Timeline for It is possible for person with AIDS be negative for HIV antibodies?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 26, 2016 at 3:20 | answer | added | JayCkat | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 16, 2016 at 6:17 | history | protected | Chris♦ | ||
| Sep 17, 2014 at 12:59 | vote | accept | kenorb | ||
| Sep 8, 2014 at 5:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackBiology/status/508855288133586944 | ||
| Sep 1, 2014 at 12:56 | comment | added | WYSIWYG | perhaps they were not very sensitive.. There is always a scope for improvement | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 12:28 | answer | added | Chris♦ | timeline score: 11 | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:51 | comment | added | kenorb | @WYSIWYG: Did they use bad antibody detection kits in the past? | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:38 | comment | added | WYSIWYG | Depends on the sensitivity of the antibody detection kit | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:37 | comment | added | kenorb | @Mad Scientist: If you'll keep down-voting by not explaining the questions/inaccuracies, then I assume you don't know, then you should ignore the question and leave it for the people who know the answers. By not answering the question and closing them, you just keeping the people in the dark, therefore promoting the conspiracy theories, and not people who just ask. BTW. I'm not looking for "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" theories, just answers. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:30 | comment | added | kenorb | I don't see anything bad in asking the question. If the paper doesn't mean what I think, then you can elaborate/explain further. I'm not biologist, therefore I ask. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:28 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | If you're looking for support for your "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" conspiracy theory, you're in the wrong place. This paper doesn't mean what you think it means, it isn't evidence for your conspiracy theory like you think it is. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:24 | comment | added | kenorb | The main question is as in the title, if it's possible for person to be HIV-free. Based on CDC report it seems it is possible, but somehow this is not considered as a fact. So I just wonder why is that. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:19 | comment | added | Chris♦ | There is no need to downvote this question. I can still be clarified but nothing further. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 11:09 | comment | added | The Last Word | Ur question is still pretty confusing to me. Could you please edit it. Your question speaks about something and the comment you posted talks about something else. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 10:32 | comment | added | kenorb | Yes, how it's possible that they were HIV-negative or in general if there are any other more recent studies. More information, then better. | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 10:31 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2014 at 10:28 | comment | added | Chris♦ | You need to decide what you want to know. The paper you link talks about patients wihich have a low CD4+ count, but are not positive for HIV. So you want to know how this happens? Or do you want to know if it is possible for someone who is HIV positive (and has developed AIDS, which is the latest stage of the infection) to not develop antibodies against HIV? | |
| Sep 1, 2014 at 10:18 | history | edited | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 355 characters in body
|
| Sep 1, 2014 at 10:13 | history | asked | kenorb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |