I'd sure prefer a diagnosis of lumphoma as opposed to FIP. Lymphoma is
treatable, and can be survivable.
Margo
-Original Message-
>From: dlg...@windstream.net
>Sent: Aug 13, 2013 9:39 PM
>To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org
>Subject: Re: [Felvtalk] Charles
>
>Hope it isn't Lyphoma, I had
Sorry. LYmphoma. Not lUmphoma...
-Original Message-
>From: Margo
>Sent: Aug 14, 2013 7:23 AM
>To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org
>Subject: Re: [Felvtalk] Charles
>
>
>
>I'd sure prefer a diagnosis of lumphoma as opposed to FIP. Lymphoma is
>treatable, and can be survivable.
>
>Margo
>
>
Hi,
I want to bring Leo back in to get the IFA test. I was reading about the
company that developed
the IFA test, the National Veterinary Lab. Are they the company that most
folks use or can
my vet send to any lab, like Antech, etc. Is one lab considered more accurate
than another?
Are PC
Shelley,
One of my vets (I'm in the US) did a PCR test, but another always does IFA
(for kittens who test positive on snap ELISA) and that seems to be more
common. I asked my vet why she chose the PCR test and she said it was more
accurate. PCR results seemed to take longer than the IFA but I've a
Hi Shelley,
This is coming from a very disgruntled person so take it all with a
grain of salt:)
I have pretty much given up on test results as accomplishing anything.
They seem just about useless in the long run, from my experience. For many
years I ran a rescue in FL. I was f
Thanks Katherine.
I think I have heard that too about PCR accuracy.
Shelley
On Aug 14, 2013, at 10:05 AM, Katherine K. wrote:
> Shelley,
>
> One of my vets (I'm in the US) did a PCR test, but another always does IFA
> (for kittens who test positive on snap ELISA) and that seems to be more
>
Hi Margo,
Wow, that is frustrating, and you were being so very cautious.
You're right, each type of test seems to rely heavily on the test being run
properly, and
how can we assure that?
I will probably still do the IFA for Leo, and then if need be follow at some
point with the PCR, etc.
Tho
Margo, I rescue too, and I've reached the same conclusion as you have.
This testing and retesting doesn't let us know what is really going on.
It is so discouraging, as well as extremely expensive when you have a
lot of rescued cats. Believe me I'd like to stop rescuing too, but what
do I do
Lorrie, when I said I quit, it's really just a rant. I can't "quit" because,
like you, I have too many permanent residents. Aside from the local strays
(which I've been s/n for 7 years, after "retiring" from Florida and cat
rescue) that show up, this year I have 4 kittens brought by their feral
If I understood the AAFP retrovirus guidelines paper, PCR tests are the only
test that will show regressive infection. Theoretically, regressive infections
rarely if ever surface. In other words, a true negative on ELISA/IFA should not
"go positive" later on down the line.
Testing, like vaccina
Like others who have replied, I have worked with cat rescues and have
personal experiences w/ FeLV. I trust ELISA and IFA results if done
properly. However, I wouldn't run a PCR test. I feel this test is
EXTREMELY sensitive and any sort of mishandling will result in an
untrustworthy result. One
You really have to decide why you are testing. If a cat is ill with the Mystery
Illness, of course you need to run some tests to pinpoint what may be the cause
of the illness. If you are adopting out, you probably should do a combo test
without the heartworm part which I learned from this list c
12 matches
Mail list logo
