of partial HIV Type 1 rapid testing devices to testing sites all over the US. Most likely if you have no symptoms; have not been to West Africa personally or at risk from exposure to someone from West Africa; and are going into HIV only testing clinics, mobile set ups, in store set ups, have shady/shoddy medical practitioners looking after you or at a clinic/hospital trying to save a buck, you most likely been tested with this very partial HIV Type 1 (but not all of Type 1) Rapid test. If you went to get an HIV test and got same day results, then this is what you were tested with.
    August 2013 the FDA approved complete test-The Alere Determine HIV-1/2 Ag/Ab Combo test is manufactured by Orgenics, Ltd. (an Alere, Inc. company) of Yavne, Israel. http://www.alere.com/us/en/about/history.html This is the very first rapid test that initially will screen for HIV Type 1 (but not all groups) and HIV Type2. For the first time the United States Government will allow rapid testing of nearly all HIV.
    A glance at Alere (the company that makes this new test). My first impression of Alere is
    Alere invests and creates in some real medicine such as "real procedures", seems they are attempting to corner the diagnostic market. The instant swab stick "dipstick" is definitely there gimmick they love to nurture. Seems like because they know better, they can make soo much money off the instant gimmick. Alere has invested in the medical, telephone, and computer information collecting systems of the public, not only do they test you, I think they eventually get and track your results and match them to your phone and computer data. . Last year Bill Gates gave Alere $21.6 million and debt financing of up to $21.6 million for the development of a TB and HIV test. Then FDA finally responded and approved of self testing at home for HIV. This version is pending verification.
    There is much more to say about rapid testing later.
    In the United States the only group of people that are recommended by CDC for HIV Type 2 routine screening are people in West Africa or from West Africa. More on this later.
    In the United States the only entity that must under law screen for HIV-1 & HIV-2 are blood donation centers. At a glance this is what the blood donors of United States look like:
    http://www.bloodcenters.org/blood-do...blood-banking/ 2014
    "Who donates blood?
    Less than 5 percent of healthy Americans eligible to donate blood, actually do so. According to studies, the average donor is a college-educated white male, between the ages of 30 and 50, who is married and has an above-average income."
    http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-a...cs#donor-facts
    "Half of Red Cross donors male, and half are female.
    The American Red Cross accepts blood donations only from volunteer donors.
    Among Red Cross donors in a given year, 19 percent donate occasionally, 31 percent are first-time donors, and 50 percent are regular, loyal donors
    The number of blood donations collected in the U.S. in a year: 15.7 million
    The number of blood donors in the U.S. in a year: 9.2 million
    Although an estimated 38% of the U.S. population is eligible to donate, less than 10% actually do each year."
    This information is provided as numbers of people and demographics as to who in the United States is getting initially screened and how.

    Let this sink in, research it yourself ect... I have soooo much to share still! More info on it's way.
    As part of my research, I am going to get many HIV tests done the same day all over Los Angeles County in different demographic areas and compare and contrast. I will share my observations. I want to see how many places and where are using the new model of rapid test.
    ~March 23rd 2014

  3. #3
    Cyberpunk as Fuck Punk to the bone read fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,160
    ESSAY ON ASSAY PART 3
    NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
    A GLARING FLAW IN HIV GOVERNANCE people are not being adequately tested for HIV at all times of testing. In the United States there is no current mandate set in place to ensure complete HIV testing each and every time a person is tested for HIV.
    When did HIV start? I have not researched this question yet. A quick search on the internet provides no quick facts. Maybe I will find the answer or if someone already knows, please share. For now my hypothesis on this question is: HIV start date is unknown. HIV came way before science found it. I will update with any changes.

    Where did HIV start? I have not researched this question yet. A quick search on the internet points to Africa. Whether or not it was originated and started in Africa is besides the point in my research (for now). I am researching the current pandemic reality of HIV 1 Group "M" and the "so called" isolated areas of the world endemic with particular HIV strains.
    This is the Center for Disease Control recommendations for testing HIV type 2 in the United States. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038078.htm (Written in 1992) Anyone who donates blood, anyone who is from West Africa, traveled to West Africa or anyone possibly exposed to blood borne disease from any of these for mentioned. All others are not recommended to be tested or HIV type2. (Most all will check for HIV2 if your initial HIV test is abnormal, and only if you go back to follow up). This recommendation is the foundation for most professional/company policies in the United States. "They" do not have to check for HIV type 2 because it is too rare to catch if not in these categories. Well? Does everyone who is recommended being tested, because most of U.S. is not?
    TABLE 1. African countries with a high prevalence of HIV-2 infection (11, 12)
    ================================================== ===========================
    West African nations Mauritania *
    Benin Niger
    Burkina Faso Nigeria *
    Cape Verde * Sao Tome
    Cote d'Ivoire * Senegal
    Gambia * Sierra Leone *
    Ghana Togo
    Guinea
    Guinea-Bissau * Other African nations
    Liberia Angola *
    Mali * Mozambique *
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Prevalence of HIV-2 reported to exceed 1% in the general population
    It's not to be scared of these areas but to be smart and get tested for everything.. Anyone who contracts HIV is better off finding out sooner than later.
    United States government states HIV type 2 is only endemic in above listed and it hardly spreads to other parts of Africa therefor must be contained to listed countries and we do not need to test US citizens routinely because it's so far away and HIV type 2 is not pandemic. HIV type 2 differs from HIV type 1 by it's very slow onset and prolonged detection from time of infection. HIV type 2 is thought to have spread in West Africa through heterosexual blood borne disease exposure (man and woman unprotected sex).
    Who are our world travelers going to Africa and everywhere else? Besides the wealthy? What and who does West Africa attract? Religion: this part of the world is largely Catholic and has a lot of Catholic expansion originating from countries around the world. Since 1992 Italy has made it mandatory to routinely screen its citizens due to the rising numbers of known infection. Very good someone was checking on that over there. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2916620/ According to the Italian law, the use of HIV-2-specific diagnostic assays for the screening of blood donations became mandatory in 1992.) Humanitarian: thousands or more volunteering from all over the world then going back home. Science, Business, Military and the countless "others". Think of all those people and the people that may have been exposed to their potential blood borne diseases. Then the next wave. Then the next. Does the United States government catch them all 100%?
    HIV testing in Africa is big business and the big companies that make HIV type 1 only HIV rapid tests make sure to send lots of their product to Africa. (Outrageous!)
    Looking at this list of West African countries Table 1. I chose Benin first to investigate. Benin is a small country with no port. http://www.lonelyplanet.com/benin It's largest export is cotton and palm oil and it is most known to the world as "The Route d’Esclaves in Ouidah" which was the last walk on African soil for slaves, this place is known for the most kidnapped and spread out people of the world. Benin is a huge tourist attraction for it's history, it's beautiful land with it's beautiful people and animals (wild life parks) and this politically stable nation is one of the easiest parts of West Africa to travel. Here is a link to a recent newspaper article discussing current human trafficking out of Benin. http://nigerianobservernews.com/2503...l#.UzdzRKIhxdg
    What the Center for Disease Control in United States does tell U.S. (maybe because it is so out of date) HIV type 2 is also endemic in: Angola, Mozambique, and India. HIV-2 has been reported in Portugal and France. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21039219 This is a quote from this web site "In the Western hemisphere, rare cases of HIV-2 infection have been reported from Brazil(16, 17), Canada (18), and the United States (5). Within the United States, CDC and others conduct surveillance for HIV-2, including serologic surveillance of blood donors " Well what about everyone else? The answer is not to go donate blood for everyone. Too many would not even qualify!
    Here is a well written essay dated April 2012 http://www.hivguidelines.org/wp-cont...pe-2-hiv-2.pdf The head of the health department in New York seems to be appalled that HIV testing in the United States is not routinely all inclusive. New York pushed for mandating on the matter. At first read through I thought NY made it illegal to partial test for HIV. Nope, that's not it, if you read this article look for all the "shoulds" those do not equal "must". Mostly NY cracked down on the actual laboratories, the mobile testing hardly affected. I do plan to call New York using the number provided and I have a list of questions. I will update on that later.
    The North East of United States some years back have reported cases of people with known cases of HIV type 2 infection.
    I been trying to find any current statistics on people living with HIV type 2 infection in the United States. I am having difficulty here. The available information is either redundantly vague or extremely specific narrowing in on another branch. Will update when available.
    Here is a quote from 2010 Japan http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20502347 "CONCLUSIONS: We recently identified HIV-2 CRF01_AB cases in Japan. This ectopic observation of the virus outside its original endemic area suggests an ongoing global spread of HIV-2 CRF01_AB."

    Moving back to HIV type 1. There are still strains that are not routinely tested in the United States of HIV type 1. Even the brand new 2013 approved rapid tests still cannot include all of HIV type 1. Some HIV 1 groups need to be tested by scientists in laboratories.
    One of the HIV type 1 groups that the United States deems unworthy of routinely testing for is endemic and "isolated" in CAMEROON West Africa. KRIBI IS CAMEROONS PORT CITY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4npp9yHaUa4 THE WORLD HAS BIG PLANS FOR CAMEROON. Please take a moment to watch this video. The United States and China have paid the Cameroon government for its port. They rebuilt the port (or plan to) to suction the natural resources direct from the source straight to the freight ship. I live in Long Beach CA where those same ships carry that cargo over here. This port is massive with people and things going to and fro all over the world. I would like to visit Cameroon one day. Probably more on this later.
    In recent news November/December 2013 there is yet another new strain of HIV type1. New as in, science just found it. It is comprised of two separate HIV type 1 groups merging to make one. How I understand it: people who caught HIV type 1 twice of two different "groups" merged and made one super strain. That's out now and this strain makes the infected persons real sick real fast. I did a quick search and did not find exactly which two HIV type 1 groups this new strain is comprised of. Let U.S. cross its fingers these strains are the ones we actually get tested on. More on that later.
    Still a lot more to share and do: I'm going out to get HIV tested as planned in my last essay and I got New York on hold for questioning
    Please research and discuss.
    3/29/14

  4. #4
    Cyberpunk as Fuck Punk to the bone read fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,160
    Essay on Assay Part 4

    NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
    A GLARING FLAW IN HIV GOVERNANCE people are not being adequately tested for HIV at all times of testing. In the United States there is no current mandate set in place to ensure complete HIV testing each and every time a person is tested for HIV.
    I know this for a fact because August 2013 I realized this is what was happening to some of the people in my area who got tested at the local hospital I am employed with.
    There are certain policies that require or recommend Rapid HIV testing, and as of August 2013 the hospital laboratory only utilized the HIV1 Rapid Blood kit. The policies I am aware of covered Employees with Occupational Exposure to Body Fluids; the Inpatients whose Body Fluids our Employees were exposed; Mother and Baby during a delivery if Mom had no or little prenatal care.
    The hospital acquired and began utilizing Rapid HIV 1 and 2 kits after an incident with HIV 2. I know all the details but can not discuss, there is no law to say it can't happen but there is law to say it cannot be discussed to public.

    In August 2013 the moment I found out I asked for change to best practices, one of the hospitals signature slogans; I asked for notification with an offered retest to all involved and I offered my labor to do this. The hospital changed to better practices by utilizing a better testing system although, the hospital has not achieved best practices in testing for HIV. To the best of my knowledge no one has or will be notified. Some comfort knowing that people should be getting tested regularly so those people might have already been retested in a more reliable situation.
    As time went on I looked deeper into this area of my occupation. I have found all that I have shared and much more. The hospital told me they abide by policy and there is no wrong doing, I have not been able to disprove that or find someone that can.
    Interest in this subject is permanent.
    I have been investigating local HIV testing by going and getting tested myself and asking questions.
    Questions:
    What types of testing are offered for free? If it is a Rapid: Can I have the manufacture insert? HIV 1/2 is best case scenario for rapids. If it is a blood draw: What is the exact laboratory test being done here? NAAT assay is best practice.
    Do I have to give you a social security #? Do I have to give you my ID/papers? Do I have to.... anything else?

    I intend to verbally verify with Center of Disease Control that their current HIV2 policy was established in the early 1990s. If so, I plan to request in writing a revision of the policy.
    I intend to request verbally and in writing that the U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION omit HIV 1 rapid assay from their policy.
    I intend to request verbally and in writing that Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) omit HIV1 assays from policy.
    I intend to request Occupational Safety and Health Administration to adhere to best practices. Specification on Hospital Workers/ Health Care Workers who are exposed to bodily fluids.
    I intend to request the hospital I am employed with to adhere to best practices for our community.

    Next will be my field report.
    4/11/14

  5. #5
    Cyberpunk as Fuck Punk to the bone B-Rad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,294
    I cannot say am really surprised but am a bit unnerved. I get checked every few months for good measure.

  6. #6
    Cyberpunk as Fuck Punk to the bone read fox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,160
    Atta boy! I never new that myself till recently, HIV test is recommended every 3 months. I gotta update the last stuff I did and found out. I got a conclusion. (sorta)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •