Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!isl1.ri.cmu.edu!cycy
From: cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Antibody testing
Message-ID: <242@isl1.ri.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 19:45:00 EST
Article-I.D.: isl1.242
Posted: Thu Mar 20 19:45:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 04:08:06 EST
References: <1678@decwrl.DEC.COM> <40@spdcc.UUCP> <237@isl1.ri.cmu.edu>, <332@ptsfb.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 43

>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.