Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Hepatitis / June 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Results of my 3.5 month post-tx blood draw

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
TX-012 - 08 Jun 2009 23:19 GMT
Still undetectable.

Anyone know the likelyhood of testing positive on the 6-month post-tx
if one is undetectable on the 3-month? My Dr. thinks it is probably in
the single digits, but is not sure.

Needless to say, I'm massively relieved. Not out of the woods yet, but
very hopeful.

After 72 weeks of you-know-what, if I cleared the virus, well, pardon
my French, but I f.cking EARNED it;)
greyhackles - 09 Jun 2009 01:15 GMT
>Still undetectable.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>After 72 weeks of you-know-what, if I cleared the virus, well, pardon
>my French, but I f.cking EARNED it;)

That's just excellent news!

I'd say, if the more sensitive test is used at the 3 month post-eotx check,
the percentage of peeps who show clear at three months and still clear at 6
month is well into the 90s%. So, yeah, the other side of that answer is surely
"single digits".

Unfortunately, getting a doc to use the 5 IU/ml or better test can be a
challenge - particularly if one isn't aware that some docs still usually use
much cheaper qualitative tests that have thresholds up to 500 IU/ml. With a
two-order of magnitude higher threshold, someone just 12 weeks off therapy
would have a significantly higher chance of slipping through, only to be
flagged three months later...

Cheers

/greyhackles
TX-012 - 09 Jun 2009 01:47 GMT
> >Still undetectable.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> would have a significantly higher chance of slipping through, only to be
> flagged three months later...<<

I forget how low the testing procedures at UCLA go, but I think they
do use very sensitive ones...I seem to recall getting a reading of 19
right before going undetectable...could just be my imagination,
however...

> Cheers
>
> /greyhackles
Russian - 18 Jun 2009 00:45 GMT
> Still undetectable.
>
> After 72 weeks of you-know-what, if I cleared the virus, well, pardon
> my French, but I f.cking EARNED it;)

Oui, c'est vrais !
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.