Avocado_Kat said...
Thank you both for your detailed replies and “hi” back to you Girlie!
Great timing - I just got my GPL mycotox urine test results back today. 9 out of 11 values were 0, one was very low and well within the reference range (mycophenolic acid) and ochratoxin A was elevated but still within the reference range - I did follow a low-mould diet for a week prior but could be cross contamination I suppose? Unfortunately I wasn’t given a numerical value for either of those, just a bar on a chart to compare. Going to pursue home testing now as my symptoms are quite consistent with mould illness.
I’ll be looking into tick-borne illness a lot more seriously. I did have an insect bite several years ago which caused a large red lump (about 8cm diameter, definitely not a bullseye rash), but attributed this to mosquitos as they were absolutely everywhere that summer. I’m quite far north and there are no mosquito borne illnesses here as far as I’m aware, and I didn’t get flu like symptoms etc afterwards. Maybe that was a tick bite after all!
Yep, studies show bulls eye rashes occur in the minority of cases ( there is a kind of public misconception that if you don't have the rash you cant have Lyme disease - this is far from the case - its another example of a dumbing down of the complexity and nuance involved in these complex disease states)
the same studies also show most people with chronic Lyme diagnosis do not recall a tick bite either.
according to papers published by prominent LLMD's - around 50% also have gradual symptoms onset - unlike the stereotypical picture of tick bite and fever or summer flu - making it a bit easier to pin down the possible cause.
then around 50% have sudden onset
The sudden onset can be directly after tick bite - within a few days or weeks - but often its after some other event further down the line, a surgery, a virus, physical or mental trauma - eg car crash, bereavement etc - some insult to the immune system that allows the infection to take hold.
these things make it quite difficult to reason through the diagnosis - a lot of it is ruling out more obvious things
my own illness - and that of my fiancé started around 6 months after getting bitten by many large aggressive horse flies while on a picnic on farm land near where we lived - we had the usual itchy red lumps at bite sites - but no bulls eye or obvious fever afterwards - we then both became ill at the same time, with the same symptoms 6 months later.
There was some unexplained bouts of mild fatigue and a few odd symptoms coming and going in the interim - but nothing obvious.
at this time we both also had very stressful jobs - i was working 60hrs weeks in a crisis management role in a highly politicized organisation and it was grinding me down.
people think of Lyme as something that just strikes healthy people down in their prime - which it can do - but often the lifestyle factors - like stress, lack of sleep, diet, trauma etc that have weakened them and
opened the door to the infection. so its not so much a model of: healthy and uninfected => then infected and sick.
i think that is an oversimplified view again - i think its more a case that the immune system was functioning and keeping pathogens at bay - then at some point it is overloaded, fails - and then we get sick.
we already know this is the case with other pathogens.
the route may not be straight forward or stereotypical - as an example - in my own case
Lyme is documented as transmitted by horse flies in a small number of cases - but its thought to be rare - so it could be that Lyme or some other pathogens was present in our case - and then bartonella or maybe Babesia was transmitted by the biting flies (far more common) and this then, combined with the Lyme, gradually overwhelmed the immune system - and we got sick some months later.
just wanted to give and example of the nuance involved in an individuals routes to chronic illness
you are doing a lot of the right things to try to rule out other causes first
i would say the mould test sounds fairly conclusive - there's not much info out there on how good these tests are - and different practitioners seem to use different pre-testing approaches - making the interpretation of results even more difficult.
but from what we see on here - most people who test tend to come up positive - above normal range - for at least a few mould toxins. so, if anything, it looks like false positives are more of an issue than false negatives.
its a daunting topic to get your head around in the beginning - but there are some knowledgeable and helpful people on here who are old hands,
so ask any questions and i am sure you will get support