PCR testing

[traveler65]

I keep going round and round with my doc as to the sensitivity of the PCR's he is having run on me. The 4 week one was <50. I asked for him to run a more sensitive test (down to <5) and even mentioned the heptimax test. He still claims that the <50 test is fine and as long as my results are <50 I am UND.
Are there any articles on the web stating that a more sensitive test should be run that I can bring to the doc? I will be having my 12 week Pcr shortly.
Thanks:

[mikesimon]

I inadvertently posted this to you. I meant to leave the space blank but I must have copied and pasted while paying the IRS for 2006 and that always puts me in a different state of mind. I didn't mean to single you out - I was cornfused by the drudgery of my tax liability. I apologize that it seemed like I did single you out.  Mike

[mikesimon]

I try to believe that we're all driven by the same motivation - a search for the truth. Admittedly, ego can insinuate itself into just about everything we do or say but once we pause and dispassionately consider the situation we should be able to put ego aside and focus on the real picture. I am surprised and disappointed that this thread has come this far and generated passive, if not overt, animosity when it would seem that we all agree - the more sensitive test is better than the less sensitive test. And, it seems well established that there are instances, though they may be rare, when the less sensitive tests haven't detected low levels of the virus and as a result incorrect treatment decisions have been made and people have suffered. The mere possibility of error compels using the best and most sensitive test we can get. Mike

[jmjm530]

Kalio's statement is further clarified by what followed: "..
I wouldn't worry about it, if you are UND on the <50 test then you are UND."

----------
Again, simply untrue based on the multiple studies presented in this thread previously.

[jmjm530]

Ina,

Of course your correct. Kalio said previously:

If the virus is there, it will show up with the <50 test or the <5 test is what he is saying I think."

The statement stands for itself, it's simply wrong.
------------------------------------------------------
Kalio,

You called me out in a previous thread that I was being "passive agressive" because I made subtle references to you without addressing them to you directly.

Yet, you have done, and are doing the same thing here when you say, "...There seems to be a number of people here that make a mountain out of a molehill at everey turn. A federal case doesnt need to be made about the diff. between one VERY SENSItiVE test <50 and another VERY SENSITIVE test, <5"

I personally don't mind if you use my name or not but please don't be a hypocrite and make a big deal if I don't use yours in the future. I didn't do it because I was being passive/agressive but just that I thought it would be less confrontational, as I assume that is why you did it as well. Let's just play ball fair with the same rules for both, eh.

-- Jim

[Kalio1]

To try to construe an argument that I am somehow anti sensitive testing is ridiculous, please, gimme a break. That is not what is being said at all. A <50 test IS a sensitive test for heavens sake.

I know HR personally and have tons of respect for him, to insinuate I don't is really rude. As rude as trying to create some argument that I am anti sensitive testing. I AM anti overblow everything and over exaggerate every detail about Hep C however. There seems to be a number of people here that make a mountain out of a molehill at everey turn. A federal case doesnt need to be made about the diff. between one VERY SENSItiVE test <50 and another VERY SENSITIVE test, <5

There are much more important things to concern yourself with. He is on tx and UND, his <50 test is MORE than sufficient.

Detecting 45 more virii is making a mountain out of a molehill. The man's <50 test is fine, like his DOCTOR told him it was.

[Eisbein]

Why it is important to test as sensitive as possible has already been said above, no need to repeat it.
And no, I don't think HR is pushing sensitive tests because he invented them, that thought never crossed my mind, I think much too highly of him.
National Genetics makes their money testing the national blood supply, testing individuals is small fry, did squat doodley nothing to them.
The reimbursement under my plan for their Quant or Qual is around $100, same as for one of those antiquated "down to 615 I/U" ones.

The Berg study had no ax to grind.
I tried to translate it into English. Anybody interested, it's under "Tallblonde", in the community forum, quite a few weeks ago.
Now it can't be spelled out more clearly why sensitive testing is important.

Actually I cant believe that somebody as seasoned as you is defending a position that is clearly outdated.


Ina