"Test for persistent Lyme infection using live ticks shown s

[Suzanne]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-02/nioa-tfp021214.php

“Test for persistent Lyme infection using live ticks shown safe in clinical study

Recruitment continues in trial at NIH, Tufts Medical Center

In a first-of-its-kind study for Lyme disease, researchers have used live, disease-free ticks to see if Lyme disease bacteria can be detected in people who continue to experience symptoms such as fatigue or arthritis after completing antibiotic therapy. The technique, called xenodiagnosis, attempts to find evidence of a disease-causing microbe indirectly, through use of the natural disease-carrier

Mom of teen daughter with Poly JIA since age 2. Current med: azithromycin 250 mg MWF.

[jims]

Hi all-Interesting way to turn the tables on the vectors. Came to mind that I don’t want another tick imbedded in my flesh irregardless of a negative lyme test,(the tick this time). Couldn’t the blood be provided for the tick without the tick being able to bite the patient? Or did I miss something? What undetected outcomes from the tick bites? jims ❓

[Krys]

@jims wrote:

…I don’t want another tick imbedded in my flesh …Couldn’t the blood be provided for the tick without the tick being able to bite the patient? Or did I miss something? What undetected outcomes from the tick bites?

My exact feelings, Jims.
If there are about 20 known strains and the current test only checks for 1, and is not that reliable, it seems very irresponsible of the scientists to conduct such a study. I shudder at the possibility of some of the previously uninfected participants developing sx that are “all in their head”.

I read this as another denialist approach, in line with CDC, designed to prove that chronic Lyme disease doesn’t exist as it is easy to treat with 3 weeks of abx and if sx persist, it is “all in your head”. Similar studies employing live, “clean” ticks attached to animals that had been treated with abx for Bb, rendered live spirochetes in the ticks afterwards.
This study does not mention the type of Lyme test they used. The supposition here is that the test is reliable. Was it reliable ELISA test? Out of 23 people, 4 tested positive, 19 negative, 2 indeterminate results, and the indeterminate results are interpreted as contamination. Is it only my impression that the scientists involved have a bias?

Here is a similar RBF thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9533

The lists of peer reviewed studies in the below links overlaps (77 peer reviewed studies 1977-2012 and 73 studies 1977-2010). But as links sometimes stop working, I’m including both:
– 77 studies: Persistence of Lyme Disease Despite Antibiotics Therapy http://www.kentuckyindianalymesupport.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LDPersist77studies.pdf
– 73 studies: Relapse/Persistence of Lyme Disease Despite Antibiotics Therapy http://www.personalconsult.com/articles/LDpersist.pdf
Krys

[Suzanne]

@Krys wrote:

If there are about 20 known strains and the current test only checks for 1, and is not that reliable, it seems very irresponsible of the scientists to conduct such a study. I shudder at the possibility of some of the previously uninfected participants developing sx that are “all in their head”.

Krys

My impression was that they were testing people who believed they still had a Lyme infection and they wanted to try to prove it. From the article,
“The technique, called xenodiagnosis, attempts to find evidence of a disease-causing microbe indirectly, through use of the natural disease-carrier

Mom of teen daughter with Poly JIA since age 2. Current med: azithromycin 250 mg MWF.

[Krys]

You are right, Suzanne!!! Thank you for correcting me. 😀
I got carried away with the shudders. 😳 My imagination had always been fertile but never as vivid as since I got sick! And my clarity and focus still have a lot of room for improvement. 😉

So, it means that maybe the testing was not that accurate (as is often the case) or that the people who were experiencing the “post-Lyme” sx were doing so due to a different strain, or due to co-infections, or due to messed up body systems/energetic pathways because of having been so sick for so long. With the present day testing not being that accurate, it is hard to tell 100%. I wonder if they were checking for co-infections.

I still think the whole experiment was not safe. One could end up with something one did not have before.
@Suzanne wrote:

There is already a study where ticks that were allowed to feed on treated mice became infected anyway (but somehow that was still spun against chronic Lyme).

❓ I was not aware of that. Obviously, none of the findings of persistence of Bb have ever been accepted by denialists. But to actually use those findings against chronic Lyme patients is utterly disgusting.

Krys

[Author]

Posts