Re: Mircroscopy and other tests for borrelia, babesia etc

[Guest guest]

> Finally, I have a question. Are healthies on the street *completely*

> unreactive on a lyme WB, or do they have trace bands? If they do, it's

> pretty easy to argue that nonspecific B cell stimulation due to

> inflammatory disease should amplify their bands somewhat. If their

> lyme WBs are usually absolutely blank, then it's harder to argue that

> inflammatory disease would cause them to " sprout " some faint anti-Bb

> bands. Which scenario is the case, I really don't know, but it's

> probably in the literature somewhere.

Well, it looks like the bulk of normals may have no bands whatsoever

visible to the eye. That's the impression I get from looking at some

papers, but it's a semi-vague impression. I am having a heck of a time

finding many photos of control blots. Here is one paper with 3 control

blots from people with acute meningitis:

http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/28/9/2148

Perhaps squinting at these faint bands is really more meaningful than

I was inclined to guess.

[Guest guest]

Ugh. I've looked at probably 25 papers on google scholar. Basically

none of them had actual photos of healthy people's blots or

inflammatory disease peoples'.

> Well, it looks like the bulk of normals may have no bands whatsoever

> visible to the eye. That's the impression I get from looking at some

> papers, but it's a semi-vague impression. I am having a heck of a time

> finding many photos of control blots. Here is one paper with 3 control

> blots from people with acute meningitis:

>

> http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/28/9/2148

>

> Perhaps squinting at these faint bands is really more meaningful than

> I was inclined to guess.

>

[Guest guest]

a, why don't you have the same concerns about your staph infection? penny pjeanneus <pj7@...> wrote: Tony, On the topic of common sense, women's symptoms may be more debilitating, but that doesn't mean men are not infected at equal rates. I say this because my husband and son are both infected with borrelia but have never exhibited the severe level of symptoms I have, or at least not for as long as I have. If you

compare borreliosis to tetiary syphillis - first of all not everyone infected with syphillis gets tertiary syphillis, and second, the symptoms are called the great masquarade because they vary from person to person. I think borreliosis is exactly like this. We really don't know how many people are infected and then labeled with various "autoimmune" disease labels or other...Then you have the problem of co-infections. It may be that women tend to get more infections over time, and this may relate to hormonal issues or even pregnancy which suppresses the immune system in some ways.a>> Barb> the commonsense part of the science equation still hasn't been > satisfied. You've also got to get around the part that see's these > forums, lyme/cfs, being occupied by 4 woman to every man..Malaria or > many other ilness ain't driven the same way- so you really need to go > back

> and understand what types of things can drive these diseases...IMO > I'm comfortable that hormones drive the bugs and I could possably > tinker with this theory if I could get the hormones...> Again any court presented with this stuff would have to find the > medical establishment NOT GUILTY of not taking this up, when the > science really isn't stacking up...> tony>

[Guest guest]

Because we carry babies? And our immune systems have to protect more than one person? It's really strange, but when you're pregnant all sorts of changes occur in your body. Your fingernails get really strong, your hair can completely change, complexion, all kinds of stuff. penny <usenethod@...> wrote: Sex differences are not unknown in infection:SEX DIFFERENCES IN SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INFECTIONS -- Washburn et al ...Sex

differences in vulnerability to infectious diseases have beendefined by a search of the world's literature and a study of the sHopkins Hospital ...pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/1/57 - SimilarpagesThey are also well known in idiopathic immune diseases. Most are arefemale dominated but some are not (at least one of the axialarthritides is male dominated).Generally, females are seen as more immunocompetant. Why this shouldbe, I don't know.>> Tony, > On the topic of common sense, women's symptoms may be more > debilitating, but that doesn't mean men are not infected at equal > rates. I say this because my husband and son are both infected with > borrelia but have never

exhibited the severe level of symptoms I have, > or at least not for as long as I have. > > If you compare borreliosis to tetiary syphillis - first of all not > everyone infected with syphillis gets tertiary syphillis, and second, > the symptoms are called the great masquarade because they vary from > person to person. I think borreliosis is exactly like this. We really > don't know how many people are infected and then labeled with > various "autoimmune" disease labels or other...> > Then you have the problem of co-infections. It may be that women tend > to get more infections over time, and this may relate to hormonal > issues or even pregnancy which suppresses the immune system in some > ways.> > a> > > >> > Barb> > the commonsense part of the science equation still hasn't been > > satisfied. You've also got

to get around the part that see's these > > forums, lyme/cfs, being occupied by 4 woman to every man..Malaria or > > many other ilness ain't driven the same way- so you really need to > go > > back > > and understand what types of things can drive these diseases...IMO > > I'm comfortable that hormones drive the bugs and I could possably > > tinker with this theory if I could get the hormones...> > Again any court presented with this stuff would have to find the > > medical establishment NOT GUILTY of not taking this up, when the > > science really isn't stacking up...> > tony> >>

[Guest guest]

> Because we carry babies? And our immune systems have to protect more

than one person?

Makes sense to me. That link I posted shows male children are more

likely to get meningitis and die, because of their weaker immune

system. Yet there must be some reason males don't evolve a more

ferocious immunity. There is some counterbalancing force. A fiercer

immune system may mean more risk of autoimmune disease.

The male may represent the " default best " level of immune ferocity,

absent the special concerns of fetus-carrying - a balance between

infectious disease risk and autoimmune disease risk. But this could

mean the male is likelier to carry around various low-virulence

chronic infections. These may not bother him too much, but if the

female tolerated them the way the male does, they might get into the

fetus and screw up its development. The fitness cost could be quite

high. The fetus is pretty vulnerable. Development is an incredibly

sensitive and complex process, easy wrecked by a pathogen, and the

mother's immune system cannot really patrol the fetus intensively. It

doesn't know which proteins to attack, because half the fetal proteins

are from the father and some are different from the mother's.

[Guest guest]

That almost makes you think that women would be ill advised to "strengthen" their immune systems any more than they already are. That whole concept has always rubbed me the wrong way. People just assuming that our immune systems are "weak". I've always felt mine was too strong, well at least since getting CFS. It is kind of interesting that I didn't get really sick until my first pregnancy. I was extremely ill the first 7 months of that pregnancy, and then kind of stabilized after the birth but slowly went down hill energy wise and had to deal with a herniated disc, IBS, etc. But I felt fantastic during most of my second pregnancy but crashed severely after that one. Actually, I literally crashed in the hospital. Passed out and split my head open. Again, I stabilized, but after that, I didn't catch another cold or flu bug for at least 10 years. Prior to that, I had a cold at least every other month. Only

since taking abx, have I had a few colds. penny <usenethod@...> wrote: > Because we carry babies? And our immune systems have to protect morethan one person? Makes sense to me. That link I posted shows male children are morelikely to get meningitis and die, because of their weaker immunesystem. Yet there must be some reason males don't evolve a moreferocious immunity. There is some counterbalancing force. A

fiercerimmune system may mean more risk of autoimmune disease. The male may represent the "default best" level of immune ferocity,absent the special concerns of fetus-carrying - a balance betweeninfectious disease risk and autoimmune disease risk. But this couldmean the male is likelier to carry around various low-virulencechronic infections. These may not bother him too much, but if thefemale tolerated them the way the male does, they might get into thefetus and screw up its development. The fitness cost could be quitehigh. The fetus is pretty vulnerable. Development is an incrediblysensitive and complex process, easy wrecked by a pathogen, and themother's immune system cannot really patrol the fetus intensively. Itdoesn't know which proteins to attack, because half the fetal proteinsare from the father and some are different from the mother's.

[Guest guest]

In reality- out of the 10 bands tested for in the CDC criteria- only

ONE of them is highly specific and not cross reactive with anything

else bu the Lyme spirochete. (There are 2 bands only specific to the

European strains- but thery aren't tested for on the USA (even

Igenex).

So the CDC testing critera is stupid IMO... You need 5 bands to be

positive- and 4 of the five can cross react with other things..

Band 39 kDa is the highly positive band. IMO if you have just that

one- you have Lyme.. all the othera are ambiguous- whether they['re

read by Igenex or Stoney brook..

Oh Noramn- your friend was talking about band 41..

>

> >Finally, I have a question. Are healthies on the street

*completely*

> >unreactive on a lyme WB, or do they have trace bands?

>

> I was told by my neurologist, as regards a certain band on the

Western

> Blot for Lyme (I forget which), that a third of the general

population

> are reactive in that band.

>

>

> I had another look at the IDSA position statement [orthodox

medicine]

> recently. It does allow for the possibility that " post-Lyme

syndrome "

> might be caused by some bacteria other than Borrelia burgdorferi.

It's

> just a single sentence, obviously put in so that if they ever have

to,

> they can point to it and say " See, we allowed for that possibility " .

> They don't draw any conclusions from it, or say anything

like " Until the

> nature of these possible bacteria is elucidated, empirical

antibiotic

> treatment might be appropriate " , but they _have_ covered their

asses on

> this one.

>

>

> --

> Norman Yarvin

http://yarchive.net

>

[Guest guest]

But certain *combinations* of those bands can be pretty specific - at

least that's true using certain definitions/thresholds of what's a

band. Of course, it's a little problematic to decide just who is a

negative control, so that makes it harder to nail down the

specificity; nevertheless you can still give the specificity a lower

bound, which is what matters most.

There's a lot of papers where this stuff was hashed out.

That's assuming we can all agree (you, me, Igenex, Quest, and the

Lord) on what's a band and what's not, or what's a faint band. To me

that's the question.

> In reality- out of the 10 bands tested for in the CDC criteria- only

> ONE of them is highly specific and not cross reactive with anything

> else bu the Lyme spirochete. (There are 2 bands only specific to the

> European strains- but thery aren't tested for on the USA (even

> Igenex).

> So the CDC testing critera is stupid IMO... You need 5 bands to be

> positive- and 4 of the five can cross react with other things..

> Band 39 kDa is the highly positive band. IMO if you have just that

> one- you have Lyme.. all the othera are ambiguous- whether they['re

> read by Igenex or Stoney brook..

> Oh Noramn- your friend was talking about band 41..

>

[Guest guest]

Well- depends on who's doing the interpreting.

If **I'M ** doing it.. I'd say someone DEFINITEDLY has Lyme if either

band 23-25 kDa (outer surface protein C) or band 39 kDa

(Bacterialment menbrane protein A, B & D (BmpA, B, D)is present.

If in Europe bands <18 kDa and >93 kDa are specific for the European

strain..

All the other bands can be argued as to what pathogen they're from-

not these.

Now.. what if 23/25 and 39 bands are present and are JUST UNDER the

intensity criteria? Is it negative for Lyme ? Oh contarire !!!

IMO..that's why I wanna see the strips.. (as you said a picture of

the strips would be nice- along with the reference intensity strip)...

So I just can't get the data I want.. unless I personally knew

someone in the Lab I ain't gonna get what I want... So in light of

that - I'll go with Igenex because I can sorta get what I want.

Barb

PS (Lately I have heard of Quest giving out the info of individual

bands that did meet their intensity criteria - so maybe they're

changing a tad).

In any case I agree with you about cross reactivity.. there's lots of

it happening.

>

>

> But certain *combinations* of those bands can be pretty specific -

at

> least that's true using certain definitions/thresholds of what's a

> band. Of course, it's a little problematic to decide just who is a

> negative control, so that makes it harder to nail down the

> specificity; nevertheless you can still give the specificity a lower

> bound, which is what matters most.

>

> There's a lot of papers where this stuff was hashed out.

>

> That's assuming we can all agree (you, me, Igenex, Quest, and the

> Lord) on what's a band and what's not, or what's a faint band. To me

> that's the question.

>

>

> > In reality- out of the 10 bands tested for in the CDC criteria-

only

> > ONE of them is highly specific and not cross reactive with

anything

> > else bu the Lyme spirochete. (There are 2 bands only specific to

the

> > European strains- but thery aren't tested for on the USA (even

> > Igenex).

> > So the CDC testing critera is stupid IMO... You need 5 bands to

be

> > positive- and 4 of the five can cross react with other things..

> > Band 39 kDa is the highly positive band. IMO if you have just

that

> > one- you have Lyme.. all the othera are ambiguous- whether they

['re

> > read by Igenex or Stoney brook..

> > Oh Noramn- your friend was talking about band 41..

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I spent the best part of my life in the competetitive business world

and most people fit into capitalism with half truths and bullshit

basically, so the truth needs to be constantly shifted to accomodate

another business oppurtunity.Just walk around america and count the

lawyers in suits patrolling the cities.

On another note just over a year ago we had a discussion on

oppurtunist infections that are just waiting there oppurtunity to

fester and all you need do is poke them anfd they'll let you know

they are there. a did just that and her condition worsened.. And

low and behold she poked the elephant in the living room and she's

still talking about the mice in the basement.

tony

>

>

> > This isn't science anymore...You have people with decent

microscopes

> > filming spirochetes on a daily basis, aka Dr , so

everything

> > Igenex does is a freakin waste of money...

>

> That needs to be proved with fluorescent Ab, in my opinion, like

> Bowen. But someone else needs to confirm Bowen's work, cause that's

> how science works.

>

>

> > Are people that stupid that they can't see that someone making

> > millions of dollars from testing for bands ain't really

interested in

> > the truth.

>

> Well, that's *possible*, but there's no serious evidence of that.

>

>

>

> > Imagine if They filmed your spirochetes and made sure they

> > were borrelia- there business model would suffer, all the

expensive

> > crap there doing under the heading of suppsoed good science would

> > become useless..You would never fail in front of congress with a

> > video of spirochetes in your blood, then isolated and confirmed

> > borrelia- would you?

>

> Bingo, that's exactly what I said to Dr Jemsek in email when he was

> facing some medical board. I don't get why no one takes the Bowen

> assay and runs with it, if the thing is really kosher. Antibody

> cross-reactivity does occur and could impact that evidence, but

there

> are easy ways of strengthening that evidence.

>

[Guest guest]

That's me. bands 23-25 and 39 are "indeterminate" or weak (just under the 1+ positive control). But they are there, faintly. I also have faint bands on 34 and 41, two more that Igenex says are important in dxing lyme. I have a strong ++ on band 31, one that Igenex says is important. And then there's a + on 66 and a few INDs on bands that I guess don't matter. Overall, Igenex deemed me as IND. Meaning I might have lyme, and I might not. So it doesn't help me much as far as treatment goes. I can treat the bugs that I can identify and culture, and so far that's been the most helpful. If it knocks out lyme bugs at the same time, all the better. penny Barb Peck <egroups1bp@...> wrote: Well- depends on who's doing the interpreting.If **I'M ** doing it.. I'd say someone DEFINITEDLY has Lyme if either band 23-25 kDa (outer surface protein C) or band 39 kDa (Bacterialment menbrane protein A, B & D (BmpA, B, D)is present.If in Europe bands <18 kDa and >93 kDa are specific for the European strain..All the other bands can be argued as to what pathogen they're from- not these.Now.. what if 23/25 and 39 bands are present and are JUST UNDER the intensity criteria? Is it negative for Lyme ? Oh contarire

!!!IMO..that's why I wanna see the strips.. (as you said a picture of the strips would be nice- along with the reference intensity strip)...So I just can't get the data I want.. unless I personally knew someone in the Lab I ain't gonna get what I want... So in light of that - I'll go with Igenex because I can sorta get what I want.BarbPS (Lately I have heard of Quest giving out the info of individual bands that did meet their intensity criteria - so maybe they're changing a tad).In any case I agree with you about cross reactivity.. there's lots of it happening.>> > But certain *combinations* of those bands can be pretty specific - at> least that's true using certain definitions/thresholds of what's

a> band. Of course, it's a little problematic to decide just who is a> negative control, so that makes it harder to nail down the> specificity; nevertheless you can still give the specificity a lower> bound, which is what matters most. > > There's a lot of papers where this stuff was hashed out.> > That's assuming we can all agree (you, me, Igenex, Quest, and the> Lord) on what's a band and what's not, or what's a faint band. To me> that's the question.> > > > In reality- out of the 10 bands tested for in the CDC criteria- only > > ONE of them is highly specific and not cross reactive with anything > > else bu the Lyme spirochete. (There are 2 bands only specific to the > > European strains- but thery aren't tested for on the USA (even > > Igenex). > > So the CDC testing critera is stupid IMO... You need 5 bands to

be > > positive- and 4 of the five can cross react with other things..> > Band 39 kDa is the highly positive band. IMO if you have just that > > one- you have Lyme.. all the othera are ambiguous- whether they['re > > read by Igenex or Stoney brook..> > Oh Noramn- your friend was talking about band 41..> >>