Saturday, November 28, 2009

How long does it take for an HIV/AIDS test to come back

How long does it take for an HIV/AIDS test to come back?
im in the military and they recently gave me and blood test. its been about 3 months now. im not sure if it was an HIV/AIDS test. they say there going to draw blood and i say ok you know what i mean. but i havent heard back from them. if it was an HIV/AIDS test would they already have the results? and would they contact me if i had somethin?
STDs - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hi there, If they asked you when your last sexual encounter was, and you answered within the last 3 months, it will take 3 months for results to come back. The reason for this is because they have to test if your blood is reactive to the hiv virus, and this can take 3 months to get a clear answer. In simple terms, they put hiv antibodies into the blood sample they took from you, and if your blood cells mimic the hiv antibodies then it is positive, if they don't it is negative. Obviously this doesn't happen immediately, so they monitor it over 3 months. If you havn't had a sexual encounter in the last 3 months, it usually takes one week. Most places which test often do the 3 month test to make absolutely sure. They should contact you whether the results are positive or negative, but i'd imagine that they would have had to do a large amount of testing at the same time so the delay might just be getting in touch with you. If there is someone you can contact e.g. the people who carried out the blood test, it would be a good idea to call and enquire about it :) Also don't panic, HIV isn't as common as the media makes out. Im unsure of USA statistics but in the UK only 1% of the population has it :) Hope this helps you.
2 :
Another answer indicates that it would take 3 months for the lab to get the results back. That is not true. The results would have been back long ago. However, HIV testing can not be done without the written consent of the person being tested, so if you did not ask for the test and sign a consent form, it would have been illegal for them to test you for HIV. They should have told you exactly what they were testing for, and how long it would take to get the results back. Call them and check. Also: It can take 3 months, or in very rare cases, up to 6 months, for someone to test positive for HIV after they get infected. (More than 98% of people who have HIV would test positive within 3 months.) Testing is recommended 3 months after possible exposure, followed by retesting 6 months after possible exposure.

Read more discussions :

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

What did the Great Republican Reagan think of people with HIV/AIDS

What did the Great Republican Reagan think of people with HIV/AIDS?
Now, we all are aware that it is a virus that is spread. But Reagan had a particular conservative slant towards this?
Politics - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
He didn't think at all about people with aids .
2 :
", when it comes to preventing AIDS, don't medicine and morality teach the same lessons?" Ronald Reagan....... and he was right.
3 :
They got it without our help, let them cure it without our help. Works for me.
4 :
Reagan was unable to even SAY the word "AIDS" until the last of his so-called presidency. He was really a super uptight white guy.
5 :
He believed that AIDS was God's retribution for homosexuality and he was right!
6 :
Reagan went along with his advisers on this and felt that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men."

Read more discussions :

Friday, November 20, 2009

Pornograhics is teaching unsafe sex acts causing HIV/AIDS and should pornograhic sellers be sued

Pornograhics is teaching unsafe sex acts causing HIV/AIDS and should pornograhic sellers be sued?
Pornograhics are teaching the young to have anal sex and unprotected sex .Should sellers and makers of pornograghics be sued by government or should government be sued for approving film that causes disease.?David Harris.
Other - Politics & Government - 14 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
not gettin' any are ya?
2 :
Are you retarted? Can't sue people for something like that, especially if they don't even say anything about it in the movie..
3 :
Im sorry, but you are wrong. First off, the reason our children are having ANY sex is because, as parents, we are soooo scared to sit down and discus sex w/ our children! We sit back and say that its the Schools responseability to teach our kids about the stuff thats a little uncomfortable. And CHRISTIANS are even worse, telling kids sex is bad and making boys feel ashamed for admiring the naked female body. I AM A MAN AND I LOVE TO LOOK AT NAKED WOMEN! If GOD(s) didnt want us to look they why are they sooo pretty? What is causing AIDS/HIV is some ppl 100's of years ago humping animals. But today it is uneducated ppl who are against prostitution. If it were legal to prostitute then we could create laws that make sure the prostitutes are clean and in safe situations as well as the "johns". Plus we could make a ton of cash off taxing sex. Im sorry that you cant love the bodies GOD(s) gave us. Your question is like asking.....Should we sue Ford for all the Ford car crashes? drrr! no!
4 :
Sued? Are you kidding? Their not doing anything wrong! Maybe the idiot parents need to be slapped for not sitting down and actually talking to their kids about sex. Probably 80% of kids these days never get the "talk" and get their sex education from their friends.
5 :
Which Christian cult do you belong to Dave? Mormon, Babtist...
6 :
No... Producers of PORN do not force you to watch it. Neither should the producers of DIE HARD - be sued if someone gets the Idea to blow up a building from watching it. In this LIBERAL WORLD... where PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is out the window... blaming the producers of adult films for YOUR bad choices - elevates the ridiculous to the sublime. Porn is to sex as PRO WRESTLING is to fighting. Everyone know it.
7 :
I don't think it is the gov't place to sue anyone. I believe a law should be passed if it poses a public threat such as disease communication. Since it is nationwide and crosses state lines, it could be a federal issue. I am not against states making laws either. It is not protected under the First Ammendment. It is not speech. The First Ammendment protects individuals from government prosecution for expressing dissent. The Supreme Court is wrong.
8 :
If anything, doesn't porn encourage masturbation? ...Now how on earth did one of the previous answers include an attack on Democrats?
9 :
That is the same argument that has been tried against gun makers and the tobacco companies. It is totally possible a lawsuit could be filed, but it will depend on how powerful the porn lobby is and how much money it at their disposal to wear out the plantiff(s).
10 :
Usually pornographic films and materials have their own "underground" distribution network, so the government never gets to approve any of it. However, in the US, porn is protected by the Bill of Rights under Freedom of Expression.
11 :
and Congress is teaching corruption, greed and chaos....they should be sued also.
12 :
Pornography is hardly a "teaching tool" for anything; it is a form of entertainment geared towards a specific adult audience, and countless federal court rulings have upheld its legality under the First Amendment. Neither is pornography responsible for any epidemic. It is the person who engages in such risky behavior that is ultimately responsible. (Taking human nature into account, one does not truly need porn to be able to partake in such acts to begin with.)
13 :
First: If you actually watch a pornographic movie you will see that there are warnings about unprotected sex and disclaimers about the performers being tested regularly. Second: There is nothing wrong with anal sex as long as both partners are consenting
14 :
then the abstinence only movement would also need to be sued for committing the same crime in public schools.

Read more discussions :