Hello Trackers -
I have been looking into questions of seropositivity on the part of people, cats, whatever, and I can't find reliable info on what tests they use to determine exposure.
The presence or absence of antibodies is frequently mentioned, but my Googling did not reveal any consistent test or data. I have seen hints that some exposed people might not even carry detectable antibodies for long.
I find PCR intriguing in good and poor ways, but that, too seems foggy in reported application.
This implies to me that there is no accepted way to find out if many people have been exposed.
Does anyone have literature, links, insights into what tests are on the table and why some are viewed as better than others?
Is there any consistency? We hear about the Vietnam study so loved by debunkers, and the Cambodia study that showed no general antibody presence in the population. Then the study of the cats in Jakarta....
I'll be very grateful for any help, nudges, etc. Dr. Niman, are you out there?
Thanks!
DA
I have been looking into questions of seropositivity on the part of people, cats, whatever, and I can't find reliable info on what tests they use to determine exposure.
The presence or absence of antibodies is frequently mentioned, but my Googling did not reveal any consistent test or data. I have seen hints that some exposed people might not even carry detectable antibodies for long.
I find PCR intriguing in good and poor ways, but that, too seems foggy in reported application.
This implies to me that there is no accepted way to find out if many people have been exposed.
Does anyone have literature, links, insights into what tests are on the table and why some are viewed as better than others?
Is there any consistency? We hear about the Vietnam study so loved by debunkers, and the Cambodia study that showed no general antibody presence in the population. Then the study of the cats in Jakarta....
I'll be very grateful for any help, nudges, etc. Dr. Niman, are you out there?
Thanks!
DA
Comment