https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433014/#__ffn_sectitle

. 2019 Apr; 25(4): 748–752.
PMCID: PMC6433014
PMID: 30882316

Co-infections in Persons with Early Lyme Disease, New York, USA

Abstract

In certain regions of New York state, USA, Ixodes scapularis ticks can potentially transmit 4 pathogens in addition to Borrelia burgdorferi: Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Babesia microti, Borrelia miyamotoi, and the deer tick virus subtype of Powassan virus. In a prospective study, we systematically evaluated 52 adult patients with erythema migrans, the most common clinical manifestation of B. burgdorferi infection (Lyme disease), who had not received treatment for Lyme disease. We used serologic testing to evaluate these patients for evidence of co-infection with any of the 4 other tickborne pathogens. Evidence of co-infection was found for B. microti only; 4–6 patients were co-infected with Babesia microti. Nearly 90% of the patients evaluated had no evidence of co-infection. Our finding of B. microti co-infection documents the increasing clinical relevance of this emerging infection.

__________________

**Comment**

Sigh…..where to even begin

rashes-larger-blog-2

  • They used serologic testing. Research has proven this form of testing is abysmal: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/10/12/direct-diagnostic-tests-for-lyme-the-closest-thing-to-an-apology-you-are-ever-going-to-get/  Key quote: “These serologic tests cannot distinguish active infection, past infection, or reinfection.”In plain English, these tests don’t show squat. While this study in the link was for Lyme testing, I assure you, serologic testing for coinfections is just as abysmal. All of these coinfections are stealthy and persistent. They purposely don’t hang out in the blood & they’ve developed strategies to avoid the immune system as well as treatment.
  • The fact they only found 1 coinfection isn’t a shocker. Some of the sickest patients NEVER test positive because of dysfunctional immune systems. I’m not sure when they are ever going to think of using a provoking agent to stir the pathogens up, kill them, and then get the dead pieces and parts into the blood where this abysmal testing for antibodies can be picked up, but I’m not going to hold my breath. This study seriously makes me want to bang my head against the wall. They’ve learned nothing and continue to do the same exact things.
  • The only thing they got right was the, increasing clinical relevance of this emerging infection,” but I’ve got news for them: this is just the tip of the iceberg.
  • They need to get Dr. Breitshwerdt in on these studies and allow him to test the patients for Bartonella using the tests he’s developed.  They also need to use provoking agents and then test, or use direct testing, and to drop the EM rash criteria like a bad habit.