Scientifically, what is meant by the term "sero-conversion?" I think we are supposed to believe that certain proteins of HIV origin were present in a given individual's blood sample prior to "treatment," and absent following treatment. And, presumably, that antibody detection (Western or ELISA) was the indirect method used to make the claim of "sero-conversion."
Assuming their "sero-conversion" biological model were accurate, detection (or not) of a given protein is inconclusive, as protein abundance varies widely over time, depending on (largely unknown) biological mechanisms controlling or regulating protein expression levels.
Also, antibody detection is an experimental method fraught with variability and is a procedure involving many components and steps, any of which can affect results outcome.
Antibodies (both primary and secondary) vary widely, and, as biological molecules, have limited lifespans. Concentration used for each antibody must be experimentally determined- rarely, if ever, done. Similarly, the detection molecule has wide variability and short lifespans.
Currently, the digital signal capture machines and the reliance on software for amplification and interpretation of signal is the greatest source of error. But even prior to these digital machines, few procedures were more problematic than antibody detection of (claimed) specific proteins.
So, while I understand the general discussion, the fundamental scientific assumptions underlying manufacturer claims range from refuted hypotheses to sheer science fiction. How does one argue against pseudoscience using a scientific reference?- it can't really be done.
Thanks, Miss Rebecca.
Scientifically, what is meant by the term "sero-conversion?" I think we are supposed to believe that certain proteins of HIV origin were present in a given individual's blood sample prior to "treatment," and absent following treatment. And, presumably, that antibody detection (Western or ELISA) was the indirect method used to make the claim of "sero-conversion."
Assuming their "sero-conversion" biological model were accurate, detection (or not) of a given protein is inconclusive, as protein abundance varies widely over time, depending on (largely unknown) biological mechanisms controlling or regulating protein expression levels.
Also, antibody detection is an experimental method fraught with variability and is a procedure involving many components and steps, any of which can affect results outcome.
Antibodies (both primary and secondary) vary widely, and, as biological molecules, have limited lifespans. Concentration used for each antibody must be experimentally determined- rarely, if ever, done. Similarly, the detection molecule has wide variability and short lifespans.
Currently, the digital signal capture machines and the reliance on software for amplification and interpretation of signal is the greatest source of error. But even prior to these digital machines, few procedures were more problematic than antibody detection of (claimed) specific proteins.
So, while I understand the general discussion, the fundamental scientific assumptions underlying manufacturer claims range from refuted hypotheses to sheer science fiction. How does one argue against pseudoscience using a scientific reference?- it can't really be done.
"HIV"
Appreciate your writing greatly.
The terms used in the descriptions in the article are fascinating and how leftist infused they are.
Description: A 21-year-old Latinx man acquired HIV between months 10-13 of using PrEP
Latin x is a scientific term?
Cisgender is leftist feel-good speak, also not scientific.
No one else's ethnicity was mentioned and to be Hispanic is not an actual ethnicity.
I'm aware of the dei leftist infusion into med schools yet still taken aback by its use in a scientific article.