|New Essay for Testing/Diagnosis?
Aug 9, 1999
Cheerio Mark Ol' Chap!...... This is in Response to a question (forgot name), that of an issue of wonder pertaining to using the viral load tests for diagnostics (or perhaps as a confirmatory second test). You responded in essence, it's not possible being, that we would have to infect people to test them to achieve accurate analytical results. (1) In that case, then how did we find/measure the accuracy and reliability of Elisa? (2) And, why can't we just use animal models that seroconvert antibodies throughout the same (or close as possible) time frame as humans, to measure their viral load detection's subsequent to exposure? Whoah... I feel strange asking a "real" question..lol. Thank You Sir. D.S.
| Response from Dr. Holodniy
The FDA would find the animal data interesting, but would say, it's not people. The ELISA test was approved based on studies conducted in true positives and negatives, and therefore it's accuracy and positive and negative predictability is known. Remember in acute infection, guidelines suggest serial ELISA tests, not just one. MH
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.