HIV

I would also like to point out that any test that relies on Western Blotting or ELISA is by default very unreliable.


As with all techniques, western blotting has its limitations [4,5,11]. The main limitation of western blotting is that it can only be carried out if a primary antibody against the protein of interest is available. To detect post-translational modifications such as phosphorylation of target proteins, specific antibodies against the phosphorylated residues are needed. While antibodies for many different proteins are available from biotech companies, they are not cheap, and if primary antibodies are not available for a given protein, it will not be possible to perform a western blot to detect that particular protein. Another major limitation is that many antibodies exhibit off-target effects by interacting with other proteins. There are also many commercially available antibodies that do not detect the target protein when tested in the laboratory with particular tissues or cell types, resulting in what can only be described as expensive buffer. Another important limitation of the western blotting technique is the technical demand on the scientist. It is not uncommon for simple mistakes such as using too little or too much primary antibody to result in unusable results. An investigation of quantitative western blotting using erythropoietin showed that the interoperator variability was the main error source accounting for nearly 80% of the total variance [12]. Other western blotting limitations include the need for each antibody to be independently optimized and the cost of modern western blotting equipment such as advanced digital imagers. The basic western blot protocol is often ineffective in detecting a particular protein and modified protocols exist in most laboratories. One problem that may be encountered is variations in transfer efficiency. Small proteins (< 10kDa) may not be retained by the membrane, large proteins (> 140kDa) may not being transferred to the membrane, and varying gel concentrations may affect transfer efficiency [13]. Other problems include the primary antibody not recognizing the immobilized antigen in its denatured state, the detection signal decaying too quickly and high background to name a few. However, many of these limitations can be overcome with proper experimental techniques.

In this paper "The necessity of and strategies for improving confidence in the accuracy of western blots." the authors are saying, in a very "sciency" way, that Western Blottings are very unreliable, but that in the right conditions you can make them more reliable. Not exactly a gold standard of precision. The ELISA test is based in many of the same principles, and is affected by similar problems.
 
Woodsman said:
It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree regarding viruses; I may be wrong about everything, I just see no reason to think so at the moment.

But the techniques you are using to fortify what appears to be a sacred cow can carry expensive cognitive consequences. Is your sanity worth it? Don't worry about what I think. I'm not trying to "win". I'm nothing.

I completely agree. We may be completely wrong, or right, about so many things, and in the end ... It doesn't matter, we are ALL, (and both), NOTHING in the scheme of things! Trust me on that. Only the truth really matters. I'm not really sure what 'sacred cow' you think I might be 'chasing around'. Is it different from yours, or do you think it is the same? I just want to capture it and slaughter it.

My sanity is ok, (for the moment). And, as far as I know, a virus is only one (maybe) thing that could rock the sanity boat. It doesn't seem to be under attack from any viruses currently (no temperature, lethargy etc.) however little we understand them. You do realize that a lot of our own DNA is viral, right? I'm not really sure what your opinion of viruses is, on the whole. Although I 'get' that you don't think much of HIV as a potential singularity.
 
Joe said:
Ruth, we value politeness and decency on this forum. Woodsman saying that there are questions about what actually causes Aids does not mean he is "in denial". If others were to adopt your argumentative and somewhat combative approach, you would immediately be (reasonably) accused of being closed-minded and engaging in black and white thinking. But we don't do that because this forum is about research and learning, which is not compatible with members throwing snippy remarks at each other just because they present alternative viewpoints.

Actually, I saw it somewhat differently, but I won't go into that now. Because it is what it is. It really is an opportunity for Woodsman to objectively investigate his own thoughts and feelings on the topic. And, why isolate HIV as a single virus, why not all viruses?
 
Back
Top Bottom