|
|
ANTIBODY TESTING WILL BE REPLACED
#42864 - 11/03/02 12:17 PM
|
Reply
|
Quote
|
|
|
I think almost every doctor is really excited with how fast technology is moving in the hiv diagnostic area,real time pcr testing will i think eventually replace the boring antibody testing procedure.as we all know viral load testing,and dna pcr testing has been around a long time,and even though some are not fda or cdc approved,(for diagnosis)
a lot of doctors still use them,and have been using them,in co,use of antibody testing.and in most case,s have proven themselves as useful tools.ie the BDNA viral load,has had very good reviews,as it is so good with all types of hiv.but i think the official bodys aka FDA AND CDC are the ones whom really need a kick up the arse,for pure redtape bullshit.they should be a lot quicker at looking and approving new tests/drugs.they are the real pain in the arse,and should be replaced,by an offical body,only for hiv/aids drugs/tests/approvals.The fact is the FDA,are really out of their league,and have always been,the other fact is,no-one really cares a toss if a test is FDA approved or not.because by the time the FDA Approves a test,its already outdated.so soon real time pcr testing will be here,and their are some new much more advanced P24 tests,which are even more sensitive than pcr.BUT once again the FDA WILL DRAG ITS feet.they need to be replaced ASAP!...
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Remember, the inventor of PCR (Nobel Prize winner,Kerry Mullis) is a dissident and says the PCR test is useless in regard to HIV.
Straight from the horses mouth. How much clearer do you want it?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
again, disident, this is old, news. Like all your arguments, it's totally out of context. You need to get some new material if you're going to try and "debate" your cause. Remember, this is 2002. Try and find out about things and opinions that are happening in this century.What are the experts saying NOW? What's the research showing NOW? You don't want to know do you?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
I think it's a question of cost isn't it? The ELISA test is far cheaper to administer than the other tests you mention and it's perfectly fine for most people. The only ones who might benefit from other forms of tests are those very recently infected and who haven't yet seroconverted. In those cases, hopefully they can get to see a doctor who can recognise whether they have symptoms which could suggest primary HIV infection and order the appropriate tests.
As for being quicker in approving new drugs, surely anti-HIV drugs are rushed through far quicker than any others already?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
do you say this ONLY because the PCR could detect with a smaller "window" period?
Post Extras:
|
|
|
|
Tell that to all the folks who use RNA PCR for crucial viral load monitoring. I'm sure they'll appreciate that.
Post Extras:
|
|
0 registered and 82 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: TheBody, bogart, crabman, riverprincess, kicker
|
Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1150
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBB.threads™ 6.2.3
| |
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Threaded
