Archive for the ‘Testing’ Category

After These Young People Died, Postmortems Found an Unnerving Parasite Link

After These Young People Died, Postmortems Found an Unnerving Parasite Link

04 September 2026

ByEsra Öz

After These Young People Died, Postmortems Found an Unnerving Parasite Link (Breitschwerdt et al., Parasites & Vectors, 2026, CC BY 4.0.)

He had been athletic and healthy. Then came years of exhaustion, pain, memory problems, and psychiatric symptoms. Eventually, he had to leave college.

By the time the 27-year-old died, six years of illness and specialist care had failed to restore his health.

Tests performed after his death revealed DNA from two species of Babesia, tiny parasites that infect red blood cells, and Bartonella henselae, the bacterium that causes cat-scratch disease.

His was one of six cases in a postmortem investigation driven by families still seeking answers about their children’s illnesses.

Researchers confirmed DNA from one or both groups of microbes in five individuals.

The discovery left a crucial question unanswered: what role, if any, had these infections played in their illnesses?

The individuals were aged 14 to 30, and all had experienced chronic illness and suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

Four died by suicide, one through medical assistance in dying, and another from a severe disorder involving excessive immune activation.

Their parents contacted Edward Breitschwerdt, an infectious disease researcher at North Carolina State University, after learning about his team’s work on Bartonella and neurological illness. (See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

This is the perfect article to follow up on the research on ‘PTLDS’ as it wonderfully shows how these pathogens are hard to find let alone effectively treat but are causing needless suicides and unbelievable suffering, due to an old faulty dogma that refuses to go away.

Important excerpt:

“They supplied medical histories and arranged for postmortem samples to reach his laboratory. Some had already been tested or treated for these infections while alive. The investigation was therefore not the first indication of infection in every case. At the laboratory, the initial search returned no clear answers. The researchers analyzed 125 DNA extracts from blood, laboratory blood cultures, tissues, and other body fluids. Initial quantitative PCR screening, which searches for selected genetic sequences, was negative throughout. Digital PCR, which divides samples into many tiny reactions, then produced faint signals in some samples. None reached the study’s threshold for a positive result. Additional targeted tests and DNA sequencing, which reads genetic material to identify organisms, provided confirmation.”

These poor folks would have been ignored by most researchers after the PCR screening, but Bart guru, Dr. Ed Breitschwerdt, is no dummy and kept digging. Notice they did additional ‘targeted’ tests AND DNA sequencing. Mainstream research simply quits looking after using tests that are wrong nearly 90% of the time.

In response to the question of whether the DNA points to an active infection at the time of death, Breitschwerdt said that detecting a known pathogen’s DNA in clinical specimens is medically accepted as evidence of “active infection.

Yet – for some reason, this ‘medically accepted’ evidence does NOT hold true for Lyme/MSIDS. It’s the perfect quagmire with no end in sight.

While this was an ‘observational study’, not a prospective case-controlled study, Breitschwerdt states:

“I think the best interpretation is that infections with vector-borne pathogens that have evolved to induce persistent infections in animals and human patients are not a current diagnostic consideration in patients with chronic illnesses or neuropsychiatric symptoms.”

For more:

Category:

Babesia, Bartonella, Inflammation, Lyme, Psychological Aspects, research, Testing

Borrelia, Bartonella, & Babesia in the Brain:What New Evidence Reveals, With Nicole Bell

Borrelia, Bartonella & Babesia in the Brain: What New Evidence Reveals, with Nicole Bell

Ali Moresco and Tick Boot Camp

Dec 2, 2025 Pathobiome Perspectives

Guest: Nicole Bell, Galaxy Diagnostics CEO In this episode of Pathobiome Perspectives, we sit down with Nicole Bell — author of What Lurks in the Woods, CEO of Galaxy Diagnostics, and leading advocate for tick-borne and neurodegenerative disease.

This episode is a must watch for anyone suffering or suspecting that they may have Borrelia, Babesia or Bartonella. Nicole’s work sits at the rare intersection of cutting-edge diagnostic science and lived experience. Her family’s story—detailed in her memoir—began as a confusing neurological decline and ultimately became a lesson in how the pathobiome can masquerade as mental health and aging.

Nicole presented at the AlzPI & PCOM Symposium on the topic: “When the brain pathobiome becomes personal.”She shared new results from her late husband Russ’s donated brain including laboratory evidence of Borrelia burgdorferi, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and Babesia otocoli—the latter a parasite historically believed to infect only deer—detected in human brain tissue for the first time.

Elevated heavy metals (lead and mercury) were also identified, highlighting how polymicrobial infection + toxic exposure may fuel neuroinflammatory decline that looks like Alzheimer’s.

Inside the Conversation Nicole discusses:

  • How repeated “nothing’s wrong” neurology evaluations can mask a complex infection-driven process
  • The limitations of the standard two-tier Lyme test and why direct detection matters
  • Why patients with neurological, psychiatric, or cognitive symptoms should consider Bartonella and Babesia—not just Borrelia Bartonella red flags that are often overlooked: Striæ that mimic stretch marks (especially noticeable after heat exposure)
  • Mood and behavioral changes (irritability, OCD, anxiety, tics)
  • Visual disturbances and joint issues Fleas and household cats as major non-tick vectors
  • The need for diagnostic toolkits that identify not just exposure—but activity across pathogens
  • Looking ahead, Nicole imagines a future where memory loss or personality change prompts a comprehensive screening panel that includes pathogen burden, immune markers, and toxin load—allowing targeted treatment before cognitive decline takes hold.
  • Why This Conversation Matters Nicole’s voice bridges science and lived experience. Her family’s unimaginable loss is catalyzing a shift in how medicine approaches mystery neurological illness—away from symptom labels and toward precision diagnostics, pathogen-informed care, and early intervention. Her advocacy underscores a core truth emerging across pathobiome research: what looks psychiatric or “idiopathic” may, in fact, be biologically explainable—and treatable—when we look deeper.

For more:

Category:

Babesia, Bartonella, Lyme, Testing

WHO: Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without ‘Evidence of Illness’

WHO Says Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without ‘Evidence of Illness’

“Evidence of illness is not required” to trigger international pandemic reporting, the World Health Organization declares.

Jon Fleetwood

Aug 21, 2026

Important Excerpts:

The World Health Organization (WHO) says evidence that a person is actually sick is not required for a “laboratory-confirmed” human influenza infection with “the potential to cause a pandemic” to trigger mandatory international reporting.

WHO says countries must “immediately notify WHO of any laboratory-confirmed case of a recent human infection caused by an influenza A virus with the potential to cause a pandemic.”

(See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

This ‘Laboratory-confirmed’ finding is based on PCR which doesn’t directly observe a virus.

COVID, which has been described as a ‘casedemic,’ showed the world the inaccuracy of PCR tests, particularly when ‘the powers that be’ manipulate the cycling threshold for their own nefarious purpose. Lymeland also includes a chapter where PCR was used to ‘prove’ extended antibiotics don’t work, causing untold needless suffering.

Now, following in a similar ugly vein, the WHO says you don’t even have to show ANY evidence of illness for them to blow your world up by declaring a ‘pandemic,’ and shutting down businesses, schools, etc.

Have we truly learned nothing from the COVID experiment?

For more:

Category:

Activism, Testing, Viruses

Direct vs. Indirect Testing in Chronic Infections: Why it Matters

https://www.restorativemedcenter.com/blogs/direct-vs-indirect-testing-for-infections-cracking-the-case-of-the-missing-microbes

Published on March 14, 2025

If you’ve ever attempted to get to the bottom of a suspected chronic infection, you’ve likely encountered the ongoing debate between direct and indirect testing. Understanding the distinction isn’t just academic—it’s critical to making accurate diagnoses and effective treatment decisions.

Both methods can provide valuable information, but they operate at different levels of biological evidence. Direct testing seeks to identify the pathogen itself, while indirect testing detects your immune system’s response to it. Knowing which to prioritize—and when—can mean the difference between clarity and ongoing uncertainty.

Direct Testing: Identifying the Pathogen Itself

Direct testing aims to detect the actual presence of a pathogen in the body—whether that’s microbial DNA, RNA, proteins, or intact organisms. It offers the highest level of diagnostic confirmation, and is typically preferred when making treatment decisions, as it confirms that the organism is currently present.

Common direct methods include:

  • PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction):
    This technique amplifies microbial DNA to detectable levels, making it highly specific and sensitive, especially when an infection is active.
    PCR is available through a variety of labs, including the DNA Connexions Lyme Panel, which uses a urine sample to test for DNA from Borrelia, Babesia, Bartonella, Ehrlichia, and other vector-borne pathogens.
    PCR may still miss infections if the microbes are hidden in tissue or biofilms and not shedding into the sampled fluid at the time of collection.
  • Culture:
    Considered the gold standard in conventional infectious disease medicine because it allows for isolation and identification of live organisms. However, culturing vector-borne infections (VBIs) like Bartonella, Borrelia, and Babesia is notoriously difficult.
    These organisms are often slow-growing, intracellular, or biofilm-forming, which makes them hard to culture using standard techniques.
    This culturing difficulty is a major reason why many infectious disease specialists struggle to validate or diagnose chronic forms of these infections—they simply don’t grow well using the gold standard method.
  • FISH (Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization):
    FISH testing uses fluorescent probes that bind to the genetic material of specific pathogens, allowing for direct visualization under a microscope.
    It is especially useful for detecting organisms in blood smears, even when present in low quantities.
    IGeneX offers FISH testing for both Bartonella and Babesia, providing an important tool for clinicians dealing with suspected chronic infections.
    Like PCR, FISH confirms active presence of the organism—but may also be limited by where and when the pathogen is present in the body.

Indirect Testing: Measuring the Host Response

Indirect testing evaluates immune system responses rather than looking for the pathogen itself. These tests infer the presence of an infection based on patterns of immune activation or memory, and can be helpful when direct detection methods are inconclusive.

Common indirect methods include:

  • Antibody Testing (IgM, IgG, IgA): Measures immune memory and recent immune responses. Interpretation can be complex due to persistent antibody elevation or cross-reactivity.
  • T-Cell Response Assays (e.g., Elispot): Measure cell-mediated immune activity, often reflecting an ongoing immune response not captured by antibodies alone.
  • Cytokine Panels & Inflammatory Biomarkers: These offer insight into generalized immune activation but are nonspecific.

The main limitation with indirect testing is that it cannot definitively confirm the presence of a pathogen—only that the immune system has responded to it at some point. This makes it vulnerable to both false positives (from past exposures, autoimmunity, or cross-reactivity) and false negatives (due to immunosuppression or immune exhaustion).

Why Direct Testing Is Clinically Preferred

In my clinical experience, when high-quality direct testing is available, it consistently provides the most actionable data. Direct evidence of a pathogen’s presence allows for more targeted and confident treatment decisions.

Indirect testing can be helpful—especially in cases where no clear pathogen is identified—but it is ultimately a secondary measure, best used to support or contextualize findings rather than as a standalone diagnostic tool.

I’ve seen numerous cases where indirect tests were falsely positive or falsely negative compared to reliable direct testing. In some situations, indirect markers suggested a strong immune response to an infection that was no longer present, leading to unnecessary or prolonged treatment. In other cases, indirect tests missed active infections entirely due to immune dysfunction or suppression. (See link for article)

________________

**Comment**

And yet, indirect testing remains the accepted testing for all tick-borne illness despite being abysmal.

In fact, there’s been a concerted effort to suppress direct testing. This, is the first red flag one experiences in Lymeland. Why would public health ‘authorities’ suppress an accurate test? And yet, here we are.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing

Alpha-Gal, The Tick Was Always a Needle

https://unfiltered.doctorschierling.com/p/alpha-gal-part-ii-the-tick-was-always?

Alpha-Gal, Part II: The Tick Was Always a Needle

The one question I left standing in Part I — if it was the shots, why the tick at all? The scientific literature answers it in one word. Three questions that collapse the tick story from the inside.

Russell Schierling

Jul 10, 2026

For my children and grandchildren…

In Part I, I built a fence. On one side, I put everything solid — Richet’s Nobel Prize, the route problem, the Japanese gelatin admission, the billing codes, and my own Amish patient base, covered in ticks, completely unvaccinated, and, at least as far as I can ascertain, free of alpha-gal — with a single imported exception I’ll come back to shortly. On the other side, I put my suspicions about a declassed clandestine program, telling you where the record stopped, and my hunches began.

Today, there will be no discussion of Fort Detrick, Plum Island, or other biolabs / bioweapon labs. There’s no need for that when answering a question that several readers asked via the comment section. Before I had finished my morning coffee…

If it’s really the shots that cause alpha-gal, then why is the tick needed at all?

I’m going to answer this by asking and answering three very specific questions from the tick research community’s own filing cabinet — CDC-funded papers and the industry-disclosed authors. From the scientists who are certain the Lone Star tick is the primary cause.

I’m going to let people far smarter than me answer these questions using their own studies…

Question One: Why Is a Tick Needed At All?

But the condition has no historical precedent. It appears in the literature at a specific moment in the late 1980s, in multiple countries simultaneously, at a time when gelatin-containing vaccines were being introduced into childhood immunization schedules worldwide. Japanese researchers documented, confirmed through intervention, and published the direct causal relationship between gelatin-containing DTaP vaccines and alpha-gal sensitization in children who had never been exposed to ticks. That evidence is in the peer-reviewed record. It has been there since 1996. -From Dr Travis Johnson’s June 2 piece in Medium (The Allergy That Shouldn’t Exist: Vaccines, Gelatin, and the Strange Origins of Alpha-Gal Syndrome)

To answer question one, it isn’t — at least not as the origin. Vaccines alone can do it — the tick isn’t required for the mechanism. But historically, before the schedule ballooned, cases clustered in tick country. And the scientific literature already told you why.

Go pull the 2021 paper from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology that tick researchers themselves titled “Tick Saliva and the Alpha-Gal Syndrome: Finding a Needle in a Haystack”. Read that title again. A needle in a haystack. They picked the metaphor, but pointed it at the park instead of at the vial.

Let’s watch what the tick actually does and why the needle in the haystack might be apropos, but maybe not in the way the authors intended…

Another 2021 study, this one on a tick enzyme, describes the alpha-gal sugar as being — their word, not mine — “injected into humans from the lone-star tick bite”. Injected. Not eaten. Not digested. Injected — straight through the skin, past the gut and its digestive processes, and into areas where food is not supposed to be. And as I stated in Part I, this is extremely similar to the phenomenon I have referred to for over two decades as “The Leakies”. Example: (Systemic Leaky Barrier Syndrome (SLBS): A Systems-Level Framework for Chronic Disease).

Earlier studies localized the sugar to the secretory vesicles of the tick’s salivary glands — meaning it’s built to be squirted into a bite. In other words, it’s not wrong to think of ticks as syringes with eight legs — light enough to cross your skin without tripping pressure receptors, and armed with saliva loaded with painkillers, anti-inflammatories, and anticoagulants that let them latch and drink for days without ever setting off the itch that would make you look down and flick them off.

What these devilish little creatures are loading into you is galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose — alpha-gal for short; the “ose” tells you it’s a sugar, like glucose or sucrose — a bit of mammalian sweetness squirted straight under your skin. And here’s the kicker nobody thus far has answered…

When it comes to the animals the tick commonly feeds on — deer, cattle, dogs, rodents, goats, hogs, etc — alpha-gal is “endogenous”. In other words, they build it, they carry it, and their immune systems recognize it as native (“self”) so that it’s not attacked as an invader. So the best answer for why it’s in the saliva at all isn’t that it works some mechanical trick like the anticoagulants and painkillers do — it’s camouflage. Dress your spit in the host’s own sugar, and it reads as ‘self,’ letting the tick guzzle until 100X normal size, all under the immune radar. Which means the sugar is doing exactly its job on a deer. (See link for article)

_____________

**Comment**

Probably the most comprehensive article on the subject and is deserving of your time. I also highly recommend Part 1: Alpha-Gal: Why it Might Be the Shots, Not Just the Ticks. The Amish as a community due to defying government dictates, flourished during COVID as well.

The most important take-away is the fact that the Ozarks are full of deer, lone star ticks, and ‘vaccinated’ people, with the exception of the unvaccinated Amish whom are smack dab in the middle of the same area and free of AGS.

“Geography is an alibi the ‘forced vaccination community’ at large is hiding behind because ticks and the heavily vaccinated live side by side in so much of the country.” ~ Dr. Shierling

The good doctor also states he’s only come into ONE Amish person who got AGS, but that she grew up in Minnesota and received some vaccines as an infant…..

Another important take-away is that the younger the child and the larger the ‘vaccine’ dose(s), the more likely they are to develop sensitivity rather than tolerance. The Journal of the American Dental Association now quietly lists topical numbing gels, Gelfoam, prophy paste, catgut, bone graft materials — while noting manufacturers aren’t required to disclose animal-derived ingredients, as containing alpha-gal bearing excipients. This website has also posted the fact that graphene oxide was found in all three dental anesthetics tested.

For more on AGS:


Category:

Lyme, Testing, Ticks, Treatment, vaccines