1. Which, makes it potentially of limited use for HIV testing in high risk populations, since it can take months for immune response to be detectable by this so

1. Which, makes it potentially of limited use for HIV testing in high risk populations, since it can take months for immune response to be detectable by this sort of test. Not useless, certainly, as it is actually comparable to what most people get when they go to the doctor to get tested for HIV (not in accuracy, as your second point mentions, but in how long one would have to wait after exposure to know if you're infected). But, for populations not at significant risk, it would be a very good in-between test. 2. Early HIV tests had quite high false positive rates, and an imperfect false negative rate. That improved dramatically over the span of a few years. This is a new research device. It is not expected to be perfect. My first version of anything is never perfect. Technology futures can be hard to predict, but history indicates the following are consistently true: It'll get smaller, faster, cheaper, more precise. Will getting smaller, faster, cheaper, and more precise make this device an effective diagnostic tool? I'd be willing to bet it will.