HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

The question of Lyme-specific bands in Western blot

Support Forums
>
Lyme Disease
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 2
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/30/2017 5:20 PM (GMT 0)
Lyme testing isn't the only flawed medical science we have in modern times. I've always considered celiac testing to be barbaric. Say you take your child off gluten because you are desperate for them to feel better. They improve dramatically over the course of months. Then their pediatrician asks to get them tested for celiac. Well in order for that to happen, they have to eat wheaty items everyday for I think 6 weeks or more to render an accurate diagnosis.
Then think of all the diseases that are diagnosed through exclusion. The list is loooong. It's pathetic. Or diseases that cause fluctuations in labwork, labs are a picture of an exact moment in time. For me specifically I had issues getting help for my Hashimoto's. First lab was super super low (hyperthyroid). Second lab by an endocrinologist was normal but antibodies were high. Got a condescending speech about how all moms are tired. Tested again by my pcp 2 weeks later and they were sky high (hypothyroid).
Every lab test is subject to interpretation by fallible humans. Even xrays for broken bones get interpreted wrong. Or ultrasounds!
I know none of this is specific to Lyme but my point is no testing is perfect in this day and age. And that includes Lyme. There are a handful of core symptoms that go hand in hand with a lyme diagnosis. It's not just a few random ones from the huge list. Look at the Horowitz screening questionnaire, it pinpoints the main ones concisely.
Posted 2/2/2017 3:34 AM (GMT 0)

DougFresh said...
So the standard CDC tests for reactivity on these bands: IgM 24, 39 and 41 and IgG 18, 21, 28, 30, 39, 41, 45, 58, 66, and 93. As we know, the CDC recommends that two of the three IgM and five of the ten IgG bands show as positive before a Lyme diagnosis.

Online (on pro-ILADS/LLMD websites) there are many claims that some of these bands are specific for Borellia burgdorferi. These are 23-25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 39, 83 and 93 (http://www.anapsid.org/lyme/wb.html). From this claim we would conclude: if you have *any* of these bands show up in your Western blot, you have (or at least had) Lyme disease.

Now, I know that the denizens of Lymeland are not fans of the CDC and IDSA, but I find it hard to believe that these organizations could be that inept. If certain bands ONLY occur as a result of Bb, how could they claim that you need two of three IgM and five of ten IgG? It just doesn't make sense.

So I'm left to ask: what is the scientific evidence that some of the Western blot bands are uniquely specific to Bb? Does anybody know?

Going further, look at the IgeneX "double-starred" bands. These include 23-25, 31, 34, 39, 41 and 83-93. We know that 41 is definitely not specific to Bb. As for the others, according to Igenex you are positive if *two* of the double-starred bands are positive. Wait a second...if all the starred non-41 bands are considered specific to Bb, than why doesn't IgeneX claim that ONE band is enough for a positive diagnosis?

Lastly, several websites claim that band 18 is Lyme specific. If that is so, then why isn't it a double-starred band with IgeneX? I emailed them about this and never got a response.

Post Edited (Purrrsiankitty) : 2/2/2017 4:16:17 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/2/2017 3:08 PM (GMT 0)

DougFresh said...

Traveler said...
Well, looking back at your last thread (www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=30&m=3680272) - I see that you also tested positive for band 39 - which is NOT controversial about it being Lyme specific. A "Lyme specific band" means specific for Borrelia Burgdorferi, sensu stricto - Lyme disease in the strictest sense. There is only one on the over 300 known strains of Lyme that is considered Bb, ss. Nothing else will turn a Lyme specific band positive other than Lyme disease.

So, are you questioning your results, or all testing?

I suppose I am questioning both. Let me explain why.

Yes, as you say I tested "indeterminate" for band 39 IgM with IGeneX. Regarding IgM bands the Mayo Clinic has this to say:

said...
IgM antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi may be detectable within 1 to 2 weeks following the tick bite; they usually peak during the third to sixth week after disease onset, and then demonstrate a gradual decline over a period of months. IgM antibody may persist for months even though antimicrobial agents are given. The IgM assay is more likely to be useful during early disease, and should only be tested during the first 4 to 6 weeks after disease onset.

Now, my symptoms started in June 2015. IGeneX didn't receive my blood specimen until 14 months later in August 2016. At that time they found band 39 IgM indeterminate...but I can guarantee you that I was not bitten by any ticks following the onset of my symptoms in June. Regarding my IgG bands, IGeneX agreed with Quest that only 41 is present.

Regarding your claim that 39 is Lyme-specific and ""nothing else will turn a Lyme specific band positive other than Lyme disease", if that is true then why does even IGeneX consider WB results to be positive if two double-starred bands show as reactive? Why not just one?

The reason why even Igenex doesn't consider only one band to be accurate enough is because of the CDC and their power to dictate so many things about this disease. If they don't "toe the line" they can be shut down, so, they have to make concessions - ones that hurt patients, and yet they are one of the more accurate labs we have. Many good LLMD's will recognize that a person has Lyme with only one Lyme specific band showing, as they too understand this.

The Mayo clinic is also a place that helps distribute misinformation about these infections. Why? Because it's Infectious Disease doctors that guide their tick-borne infection programs. Again, you have to know the "players" in any 'game' to understand what's happening and why they say the things they say. I've been doing research and looking into different places that put out information on these infections for the last 17 years, so I've learned that there are very few places that will actually admit to the truth of what's really going on with Lyme any time they allow the Infectious Disease doctors to run that department.

For differences between ILADS and IDSA, you can read these articles:
www.clinicaladvisor.com/controversy-continues-to-fuel-the-lyme-war/article/117160/

archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=226373

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2901226/
Posted 2/2/2017 4:50 PM (GMT 0)

Traveler said...
The reason why even Igenex doesn't consider only one band to be accurate enough is because of the CDC and their power to dictate so many things about this disease. If they don't "toe the line" they can be shut down, so, they have to make concessions - ones that hurt patients, and yet they are one of the more accurate labs we have.

I have to ask you to provide some evidence to back your claim. So what you're saying is that although the CDC claims that five of ten IgG bands have to show as reactive before a diagnosis, IGeneX can "get away with" stating that only two bands are required, but if they made the same claim with only one band then that would be simply too much and IGeneX would get shut down? You do know that the CDC is not a regulatory agency and cannot shut IGeneX down, right?

Traveler said...
The Mayo clinic is also a place that helps distribute misinformation about these infections. Why? Because it's Infectious Disease doctors that guide their tick-borne infection programs. Again, you have to know the "players" in any 'game' to understand what's happening and why they say the things they say.

So now the Mayo Clinic is in on it? We should add them to the list of CLD enemies which already contains the CDC, IDSA, and the NIH? You do realize that the Mayo Clinic has a sterling reputation?

Traveler said...
I've been doing research and looking into different places that put out information on these infections for the last 17 years, so I've learned that there are very few places that will actually admit to the truth of what's really going on with Lyme any time they allow the Infectious Disease doctors to run that department.

But why just Lyme, though? There are 1,001 other diseases but supposedly Lyme is being singled out by the medical establishment as the subject of some conspiracy to help insurance companies save money. What is unique about Lyme compared to all the other diseases out there for which there doesn't exist even a fraction of the controversy that Lyme has generated?
Posted 2/2/2017 4:54 PM (GMT 0)
Doug, do you have Lyme disease, or is there a reason you're here?
Posted 2/2/2017 5:20 PM (GMT 0)
Nobody is "in on it" - it's a matter of differences in 'medical opinions', only one side is more open minded about the whole issue - and it's not something that can be covered in one thread on a forum. It's taken me years of researching to 'suss out' what's going on for myself.

Did you read those last articles I posted? I did not write those, neither did any Lyme patients. Those articles are written by medical professionals who have more open minds and will consider that there are already bacteria that act in similar manner to the Lyme bacteria. Syphilis and TB are two that are very similar to the Lyme bacteria.

I'll let you do your own research - I doubt you would agree if I just started posting articles to "back my claims' - I'm not saying that you are argumentative (or whatever), only that you have your doubts pretty solid in your mind. You will need to understand who the 'players' are on each side, and research to find articles and blogs from those that can't get published in medical journals because their thoughts are just too different and aren't accepted.

Why just Lyme??? That I cannot answer, neither can anyone else on this forum because we can't get inside the minds of those that are denying these infections really do what they do. I didn't come up with all this information out of my own mind - which is why I usually post links. I'm showing that it's not an opinion, but a medical fact. It's not my opinion I have these infections, it's a medical fact. A person doesn't heal from a condition they don't have when they use the treatments specifically designed for said condition. And I'm far from the only one that has had healing from these issues because we finally got the right treatment for the right condition.

Something else that may help you understand. I was infected for over 40 years the first time. I gave the 'standard' medical community (PCP's, Neuro's, Rhuemies, Derm's, Endo's, Gastro's) 40 years to help me, and they never did. I just kept getting sicker and sicker, so I started researching on my own, came to my own conclusion that I really might have Lyme, found a LLMD, got diagnosed, tried abx treatments that eventually failed me, so I did a TON more research (over a 2 year period) to be sure that I really was on the right track, and then used an herbal only protocol to heal me from multiple tick-borne infections.

There are no LLMD's or herbalists in my state that know how to treat these infections, so I had to do more research to find an herbal protocol, and to find out how to best treat Bartonella as well. I was incredibly fortunate to have been working with a TCM practitioner that was highly intuitive with acupuncture, and was willing to do a ton of research on her own to help me. Anyway, I healed a 40 year old Lyme infection in 12 months, a 40 year old Bartonella infection in 9 months (combined with the last part of my Lyme treatment though) and healed the other infections I had in another 12 months. That doesn't happen if the person didn't have the infections that all those doctors all over the West coast and Midwest (upper and lower) kept missing and refusing to acknowledge that I had.

Do I believe in conspiracy theories??? Not really, but something's up - or why am I only one of millions with experiences like this?
Posted 2/2/2017 5:48 PM (GMT 0)
Doug I've already addressed the "other diseases" thing. Anyone with Lyme can get treatment for numerous autoimmune diseases because Lyme causes them. Nobody's getting denied treatment we're getting denied appropriate treatment. All those people with cancers and autoimmune diseases would benefit if the medical profession would stop its over specialization and did some interdisciplinary work. All the hoopla over the human microbiome comes from the fact that advancements in genome sequencing are making the microbiome more accessible and validating what's been evidenced for over a century by competent microbiologists. That microbes are the primary cause of degenerative illnesses. That doesn't mean the medical community has caught up to science. Likewise with Lyme you have an issue where diagnostic capacity isn't up to par with scientific "common sense" and overspecialized doctors can't handle bridging the gaps in the patients bloodwork. The denialism is created by "top" infectious disease doctors who again have been federally investigated to have extensive conflicts of interest and then perpetuated by all the poor saps practicing medicine who depend on physician guidelines written by these folks. The investigation literally found that Gary wormser rejected applicants from doctors who disagreed with his position. His influence alone is pervasive and I can't tell you how many docs I've been to spout dogma like "we don't have Lyme in the south" even though peer reviewed journals say otherwise

So as for these 1001 diseases they're not controversial and you get treatment so long as you don't question it. I could have gotten treatment for "idiopathic neuropathy". But I rejected it and pushed forward. Discovered I had CIDP I could have gotten treatment for. Rejected that too. Eventually came to understand it's an infection. Then finally Lyme. And look at that. Lyme causes Autoimmune neuropathy (CIDP) which is after all not idiopathic... if only I could have cut out all the middlemen diagnoses and been taken straight to the cause. But a neurologist doesn't know jack about Lyme in 2017. And lucky for us Lyme is common. My heart goes out to the people with other diseases caused by infections of little interest
Posted 2/2/2017 6:55 PM (GMT 0)
Another thing that should be influencing people to see that IDSA has it wrong, is that the IDSA treatment guidelines for treating Lyme have been removed from the National Guidelines Clearinghouse, and the ILADS treatment guidelines have replaced them.

www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/health/lyme-disease/2016/02/24/lyme-disease-treatments-guidelines-ngc/80805392/

www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6066
Posted 2/4/2017 10:27 PM (GMT 0)
Hi Doug,

If we are discussing diagnostic criteria, it probably helps to go back and understand how it came about.

Are you familiar with the 1990's meeting in Dearborn where the CDC's criteria were established? Different groups met because researchers wanted consistency so they could "be on the same page" with each other and the CDC wanted a surveillance standard to monitor the disease on an epidemiological level.

A variety of research was presented at this meeting. The Steere/Dressler group proposed that patients with 5/10 of the most common IgG antibodies had Lyme disease. Their research was based on 1 strain of European Bb, which is probably not the most applicable thing to those of us living in the United States. The second piece of this is that OspA and OspB (2 highly specific B. burgdorferi proteins) markers were removed from the Western Blot (band 31 & 34). Why? Steere said it was just statistical and they were not more important than other bands. The issue? Some of the sickest patients with late stage Lyme are more likely to express antibodies to OspA and OspB, so removing those bands has become detrimental to getting this subset of patients diagnosed.

The same Dressler group suggested that IgM criteria should be 2/8 bands. This was thrown out due to their use of the European strain of Lyme......the same stain that is used for their accepted criteria for 5/10 IgG. Does this make sense? Not to me. The Krupp research group used a 2/4 for IgM but used a different strain of Lyme than the Dressler group. Band 37 was tossed due to poor reactivity with that particular Bb strain and then the criteria became 2/3.

Lyme vaccine trials were starting around this time. The people who were at Dearborn that voted on what belongs in the Western Blot and who removed OspA/OspB bands were the same people developing the Lyme vaccine. Prior to this Dearborn meeting, the FDA had already accepted Steere's criteria as the serological standard for the Lyme vaccine. He was the lead investigator on the vaccine trials. I think this deserves some criticism in terms of asking if these scientists could maintain objectivity and scientific integrity when they had a vested financial interest in developing a vaccine. So was getting rid of bands 31 and 34 really statistical?

Side note - IgG and IgM might not really be important because Lyme seems like a disease that does not follow the typical immunological response. It is hypothesized that epitope switching happens. This needs to be studied because it complicates the topic and prevents certain subsets of patients from being studied. But this is a whole other can of worms that merits its own thread.

Bottom line - A national standard for Lyme was really never developed. What was developed was a research tool for epidemiology. This is why Ingenix (reports 28 bands) or Stony Brook (reports 52 bands) have their own interpretations of what constitutes a positive test. There are comprehensive reviews and meta-analysis of the CDC 2 tier testing (Elisa and Western blot), which can be found in the medical literature and show that the CDC approach to testing is not as accurate as they have been ascribed to be. This is why even the CDC itself has maintained that Lyme can be a clinical diagnosis.

There have been books and articles that cover this Dearborn meeting more thoroughly than we can possibly discuss on a message board.

Post Edited (madisongrrl) : 2/4/2017 3:31:29 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/4/2017 10:59 PM (GMT 0)

DougFresh said...

Traveler said...
The reason why even Igenex doesn't consider only one band to be accurate enough is because of the CDC and their power to dictate so many things about this disease. If they don't "toe the line" they can be shut down, so, they have to make concessions - ones that hurt patients, and yet they are one of the more accurate labs we have.

I have to ask you to provide some evidence to back your claim. So what you're saying is that although the CDC claims that five of ten IgG bands have to show as reactive before a diagnosis, IGeneX can "get away with" stating that only two bands are required, but if they made the same claim with only one band then that would be simply too much and IGeneX would get shut down? You do know that the CDC is not a regulatory agency and cannot shut IGeneX down, right?

Actually, the CDC does pull some weight. One example of this is that the iSpot test used to report a number with their Lyme tests. In 2015 my Lyme test was an 182 on the scale of either 300 or 400 (>25 was considered positive).

In 2016 when I tested again, my iSpot no longer had a number and reported my positive result on a bar graph without numbers. The CDC made them remove numbers from their testing report.

I don't fully understand the entire reach of the CDC, but they certainly do have some clout.
Posted 2/4/2017 11:11 PM (GMT 0)

DougFresh said...


So now the Mayo Clinic is in on it? We should add them to the list of CLD enemies which already contains the CDC, IDSA, and the NIH? You do realize that the Mayo Clinic has a sterling reputation?

On many of my small fiber neuropathy forums and groups, you will find that Mayo has a very tarnished reputation in terms of diagnoses of this terrible and life altering condition.

Why is this? Part of it has to do with academic hubris. They did not develop the punch biopsy and for many years would not perform it at their institution, even though it was considered the gold standard my many institutes of neuropathy excellence. Some of it is who they employ in their neuromuscular neurology department and their outdated view about presentations of this disease.

Many people have gone to Mayo wasted thousands of dollars only to later go to places like Hopkins or Weill Cornell for proper diagnosis and treatment. I would not recommend going to Mayo if you suspect that you have this condition. Their reputation is not sterling for every disease state.
Posted 2/4/2017 11:18 PM (GMT 0)
To think i almost went to Mayo for SFN XD

Thanks for the great info. A lot of us know something is wrong with the state of affairs. Many of us speculate. But specific info is really refreshing.
Posted 2/5/2017 12:33 AM (GMT 0)

DougFresh said...


Regarding your claim that 39 is Lyme-specific and ""nothing else will turn a Lyme specific band positive other than Lyme disease", if that is true then why does even IGeneX consider WB results to be positive if two double-starred bands show as reactive? Why not just one?

Here is one particular paper published in the Journal of Clin. Micro. found band 39 to be the a significant marker for Bb.

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC265062/pdf/jcm00026-0126.pdf
Posted 2/5/2017 2:23 AM (GMT 0)

Traveler said...
I have used this resource to learn about the bands reported on the Western Blot for quite a few years now, because it's the best I have found. It's based on the PubMed articles that have been located for each band - although it can get a little confusing as most of the articles are talking about more than one band in each article: www.reocities.com/HotSprings/Oasis/6455/western-blot.txt

The author (Doherty) begins by summarizing all the WB bands mentioned in "medical literature"; I'll take his word for it. He lists the following as Bb specific. In other words, you should assume that if these bands show in your WB bands, you have (or at least had) Lyme disease, no questions asked. This is a lengthier list of "Bb specific" bands than I'm used to seeing. Notice that 23 is missing.

14-kDa internal flagellin fragment [specific for Bb]
*21-kDa OspC [specific for Bb]
22-kDa OspC [specific for Bb]
25-kDa OspC [specific for Bb]
*28-kDa OspD, Oms28 [specific for Bb]
31-kDa OspA [specific for Bb]
34-kDa OspB [specific for Bb]
35-kDa OspB [specific for Bb]
37-kDa P37, FlaA gene product, [specific for Bb]
*39-kDa BmpA [specific for Bb]
47-kDa P47 fibronectin-binding protein [specific for Bb]
50-kDa [specific for Bb]
83-kDa p83 high molecular mass protein [specific for Bb]
*93-kDa an immunodominant protoplasmic cylinder antigen, associated with the flagellum [specific for Bb]
94-kDa PBP [specific for Bb]

Let's take a look at the links he provides.

LINK 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10638032?dopt=Abstract

States that in the blood of 18 Bb-infected dogs, "17 of 18 of the dog sera reacted with immunodominant antigens at 20-22 kDa (protein C, pC), 31 kDa (outer surface protein A, OspA), 34 kDa (outer surface protein B, OspB), 41 kDa (flagellin), 60 kDa ("common antigen"), and/or 100 kDa (presumably p100)."

LINK 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9920119?dopt=Abstract

Mentions "three recombinant borrelial proteins: the 14-kDa flagellin fragment, the outer surface protein C (22 kDa) and the high molecular mass protein p83 (83 kDa)."

LINK 3: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556546?dopt=Abstract

"Tryptic cleavage of recombinant B. burgdorferi 41 kDa flagellin, expressed in E. coli, produced a peptide fragment which was recognized exclusively by antisera to Borrelia species. This peptide was designated as the 14 kDa fragment due to its migratory behaviour in SDS-PAGE."

LINK 4: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9440203?dopt=Abstract

"With the intention to evaluate the frequency of asymptomatic infections with TBE virus and B. burgdorferi clinical data and serum specimens were collected from 393 individuals living in an area endemic for both agents (Freiburg, southern Germany). Sera were examined by ELISA. Borderline and positive results were checked by immunoblotting. Only specific antibodies detected by immunoblotting (B. burgdorferi: 22 kDa, 31 kDa, 34 kDa, 39 kDa, 83 kDa; TBE: glycoprotein E) were assessed as positive findings. Specific antibodies to B. burgdorferi were detected in 17/105 individuals with possible symptoms of borreliosis (16%) and in 36/288 individuals without current or previous symptoms of borreliosis (12.5%)."

Note that the authors started out with the assumption that 22, 31, 34, 39, and 83 were Bb-specific; this essay does not show why they believe that. Also note that while 17 test subjects tested "positive" and showed possible symptoms of Lyme, more than twice this number of subjects (36) tested "positive" but did not show any past or present symptoms of LD illness.

LINK 5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9175831?dopt=Abstract

"p35 and p37 are Borrelia burgdorferi genes encoding 35 and 37 kDa proteins. The gene products were identified by differential screening of a B. burgdorferi expression library with sera from B. burgdorferi infected- and B. burgdorferi-hyperimmunized mice."

LINK 6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7791177?dopt=Abstract

"Sera from 20 children with Lyme arthritis from an endemic area were assayed, and the results compared with those obtained in 162 control sera from the same area. Eighty-seven percent of control sera revealed no bands on immunoblot, and all had < or = 4 bands. All Lyme arthritis sera revealed > or = 5 bands (mean 8.4, range 5-13 bands). Bands of molecular weight 25, 28, 39, 47, 50, and 93 kDa were seen in patients and not in controls. There was no correlation between duration of arthritis or activity of arthritis at presentation and number of bands present."

Very interesting...all blood samples from the Lyme-positive children had 5 or more bands reactive! And apparently bands 25, 28, 39, 47, 50 and 93 were only seen in the 20 children, not in the 162 control sera, although the abstract does not provide more specific details than that.

LINK 7: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8223404?dopt=Abstract

"The most important immunodominant proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi are the 94 kDa, 60 kDa, 41 kDa (flagellin), 34 kDa (Osp B), 31 kDa (Osp A), 30 kDa, 21 kDa (Osp C), and 17/18 kDa proteins. Whereas the 60 kDa, 41 kDa, and 34 kDa constituents reveal a marked cross-antigenicity with other spirochetes and even more distantly related bacteria, antibodies against the 94 kDa, 31 kDa and 21 kDa proteins are largely species-specific...In the diagnosis of late-stage infection, blot positivity relies on the presence of the 94 kDa, 39 kDa, 31 kDa, 30 kDa and 21 kDa bands."

Doherty then goes on to address the cross-reactivity of certain bands with other bacteria.

So after all his research, he claims that these bands are specific for Bb:

14-kDa ?
21-kDa
22-kDa OspC
25-kDa OspC
28-kDa OspD
31-kDa OspA
34-kDa OspB
35-kDa
37-kDa
39-kDa
47-kDa
50-kDa
83-kDa
93-kDa
94-kDa

$64,000 question: so why aren't all the above "double-starred bands" with IGeneX? They have only chosen these ones:

23-25
31
34
39
41
83-93

Post Edited (DougFresh) : 2/4/2017 8:01:02 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/5/2017 2:33 AM (GMT 0)
Traveler has already answered your "$64,000 question". She is off for the night. She normally comes on in the morning to help people.

Do you actually need help form this forum dealing with Lyme and or co-infections? Because frankly, this is wasting space, as quiet as the board has been tonight, this isn't helping anyone, and it seems that no matter what kind of well thought out answer you get you persist.
Posted 2/5/2017 3:08 AM (GMT 0)

julymorning said...
Because frankly, this is wasting space

Don't worry; I'm sure the HealingWell web server can easily accomodate the few threads I've started.

julymorning said...
Traveler has already answered your "$64,000 question".

No, she didn't. In fact, the only one who attempted to answer my original question in this thread was...me, in my previous post.

I am "helping" people because whenever someone makes a post in Lymeland saying, "I saw an LLMD and here are my IGeneX results", they always get replies saying, "Oh, band 39 is Lyme specific!" or "Band 23 is unique to Bb!" Then the poor people get paranoid that they have Lyme disease and start spending lots of money on LLMD visits and supplements. So if we can get to the bottom of whether or not true Lyme-specific bands exist, it will help reduce people's fears and prevent them from uncritically believing that they have Lyme.
Posted 2/5/2017 12:19 PM (GMT 0)
Doug, I would believe that if you weren't selectively ignoring posts. I answered your question about the 1001 other diseases several times and Madison girl just gave you a lot of information and specifically a paper regarding the specificity of band 39 and others. It's a great read. I don't disagree with the premise of your post. We need to think critically. And there are somethings on this board that don't check out. But you have to understand many of us have been doing this a long time, have done the research we need, and while we're willing to help we are totally over the point of arguing with skeptics in an unhealthy way. I don't keep my back pocket full of peer reviewed evidence ready to dish out because that research process was always intended for me to learn about my illness, not to prove anything to the world. I left it where I found it because i was pulling up papers 24/7. At the bus stop, at the dinner table, on the toilet. I wasn't taking the time to store them in case some stranger later doubted my illness. I was just desperate to understand it. Yet you have people like Traveler and Madisongirl taking the time to bring up specifics to your questions. Now I appreciate what you're doing but not how you're going about it. We had another person come on here the other day skeptical about Igenex but with a better attitude and he got a better reception. Again I'm all for better clarity but this is where we're at. So realize we all have our reasons to be here. I never expected to be here. I was about to graduate with a degree in biochemistry when I got sick. I had no clue the kind of smoke and mirrors I was living in until I applied that training to this illness. I can't personally tell you about the discrepancies in the western blot. I have reactivity against purified VlsE ELISA. Started with no bands positive, ended up with 41, 31, 30, 58. Not positive by igenix (bands were for different isotypes) or CDC. Yet I have the textbook symptoms of Lyme disease and am highly responsive to antimicrobials as well as positive for babesia and ehrlichia. I too would like to know the answers to your questions and I know people here will help in whatever way they can. But if you want to be argumentative about it lymeneteurope is the place. You will find a much higher level of rigor on that forum but also a more callous attitude and not much emotional support. But I mean, if you're this tripped up on diagnostics go ahead and sign up on that forum because you will never manage the number of unproven therapies that get discussed on this board. Then again you might not get where you want to go if you sit around and wait for definitive answers either...

Post Edited (Psilociraptor) : 2/5/2017 5:32:18 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 2/5/2017 2:57 PM (GMT 0)
I'm not sure why you have such a great concern for those "poor people" as you put it - but there are many here that have had the exact opposite experience than what you are "trying to say".

I would suggest that it's time for you to move on, Dougfresh. You don't have Lyme, you don't have a family member or friend that has any of these diseases, and, it appears, that you are only here to argue. That is NOT what this forum is for. You are so absorbed with trying to convince us that what we have isn't real that you have totally missed that this is a very busy forum - and quite frankly, we don't have the energy to spend on people like you. We are here to find help and support - not to be harassed by those that don't wish to understand the science and only wish to argue.

Please review the rules (you agreed to when you joined) as they clearly point out that members are not to harass others:
3. No posts that attack, insult, flame, defame, or abuse others. Respect other members' opinions regarding treatment decisions. Decisions about health and well-being are highly personal choices. We should respect all points of view. Flaming will not be tolerated.

If this continues, you will be banned. If, on the other hand, my impressions are wrong, and you ARE here to learn, then we welcome you - although you do need to realize that you are not here to 'save us' from our diagnoses.
Posted 2/5/2017 5:24 PM (GMT 0)
I'm open to and enjoy differences of opinion and enjoy scientific discourse; however, Doug has not acknowledged that he has absorbed or thought about many of the posts in this thread. I CAN post papers until the cows come home because I have organized and kept much of the science that I've read. But at this point, I see no effort or goodwill being put forth.

Doug should use the NCBI database and pull up papers to answer his own questions. He might also want to read the book Cure Unknown which was written by a medical writer. There are almost 400 notes and references that he can spend his time looking up, one by one, just like I did when I got sick.

Enjoy your Sunday everyone.
Posted 2/5/2017 5:30 PM (GMT 0)
Here's another good article too: list of 700 peer reviewed articles:

www.ilads.org/ilads_news/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EvidenceofPersistence-V2.pdf
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12