Dynamics of infection by Bartonella and Rickettsia species, which are epidemiologically associated in dogs, have not been explored in a controlled setting.
Describe an outbreak investigation of occult Bartonella spp. infection among a group of dogs, discovered after experimentally induced Rickettsia rickettsii (Rr) infection.
Six apparently healthy purpose-bred Beagles obtained from a commercial vendor.
Retrospective and prospective study. Dogs were serially tested for Bartonella spp. and Rr using serology, culture, and PCR, over 3 study phases: 3 months before inoculation with Rr (retrospective), 6 weeks after inoculation with Rr (retrospective), and 8 months of follow-up (prospective).
Before Rr infection, 1 dog was Bartonella henselae (Bh) immunofluorescent antibody assay (IFA) seroreactive and 1 was Rickettsia spp. IFA seroreactive. After inoculation with Rr, all dogs developed mild Rocky Mountain spotted fever compatible with low-dose Rr infection, seroconverted to Rickettsia spp. within 4-11 days, and recovered within 1 week. When 1 dog developed ear tip vasculitis with intra-lesional Bh, an investigation of Bartonella spp. infection was undertaken. All dogs had seroconverted to 1-3 Bartonella spp. between 7 and 18 days after Rr inoculation. Between 4 and 8 months after Rr inoculation, Bh DNA was amplified from multiple tissues from 2 dogs, and Bartonella vinsonii subsp. berkhoffii (Bvb) DNA was amplified from 4 of 5 dogs’ oral swabs.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE:
Vector-borne disease exposure was demonstrated in research dogs from a commercial vendor. Despite limitations, our results support the possibilities of recrudescence (reappearance) of chronic subclinical Bartonella spp. infection after Rr infection and horizontal direct-contact transmission between dogs.
Bartonella isn’t even on most GP’s radar, yet patients with tick-borne illness often have it. This dog study shows how Bartonella can be chronic, subclinical, and reactivated by other pathogens. Subclinical can mean a few things – either the patient appears asymptomatic (without symptoms) or it isn’t picked up on testing or both.
This issue highlights an important field of study that’s begging to be done.
Does a tick bite lower the immune system so that what was a subclinical issue now triggers an active infection? It makes sense that a tick bite would do this, as vaccines have been shown to do this. Vaccines are designed to lower the immune system so the body mounts an immune response and creates antibodies to whatever is in the vaccine.
Dr. Burrascano, a highly experienced Lyme literate doctor, found that multiple tick bites caused greater disease severity: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/02/22/why-mainstream-lyme-msids-research-remains-in-the-dark-ages/
Others have found that vaccines have reactivated dormant infections: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/04/24/gardasil-and-bartonella/
There is further damning evidence that Gardasil can produce life-threatening reactions in those who have been close to a cat, fleas, or ticks, since many of these animals are infected with Bartonella, Babesia, or Lyme (borrelia). Also, since many MSIDS patients (multi systemic infectious disease syndrome) also struggle with viruses such as Mono or active EBV, a cytokine storm can resultwith mucus being over manufactured in lungs and airways and well as wide-spread inflammation.
Asymptomatic girls after receiving Gardasil activated dormant Bartonella which was confirmed by testing.
He has started treating Lyme Borreliosis patients 20 years ago in the USA and during the last 5 years in Ireland. He has also successfully treated a number of young women who fell ill after their HPV vaccination, which seems to have stimulated a latent Lyme infection to reactivate.
Here, we clearly see that vaccines caused active infection in previously asymptomatic patients. It makes complete logical sense that a tick bite would do the same, yet mainstream medicine hasn’t a clue and continues to treat this as a simple disease requiring 21 days of doxycycline.
There are pressing answers needed by doctors and patients yet current research seems hell-bent on focusing on climate change.
More climate data will not help patients or doctors one iota.