Relapse of 'cured' HIV patients spurs AIDS science on

reuters.com ^ | Jan 2, 20114 | Kate Kelland

[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.