Federal panel says everyone 15 to 65 should have HIV test
Citing recent evidence that HIV infections are best managed when treated early, an influential panel of medical experts has finalized its recommendation that all people ages 15 to 65 be screened for the virus that causes AIDS.
The recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force seeks to address one of the key challenges in the fight against HIV/AIDS: The window during which patients respond best to treatment is also the time when symptoms of the disease are least noticeable.
"HIV is a critical public health problem, and there are still 50,000 new infections per year," said Dr. Doug Owens, a task force member and professor of medicine at Stanford University. "There's very good evidence that treatment is effective when given earlier, at a time when people are often asymptomatic. So the only way they would know that they had HIV, or that they needed treatment, is to be screened."
The guideline is being released after a number of well-publicized cases in which early treatment with a combination of powerful antiretroviral drugs has greatly improved patient survival rates. In one of those instances, doctors reported in March that an infant in Mississippi who began aggressive drug treatment immediately after birth had been "functionally cured" of HIV.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/la-sci-hiv-screening-20130430,0,4784087.story
= new reply since forum marked as read
Seriously, though, somebody who has been celibate for a couple decades and doesn't do IV anything and has never been transfused should be tested? Why? There is zero chance for many people to have been exposed. What a total waste of money and time.
And then a week after somebody is tested, they get exposed and it isn't found. So do they mean annual testing? Bi-annual? Seriously?
Maybe everybody should have mandatory quarterly CA125 screening too, because cancer responds better if caught early. 
I leave others alone and I want to be left alone. And that is all about you. (Not you personally, but you in the general sense. Actually, yes, you personally too.)
I am not banned from donating blood to the ARC based on my lifestyle. I don't have tattoos or piercings, am celibate, don't do any drugs beyond aspirin and allergy meds, have never been transfused, and haven't exchanged body fluids for literally decades.
In other words, I have not been even potentially exposed to HIV (or also potentially deadly HCV or HBV) for decades. I am not a risk for spreading HIV to unsuspecting sex partners.
It is up to the proposed sex partners to screen each other, not impose a mandatory test on innocent bystanders who don't even want to watch, let alone participate.
Naive - to that poster. 
I feel as a black American - and specifically a black female - very very suspicious and untrusting of the government when it comes to my reproductive health.
Too much history and all water is not under the bridge.
There are people who are celibate and have been for decades, have never been transfused, have never done IV drugs, have never been tattooed, etc.
Maybe I don't have a brain for believing that, in the absence of symptoms and possible exposure, a mandatory HIV screening test would be a waste on them. Same with an HBV test, and HCV test, a malaria test, or any other tests for potentially fatal, blood and fluid borne diseases.
Or maybe, as a med lab tech who runs those tests and others, I have a fully functioning brain.
There are certain lifestyle risk factors that may make it worthwhile to be periodically screened. In fact, those lifestyle risk factors will get you banned from donating blood, regardless of screening or any test results.
But if you don't live those lifestyles, haven't been exposed, and haven't got symptoms, the test is a waste. You are better off spending your money a CA125 to screen for cancer. Just my humble, brainless opinion, of course.
Probably excessive given my amount of "action" but there it is
