A recent paper by Schutzer et al. concluded the following regarding serologic testing for Lyme disease:
“… serologic tests cannot distinguish active infection, past infection, or reinfection. Reliable direct-detection methods for active B. burgdorferi infection have been lacking in the past but are needed and appear achievable.” https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/10/12/direct-diagnostic-tests-for-lyme-the-closest-thing-to-an-apology-you-are-ever-going-to-get/
Yet, the following recent study attempts to use numbers based on these faulty blood tests to make testing results a wash between false positives and the number of unreported true positive cases.
Lyme Disease Overdiagnosis in a Large Healthcare System: A Population-based, Retrospective Study
To evaluate the impact of false positive IgM immunoblots on Lyme disease treatment and case reporting in a large healthcare system.
We obtained results of all Lyme disease serologic tests ordered at U.S. Air Force healthcare facilities in the United States between January 2013 and December 2017. We conducted chart reviews to adjudicate positive IgM immunoblots (from two-tier and independent testing) as true positives or false positives using established criteria, and we assessed whether these cases were reported to the U.S. Department of Defense surveillance system.
Of the 18,410 serum tests (17,058 immunoassays and 1,352 immunoblots) performed on 15,928 unique persons, 249/1,352 (18.4%) IgM immunoblots were positive. After excluding repeat tests, insufficiently documented cases, and subjects with a history of Lyme disease, 212 positive IgM immunoblot cases were assessed. A total of 113/212 (53.3%) were determined to be false positives. Antibiotics were prescribed for Lyme disease for 97/99 (98.0%) subjects with a true positive test and 91/113 (80.5%) subjects with a false positive test. The number of false positive cases reported to the surveillance system was identical to the number of unreported true positive cases (n=44).
Lyme disease serological tests were overutilized in a large healthcare system, and positive results were frequently misinterpreted, leading to misdiagnosis and widespread antibiotic misuse. Underreporting of true positive cases was offset by overreporting of false positive cases, suggesting that the discrepancy between the reported incidence and true incidence of Lyme disease may not be as significant as previously assumed.
Oh, there are discrepancies, alright.
Great example of the need for better testing. How about direct testing which has been suppressed for decades? https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/12/13/suppression-of-microscopy-for-lyme-diagnostics-professor-laane/
The study is a fantastic example of “garbage in, garbage out.” If there isn’t a reliable test, this whole paper is worthless.
Regarding false results,
“If false results are to be feared, it is the false negative result which holds the greatest peril for the patient.” -Dr. Alan MacDonald
Quit trying to downplay this pandemic that is sweeping through like a modern-day plague. It’s real, and it’s not going away.
The emperor has no clothes on!
More on testing: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/09/12/lyme-testing-problems-solutions/ Excerpt:
One has to wonder why Yale didn’t want to use a test that they patented that would capture the vast majority of lyme patients.
HOWEVER AS I SEE IT IF THEY UTILIZED THIS TEST TO VALIDATE THEIR LYME VACCINE THE RESULTS WOULD SHOW THAT THEIR SO CALLED VACCINE WAS IN FACT THE OPPOSITE OF A VACCINE AND INDUCED THE VERY DISEASE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT THE PERSON FROM, AS WAS THE CASE FOR MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE INJURED BY THE FIRST LYME VACCINE LYMERIX WHICH WAS TAKEN OFF THE SHELF.
I can not fathom any other reason why they would not use a test they owned that has 96% accuracy overall and 100% specificity.
The answer can only be fraud.