Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rupers who wrote (58884)	8/28/2000 5:30:55 PM
From: CapitalLosses	Respond to of 122087

Urnovitz is presenting a case here that significantly better accuracy can be achieved when both serum and urine antibody tests are used together, and that the best accuracy of all is achieved when the virus itself is tested for via nucleic-acid tests (see Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Nucleic-Acid Test"). The reason for this may be that, in Urnovitz' words, "the immune response to the HIV-1 virus is variable" -- some folks infected with HIV have antibody levels so low that they are barely or not-at-all detectable. There are still strong arguments for the use of non-invasive (urine-antibody tests) semi-exclusively. Non-invasive tests are cheaper and easier than invasive tests and many Chinese reportedly have cultural aversions to hypo needles (despite the popularity of acupuncture, heh). On the other hand, one argument against non-invasive testing is that if it becomes too cheap and easy to test, many folk may manage to get access to the testing equipment outside of the official testing programs, keeping the results private and hence not showing up on epidemiological studies which are critical for tracking the progress of the epidemic.