Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Study: Cell Phones Make Blood Clump Together Just Like the Clot Shots Do

UPDATE

Proving this is all true, and how the U.S. government has known for over 50 years that wireless radiation is linked to 23 chronic diseases, read about how the NIH redacts nearly 2,500 pages of records on wireless radiation studies after the Children’s Health Defense FOIA request.

Nothing to see here.

Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, a toxicologist and epidemiologist who reviewed CHD’s FOIA results, said that watching the demise of the NTP’s wireless radiation research has been like “watching a train wreck in slow motion.”

https://ehtrust.org/cellphones-and-your-blood-what-you-need-to-know/?

Cell Phones and Your Blood: What You Need to Know

Feb 11, 2025 | 0 comments

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine paper on rouleaux formation from cell phone exposure

Most of us interact with wireless technology daily, regularly using cellphones and Wi-Fi routers, but an important new study questions just how safe these devices may be. This innovative investigation finds that keeping phones close to the body can cause unhealthy changes in the blood — changes known as rouleaux formation. 

Can Cellphones Make Blood Clump Together? 

Rouleaux formation observed in an ultrasound of a leg in proximity to a cell phone

Blood demonstrating rouleaux formation

Researchers have found that a living person closely exposed to cellphone radiation, develops red blood cells that begin sticking together, forming clumps that resemble stacks of coins. This in vivo effect has the potential to cause a number of health issues, since clumped blood cells flow less easily and can therefore impact oxygen delivery in the body. The clumps are called rouleaux, and the effect is called rouleaux formation. 

Previously, this rouleaux reaction to cellphone exposure had been reported only in studies carried out in vitro, in blood cell samples placed on microscope slides. But this method isn’t always reliable, since blood clumping can sometimes result from the way the sample is prepared.  

A New Study: Blood Cells Clumping in Real Time 

Rob Brown headshot

Dr. Robert Brown, Vice President of Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust and a diagnostic radiologist with extensive experience evaluating blood flow using diagnostic ultrasound, and his colleague Barbara Biebrich, a senior ultrasound technologist with decades of experience performing vascular ultrasounds, decided to test whether ultrasound could detect and display rouleaux blood clumps forming in real time, in a healthy volunteer. 

Here’s what happened during the case study: 

  • At the direction of Dr. Brown, Ms. Biebrich scanned a healthy person’s blood flow in the back of the knee using real-time videos of through established methods of ultrasound.  These same methods are regularly used to find evidence of blood clots that should be treated before they can go on to lead to pulmonary embolisms or stroke.
  • At first, everything looked normal; the blood was flowing smoothly, leaving a solid black stripe.
  • A working cellphone (not making a call) was then placed near the person’s knee for just five  minutes.
  • An ultrasound after exposure showed that the blood in the vein was no longer clearly flowly, but included white spots that had clumped into rouleaux formation.

To make sure this wasn’t a one-time occurrence, the team repeated the experiment two more times over the next few months – and got the same results. 

Why Does This Matter? 

Here are some things that happen when red blood cells stick together: 

  • They may not carry oxygen as efficiently, which could affect metabolism (how the body turns food into energy).
  • Blood flow could slow down, potentially leading to blockages in small blood vessels. In extreme cases, this might contribute to strokes or heart problems.
  • People with conditions like diabetes or COVID-related blood vessel damage might be at higher risk of serious complications from blood clots.
  • Up until now, rouleaux formation has been associated with infectious and inflammatory processes, connective tissue diseases, and some forms of cancer. Radiofrequency radiation exposure from cellphones, and likely other technologies utilizing wireless communication, can now be added to that list of things that can cause this abnormality of the blood.

While rouleaux formation is usually temporary in healthy people, scientists don’t yet know how long it lasts or how common it is after cellphone exposure. Nor do we know whether rouleaux formation occurs in the veins and arteries of the heart, head, and neck. 

What Can You Do? 

Further research is needed to clarify the extent of this problem. In the meantime, it makes sense to reduce the risk of blood clumps. Here are some easy steps to limit cell phone radiation exposure: 

  • Don’t carry your phone in your pocket or bra – keep it on a table or in a bag when possible.
  • Use speakerphone or wired headphones instead of holding the phone to your ear
  • Put your phone on airplane mode when you don’t need to use it.

What’s next? 

Researchers at EHT and a major university are planning a larger scale study to learn more, but in the meantime, remember: distance is your friend! 

To see intriguing before and after video clips and learn more about this study, see the peer-reviewed journal article published this week in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 

_______________

**Comment**

Another perfect example of how ‘the powers that be’ clearly understand it’s important to roll out new technology before independent safety tests are completed.  Then, the technology has time to embed itself into our lives – seemingly causing dependency so we are less likely to get rid of it when the truth outs.  This has happened again, and again, and again and will continue to happen until we demand better before we blindly accept any new tech.

There is some good news:

EHT President Kent Chamberlin helped to secure a historic win for the community of La Jolla last week in its efforts to prevent a cell tower being placed on a bike path near private homes, a senior care facility, a park, and a preschool. Dr. Chamberlin was the keynote speaker at a town hall held to educate the community about the science behind the risks close proximity cell towers can pose to human health. The next day, AT&T withdrew its application for the tower—a huge win that demonstrates the power of grassroots activism!

The community victory has been reported in several publications, and Save the La Jolla Bike Path Coalition Chair Patti Garay expressed gratitude to EHT and to Dr. Chamberlin for the support, pointing out that the timing of AT&T’s reversal, one day after Dr. Chamberlin’s presentation, was “not a coincidence.”

For more information about taking action against cell towers in your community, click below.

Go here for EMF Data with 710 scientific studies showing effects caused by radio radiation.

Also listen to Dr. Larry Burk, retired Duke MRI radiologist who has studied EMF safety issues for 35 years.  The link will also give numerous resources for legal strategies, EMF shielding, and how to stay healthy in a 5G world.

Ana Maria Nihalcea, MD, PhD has been exposing this same rouleaux formation in those who got the clot shots, along with self assembly nanotech now found in many vaccines with micellar mesh networks, and the link between poisonous nanotech, chemtrails/geoengineering, and Morgellons.  

Some are being repeatedly exposed to triggers that cause blood clotting.

Now the FDA has admitted that those who got the clot shots are at risk of suffering from a deadly blood clot for up to 15 years after their last injection.

The FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research admits that the “regulatory window of concern” for a novel genetic product, such as Covid mRNA “vaccines,” is 5-15 years.

Oops.  They failed to mention that little factoid when they were peddling the shots with abandon.

But it all makes complete sense and corroborates insurance data revealing a U.S. Mortality crisis due to rises in young cardiac, neurological, and cancer-related deaths.  Insurance companies; however, are denying payouts and state side effects are ‘well-known’ and patients are simply choosing ‘voluntary suicide’ by ‘experimental’ shot.

You simply can’t make this stuff up.

The FDA always keeps their cards close to their chest because FDA employees routinely take the revolving door getting jobs with Big Pharma.  They’ve adopted the motto: You wash my back and I will wash your back. 

The public is completely left out of the equation.

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines

The Dark Side of NIH Leadership: Perspectives From a Senior Staffer

https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/perspectives-from-a-senior-staffer

Perspectives from a Senior Staffer and NIH Loyalist: The Dark Side of NIH Leadership

Officials running the agency use the media to manipulate coverage and maintain control, often to cover up things they fail to deliver to the public.

Paul D. Thacker

Feb 24, 2025

The author of today’s piece is a senior NIH official who wished to remain anonymous to protect themselves from reprisals.

As someone who works directly with the NIH Director’s office, I am dismayed by the disingenuous coverage of NIH in places like the New York Times and Science Magazine. Very little of what I read comports with my own experience and I am worried that scientists and the general public are getting a false view of the real problems inside the world’s largest funder of biomedical research.

Every large institution is fraught with palace politics, but today’s NIH is suffering from a deeply entrenched senior leadership in the director’s office that is plagued by enmity, distrust and isolation. The NIH Director works in Building 1 and oversees 27 other Institutes that research various diseases—the one most people have heard of is the National Cancer Institute. But to most of these institute directors, Building1 is a dark hole they both fear and despise. If you’re a running a research lab in Wisconsin this probably doesn’t matter to you; if you’re bed ridden with an undiagnosed, complex neurological disease—a life put on hold—why would you care?

But at every level today NIH’s management is distanced further away from its overall mission to advance science that improves health.

NIH scientists are quite busy with their research and don’t always read news about NIH scandals. I don’t, because I don’t really have time, nor do I care. But turmoil from the recent election has caused me to read about the retirement of Dr. Lawrence Tabak, who served as Principal Deputy Director, the number two position at NIH. I have worked with and observed Dr. Tabak’s ascent to this commanding position at NIH, from which he weaponized systems and processes to harm those who disagreed with his views or decisions. (See link for article)

_______________

Important quotes:

NIH is not a merit-based system. It’s a cabal where people appoint their loyalists and contrive to manipulate our public agency to their personal advantage.

NIH labs and research programs get reviewed by scientists at prestigious research universities to ensure they publish excellent studies. But these university scientists are, at the same time, beholden to the NIH for grants to fund their own studies. This conflict of interest ensures that the reviews are biased to favor NIH labs, because no professor wants to anger the agency that funds his own grants.

Right out of the horse’s mouth.

And this, right here, is why we haven’t seen a shred of helpful research in Lymeland in over 40 years.  These cabal loyalists know they must repeat the accepted narrative or be left in the dust.

Will this change now?

Time will tell, but I’m not holding my breath.

For more:

Category:

Activism, research

Prof. Holly Ahern’s Lyme Disease Comments to Australian Senate

https://www.lymedisease.org/holly-ahern-australian-senate/

Prof. Holly Ahern’s Lyme disease comments to Australian Senate

2/5/25

The Australian Senate has launched an inquiry into the access to diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases. Professor Holly Ahern of the United States recently submitted the following written comments and was also asked to give verbal remarks. (See video at end of this article.)

Dear Committee Members:

I am a scientist, professor of microbiology, and co-founder of a Lyme disease advocacy organization in New York State. I am also the Scientific Advisor for the Focus on Lyme Foundation in Arizona, which has funded research on several projects directed at improving the state of diagnostic testing for Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses.

I have served on several state and federal committees convened to address the growing problem of tick-borne diseases in the United States, most recently the 2022 Dept. of Health and Human Services, Tick Borne Disease Working Group (TBDWG).

But most of all, I am mother of a daughter who went from a record setting collegiate All American swimmer to bed bound and disabled over the course of only a few weeks. She lost years of her life as a result of flawed medical guidelines that prioritize care for patients early in the infection, while providing only minimal guidance for the diagnosis and care of patients in later stages of the disease.

In my daughter’s case, we saw the tick bite but she developed no rash. Fever, profound fatigue, widespread pain, and other symptoms began months later, and were attributed to a viral illness. The difficulties we faced in getting her illness diagnosed and appropriately treated in 2010 match those of hundreds of thousands of other people with Lyme disease in the United States and Europe, and also in Australia.

Biologically complex organism

Lyme disease is a bacterial infection caused by a microbe with global distribution. They are transmitted to humans by several species of tick. The bacteria are biologically complex. They adapt and survive in environments that would kill most other bacteria.

During human infection, some subgroups (genospecies) of these bacteria linger in the bloodstream, while others disseminate to connective tissue-rich areas of the body. Regardless, infection triggers profound immune system and other physiological events, leading to a wide range of symptoms that vary significantly among patients and can be quite severe.

The standard medical definition implies that the overwhelming majority of Lyme borreliosis (Lyme disease) patients are infected with the same bacteria and have the same uniform disease presentation, which is straightforward to diagnose and treat. As defined, Lyme disease is caused by only a few specific genospecies of Borrelia (now named Borreliella). Several other genospecies of Borrelia are associated with diseases collectively referred to as “Relapsing Fever borreliosis.”

Differences between the two diseases are subtle. Relapsing Fever Borrelia fail to produce the skin manifestation (erythema migrans or “bull’s-eye” rash) that is noted in Lyme disease; however, other symptoms are very similar. Existing diagnostic tests for Lyme disease don’t detect infections caused by Relapsing Fever Borrelia.

Thus, a patient may be bitten by a tick and infected with a Relapsing Fever Borrelia, such as B. miyamatoi, show all the symptoms that a patient with Lyme disease would have, but may not be diagnosed or treated for the infection because the EM rash did not appear and/or the standard lab tests for Lyme disease were negative.  (See link for article)

_____________

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing, Ticks, Transmission, Treatment

Gravy Train of Extra Costs Tagged to NIH Research Grants Gets Bull-DOGEd

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/gravy-train-of-nih-indirects-gets?

Gravy Train of NIH “Indirects” Gets Bull-DOGEd

Progressively Growing Extra Costs Tagged to Research Grants Cut Back to 15%

 
Feb 16, 2025

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

I talked to someone today who has recently received a coveted NIH RO1 grant. Instead of being happy she said she is terrified. Why? Recently, Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has trimmed back “indirects” universities and hospitals slap on top of the direct research funded projects. This rate has grown from 15% over decades to >50% at many prestigious medical centers. The current indirect rate at Harvard is 69%.  (See link for article)

_____________

**Comment**

This website continually posts information on the unhealthy alliance between Industry, government, and University research facilities. 

For a great start, Congress needs to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 so that the government agencies entrusted with public health do not have conflicts of interest in owning patents.  

Research institutions at universities should not be colluding with government by receiving government money.  The two need to be separate.

MAHA has begun, but there’s a lot to do.

The entire government grant process is riddled with conflicts:

Category:

Activism, research

Complex Role of Bartonella in Chronic Illness #1

https://www.lymedisease.org/med-detective-bartonella-part-1/

MEDICAL DETECTIVE: The complex role of Bartonella in chronic illness, part 1

This article was originally posted on Dr. Richard Horowitz’s Medical Detective Substack. It is Part 1 of a 5-part series. You can find more helpful content by subscribing here. 

Bartonella is the third “B” of the triad found in the vast majority of my chronically ill patients who suffer from chronic Lyme disease/PTLDS, along with Borrelia and Babesia.

A gram-negative intracellular bacteria, it’s controversial and misunderstood and has been throwing a monkey wrench into my treatments for decades.

I barely remember learning about it in medical school, except when they were teaching me about cat scratch fever in children that would cause small, localized rashes (papules) at the site of the scratch with swollen lymph nodes and fevers.

It would be treated with a short course of antibiotics like azithromycin. These images show classical cat scratch disease before and after treatment when the lesions are starting to crust up.

[From: Mazur-Melewska K, Mania A, Kemnitz P, Figlerowicz M, Służewski W. Cat-scratch disease: a wide spectrum of clinical pictures. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2015 Jun;32(3):216-20. doi: 10.5114/pdia.2014.44014. Epub 2015 Jun 15. PMID: 26161064; PMCID: PMC4495109.]

Unfortunately, Bartonella infections rarely resemble this one particular manifestation, or the general medical community would be diagnosing and treating it a lot more often.

It is a very tricky bacteria, and, like Lyme disease, has found a way to not only avoid immune recognition, but change its clinical characteristics so it resembles a broad range of other diseases.

Immune Evasion by Bartonella

Bartonella is referred to as a “stealth bacteria” because it evades the immune system by living inside red blood cells (intraerythrocytic persistence), blood vessel walls (inflaming them, causing vasculitis), endothelial cells, fibroblasts, epithelial cells of the skin (causing the classic Bartonella rashes described below), macrophages (immune cells that play a critical role of initiating and maintaining an inflammatory response, as well as potentially resolving inflammation) and bone marrow cells.

So it can hide throughout the body in areas where the immune system doesn’t easily penetrate and recognize the bacteria, not to mention, it can exist under biofilms in persister forms like Borrelia. Biofilms protect the bacteria from immune recognition and the effects of antibiotics.

[From: Okaro, U.; George, S.; Anderson, B. What Is in a Cat Scratch? Growth of Bartonella henselae in a Biofilm. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040835%5D

Bartonella can manipulate host cell interactions to hide from immune detection by altering its surface proteins to avoid recognition (like Lyme disease), and possesses unique fat and sugar molecules (lipopolysaccharides) that minimize immune response activation; this often leads to prolonged, asymptomatic infections that can be difficult to diagnose with standard tests (it can hide in the body for years in some patients without symptoms), and then reactivate under certain conditions.

The patient below was in remission for one year after doing an 8-week course of double dose dapsone combination therapy (DDDCT), and then reactivated after being treated with antibiotics for a skin infection. This skin rash emerged when he got treated for cellulitis, which had nothing to do with his initial Lyme infection. You can see the classical Bartonella “stretch marks.”

[From: Horowitz, R.I.; Fallon, J.; Freeman, P.R. Comparison of the Efficacy of Longer versus Shorter Pulsed High Dose Dapsone Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Lyme Disease/Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome with Bartonellosis and Associated Coinfections. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2301. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11092301%5D

Reactivation often happens when the immune system is unable to control the infection, due in part to the immunosuppressive nature of the bacteria.

I’ve found multiple species of Bartonella in our sickest patients leading to chronic variable immune deficiency (CVID), just as I’ve found Borrelia causing immune suppression, along with mold toxicity and Long Covid affecting immune functioning.

The multisystemic nature of Bartonella infections

When we see patients with Bartonella, as I mentioned, it has no resemblance whatsoever with the classical cat-scratch disease I learned about in medical school. Bacteria like Bartonella cause similar symptoms to those seen in chronic Lyme disease, presenting as a “great imitator.”

It can result in chronic fatiguing, musculoskeletal, cardiopulmonary, neuropsychiatric illness and can cause fevers, chills, fatigue, headaches, muscle/joint and nerve pain, cognitive difficulties, insomnia, depression, anxiety, and cause inflammation in every body system imaginable, just like Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi, does.

There can also be inflammation in the eyes (optic neuritis, conjunctivitis, uveitis, arterial and venous occlusions); the brain, surrounding structures and spinal cord (meningitis, encephalitis, transverse myelitis, seizure disorders), with associated Bartonella “rage” and psychosis (Bartonella, like Lyme disease, can cause a broad range of psychiatric manifestations, including but not limited to severe depression, anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia with psychosis).

It also can cause inflammation in the muscles (myalgias), joints (arthritis, osteomyelitis), nerves (neuropathy) and blood vessels (vasculitis), as well as the heart valves (endocarditis, including culture negative endocarditis), heart muscle (myocarditis), and sac surrounding the heart (pericarditis) causing chest pain with masses in the chest (mediastinum) and lymph nodes resembling non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Even the gastrointestinal tract can be affected (nausea, vomiting, weight loss, bleeding), as can the liver (hepatitis), spleen (splenitis, enlargement), and skin, which oftentimes shows signs of inflammation (stretch marks, i.e. striae; granulomas, hard fibrous areas over the knuckles, elbows, and Bacillary angiomatosis, which are tumor-like masses, raised dark areas, papules, nodules, and lesions in the skin, bones, and organs).

Bartonella is a frequently found infection in those suffering from chronic Lyme disease—I’ve seen it in up to 80-90% of all of my chronically ill patients these days and should be considered in any and all cases of FUO (fever of unknown origin).

[From: Cheslock, M.A.; Embers, M.E. Human Bartonellosis: An Underappreciated Public Health Problem? Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2019, 4, 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed4020069%5D

Transmission of Bartonella

Part of the reason Bartonella has been a controversial topic in the Lyme community–at least among certain physicians and researchers–is because there has only been one study to date regarding tick transmission of the bacteria, and this was in European species of deer ticks (Ixodes ricinus) with one species, called Bartonella birtlesii.

The bacteria is, however, being found in ticks throughout the world, and other studies have shown the bacteria in different ticks and in chronic Lyme disease patients.

When I was co-chair of the HHS Tick-borne Disease Working Group (TBDWG) back in 2018, I had to fight to get Bartonella included as a co-infection of importance; whether all species are able to be transmitted by ticks or not, makes no difference.

Why? To date, the number of species able to transmit Bartonella keeps increasing over the years, and most of us are exposed to these vectors on a regular basis. The most common vectors transmitting the bacteria are fleas, mites, lice, keds (not the sneakers!), spiders, red ants, ticks (probable), sand flies, black and yellow flies, and mosquitoes.

Bartonella is showing up in a broad range of vectors, so it’s possible to get exposed from many different sources. That is why the vast majority of my sick patients are testing positive for it. In fact, for most of us living on this planet, I daresay we’ll all likely be exposed to Bartonella at some point during our lives. How we handle it, and whether we get symptoms, will depend on how our immune system is functioning.

Testing for multiple Bartonella species

The table below shows some of the most common species of Bartonella seen in human disease. This is not comprehensive, as there are now at least 45 species of Bartonella, and 18 of them or more are pathogenic [capable of causing disease].

Some of the most common ones are: B. henselae (Cat scratch disease, CSD; endocarditis, neuroretinitis, lymphadenopathy), B. quintana (Trench fever, endocarditis, bacillary angiomatosis [BA]), B. clarridgeiae (bacteremia, endocarditis, CSD, chest wall abscess), B. elizabethae (endocarditis, neuroretinitis),  B. bacilliformis (Carrion’s disease), B. koehlerae (endocarditis, including culture negative endocarditis), B. vinsonii subsp (bacteremia, endocarditis, fevers, neurological symptoms), B. berkhoffi (endocarditis, bacteremia, neurological symptoms), and B. grahamii  (neuroretinitis).

[From: Rebekah L. Bullard, Emily L. Olsen, Mercedes A. Cheslock, Monica E. Embers, Evaluation of the available animal models for Bartonella infections, One Health, Volume 18, 2024,100665, ISSN 2352-7714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100665.%5D

How do we test for Bartonella?

As you can see from the above table, testing for just one species makes no sense, because we can be exposed to a broad range of Bartonella species during our lifetime. I started to test for Bartonella over two decades ago. This is from an abstract I presented at the 16th International Scientific Conference on Lyme disease in 2003:

You can see from this abstract, even 22 years ago, by just testing for Bartonella henselae, one of the most common species, we found that using an ELISA and IFA (Immunofluorescent Assay) was positive in less than 50% of patients–but using DNA analysis with a PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) in the blood, we found 53% were positive when standard antibody assays were negative.

Which means the rule of thumb when testing for Bartonella is go as broad as you can. It is fine to start with local lab testing.

Level 1 testing

Using local labs like Quest, Labcorp, or Bioreference, you can send off antibody titers to B. henselae, B. quintana and B. bacilliformis, as well as PCRs and even a VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), an indirect marker of Bartonella exposure, indicating inflammation in the blood vessels (vasculitis). Often, however, you’ll want to use several specialty labs to prove infection.

Level 2 testing

If the above testing is negative, as it usually is, but you clinically suspect Bartonella, move on to the next level of tests. The three specialty labs include IgeneX laboratory (Bartonella IgM/IgG Immunoblots, Bartonella FISH [Fluorescent In-Situ-Hybridization test, an RNA test], T Labs (Bartonella FISH) with confocal microscopy, and Galaxy Laboratories, using their 4 species IFA antibody panel (for the most common species), and their ddPCR (direct droplet PCR) tests. The Bartonella Digital ePCR™ platform combines highly sensitive ddPCR technology with culture enrichment (BAPGM™).

I usually start with IgeneX laboratory and find that most of my patients have indeterminate or positive Immunoblots. Many times a negative Bartonella FISH test will turn positive later on during treatment, after the bacteria has been flushed out from the intracellular compartments where it’s been hiding.

I follow VEGF levels over time, as an indirect marker of Bartonella, when reactivation of infection is suspected. Keep in mind VEGF can be positive for other reasons (including Long Covid or cancer with metastases).

Level 3 testing

Skin biopsies can be done of the classical Bartonella rashes. Dr. Marna Ericson from T Labs has done this for me several times, and she found positive Bartonella in the skin, under biofilms, when it couldn’t be found through other methods.

I suspected Bartonella in two of my patients, but despite all classical testing, couldn’t prove exposure. The Bartonella fluoresces red under the microscope with this technique. I don’t suggest it as first level testing, but it can be very useful if you have looked for Bartonella using any and all of the above laboratories and methodologies.

Stay tuned for parts 2, 3, 4 and 5

In Part 2, I’ll discuss more about establishing a diagnosis as well as an overview of how other co-infections may overlap and affect Bartonella symptoms. Part 3 will discuss effective treatments, and Parts 4 and 5 go into more detail about these treatments.

Dr. Richard Horowitz has treated 13,000 Lyme and tick-borne disease patients over the last 40 years and is the best-selling author of  How Can I Get Better? and Why Can’t I Get Better? You can subscribe to read more of his work on Substack or join his Lyme-based newsletter for regular insights, tips, and advice

For more:

Category:

Babesia, Bartonella, Lyme, Psychological Aspects, research, Testing, Ticks, Treatment