Talk:Vaccine-induced seropositivity

VISP as a generalization
VISP could be applied to any situation when a vaccine causes a person to screen as positive for a disease, but this situation seems to only be having a dramatic effect in the field of HIV vaccination research because the consequences of testing positive for HIV, even if a person is actually HIV negative, can be dramatic.

I talked to some health experts about VISP for other diseases, and none of them knew of any sources about this or any historical situation when this phenomenon mattered much except in the case of HIV research.

If anyone has any sources about VISP for something other than HIV, then please let me know and I will introduce it into the article. I wonder whether VISP matters in any developing country where people might not have good medical records of whether they have been vaccinated, but I have been unable to find any source which says anything about this.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been cleaning up the article. You really need to clean it up first.  Don't use words like "things" and other undefined general words in a medical article.  Also, speaking with anyone is original research.  As someone in the healthcare field, this is not a problem at all.  I'm suspicious that this article may not not be notable enough.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am totally cool with that, but as soon as you requested clarification I fixed the points you suggested I change. I know what WP:OR is.  If you have a problem, then direct me to it.  If you have questions about notability then either talk to me or AfD it.  I am here to talk if you want to talk, but so far as I know, I have met all your stated concerns.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you fix it, remove the tag. It's there as a reminder only.  The top tags shouldn't be removed until there's consensus that everything has been fixed.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of the reference to Hepatitis B is a bit confusing --While it is true that you want people to become used to the idea that a vaccine is going to cause the formation of antibodies - so the HIV vaccine like any other vaccine is going to cause antibodies to be detected in the blood and that this does not mean the person was ever infected, this sentence is not 100% true: 'When a person gets a hepatitis B vaccine then the most common test for hepatitis B will show them to be positive.' The reason is because for a hepatitis B panel, it is now common to evaluate a whole panel of tests (as mentioned in the article) and not just the antibody test. When a person gets a Hepatitis B panel, it is much more clear whether the person has been infected or not...with HIV the issue is that the routine tests done at most blood banks, clinics and hospitals, will not be able to determine the difference - they only look for the presence of antibody, so a more specific test that is not routinely done at blood centers, clinics and labs needs to be done if a person has had HIV vaccine...A better example for the public might be chicken pox. With routine tests for chicken pox as ordered by most clinics (for populations young enough to be lucky to have an option for vaccination) you get whether antibodies are present or not and if a test came back positive for antibodies (high enough titre) you would know the person has antibodies (immune) but would not immediately know whether the person was ever infected or simply had the vaccine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.104.1 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)