[ransomnote]

So might this indicate that the AIDS tests commonly in use are not sensitive enough to accurately report whether bone marrow donation or blood has the aids virus? Is it that they couldn't test in a system as complex as the human body? If so, wouldn't the tested population in the US actually have higher levels of aids than currently reported?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Research grants are inspiring, not crushing.

[Viennacon]

Just a further reminder that its a diseased world out there.

[DannyTN]

Maybe the tests are sensitive enough...or maybe their behavior that got them infected in the first place didn’t change and they reinfected themselves.

[LukeL]

It may be the virus hid out deep in the fat or nervous tissue and emerged after some time.

[Mr. K]

maybe they should stop doing what got them AIDS in the first place...

[Mr. K]

fortunately 100% of any health care treatments they want will be covered by Obamacare

(and then some!)

[icwhatudo]

Good example why homosexual men should never be allowed to donate blood no matter what tests show.

[dangerdoc]

Relapse or reinfection?

[dhs12345]

Which the wanted to stop doing even though it is flawed... because it offended the homosexuals to ask them about their lifestyles and “discriminate” against them.

[Understand the stimulus]

so Obama forces homosexual perverts on military while allowing these scum to attack good religious people they hate...the new label is homo skeptic

[Darksheare]

Reinfection, most likely.

[Wuli]

it was previously announced in another recent study that this kind of result was likely; that after heavy bombardment by the cocktails of anti-HIV drugs, HIV was discovered to be hibernating so inconspicously, and at such minute levels, in the body’s cells as to be hard to detect; where, if and when the cocktail of anti-HIV drugs is reduced or ended, it - the HIV - detects a change in the blood stream that indicates that fact, comes out of hibernation and starts attacking the immune cells all over again

[srmorton]

There is a window of time after a person has been exposed to HIV during which the person will test negative because the amount of antibody is too low to be detected by our current tests. That is always a problem when blood donors are screened prior to the donation. If they answer the screening questions honestly, any male donor who is currently a practicing homosexual or a female donor who admits to even one sexual contact with a bisexual male would automatically be rejected. The ARC gives the donor every opportunity to be honest because the questions are asked via computer in a cubicle in which only the donor is present.

[43north]

HIV is a retrovirus. There will never be a cure.

[kvanbrunt2]

i’ll get flamed for this statement but here goes: No one ever died from HIV or Aids. They die or contract other deadly diseases. What is the difference between a lymphoma patient with or without HIV. Isn’t the lymphoma the problem. Does HIV cause the lymphoma? ( i think this is what the science says it does) Then what causes the lymphoma in a person without HIV? and where did the HIV apocalyptic epidemic go? Isn’t Magic Johnson still floating around 20 years after an HIV discovery?

[trebb]

So might this indicate that the AIDS tests commonly in use are not sensitive enough to accurately report whether bone marrow donation or blood has the aids virus? Is it that they couldn't test in a system as complex as the human body? If so, wouldn't the tested population in the US actually have higher levels of aids than currently reported?

It might also mean that it doesn't take as high a concentration of the virus to infect someone - they thought there was a cure because they couldn't detect it and the undetectable amount was sufficient to reinfect. I wonder if there are other factors that occur with having been infected that make it easier for a smaller amount of the virus to propagate.

[Jim Noble]

I don’t think that either Steve Deeks or Dan Kuritzkes ever said anything other than “maybe” about these two.

And, yes, it’s quite significant, but not at all surprising, that a test cutoff of 20 copies per mL of blood is not sensitive enough to detect a very significant total body viral burden.