Absolutely agree! By putting so much
emphasis on the test, they also put the idea in prospective adopter that
somehow the cat is doomed to an early death!
-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of catatonya
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006
12:49 PM
To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org
Subject: Re: positive
This is why I wish shelters wouldn't even test.
They put down cats who are probably not positive, and they make people 'think'
a cat is negative due to a test coming up negative while the cat has been
exposed to tons of other cats and just hasn't had time to test positive
yet. My opinion is separate the kittens from the adults (unless it's
mothers and kittens) and treat felv like a 'treatable' disease. Which it
IS.
It's not like shelters test their hearts, or kidneys,
or whatever and say 'in the future your cat looks like it may have kidney
problems so let's just euthanize it now."
t
TenHouseCats
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'm
not sure what the question is--but a cat that tests negative when
you don't know for sure that the cat hasn't been in contact with a
positive cannot be assumed to actually BE negative, because of that
same 120-day window.... say you take in a cat that's been exposed in
the previous week--might well test negative, but in a month would test
positive.... so ALL tests, ideally, should be repeated in 120-days:
this hypothetical kitty who got outdoors and mixed with positives
could test negative at day 10 of exposure, positive on day 45, and
have processed the virus out of its body at the 120-day mark.....
if you want to od on medical terminology, go to scirus.com, and type
in "FeLV...." much of the info is way beyond my everyday knowledge,
and a lot of the cites that come up are dated--but there's some neat
stuff there anyway.... (grabbing medical dictionary and virology text
for next period of nothing-better-to-do time....)
--
MaryChristine
AIM / YAHOO: TenHouseCats
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 289856892
|
