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;)
>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
> 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 !