Question about getting tested for Babesia

hi Rainy - i'm interested in this topic also - as you know -

as far as i can make out - LLMD's who focus on Babesia do not seem to set much store in serologic testing

there are pretty good reasons for this -
- the fact that sick people do not always make the expected antibodies to the bacteria they carry
( some people and doctors do not believe in this - but i personally tested negative for bartonella via serology and ELISPOT at Armin labs - only to find it in my blood via microscopy. Prof Ed Breischwertds also notes in his papers that patients who are PCR positive - almost never are positive via serology - so something poorly understood is going on here as we would normally expect high correlation between PCR and serology) data for babesia is even less than that on bartonella.

i think this is very little studies in academia because Babesia has been seen almost exclusively as only effecting immune suppressed people ( those taking immune suppressive drugs for transplants and those splenectomised) in any serious way - and only seen as a big issue by some LLMD's who are not academic normally and seen as fringe by the mainstream anyway - so it has therefore not been researched very much in humans.

it may be we are only seeing it be so problematic in lyme patients because the Lyme is causing immune suppression
or it may be that its just under recognised / under diagnosed - as once its past the acute phase - levels in the blood are very low and hard to detect via blood smears

DR Lindner made a compelling case that the 2 species most serologic tests look for are actually v rare - and that most people who get sick are actually infected with Babesia Odecoilei ( associated with deer) - and that this species rarely shows up on serologic tests for the two better know species duncani and microti

the FISH test is something different - here they are attaching a flourescent dye to an antibody that then attaches itself to a protein target in the Babesia organism - its a semi direct method - so that's a benefit - as it does not depend on serology( host immune system)

however, it does depend on there being Babesia targets in the blood sample being tested ( this is a problem in chronic infection as infection rates of 1 per 1000 cells of circulating blood is common - so very hard to spot - and also depends on the antibody chosen actually binding to the actual strain of Babesia you have - so again not fool proof).

in my research on babesia tests i see that the Igenex founder - set up his own second company that makes and supplies the babesia FISH test to Igenex . it states that its genus specific - so claims to detect all species of babesia - but i was not able to find peer reviewed info on how that was established - so i think they have picked a target they think SHOULD be in all Babesia species - and gone with that. T- labs have a babesia odecoilei specific FISH - that seems likely to detect other species as well - but i think access is via a LLMD working with Dr M only

microscopy of blood smear with giemsa is the other option - here there is no serologic response or species specific antibody issues to worry about - but interpretation is the barrier - as there are lots of things in the blood that look like possible babesia - so with low infection rates this can be a challenge to distinguish irrefutable evidence of babesia from background levels of things like artefacts and platelets. capillary blood is often used instead of venous blood ( lindner ) to increase your chances of finding babesia organisms - since they like to congregate and multiply in the slow moving blood in the capillaries and venules

so overall the more tests you do the better chance you have of detecting it - but none are a guarantee

i would put sensitivities / confidence something in the region of
serology - 25%
FISH - 40-50%
blood smear microscopy - 50-60% but interpretation still a challenge

i think the lumbro etc mainly breaks up the fibrin and waste products in the circulator system - i am not sure if we know it actually releases more babesia into the blood stream so they could be detected on a test
it might expose more organisms in-situ to white blood cells which may then produce more antibodies - so its feasible that that could improve chances of a positive serologic tests - but we really don't understand immune response in chronic infections very well at all - and parasites are known to be more sophisticated manipulators of this than bacteria so we just do not know if that will help or hinder the results

the other approach is to try a therapeutic trial with a specific as possible anti-malarial drug
atovaquone ( i have not found a source for it on its own) or Tafenoquine ( seems very hard to obtain - eg not available from online pharmacies yet as far as i can tell) or Primaquine (not yet searched for this one) - are suggested (again lindner)
expected reaction, if infected, is strong herx reactions followed by mild improvement

i am not certain exactly how specific these drugs are - i asked the question here a little while ago - and i think the response was that they might all have some broader anti-microbial action

ultimately it may be a case of building up a picture of probability based on several or all of these approaches.

i know girlie is in favour of just taking 3-4 months of babesia protocol with mepron - per Dr J
but that is prohibitive for me on cost alone, and lindner says successful treatment can in fact take years - so that's too long to be banging away at it not knowing if this is in fact in the picture

sorry for the long rambling response - i am more or less in the same quandary - so a good topic for discussion

yep the immune blot is serology ( reliant on antibody responses)

the benefit over single antigen tests like ELISA is there are more antigens - so you have more chances to detect something
however - that also means less black and white results - as with lyme immunoblots - what is the interpretation if you just have a couple of indeterminate bands

basically no tests we currenly have are perfect

i think we are stuck with picking a number of not so perfect ones and trying to piece the puzzle together from those, symptoms and therapeutic trials

on trials - we don't need to take biofilm / fibrin busters on the trial - just the anti-malarial
its expected that the reaction will be clear enough on its own

i will look at the red labs tests - and think i will try a trial of artemisinin, do more capillary blood slides (so far i am 50/50 on Babesia presence - maybe leaning 60/40 toward present ) and see how the picture emerges

Garzie said...
on trials - we don't need to take biofilm / fibrin busters on the trial - just the anti-malarial
its expected that the reaction will be clear enough on its own

Good point!!

Hey Garzie,

Just wanted to let you know that I've decided to go with this relatively new test by IGeneX and was wondering what your thoughts are on it? :

Babesia - ImmunoBlots IgM and IgG

It's at top of this page here: https://igenex.com/disease/babesia/

Datasheet is located here: https://cdn.igenex.com/wp-content/uploads/igenex-immunoblots-most-advance-test-to-detect-babesia.pdf

I might add an additional test if finances allow it, but I hope this one should be good.

Thank you so much for your help Garzie. Today they will draw my blood.