I see your point. Just weird that it can quantitate and not qualify. I guess I get confused on the terms. There's a lot of businesses out there making a buck using it. I feel good about my 6 week ELISA more than anything. Doc H says 6 to 8 weeks is very good, but for sanity I'll follow up with the 3 months. So, message to those listening, just get the ELISA and save the cash.
That's what is says, "not intended to be used as a donor screen test for HIV-1 or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV-1 infection."
Teak, are you saying the DNA PCR is not reliable? I had one done at 25 days - negative. My situation was exposure to vaginal fluid on my finger. no cuts, no openings. From what I can read this is very low risk, but Im thinking Im going to get the ELISA.
Here is what it says about your NAT. This assay is not intended for use as an aid in diagnosis of infection with HIV-1, HCV or HBV.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/label/hivhcvgen100306LB.pdf Read intended use.
What's up bud? I agree, but aren't they very much alike the NATs that the Red Cross uses? I understand that they are not diagnostic, but is that due to the economic impact or the reliability? Also, there is a lot of false positives from what I read. Too alarming to use health clinics. Would freak everyone out. I think they offer a good tool for medical professionals for occupational exposures. Probably eases the nerves, but the ELISA is the surety of the mind everyone seeks.
Don't think to much of them as you can see that they are not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or a diagnostic toest to confirm the presence of HIV infection.
The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as
a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection.
Abbott RealTime HIV-1 assay is an in vitro reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay
This assay is not intended to be used as a donor screening test for HIV-1 or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV-1 infection.