supersport
New member
And what about western blot? If your testing methods are so accurate using the dilutions you posted why is there not a 100% accuracy rate? Just curious-not trying to be a smart ass.
MyoGro
- Thread starter getripped
- Start date
supersport
New member
in the undiluted serums in the ELISA test what rate of HIV antibody positives do you observe? Is there any changes as the serum is diluted? At what dilution do you (if you do) observe a positive become negative?-And who is the manufacturer of the test kit? Can these results be reproducible at another testing facility?
einstein1905
New member
The Perkin Elmer p24 ELISA kit is the standard in most all research applications. To be honest, I'm not sure what they use for the clinical screens. I assume it's the same PE kit, being that's it's considered the best. A positive will turn into a negative at various dilutions depending on how high of a viral titer the person has. The curve generated by the standard is a 4 parameter curve i.e. a sigmoidal turning into another sigmoid. There isn't a linear proportionality between dilution and signal.
False readings are very possible due to each ELISA also having to include a series of dilutions of a positive standard. Cross contamination of wells is the most common reason for a false positive. I don't doubt that, on occassion, there are false positives due to other circumstances, but false positives are rare.
A Western really is not any more sensitive than an ELISA. With the low background and high sensitivity of the p24 kit in conjunction with the very sensitive plate readers of today, a Western is antiquated if you're using the same antibodies as you are in the ELISA. Concentrating sera is the best way to increase sensitivity, as you'll be increasing the amount of total IgG antibodies per mL, which will give you a better chance of detecting anti-HIV IgG. Same with pregnancy tests....home test versus clinical test, the only difference is that the med tech centrifuge your urine so as to increase sensitivity (more readily detect HCG).
False readings are very possible due to each ELISA also having to include a series of dilutions of a positive standard. Cross contamination of wells is the most common reason for a false positive. I don't doubt that, on occassion, there are false positives due to other circumstances, but false positives are rare.
A Western really is not any more sensitive than an ELISA. With the low background and high sensitivity of the p24 kit in conjunction with the very sensitive plate readers of today, a Western is antiquated if you're using the same antibodies as you are in the ELISA. Concentrating sera is the best way to increase sensitivity, as you'll be increasing the amount of total IgG antibodies per mL, which will give you a better chance of detecting anti-HIV IgG. Same with pregnancy tests....home test versus clinical test, the only difference is that the med tech centrifuge your urine so as to increase sensitivity (more readily detect HCG).
supersport
New member
einstein1905 said:
Last edited:
einstein1905
New member
supersport said:
supersport
New member
So -in the serum sample that you have tested that you are sure are negative-one's of yours and your co-workers (I am using you and them because you get tested frequently so you know you are or at least have been antibody neg)-at the lower dilutions-by low I mean 1:1 or 1:5-are they all positive or is their a mix of pos and neg?
einstein1905
New member
supersport said:
No no no. Our serum always tests negative, even undiluted. Unless there is a contamination problem that affects the whole plate, of course, but then the assay will be redone. The only reason that we run undiluted samples is to see positives of the sera that may have a very low level of virus. The high dilutions are run so that those with a high viral load have some dilutions that fall within the readable range of absorbance units for proper quantification based on the standard curve.
supersport
New member
Okay...this is conflicting with the research that I read from the doc in NYC that I posted previously. I have made email contact with him and I did write about your testing results. I am hoping for a response from him in the next few days-I am sure he is busy as he does travel internationally and goes to and participates in symposiums nationwide and in fact world wide. He did email me last night-and I emailed him this afternoon with some questions about the results you are finding. So while I wait (patiently-LOL) i do have some questions for you.
In the HIV positive patients you see I am curious about the percentage of CD-4 cells that are infected by HIV. I know that each patient is somewhat different-please feel free to use a "generalization" to encompass the majority of your findings. I am interested in some figures for patients that are positive that are asymptomatic, patients that meet criteria to be diagnosed as having "AIDS", and patients that are moribund, or end stage AIDS. I am sure that as AIDS progresses that the percentage of infected cells rise (in most cases)-but if you can give me some "average " figures to the best of your ability I would appreciate the info. I know that each patients cell counts and viral loads change daily and that there is sometimes a fairly large increase or decrease in patients numbers between each testing. If you could provide the figures in numbers such as 30 infected cells in 100 CD-4 cells, 15 infected cells per 100 CD-4 cells , and so on.
Thanks man-SS
In the HIV positive patients you see I am curious about the percentage of CD-4 cells that are infected by HIV. I know that each patient is somewhat different-please feel free to use a "generalization" to encompass the majority of your findings. I am interested in some figures for patients that are positive that are asymptomatic, patients that meet criteria to be diagnosed as having "AIDS", and patients that are moribund, or end stage AIDS. I am sure that as AIDS progresses that the percentage of infected cells rise (in most cases)-but if you can give me some "average " figures to the best of your ability I would appreciate the info. I know that each patients cell counts and viral loads change daily and that there is sometimes a fairly large increase or decrease in patients numbers between each testing. If you could provide the figures in numbers such as 30 infected cells in 100 CD-4 cells, 15 infected cells per 100 CD-4 cells , and so on.
Thanks man-SS
Last edited:
einstein1905
New member
supersport said:
I'm not going to be able to help you out much with the kind of numbers you're looking for. It's not the type of stats that are relevant to my research. So, if I were to give you stats on number of T cells infected, or proportion thereof, I'd have to look it up. It wouldn't be any of my data. My research currently deals with the infection of monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells. Even then, I don't keep stats on the number infected. I could backtrack and do some rough math for those cell types, but they aren't very relevant either. I'm working on a transgenic murine model that has human analogs of any murine protein that disallows HIV susceptibility. It's a humanized mouse in that all of its immune cells are "human". That's a bit on a tangent, but it should explain in part why I don't keep the type of stats you're looking for.
In general though, as HIV infection progresses, obviously more Tcells become infected, which not only depletes the Tcell population and spawns exponential viral replication, but it weakens a person in the sense that their bodies reappropriate a substantial amount of energy trying to regenerate their immune system. I don't remember the threshhold T cell count, at which one is officially diagnosed with full blown AIDS.
Please keep in touch regarding correspondance with your Doc connection.
supersport
New member
I believe-but not totally sure-that a patient is deemed to have "AIDS" when CD-4 counts drop to 200 or less and any one or more of the accepted opportunistic infections is present. A healthy person should have between 600-1200 or so CD-4 cells-of course in some cases a person with <200 CD-4 is perfectly healthy and others above 600 are sick-but the CDC set the 200 mark as the threshold if memory serves correct.
Sure, I will keep you posted on the MD that i contacted. Seems like I remember seeing his name on an African Advisory Board and some other things too. If he does email me back I am going to ask him if he would join us in this thread. Of course all of us have time restraints-he goes everywhere, but maybe I can convince him to join in.
Have a good weekend bro
---SS
Sure, I will keep you posted on the MD that i contacted. Seems like I remember seeing his name on an African Advisory Board and some other things too. If he does email me back I am going to ask him if he would join us in this thread. Of course all of us have time restraints-he goes everywhere, but maybe I can convince him to join in.
Have a good weekend bro
---SS
supersport
New member
thatdguy said:
No......it is still the MyoGro thread as far as I am concerned...I was just concerned about the validity of the study since it was done on some HIV positive subjects with wasting syndrome.....perhaps Einstein and I will continue our debate on this thread....or we could start another one dedicated to HIV. Personally I feel it is important for those in the BB'ing world to be familiar with the testing methods because I believe most BB's get frequent blood tests more so than the average citizen- and may incorporate an HIV antibody test while doing so. I know Einstein will disagree with me (and I don't have a problem with that-I believe truth emerges from controversy) but there is a growing body of research and a growing membership of MD's and scientist that are disputing the HIV-AIDS hypothesis and have questions regarding the validity of the testing. Perhaps in the next few days or weeks Einstein and I will start a new thread entirely dedicated to this subject as I believe many members would be interested in reading about it.
einstein1905
New member
This is a great opportunity to document results then.thatdguy said:
If you don't mind, you should post before/after stats. Also, what else are you taking? If you're taking something else, have you taken it before, so you know how you react to it? It'd be great to get some real world results. How much are you taking and where are you sticking it so far?
supersport
New member
thatdguy said:
I am just curious as to why the test subjects included people suffering from wasting syndrome. A person suffering from wasting syndrome may experience rapid and substantially more significant gains than a person in good health. Or vise-versa.
I simply do not know enough about MyoGro or MGF or any of the interleukins to make a personal decision regarding any of these compounds. I think it is very cool that Proud is taking the plunge and posting the results. I have read just a little about Il-15....looks like it may be promising to me. But sometimes there is a huge discrepancy between a study and actual real world results. Go for it Proud!!! And what is cool is proud appears (by his avatar anyway) to be very lean...which IMO will show more accurate results.
I am taking MyoGro and Arg3-IGF1. I've taken IGF-1 before and feel that the gains in weight will be minor, but physique will improve dramatically. I'll get cut up and gain vascularity. With MyoGro.. who knows.. those people taking MyoGro with 4 other steroids - the test is obviously too ineffective to know how much of it is coming from myogro... I got mine from silo.. anyone know how good the company is?
homonunculus
New member
einstein1905 said:
Einstein,
Could you explain this?... Is the multi-modal reponse seen within the range of absorbance of your ELISA, or is it partially due to inaccurate readings for dilutions that fall nearly or entirely out of range?...
BTW, great discussion, Guys. Impressively enthusiastic as well as civil. I can't imagine Presser would care about bandwidth terribly, unless this becomes a trend. (BTW, if you are concerned about taking up server space, simply remember to clip your quotes to the pertinent info., or not quote at all.)
-Randy
Similar threads
