Study Finds Classical Lyme Testing Does Not Aid in Diagnosis of Persistent Symptoms

July 17, 2023

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/13/5/1134

Classical Borrelia Serology Does Not Aid in the Diagnosis of Persistent Symptoms Attributed to Lyme Borreliosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

by 1,2,*, 2,3, 2,3, 2,3, 3 and 2,3
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2023, 13(5), 1134; https://doi.org/10.3390/life13051134
Received: 27 March 2023 / Revised: 2 May 2023 / Accepted: 3 May 2023 / Published: 6 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Lyme Disease-An Incompletely Solved Puzzle)

Abstract

Objective: The diagnosis of Lyme borreliosis is based on two-tier testing using an ELISA and Western blot. About 5–10% of patients report persistent symptoms of unknown etiology after treatment, resulting in substantial difficulties in further diagnostic workup. This paper presents a study aimed at determining whether serology can differentiate between patients with persistent symptoms attributed to Lyme and other patients with Lyme borreliosis.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study included 162 samples from four subgroups: patients with persistent symptoms of Lyme (PSL), early Lyme borreliosis with erythema migrans (EM), patients tested in a general practitioner setting (GP), and healthy controls (HC). ELISA, Western blots, and multiplex assays from different manufacturers were used to determine inter-test variations in PSL and to compare reactivity against Borrelia-specific antigens among the groups.
Results: In comparing the IgG and IgM reactivity by Western blot, IgG was more often positive in the PSL group than in the GP group. The individual antigen reactivity was similar between the PSL and EM or GP groups. Inter-test agreement among the manufacturers was variable, and agreement was higher for IgG testing compared to IgM.
Conclusions: Serological testing is unable to define the subgroup of patients with persistent symptoms attributed to Lyme borreliosis. Additionally, the current two-tier testing protocol shows a large variance among different manufacturers in these patients.
_________________
**Comment**
Another study showing the obvious: Lyme testing sucks all around.
A few points:
  • If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 1,000 times: all percentages regarding Lyme/MSIDS are always, repeat always, horrifically low.  The numbers of people suffering from persistent symptoms is far, far greater than 5-10%.  The reasons are two-fold: 1) percentages touted only count those diagnosed and treated early  2) people are typically not diagnosed early due to the faulty testing  Everything regarding Lyme/MSIDS is driven by a vortex of circular reasoning without end and nothing ever changes.
  • Now, yet another study proves testing sucks.
  • The question is, and has always been, when is something going to be done about this other than the creation of a supposed magic-bullet and lucrative Lyme “vaccine” that historically has maimed people?

For more:

The form of testing used to determine Lyme infection has been a source of heated debate from the beginning:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/04/03/cdc-deliberately-avoids-direct-detection-testing-methods-for-ld/  Excerpt:

It would appear that there has been a deliberate avoidance of direct detection methods and it is believed that these efforts are to insure that the current thirty year dogma remain intact.

We have a dire need to develop rapid detection methods for a serious growing health threat which has the ability to disable its victim as described in the attached letter addressed to the previous Director of the CDC. (Please see attachment in link)

I would like to point out that employees of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hold patents on metabolomics (Lyme tests).

CDC Employee Patent: https://www.google.com/patents/EP2805168A1?cl=en

For nearly four decades now the only FDA approved test for Lyme disease is the indirect two-tiered antibody test. Direct detection methods to identify the causative agent responsible for the disease have been avoided, criticized and shelved.

After publishing the 2013 article ‘A simple method for the detection of live Borrelia spirochetes in human blood using classical microscopy techniques’, professor Laane was invited to give a lecture at the 2014 Norvect conference in Oslo. An English patient saved the pdf, so you can still read it, via the link provided.

I was present at that conference and still remember how nervous he was. The reason was that several medical professors complained to his university. He was threatened with losing his job, if he would speak at the conference.

In fact, he did not literally speak – as you can see in the movie below – but used performing arts to show the slides of the spirochetes. Professor Laane was fired anyway and his laboratory was closed down.

It must be understood that testing has and continues to be used by ‘the powers that be’ to control the narrative.  They can virtually create a ‘pandemic’ anytime they want, and conversely deny a true pandemic.  Regarding Lyme, the narrative has been and continues to be that it is a simple nuisance either causing an immune response or is simply cured with a few weeks of doxycycline monotherapy.  Nothing could be further from the truth and reality and science continue to show this, but is simply ignored.  Go here for the CDC playbook.  Once you understand their MO, everything else makes sense.

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing

Comments Off on Study Finds Classical Lyme Testing Does Not Aid in Diagnosis of Persistent Symptoms