Things you should probably not purchase over the Internet: Pharmaceuticals, brides, and now, it turns out, HIV tests.
The ability to find out your status in the comfort of your own home has its advantages, like privacy and cost. Also, its drawbacks. Like the possibility of learning you’re HIV-positive and, with nobody around to counsel you about your options, descending into a depressive and destructive state. And that convenience factor? Some Brits are learning the hard way that the logistical advantages of ordering those HIV kits online aren’t worth the risk of having faulty tests.
Which is why they’re illegal in the United Kingdom.
HIV home testing kits that give instant results are being sold illegally online to UK consumers, according to Which? magazine. The leading consumer magazine reported the websites to the Department of Health, and they are being investigated.
Which? bought test kits from three websites: Safescreen, Labpro, and Self Tests Direct. They also bought a fourth kit from a site called Mid Pacific Medical but were still
awaiting its delivery at the time of writing. Self Tests Direct, the only site to respond to us, said: ‘We had no idea we weren’t supposed to sell these kits in the UK.’ It has since taken its public website down.”HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust told PinkPaper.com: “Because people can’t buy home testing kits legally they’re buying kits on the internet – and these aren’t subject to any form of UK quality control. As well as that they don’t tell you where you can go for help to cope with your result, or provide information about safer sex. More worryingly, because they aren’t made to UK standards the results might not be accurate. Home testing kits can be reliable and safe but the high standards that are essential for an accurate test can only be achieved through regulation – and that won’t happen when they’re illegal.”
We’re sure we’re going to hear from those who have purchased home kits from the web, and been perfectly satisfied with the results. But if these tests aren’t up to government health standards, is it really worth risking freaking out over a false-positive? Or, perhaps worse, going about your merry way thinking you’re negative, when you most certainly are not?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Not only does it make you, the consumer, vulnerable, but it could make the online retail outlets legally culpable for the harrowing outcomes.
beergoggles
Sounds like the same hysteria in he USA about importing drugs from Canada – oh noes, those Canadian drugs aren’t upto American FDA standards. So unless they want to present us with actual peer reviewed studies to document it, it just sounds like the British government not liking people testing themselves without the NIH keeping tabs on them.
Elliot
@beergoggles:
It likely has nothing to do with “hysteria” or Pharma’s patent (pun) greed.
HIV antibody tests, i.e., conventional “HIV tests” have specific storage and handling requirements and also require testing-of-the-tests (control testing) when environmental factors change (e.g., temperature shifts)
Further, it is probably difficult to convey concepts like the antibody window period (that “3 months” that gets quoted) when someone just wants to tear open the box and get their result.
I don’t think home HIV testing is a bad idea, but given the current state of the tests, they’re not ready for “prime time” outside of a somewhat-controlled setting or a trained tester, be that at an agency, health care site, etc. Perhaps one day it will be as simple as a home pregnancy test, but not quite yet.
And as someone who does rapid HIV testing, I can tell you that the gamut of reactions to a preliminary “rapid” positive result is huge, and for many people it is a moment of crisis on many levels. Sure, a few folks might be able to handle it on their own @ home, but I don’t think that’s typical.
Lastly, maybe you are right…. Perhaps the NHS, CDC, whatever, doesn’t want to be unable to track newly-diagnosed HIV infections (they have shifted away from anonymous testing partly for this reason). These numbers [de-identified and anonymized] are used to track trends, quickly respond to what might be “outbreaks” in smaller communities or networks, and most importantly, in this era of budget cutbacks, help to secure adequate funding for treatment and services.
[I say all of this acknowledging those Home Access tests I’ve seen at drugstores in the US, but those are the exception to the rule.]
Scientist
If an HIV test is not working because the antibodies have denatured, then the control line disappears. Much like a pregnancy test, which is antibody based, I i think one should be able to buy it over the counter and then go see a physician to confirm the test and plan your future.
B
No. 2 · Elliot wrote, “And as someone who does rapid HIV testing, I can tell you that the gamut of reactions to a preliminary “rapid” positive result is huge, and for many people it is a moment of crisis on many levels. Sure, a few folks might be able to handle it on their own @ home, but I don’t think that’s typical.”
… one way to mitigate that is to first get a test administered by medical professionals as is usually done and then immediately try the home test. If there is a false positive with the home test, you are not likely to panic given the earlier test the same day. Then the only reason to panic will be if something changes, but if for some reason you generate consistent false-positives with the “at home” test, at least you won’t freak out while that is being determined.
Bret
@beergoggles I don’t think the UK can present any peer reviewed documents for you. I think that is the precise reason they do not approve of the tests. There aren’t enough, if any, peer reviewed documents proving how effective these tests are and how they should be used. But I do agree with @scientist, I hope in the future it is just a natural thing that you can test yourself at home and then go in to your doctor to confirm, just like a pregnancy test. The only problem with that is what if someone continually tests negative at home when they are positive, and getting tested at a doctor would tell them the truth. That is exactly why there need to be more tests before they are in common use. To make sure that the tests are reliable, and that if they error, they error in favor of false positive rather than false negative.
houseofnumbers
View the new documentary “House of Numbers” to see why questions about this must be raised and deeper issues about HIV and AIDS need to be discussed. Lives are at risk, and this is the first documentary with the worlds foremost authorities highlights the scientific problems with HIV testing, science, statistics, and why there is no cure. If sheds new light on a misunderstood phenomena. GO to http://bit.ly/bGwuST to see the trailer.
Truth about AIDS as told by Dr. Luc Montagnier. AIDS can be reversed. Nutrition is the answer. http://bit.ly/bGwuST
jim
I bought one of these and it didnt work. I bought it from safescreen.co.uk – i emailed them twice telling them that the test was faulty and they never got back to me. There is no other way of contacting them since there are no contact details on the website. To me their none existent customer service shows that they are selling a fault prone product, and the company is not interested in the welfare of its customers, only exploiting the system and the vulnerability of anxious people unsure of their hiv status.
Botler
@Jim (No 7) I bought one from them and it was faulty, I emailed them and they sent two replacements out the same day. not that it matters as the UK health department have closed them down.