Lyme in Slovak Republic

Association of seroprevalence and risk factors in Lyme disease

Andrea Bušová1, Erik Dorko1, Eva Feketeová2, Kvetoslava Rimárová1, Jana Diabelková1, Tímea Rovenská1, Tomáš Csank3

Cent Eur J Public Health 2018, 26(Supplement):S61-S66 | DOI: 10.21101/cejph.a5274

Objective: The aim of the presented cross-sectional seroepidemiological study was to determine the current presence of antibodies against B. burgdorferi s.l. in the groups of Slovak population, and to identify potential risk factors to Lyme borreliosis.

Methods: A group of 261 adults (patients from the Neurological Clinic with possible symptoms of LB and healthy persons with possible working exposure to tick bite: gardeners and soldiers working in afforested areas) were examined in order to assess the seroprevalence of anti-Borrelia antibodies. Sera were screened by commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The respondents completed questionnaires with general demographic, epidemiological and clinical data.

Results: We detected 17.2% presence of positive IgG and 5.7% presence of positive IgM antibodies in all investigated groups. Our results confirmed that the following risk factors such as age and gender are significantly associated with the presence of positive specific antibodies against investigated disease.

Conclusion: The results of seroprevalence obtained in the present study confirm the possibility of infection with B. burgdorferi among respondents exposed to contact with ticks.



Imagine the percentages if they used direct microscopy or even the MISDS questionnaire, not serology which misses half of cases:

Key quote:  “These serologic tests cannot distinguish active infection, past infection, or reinfection.”

In plain English, these tests don’t show squat.

Please spread the word that Dr. Horowitz’s MSIDS questionnaire has been validated and predicts Lyme much better than serology:  The results support the use of the HMQ as a valid, efficient, and low-cost screening tool for medical practitioners to decide if additional testing is warranted to distinguish between Lyme disease and other illnesses.

Here it is.  You can print it off and fill it out yourself:  Excerpt:

There has been an ongoing record of suppression of microscopy for Lyme.  In an interview with now retired professor of microbiology Morten Laane, the facts come rolling out on how he was fired, his lab was closed down, and his published article disappeared without a trace after presenting his findings at a scientific conference on how microscopy showed spirochetes as well as other organisms like Babesia in a number of patients (12).  Laane is far from alone.  Dr. Sin Hang Lee has even filed a $57.1 million lawsuit against the CDC for suppressing direct detection tests, and for employing ‘Lysenkoism,’ a term used for a Russian political campaign using bogus science to suppress true biological and medical sciences and to punish scientists and doctors who don’t follow Party Line (13).

BTW:  The Lyme Good Old Boys aka The Cabal own patents on Lyme serology testing:

Employees of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hold patents on Lyme tests:  For nearly four decades now the only FDA approved test for Lyme disease is the indirect two-tiered antibody test.

Dr. Allen Steere filed a patent in 2013 for yet more antibody detection tests for Lyme disease: (Application #20150219646) Compositions and Methods for the Detection of Bacterial Infections Associated with Lyme Disease

Anybody smell a rat yet?

The other issue with this study is the fact they are STILL looking this as a ONE pathogen illness when it’s typically not:  Key Quote:  Our findings recognize that microbial infections in patients suffering from TBDs do not follow the one microbe, one disease Germ Theory as 65% of the TBD patients produce immune responses to various microbes.”