The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
If you hear IgM, the IgM is the first of the adaptive immune responses, and it tends to come on earlier. So if somebody is immunopositive for IgM for a particular type of viral or bacterial invader, that means that it was a fairly recent infection. Later, one creates... The adaptive immune system, I should say, creates an IgG, which is the more stable form of the specific antibody that's going to recognize a given invader. So IgG tends to come up a little bit later.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
If you hear IgM, the IgM is the first of the adaptive immune responses and it tends to come on earlier. So if somebody is immunopositive for IgM for a particular type of viral or bacterial invader, that means that it was a fairly recent infection. Later, one creates, the adaptive immune system I should say, creates an IgG, which is the more stable form of the specific antibody that's going to recognize a given invader. So, IgG tends to come up a little bit later.
when you get infected let's say you've got infected with dengue virus the first antibody that comes up is the IgM antibody so if you have a test that says your iga-positive the dengue that means it's a very recent infection those IgM antibodies tail off over time maybe two months three months