I got my test results back

[orchid]

Hi,

I just got my test results and need help understanding what they mean. Thank you in advance, I look forward to getting to the bottom of this.

-Orchid

[Jo]

I am so glad that our lab results don't look like that. It would drive me nuts.  Our lab results have NUMBERS – happy sigh

Titer 100 simply means that the sample was diluted 1:100 before testing.  It doesn't say the test was negative – nor does it say positive – that would drive me nuts trying to figure it out.

IgG tests do not differential between past and current infections. This is where numbers sure would be nice.  A repeat test with a signficantly higher number would indicate a current infection according to the American Laboritory Manual.

You tested postive for Chlamydia Pneumoniae and Chlamydia Trachomatis mycoplasmas on the IgG tests. Meaning either a past or current infection.

IgM tests indicate a current infection. The problem here arises because it could be that your infections are less than a certain number of weeks old and thus the IgM hasn't developed yet.  Or because you have a Reinfection which will seldom test positive, or because it really is a past infection only.

IgG is always positive once you've been infected. IgM shows current infections, but seldom  reinfections.  According to the American Laboratory Manual.

It looks like you were given the “family” PCR tests instead of individual tests… our labs showed about 40 seperate PCR tests. (all with numbers)  The grouping your lab used has a significant false negative when compared to the individual tests.

Also the Elisa tests are the least accurate tests available according to:

http://www.minerva-biolabs.com/download/vmp_ref_e.pdf

 

A direct comparison of all the possible tests was done using 100 children hospitalized for these infections.

PCR only identified 52 chldren as positive for infection

Immunifluciescence identified 36 children as postive for infection.

Elisa ETI-ME DiaSorin identified 32 children as positive for infection

Elisa Euroimmun identified only 14 children as postive for infection.

That means that with PCR – 48 children would have been considered NOT infected if their symptoms hadn't hospitalized them.

With Immunifluciescence, 64 children would have been considered NOT infected.

With Elisa ETI-ME 68 children would have been considered NOT infected.

and with Elisa Euroimmun 86 children would have been considered NOT infected if not hospitalized for their symptoms.

So a negative does not really seem to mean that one is not infected, but a positive clears the way with the insurance companies.

Hope that helps.

Jo[/color]

[m.]

You are producing antibodies against two strains of mycoplasma (the titers).

Have you discussed the results with your MD or the lab?

From the Historical Protocol at Roadback:

MCF – Mycoplasma Complement Fixation

Mycoplasma complement fixation test (MCF) identifies antibodies to specific strains of mycoplasma. A positive test justifies using antibiotics as a treatment, but can also be an aid in choosing the antibiotic prescribed. Low titers are significant, and in humans, are seldom high. Often during treatment the MCF becomes strongly positive sometimes showing as much as a four-fold increase before dropping again.

From The New Arthritis Breakthrough, pg. 130, in the chapter The Case for Early Detection and Treatment.

“We have found that when a patient first complains of fatigue, especially if there is any connection with joint complaints, a test of blood for mycoplasma antibodies will produce positive results. Moreover, many patients will display these results for mycoplasma antibodies when nothing else shows. I have reached the conclusion, through long experience in following thousands of such patients, that even in the absence of any other indicator, signs of mycoplasma in the blood are a guarantee that the patient is eventually going to develop either rheumatoid arthritis or some other disease of the connective tissue unless treatment is started. And I have learned not to wait.”

[orchid]

Thanks for your replies. Ok – I'm a little confused. So the titers don't mean anything? And the IgG just means those are OLD infections, not current? Are we purely looking for NEW infections or can the old infections cause the same number of symptoms in a person?

I don't ever recall having “pneumonia” but then again, it's entirely possible I had some form of walking pneumonia. How would that appear, even as an old infection, if I've never had it?

I had these specific labs done because this is the form that the Arthritis Research Center faxed to me, I gave it to my doctor, she filled it out, checked off the tests to be done and I went to Labcorp (who followed the instructions given) and then Dr Coker-Vann ran the tests on the blood at the ARC?

Isn't this the same lab that Dr S uses? So basically the tests I had run were pointless? :headbang: I thought I had followed protocol and done everything right.

[orchid]

Also — what does this chlamydia Pneumoniae and chlamydia Trachomatis mean anyway? How are these normally contracted? Basically, you can just be 'around' someone with the illness (not be symptomatic) and it can still show up in your blood?

I remember “A Friend” mentioning awhile back that c.pneumoniae is a community-contracted illnesses, not an STD right? Same for c.trachomatis?

[Parisa]

There's alot of information about c. pneumonia at http://www.cpnhelp.org.

 

[Maz]

Hi Orchid,

This website describes chlamydia trachomitis….if you read to the bottom, you will find the part where it says that this form of chlamydia infection can cause Reiter's Syndrome, which is a form of reactive/infectious arthritis:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20060415/1411.html

Btw, I'd take the treatment guidelines with a pinch of salt! 😉 

Chlamydia pneumoniae has been associated with a number of “autoimmune” manifestations of rheumatic disease. The website Parisa gave you is great and offers a plethora of info on this infection.

Sounds like you may have got some good clues now as to what may be at the center of what is going on. The good news is that you're in the right place and can get a handle on tackling this now.  

Peace, Maz 

 

[m.]

No, the titers are significant and mean “positive”. If you look at the lab sheet, negative = normal.

If you were to track your results during AP treatment, you would see the titers rise, fall, and clear with consecutive tests. During treatment, you might become positive (show titers) to one of the mycoplasmas which were negative at the baseline test. Then these new titers will tend to rise, fall and clear. Most people do not track their progress with TARCI.

It's my understanding that IgM = current, active infection. And IgG is a memory marker = past exposure. I would speak to the lab about the exact meaning of these results and whether there is a need to repeat this portion of the test during treatment.

The ASO titer for strep is negative (so no need for a penicillin antibiotic).

Tetracyclines like Doxy and Minocin will take care of both mycoplasmas and chlamydias.

[orchid]

Thanks for the links –

I'm still confused by what Jo said and the accuracy of the tests I had done. I thought I was following the correct path with the ARC?

I also don't understand the c.trachomatis (borderline positive) considering how you contract it. How do I put this? My husband and I met young, are very conservative when it comes to that and have only had one partner – each other. Sorry to be so forward! :blush: 😯 😕 A little confused there. Is there another way you can contract it that I'm missing?

[Jo]

[user=515]orchid[/user] wrote:

Thanks for the links –

I'm still confused by what Jo said and the accuracy of the tests I had done. I thought I was following the correct path with the ARC?

I also don't understand the c.trachomatis (borderline positive) considering how you contract it. How do I put this? My husband and I met young, are very conservative when it comes to that and have only had one partner – each other. Sorry to be so forward! :blush: 😯 😕 A little confused there. Is there another way you can contract it that I'm missing?

C. Trachomatis is considered a community disease in Africa and Latin American. Apparently in untreated people there is a discharge from the eyes and nose that can infect others.   Primary schools and religious festivals in these places are a common transmission point.

Here in the States, I guess they don't believe that anyone would have these symptoms and not get treated. So they consider it an STD and a NeoNatal infection.

Wouldn't be the first time that the American Medical Boards where wrong – or guided by financial interests. 

Can you imagine what the public would demand if they discovered that their kids could be bringing it home from public schools.  Maybe that classmate with the runny nose didn't really have  a cold after all.  

Schools get paid for attendenance, not health. They want those kids in the seats, no matter how sick they are, or what they might be spreading.

The lack of accuracy in the tests is the reason why the AP works without the tests, and in spite of the fact that the tests might be negative.  These tests are the best we've got, but they simply aren't good enough – YET.

If we could get the Medical Community to acknowledge that, maybe a lot of the controversy could be settled.  As in “well, no current positives, but that's only a 50/50 shot (or less) anyway, you have the symptoms so let's treat it and see what happens.”

Probably not in my lifetime though … sigh

Jo

[Jo]

[user=515]orchid[/user] wrote:

Thanks for your replies. Ok – I'm a little confused. So the titers don't mean anything? And the IgG just means those are OLD infections, not current? Are we purely looking for NEW infections or can the old infections cause the same number of symptoms in a person?

 

When you talk to your doctor, I would dearly love to know why those two tests said only Titer 100 with no results.  I can't find any explaination for that anywhere.

Old inffections means you had it once, but it's gone.  The problems arises because of the way the tests are used by the doctors.  The IgM only becomes positive between 4-8 weeks after initial infection, and goes back to negative about 4 weeks after your immune system has cleared it up.  And seldom becomes positive again, even in reinfections. 

The doctor has to balance the IgG results with your symptoms to see that it means you have a current infection or a reinfection, or that it has been cleared up and you don't have it anymore.  Needs to retest 2-4 weeks later to see if there is an increase in the IgG that would prove it was a reinfection so that the negative IgM can safely be ignored, or that there was no increase so the whole thing is clearly a past infection that has been cured.

Do any doctors really follow these guidelines from the American Laboratory Manual, ours doesn't, just writes old infection and then ignores it… sigh

Mr Perfect's IgG was 3.09 and is now 5.84 (from memory-which means 5.something I think 84)  According to the American Laboratory Manual that's a current infection … he doesn't acknowledge that at all… sigh

At least he writes the rx – I keep reminding myself to be happy for that.

Jo

 

[Maz]

[user=515]orchid[/user] wrote:

I also don't understand the c.trachomatis (borderline positive) considering how you contract it. How do I put this? My husband and I met young, are very conservative when it comes to that and have only had one partner – each other.

 

Hi Orchid,

You might find this website interesting in this regard, specifically this paragraph:

The Handbook of Ocular Disease Management:

http://www.revoptom.com/handbook/SECT2D.HTM

“[/size]
Chlamydia trachomatis is an intracellular parasite that contains its own DNA and RNA. The sub-group A causes chlamydial infections, the serotypes A, B, Ba and C cause trachoma, and serotypes D through K produce adult inclusion conjunctivitis. The mode of ocular transmission may be hand contact from a site of genital infection to the eye, laboratory accidents, a mother infecting the newborn, shared cosmetics and occasionally an improperly chlorinated hot tub.”

As I know you appreciate, none of us are physicians here, so if you have serious concerns about this infection and the interpretation of your lab results, it is worth talking to your doctor and/or Dr Coker-Vann to put your mind at rest. 😉

Peace, Maz

[Jo]

[user=732]m.[/user] wrote:

No, the titers are significant and mean “positive”. If you look at the lab sheet, negative = normal.

 

So that means this lab is postive for M. Hominis and M. pneumoniae then?

If there was an increase, would it show as titer 200 then?

Thanks for explaining that

Jo

[m.]

[user=465]Jo[/user] wrote:

[user=732]m.[/user] wrote:

No, the titers are significant and mean “positive”. If you look at the lab sheet, negative = normal.

[orchid]

Are we only concerned about current infections here? I thought old infections can cause just as many problems?

So basically, by beginning treatment there is a possibility of making the positives go negative? Since they didn't give me any specific #'s (as Jo mentioned) I guess we're just looking for a change to negative, right?

Thanks!

[Author]

Posts