Hi Carla,
Fiv cats can often harbor the virus for many years and not show any
symptoms at all. Screening for fiv is usually done with a test kit called
ELISA. This test will detect the anti-fiv antibodies in a cat's blood by
having them bind to fiv antigen in a microtitre plate. One of the problems
with this test is that antibody levels must be a certain threshold to
generate a positive result. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that Bamama
didn't test positive the first time. Her test sample could of been
contaminated or as you mentioned an error was made...
When cats are showing symptoms of fiv the level of antibody is
technically supposed to be high enough for any test to detect. So if the
kitty comes back negative, then it usually assumed there was an
error/contamination and a second test is needed. I did speak to a
specialist once that said fiv can "hide" such as felv hiding in the bone
marrow causing test results to be negative. Personally, I'm not too sure
about that.
The vet that I mentioned in a previous letter isn't my vet. I
wouldn't have a vet that ignorant. He is a friend of a friend....I don't
know how many times I told him not to let his cats out but he still does.
When his cat was bitten and had fiv, I felt sorry for the cat but not for
the vet. I felt like yelling "told you so" The poor cat died 3 weeks after
the initial bite. That is considered pretty quick for fiv.
Amber
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Question about FIV testing
>
> Amber,
>
> That doesn't surprize me about the fiv. in 96 when we found out
> Chewy was felv we tested all the cats. For some reason Bamama
> didn't test positive. She has not been outside since we got her in
> 93.
>
> We found out two years ago she is positive.
>
> I asked my vet how this could happen she tested 4 years ago
> negative and they said that sometimes it doesn't up for years.
>
> Now I don't know if they just messed the first test, were the test not
> as accurate or is it true a cat can be positive but not test positive
> due to the amount of the virus that is in their system.
>
> As for your vet letting his cat out, my vet told me the once that his
> wife puts the cat out and if he had his way they would have a few
> more that he loves cats. Now he may have felt guilty since I work
> with an adoption group so he said that but I kinda laughed when he
> sorta told me like he was appoligizing for letting the cat out.
>
> Carla
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "=^..^=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Question about FIV testing
> Date sent: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:53:19 -0700
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I didn't realize Lucy was already having symptoms prior to her fiv
> testing. I know this vet who strangely enough lets his cats outdoors.
> One day one of his cats came home from a fight and he noticed
> that his
> cat had a bite wound. He took him to his clinic and cleaned it up
> and
> decided to run some tests. Everything at that point seemed fine.
> Then the kitty progressively had gotten sick and he was tested and
> came back positive for fiv. It only took 3 weeks for the cat to
> succumb to fiv from the day he was bitten. The vet had told me
> that
> he couldn't believe his cat would go so quickly. Infection had
> spread
> across the cats mouth and lungs. One would think the vet learnt a
> lesson and keep his last cat indoors but to my surprise he still lets
> him out.
>
> Amber
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Question about FIV testing
>
>
> > Tiffie's history is definitely very weird, and you'll probably never
> > know
> the
> > real story for sure - at least not on this earth! You say she came
> > from a breeder, so I assume she is a purebred - what kind? Must not
> > have been a very good breeder if there was any chance she ever did
> > have leuk or FIV,
> and
> > especially if she in fact did have both, even if she did throw them
> > off. One for the history books.
> >
> > I don't think the reason for Lucy's initial test showing her as
> > being FIV negative could have been because she didn't have high
> > enough antibody
> levels
> > for it to be detected - she had symptoms from the time I got her,
> > and as
> we
> > know, FIV cats don't seem to normally get symptoms until quite some
> > time - years, in fact - after their initial exposure and infection.
> > Jackson, my other FIV cat, contracted FIV four years ago now (we
> > know pretty much
> exactly
> > when, as he was in two bad fights within a month or so of each
> > other, and tested negative on his first test, positive 90 days
> > later). So far, he doesn't appear to have any symptoms.
>
>
