alfyalfy said...
> testing is generally poor - even the best commercial tests are only around 50% sensitive for bart
I got a negative T-labs report so my doctor was saying that it was weird since he really thought I had Bart, but most of his patients that he'd suspect would have a positive in that lab.
> -specific type of rash - eg Bartonella Striae - look like reddish/purple/pink stretch marks
I have typical growth phase stretch marks on my lower back, but they never were red to my knowledge, and I grew super fast as a kid.
couple of points to add in case its of any help
not sure which T-Labs test you are referring to for bart
to my knowledge they offer 2 types
-1st is the standard Giemsa stained thin blood smear - typically used to detect bartonella and track progress of bart treatment
-then there is the bartonella immuno-fluorescence with confocal laser microscopy that they also offer - which is much more specialised
i have successfully duplicated the T-Labs giemsa stained microscopy technique.
while am sure T-labs know what they are doing - so i would not fault them - i can tell you that it would still be very easy to have a false negative with that technique
if you look up my bart microscopy thread
https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=30&m=4268122&p=4you will see how i documented that 9 out of 10 slides can look normal - and then one region of the 10th slide can be so dramatically infected with bart its impossible to miss.
this was a surprise - and it would often take me two full afternoons to look at all the slides adequately
the fees that the commercial labs charge will not cover a full days work per patient - or 10 slides
this not a failing of the lab - simply a feature of bart infection documented by Dr M in his presentations
that its sporadic in the blood and appears in clumps - not uniformly distributed like most organisms.
if they priced it for a full days work - people would typically not be willing to pay that much for the test.
anyway - just explaining that through no fault of the lab or the test - its entirely possible for them to report negative in people who are in fact infected
the imuno histology also has limitations as its only fully validated for bartonella henselae - and they say they cannot yet be certain it is effective/ sensetive for other bartonella species
so while i understand not everything is Bart - and as patients trying to navigate this maze - we have to draw the line somewhere - i thought i might be useful to have the above to feed into the calculation
the other signs you mention are highly suggestive
stretch marks on lower back are i think a little uncommon in the general population ( thighs, buttocks, belly more common i think ) - but one of if not the most common
location in bart
i was seronegative for bart from Armin Labs via both IgM/IgG antibodies and via Elispot - but clearly positive via giemsa stained thin blood film ( t-labs approach)
Dr M also states in one of his papers that his patients are "often seropositive or PCR positive - but very rarely both" - this is very curious indeed - unclear why there should be this polarisation - so there is clearly some v odd stuff going on with bart in terms of test sensitivity. and this leads me to favour a direct method like microscopy over serological or even PCR techniques. The downside being that it is labour intensive to do well.
to my mind knowing what you are dealing with is a key part of the puzzle to make an effective treatment strategy
-a VEG-F test might shed some light ( useful if positive - many false negatives as not always raised in bart) - perhaps insurance might cover it making it a low cost option
-a PCR based test - eg Galaxy - might be conclusive ( though expensive )
-IgeneX have a multispecies bart Western blot - that is probably the next best test to try -
i am also thinking about
making the Giemsa thin blood smear microscopy test available in Europe - so that could be an option - depending on where in the world you are.