Archive for the ‘Testing’ Category

2 Insects, 2 Bites, 1 Patient: A Lyme Disease & Jamestown Canyon Co-infection

https://www.cureus.com/articles/161559-two-insects-two-bites-one-patient-a-lyme-disease-and-jamestown-canyon-co-infection#!/

Two Insects, Two Bites, One Patient: A Lyme Disease and Jamestown Canyon Co-infection

Nicholas S. Weiler • Eric Niendorf • Igor Dumic

Published: June 10, 2023

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40222

Peer-Reviewed

Cite this article as: Weiler N S, Niendorf E, Dumic I (June 10, 2023) Two Insects, Two Bites, One Patient: A Lyme Disease and Jamestown Canyon Co-infection. Cureus 15(6): e40222. doi:10.7759/cureus.40222

Abstract

Lyme disease (LD) is the most common tick-borne illness across the United States, caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato and transmitted to humans by the bite of infected Ixodes ticks. Jamestown Canyon Virus (JCV) is an emerging mosquito-borne pathogen found mostly in the upper Midwest and Northeastern United States. Co-infection between these two pathogens has not been previously reported since it would require the host to be bitten by the two infected vectors at the same time. We report a 36-year-old man who presented with erythema migrans and meningitis. While erythema migrans is a pathognomonic sign of early localized Lyme disease, Lyme meningitis does not occur in this stage but in the early disseminated stage. Furthermore, CSF tests were not supportive of neuroborreliosis, and the patient was ultimately diagnosed with JCV meningitis. We review JCV infection, LD, and this first reported co-infection to illustrate the complex interaction between different vectors and pathogens and to emphasize the importance of considering co-infection in people who live in vector-endemic areas.

_______________

For more:

Category:

Lyme, mosquitoes, research, Testing, Ticks, Viruses

Documentary: Why Am I Still Sick? The Silent Role of Biofilm “Culturing Methods Detect Less Than 5% of all Known Bacteria”

http://  1 hour 30 min

The Silent Role of Biofilm in Chronic Disease

This film explores bacterial biofilm infections and how they cause debilitating illnesses for tens of millions of Americans. People with “sub-clinical infections” suffer for months, years or even decades; others will lose life or limb because of the failure to treat chronic wounds or hospital acquired infections. More than 550,000 patients lose their lives annually because of hospital infections and twice that number will acquire sepsis. The majority of hospital infections involve bacterial biofilms and affect every area of specialized medicine and every part of the human body.

Paradoxically, the applications of biofilm eradication methods are slow to propagate into the many silos of western medicine. With patients and doctors in the dark about what is truly causing chronic diseases, millions of people remain undiagnosed and are denied effective treatments for their medical problems.

This ground-breaking documentary explores a new disease model on a scientific and human level. This film leverages interviews from top clinical experts with patients affected by bacterial biofilms to reach as wide an audience as possible. By breaking down complex topics of biofilm infections to a human level, showing staggering statistics, and using high quality animations, the message becomes accessible, compelling and obvious: biofilm infections are a gargantuan problem that has been overlooked by American society, and we as a nation are paying a terrible price.

However, with the advent of new molecular diagnostics, and a new way to understanding disease, Americans can effectively catalyze credible healthcare change by sharing this information that helps eliminate needless suffering, save lives and reduce the costs of health care.

Why Am I Still Sick? https://whyamistillsick.com/

Please donate to our foundation: https://www.adrsupport.org/donations/

John G. Thomas, MS, Ph.D. International Educator and Global Microbiologist Professor, WVU Dept. of Pathology, School of Medicine Clinical Professor, WVU Dept. of Periodontics, School of Dentistry Director(s) WVU High Complexity Laboratory & Biofilm Research Laboratory for Translational Studies

J. William Costerton, Ph.D. “The Father of Biofilms” Director, Microbial Research, Department of Orthopedics, Allegheny General Hospital Director, Biofilm Research, Center for Genomic Sciences, Allegheny-Singer Research Institute

Dr. Randy Wolcott, MD CWS Medical Director, Southwest Regional Woundcare Center Founder, Pathogenius Laboratories Timothy K. Lu, M.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor Synthetic Biology Group MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science MIT Synthetic Biology Center

Wilmore C. Webley, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Microbiology University of Massachusetts Amherst

Vincent A. Fischetti, Ph.D. Professor and Chairman Laboratory of Bacterial Pathogenesis and Immunology The Rockefeller University

Michael Wilson, GRSC, MSc, PhD, DSc, FRCPath Professor of Microbiology Eastman Dental Institute, University College London

David C. Kennedy, DDS Past President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

Doyle Williams, DDS Chief Dental Officer Delta Dental of Massachusetts

Eva Sapi Ph.D. Associate Professor and University Research Scholar Director of Lyme Disease Program Department of Biology and Environmental Science University of New Haven

Rodney M. Donlan, Ph.D. Research Microbiologist Biofilm Laboratory Clinical and Environmental Microbiology Branch Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

L. Clifford McDonald, MD Senior Advisor for Science and Integrity Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Shirley Gutkowski, RDH, BSDH, FACE Oral Healthcare Expert Founding Member American Academy of Oral Systemic Health

Trisha E. O’Hehir, RDH, MS Editorial Director of Hygienetown Magazine President of Perio Reports Press

Nicolas G. Loebel, Ph.D. Chief Technology Officer & President Ondine Biomedical Inc.

Kris Koss, D.V.M. Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Carlene Patterson, D.V.M. Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Sheep Meadow Animal Hospital Thomas Webster, Ph.D. Associate Professor Division of Engineering and Orthopedic Surgery Director of Nanomedicine Laboratory Brown University

Carolyn Cross Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ondine Biomedical, Inc.

Steve Holland, MD Chief, Laboratory of Clinical Infectious Diseases Chief, Immunopathogenesis Section National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Garth D. Ehrlich, Ph.D. Executive Director, Center for Genomic Sciences Allegheny-Singer Research Institute

John P. Kennedy, R. Ph., Ph.D Assistant Professor South University, School of Pharmacy Savannah, Georgia

Dr. “Lon” H. Jones, D.O Retired Osteopathic Family Physician Founder, Xlear, Inc. Author, No More Allergies, Asthma or Sinus Infections Tom Masterson Operations Manager Ondine Biomedical, Inc.

Scot E Dowd, Ph.D. Molecular Microbiologist & Microbial Geneticist Molecular Research LP

__________________

For more:

Category:

Activism, Biofilm, research, Testing

Chronic Lyme Disease Patients Want to Be Treated, Not “Managed” By Physicians

https://danielcameronmd.com/recommendations-to-clinicians-on-how-to-handle-chronic-lyme-disease-patients/

CHRONIC LYME DISEASE PATIENTS WANT TO BE TREATED, NOT ‘MANAGED’ BY PHYSICIANS

Over the past month, a series of articles, focusing on multiple aspects of Lyme disease, from pediatric Lyme to chronic Lyme to life after Lyme, have been published in the May and June issues of Infectious Disease Clinics of North America and Clinical Infectious Diseases. The articles echo messages that, for the most part, minimize a disease that impacts hundreds of thousands of people each year — many of whom are children.

By 

“Minds are like parachutes. They only function when open.” This particular quote by Thomas Dewar came to mind after reading an article, Chronic Lyme Disease (1) in the June issue of Infectious Disease Clinics of North America.

In it, the author writes, “the scientific community has largely rejected chronic, treatment-refractory Borrelia burgdorferi infection.” This is based on “the failure to detect cultivatable, clinically relevant organisms after standard treatment.”

The intention of the Chronic Lyme Disease article is evident — convince readers that chronic Lyme disease does not exist, and that antibiotics prescribed for more than 14- to 28-days are of no benefit and most patients have no lingering symptoms.

It is particularly troublesome that the author, Paul Lantos, MD, a Duke University Medical Center researcher, is co-chair on a panel responsible for updating the Infectious Disease Society of America’s (IDSA) treatment guidelines for Lyme disease. Dr. Lantos holds a position not to be taken lightly. The IDSA recommendations will determine, for the most part, the types of treatment patients diagnosed with Lyme disease will receive.

Additionally, Dr. Lantos includes a section entitled, “Clinical Approach to Patients with Chronic Lyme Disease Diagnosis,” in which he offers suggestions to physicians on how to ‘manage’ patients complaining they have chronic Lyme disease. Recommendations include listening patiently during the consultation and then explaining to the patient why their symptoms are not related to Lyme disease.

“…a certain amount of time must be spent reviewing past experiences and past laboratory tests … then explaining why Lyme disease may not account for their illnesses.”

“Even if chronic Lyme disease lacks biological legitimacy, its importance as a phenomenon can be monumental to the individual patient,” says Lantos. “Many have undergone frustrating, expensive, and ultimately fruitless medical evaluations. And many have become quite disaffected with a medical system that has failed to provide answers.”

Managing patients, who insist they have chronic Lyme disease can be challenging, he warns. This subset of patients can have “great variation in their ‘commitment’ to a chronic Lyme disease diagnosis. Some patients are entirely convinced they have chronic Lyme disease, they request specific types of therapy, and they are not interested in adjudicating the chronic Lyme disease diagnosis.”

Should a clinician have a patient who believes they have chronic Lyme disease, there are several ways to manage the evaluation, he explains. First, “the physician needs to suppress preconceptions or biases about such patients.”

Second, “the process of clinical information gathering in medicine … is no different in the context of chronic Lyme disease. Even if much discussion is centered on chronic Lyme disease.”

And, lastly, “it is of utmost importance to not seem to be impatient, dismissive, or rushed. Many patients who seek care for chronic Lyme disease already have accumulated frustration. … Each patient’s clinical story and personal history is unique and valid, even if one concludes that they do not have Lyme disease.”

For the patients who do remain chronically symptomatic, Dr. Lantos explains, there has been “little evidence of active infection, and their symptoms do not respond to antibiotics any better than to placebo.”

When dealing with complex, chronic illnesses, physicians need to develop a trusting and understanding relationship with their patients. It is impossible for a clinician to provide the highest level of care to their patients, which includes a thorough evaluation, if they enter into the doctor-patient relationship with preconceived notions, not only about an extremely complex disease but about the patient who is reporting the symptoms, which are often subjective.

Should the patient not have any of the three objective signs of Lyme disease — the bulls-eye rash, swollen knee and/or Bell’s Palsy, identifying the infection is dependent on a strong evaluation. Patients want physicians to provide effective treatments. They don’t want to be ‘managed.’

It is time for a new narrative. One that recognizes the complexity of the Lyme spirochete and acknowledges the ineffective simplicity of the ‘one-size fits all’ treatment approach.

References:

  1. Lantos PM. Chronic Lyme Disease. Infect Dis Clin North Am, 29(2), 325-340 (2015).

___________________

**Comment**

Lantos is obviously unaware of this which showed a 70% complete remission of symptoms:   https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2023/07/24/paralyzed-by-lyme-they-were-helped-with-combo-treatments/

Also, it’s imperative to point out that coinfections are rarely taken into consideration, yet chronically infected patients are notoriously coinfected with other pathogens.  The fact they don’t improve is most probably due to the fact they are not treating these coinfections which can be as bad if not worse than Lyme.  Bartonella and Babesia are two such pathogens that can knock you off your feet but require very different medications than Lyme meds.  This is simply never discussed.

My husband and I are two chronically infected patients that have improved vastly with extended antimicrobial treatment.  Without this treatment, I’m not sure either of us would be alive.  I know many others in this boat as well.  We don’t make the research papers because none of us fit the criteria to even enter a study:

These parameters that continue to be used will continue to give a preconceived outcome: no chronic/persistent infection.  It’s circular reasoning of the worst kind that hasn’t budged in over 40 years.

Compare this to Dr. Lee Merritt’s informative talk where she describes experiments done on prisoners in the 1900’s that would see them deliberately infected with the Spanish Flu.

The experiments would see some of the prisoners injected with infected lung tissue from sick or deceased patients, have infected tissue dropped in their eyes, and sprayed in the nose and mouth with infectious aerosols. Others would see mucus taken from critically ill patients and put it into the noses and throats of prisoners. In other parts of the trials, experimenters would take the blood of the sick and inject it into the healthy, to see if it was spread through infectious microorganisms in the blood.

As well as the various fluid exchanges mentioned above, a further part of the experiments saw ten healthy prisoners taken into a hospital for patients who were dying of the disease. There, they were asked to stand over the sick and dying, lean over their faces and breathe in heavily while they exhaled. Just to be sure of exposure, the flu patients would cough into the face and mouths of the prisoners.

Guess what?  Not a single patient in the experiment died of the disease – they didn’t even become ill. 
Ponder this for a moment.  
I mean, what is the likelihood?
Yet, despite this fact, we are told that the Spanish Flu is the most deadly virus on the planet.
According to many experts, this lack of proof of viral infectivity is a big deal but has resulted in a massively lucrative “vaccination” program that only worsens with time – now forcing people to concede to these injections or lose their jobs.
Meanwhile, back in Lymeland, lack of definitive proof stops the show.  Experts claim, “If we can’t see it, smell it, touch it, it doesn’t exist.” 
Anyone with half a brain would see this comparison and acknowledge that something is truly rotten in Denmark.

******

Category:

Activism, Lyme, research, Testing, Treatment, vaccines, Viruses

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

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

Best Lab Test for Lyme, Bartonella, & Babesia

https://www.treatlyme.net/guide/best-lab-test-for-borrelia-bartonella-babesia  Video Here (Approx. 8 Min)

Immunoblot is Best Test for Lyme, Bartonella, and Babesia—Here is Why

By Dr. Marty Ross

This video article on testing has two parts.

  • First, I review the differences between IGenex Immunoblot and Armin or Infectolab Americas Elispot testing for the big three tick-borne infections of Borrelia (Lyme), Babesia and Bartonella.
  • The last section of the video compares IGenex Immunoblot and Galaxy Labs PCR tests for Bartonella.

There is clarifying information below the video. Here you can find more information about the meaning of sensitivity and specificity. I also identify the different strains IGenex detects versus the more limited strains Armin or Infectolab Americas detects. Finally, I explain why I do not use Vibrant Labs or DNA Connexions testing.

Terms and Definitions for Tests

To help understand when to use a test or the meaning of a result physicians consider the test sensitivity and specificity.

  • Sensitivity is the ability of a test to find an illness in all people with the illness.
  • Specificity is the ability of a test to correctly identify people without an illness from all people who do not have the illness.

IGenex Immunoblots are Best Because They are Most Sensitive and Specific

IGenex Immunoblot testing is more sensitive for Borrelia, Babesia, and Bartonella testing than Armin and Infectolab Elispot testing because it looks for reactions to more strains of each infection.

  • Borrelia. The test detects antibodies against eight strains including B. afzelii, B. garinii, and B. burgdorferi.
  • Bartonella. The test detects antibodies against the family of Bartonella which includes 15 types thought to infect humans. In addition, it detects specific antibodies against four specific strains named B. henselae, B. vinsonii, B. elizabethae, and B. quintana.
  • Babesia. The test detects antibodies against the family of Babesia which includes B. odecoilei. It also detects specific antibodies against two specific strains named B. microti, and B. duncani.

(See link for article and video)

________________

For more:

Category:

Babesia, Bartonella, Lyme, Testing