Hmmmm. seems like they have a few good plaxes in S Dakota.
Microbiology Testing Lab Fungi, Bacteria, BioBurden, USP ASTM, Sterility, Validations, PCR
Food Testing Garden State Laboratories, Inc. Analytical Excellence Since 1943
Clinical Laboratories Search For Clinical Laboratories By Location At Local.com!
Current Category: All Categories » Healthcare » Medical Laboratories
Current Location: United States » South Dakota
Companies 1-36 of 36
Sort by A to Z Z to A Revenue: high to low Revenue: low to high Employees: high to low Employees: low to high
Show only companies
with Questions & Answers
L C M Pathologists Pc
Sioux Falls, SDGeib Elston & Frost Professional Association (Clinical Laboratory Of The Bla)
Rapid City, SDMedical Xray Center, P C
Sioux Falls, SDPhysicians Laboratory, Ltd
Sioux Falls, SDPrairie Imaging Services Po
Mission Hill, SDIdentity Genetics, Inc
Brookings, SDMitchell Diagnostics, Ltd
Mitchell, SDDiagnostic Vascular Center, Inc
Sioux Falls, SDPeters Distributing, Inc (Safe-N-Secure)
Sioux Falls, SDClinical Laboratories Of The Midwest
Sioux Falls, SDNuclear Diagnosis Llc
Spearfish, SDCardiovascular Institute (South Dkota Hlth Res Fundation)
Sioux Falls, SDUsd Dept Of Lab Medicine
Sioux Falls, SDDakota Draw Station
Brookings, SDRevillo Clinic Avera Health (Revillo Clnic-St Bernards Hosp)
Revillo, SDSioux Valley Clinical Laboratories
Rapid City, SDLabcorp
Rapid City, SDMobile Neurodiagnostic Services Inc
Sioux Falls, SDSioux Falls Open Mri Llc
Sioux Falls, SDClinical Lab Of Black Hills
Pierre, SDPeacock Imaging, Inc
Mobridge, SDOccupational Testing Inc
Sioux Falls, SDWatertown Pathology
Watertown, SDMedicapp Pharmacy 394
Hartford, SDKevin Nuttbrock
Pierre, SDKaren Giroux
Eagle Butte, SDSteckelberg, Lyndsie
Chamberlain, SDLeanne M Olivier
Chamberlain, SDRay Anderson (Anderson Imaging)
Sturgis, SDNorris, Berdina
Eagle Butte, SDCherie Kessler
Mobridge, SDTrista L Kourt
Wagner, SDPatricia J Foote
Dupree, SDRachel M Marts (Marts)
Bonesteel, SDUniversity Physicians (Usdsm Clinical Virology Lab)
Sioux Falls, SD
"I beleive that's exactly what I said, retest, and do not agree to treatment based on one test only. "
......................................
Actually I didn't read the rest of your post. I find them a bit hard to get through.
>>>>>>>>Actually merrybe, the PCR often detects virus in a newly exposed patient much more quickly than antibodies form. Your reason is not at all accurate.
that depends on patient response and lab antiquity. With a very small exposure it could be longer than a month before testing would reveal the exposure, and especially if using old exquipment. There's a vast difference in equipment in say New York or LA comparitive to say rural outh Dakota. It's not like every municipality is operating with state of art equipment.
>>>>>>>>It is always wise to repeat a test that is not definitive as it may be a contaminated sample or a mistake on the lab's part.
I beleive that's exactly what I said, retest, and do not agree to treatment based on one test only.
mb
1. if someone were recently infected they might not yet have detectable virus as some tests are not as accurate as others this is still a problem. Outdated machines that only detect >50 or 50 virons or above, can miss a new infection.
...............................................
Actually merrybe, the PCR often detects virus in a newly exposed patient much more quickly than antibodies form. Your reason is not at all accurate.
It is always wise to repeat a test that is not definitive as it may be a contaminated sample or a mistake on the lab's part.
yes, but the reason is threefold.
1. if someone were recently infected they might not yet have detectable virus as some tests are not as accurate as others this is still a problem. Outdated machines that only detect >50 or 50 virons or above, can miss a new infection.
2. often one can get a false positive. Either because of machine/slide contamination or human error. So no VL (viral load) means it need checking again to rule that out. IF he has a true positive then the current RNA testing should be able to pick up that genetic material. The fact that they cannot isolate any detectable viral RNA signiture calls the simple antibody test entirely into question. One should never treat for HCV without detectable virus.
3. Your son could have been exposed at any time to a minute amount of the virus and cleared or fought it off on his own. In this case no virus would be detectable, but he will carry the antibody marker (the positive) for life. Again no need to treat, he would have cleared the virus on his own, which 15-20% of those exposed actually do do. One benefit of a healthy immune system.
These answers are a paraphrase of Hepatitis Researcher, a doctor in this forum who invented the machines that detect this virus.
Ergo I would not worry prematurely. My son had a positive test followed by more sensitive testing >1....and in more sensitive tests NO VL could be detected. Meaning slide contamination was a likely possibility. It's also possible he was exposed at birth, or that he was exposed by the gamma gobulin shot our health department suggested I get him. (gamma gobulin was thought to build immunity and a friend of mine whom we ate with had the disease, so I wanted to protect my son. Now they know that gamma gobulin actually has caused the disease in some, rather than prevent it...especially that given before the virus was even detectible... which is when we got our shots.)
In any case, get more testing or PM me for more links or answers.
Our hepatologist wanted to treat my son, without any Viral Load. Let's just throw 6 months of treatment at him.
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG answer !!!!!!!!
This treatment is brutal, there no way in hell anyone should treat at ANY age without be 100% certain they have this disease. Knowing what I now know, I would suggest confirming any VL with a second set of labs done at another facility. It's the only way you could almost rule out lab/people errors.
Many people do not have any knowledge of laboratory science.
We are at a stage still where many common lab tests for certain conditions are only accurate or only detect a condition 75% of the time. Things are improving all the time, but how often does your doctor tell you "this lab is only 90 or 65% accurate...answer...almost never!
HCV tests are more accurate than the average, but they are still not outside of the element of human error, of someone being tired and not thouroughly cleaning the machine, or of a slide not bumping up against the one next to it and slurping hundreds of virons onto it in the process... and so no one should start to worry, much less endure chemo therapy based on one inconclusive set of lab tests. IMHO
mb