This is why you can't test positive

http://www.anapsid.org/lyme/lymeseroneg.html


1. Antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) are present, but the laboratory is unable to detect them.

2. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the patient is currently on, or has recently taken, antibiotics. The antibacterial effect of antibiotics can reduce the body's production of antibodies.

3. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the patient is currently on or has previously taken anti-inflammatory steroidal drugs These can suppress a person's immune system, thus reducing or preventing an antibody response.

4. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the patient's antibodies may be bound with the bacteria with not enough free antibodies available for testing.

For this reason, some of the worst cases of Lyme disease test negative -- too much bacteria for the immune system to handle.

5. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the patient could be immunosuppressed for a number of other reasons, and the immune system is not reacting to the bacteria.

6. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the bacteria has changed its makeup (antigenic shift) limiting recognition by the patient's immune system.

7. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the patient's immune response has not been stimulated to produce antibodies, i.e., the blood test is taken too soon after the tick-bite (8-6 weeks).

Please do not interpret this statement as implying that you should wait for a positive test to begin treatment.

8. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the laboratory has raised its cutoff too high.

9. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in a patient with Lyme disease because the patient is reacting to the Lyme bacteria, but is not producing the "right" bands to be considered positive.

The corrupt CDC you wanted to say.

Awesome post greatguy!

Indirect testing of lyme disease and co-infections is pointless why try to measure an indirect response when you can look for the actual DNA/RNA of the organism via FISH or PCR testing? Sure you may still draw blood that doesn't have the organism but to me you're far more likely to get a positive this way than the other way which you can see has all sorts of challenges. Thanks for posting.

astroman said...

Rikky1 said...
Indirect testing of lyme disease and co-infections is pointless why try to measure an indirect response when you can look for the actual DNA/RNA of the organism via FISH or PCR testing? Sure you may still draw blood that doesn't have the organism but to me you're far more likely to get a positive this way than the other way which you can see has all sorts of challenges. Thanks for posting.

I wonder why is it assumed these are not accurate either?; theyve been out a long time.

Which ones are you referring to Astro? The pcr?

astroman said...
via FISH or PCR testing

I don’t know about the FISH so can’t comment on that - but the pcr can’t be relied on because of false negatives due to the fact that the sample of blood may not have any bacteria in it - but it’s a relatively small sample.

Ive used the jello explanation . You have a big bowl of red jello (representing the blood in your body)
There are little blobs of green jello in it (representing the bacteria)

You take a scoop of the jello and you may or may not capture a green blob.
Doesn’t mean there isn’t any green jello in the bowl - just that that particular sample doesn’t have any.
So it’s negative.

Positives are not questioned - just negatives


That’s how it was explained to me a few years ago.

Exactly, Psilociraptor - there are a lot of strains in the US that they can't detect - and they are blaming it on European strains? That's nothing more than a cop out, because the testing is not good enough to detect enough of the strains to catch the majority of those infected - instead the majority of those infected are getting negative results because they can't get past the required ELISA first.

Until some 'rules' are changed, this simply won't end.

Traveler said...
Exactly, Psilociraptor - there are a lot of strains in the US that they can't detect - and they are blaming it on European strains? That's nothing more than a cop out, because the testing is not good enough to detect enough of the strains to catch the majority of those infected - instead the majority of those infected are getting negative results because they can't get past the required ELISA first.

Until some 'rules' are changed, this simply won't end.

Well I don't think they place enough blame on the european strains given that we have them here as well and only use the american test kit. It'd be interesting to see a study that compares reactivity to WB and ELISA made with various species. Mayo's new study on Borrelia Mayonii showed a lot of cross reactivity. But there was one patient who was early/late disseminated and still negative by one WB band. I had the opposite problem. My initial VslE/pepC10 ELISA came back positive which should be more specific than whole cell lysate. But my western blot came back negative. Until I did Igenex a year and a half later. Still negative, but some bands