Would someone know if there are false-positives for the FISH testing? Or elaborate if a false-positive is possible with the FISH method for Babesia?
I was told by Igenex, that my Babesia Duncani for the anti-body was borderline, unsure, and negative anti-body for Babesia Microti. I did reside in Washington State for many years, which is the State the Babesia Duncani was first discovered in 1990.
But my FISH testing returned as positive. I now live abroad, and the doctors here said the FISH result is false-positive, but I said how can a light method which makes the Babesia rings glow in the dark and 3 rings necessary for a positive be a false-positive? The doctors here couldn't provide me an answer.
The doctors here, abroad, check with their own microscope for Babesia in my blood, but nothing showed up. Babesia is very similar to Malaria, and the medical center I was at is where the military personnels with suspected tropcial diseases are monitored by the government. I was not dealing with a generic hospital or clinic.
The Infectious Disease doctor said they don't see it, the Babesia in the microscope via Geimsa Stain method so, most likely false-poistive. I continued to stand up to them, and said that the FISH method is much superior and have a higher accuracy rate than a microscope, and that is why the FISH method was invented. The doctors could not provide a counter-argument.
Thank you.
Post Edited (Nexis) : 5/5/2013 11:57:31 AM (GMT-6)