It actually is a public health issue. Officials often make decisions on what treatments are available to what groups based on their effects on public health. For instance, vaccination or lack there of of certain demographics, when to begin mammograms, etc.
These tests absolutely fall under the FDAs jurisdiction; after all, pregnancy tests do! If research was done that found that people would ignorantly use these tests in lieu of condoms, that would worsen the HIV epidemic considerably, and the FDA would likely not approve them for off the counter usage.
I'm libertarian minded, so my feelings about this are more complicated from that. But you brought up public health, and from a public health standpoint there absolutely is an interest in denying people access to technology that would worsen an epidemic!
When you frame the argument like that, there's no disagreeing. Keep in mind I wasn't advocating for technology that would worsen an epidemic, but I don't see that as a strawman; I see your point as orthogonal rather than in reply. I'm not saying that I would advocate for throwaway tests in public bathrooms with no support system around them. I'm looking at the device, not the silly article written about an article written about a Nature Medicine article.
I am not at all opposed to providing information! I merely want the test to come with very easy to understand instructions so that people know what results really mean.
Do you see any evidence that it will? I don't need evidence either way to state that I prefer for it to be distributed with such information. If it is, then that's great.
All I see is that this isn't in large-scale production yet (though chips do exist and have been verified to work), and likely won't be marketed to the general public. Preferring it to be distributed with information is great - I entirely agree with that - I'm just trying to point out that your reasons for expecting it not to include that ("this particular kit is advertised too much like a silver bullet to assure me that the manufacturers are anywhere near that responsible") make no bloody sense. This isn't advertising, this is a report on a study that was published in Nature (so why should we care what some reporter characterizes it as?), and there are no manufacturers yet.
I admit to having a knee-jerk reaction. The "no more condoms for me!" comments I saw on the original Engadget article evoked some very unpleasant memories. Having seen the effects of HIV on a first-hand basis, I sometimes fail to respond to such things with purely rational objectivity. I ask your pardon for that.
These tests absolutely fall under the FDAs jurisdiction; after all, pregnancy tests do! If research was done that found that people would ignorantly use these tests in lieu of condoms, that would worsen the HIV epidemic considerably, and the FDA would likely not approve them for off the counter usage.
I'm libertarian minded, so my feelings about this are more complicated from that. But you brought up public health, and from a public health standpoint there absolutely is an interest in denying people access to technology that would worsen an epidemic!