Ken - Many thanks for chiming in here.
Anyway, here's what I expect to get from a VL report -
DETected and the VL number given.
DETected but no number because there were some virus found but not enough to count.
However, to properly put these results in context I need to know the SENSITIVITY of the test. ie,
DOES UND mean that the test can't see any virus below 10? Below 15? Below 500?
And maybe at UND they can't see any virus at all.
We know that there can be virus still there, even if the most sensitive PCR can't see it. We all live with this concept. However, some people are monitoring small declines in their VL. To them it makes all the difference in the world if the test stops being able to see any virus at 500, or if it can still see the virus all the way down to 10. It's like trying to encapsule the meds with a scale that only measures to grams when you need it to measure to milligrams. Every scale tells you when you buy it to what limits it can measure accurately, right?
And every lab test also does. So why not put those limits on the PCR report? And why give me an answer which I can only call disinformation and double talk? Is their lab equipment not up to the same sensitivity as the competition and are they trying to keep that quiet?
Agree with you LG. We've both been through so much sub-standard medical service now that we shouldn't be surprised, but I still am. Indeed, has anything just worked first time, no problems. I think I'd be accurate to say - not much.