Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbiology

Topics with information and discussion about published studies related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
velvetmagnetta
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:47

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by velvetmagnetta » Sat 6 Dec 2014 14:03

I hear you, nnecker, and I'm with you on that...

...But I am still dying to know if ALS has found spirochetes in samples of antibiotic-treated blood, and if so, how many samples were positive after treatment? And what were their WB results?

Because the culture test has not yet been independently verified, I would take the results with a grain of salt, but I still want to know!!!

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by nnecker » Sat 6 Dec 2014 14:45

Velvet said:
.But I am still dying to know if ALS has found spirochetes in samples of antibiotic-treated blood,
Why?You can't trust nothing coming out of that lab,nada, zip,zilch,zero.The patients were probably selected by Advanced Research Corp.Where is their office located at?In some dumpy looking place next to a garbage company,between three auto repair shops,next to a cemetery.

I mean come on.

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by Henry » Sat 6 Dec 2014 14:45

Velvetmagnetta: Here's the Barbour paper noting the ability to culture Borrelia on BSK starting from a single cell:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 0-0076.pdf . The statement is made at the bottom of page 522.

Barbour also notes that some of the ingredients used to prepare BSK -- especially the rabbit serum-- vary from batch to batch. Therefore the comparisons made in Figure 1 of the Sapi paper don't really help to determine if the Sapi modification is superior to BSK. What must be done is to use what is considered to be the optimal conditions for each, using the SAME batches of ingredients to prepare both types of media. Then, culture the same clinical specimens -- side by side-- using both types of media. Since they haven't shown the results of such an experiment, it is impossible to say that the Sapi modification represents a significant improvement over conventional BSK. To be perfectly fair, it would be best for a neutral third party to conduct such an experiment. That would settle the question. Aside from issues related to contamination, I predict there would be no significant difference -- or a slight difference at best, not worth paying the $500-$1,000 to have the test done by ALS, when another laboratory can do the test "for pennies" using conventional BSK.

A distinction should between: (a) the ability of BSK to culture Borrelia starting from a few or a single cells; and (b) numbers of Borrelia likely to be present in the blood (bacteremia) during various stages of infection. The former has been addressed by Barbour and others early in their work by doing limiting dilution assays; such quantitative studies were essential to establish the optimal conditions for culture, as well as to assess many of the variables involved. The latter became evident when BSK was first applied for use in clinical studies. It was then found that the bacteremia associated with Lyme disease is very transient. That is the reason why Wormser et al. were able to find only 48% of the patients they examined to be culture positive. It has little --if anything-- to do with the ability of BSK to support the growth of Borrelia. For all we know, the same percentage of positives (48%) might have been obtained if the Sapi modification had been used instead of BSK in that study. The results have to do mainly with the NUMBERS of Borrelia present in blood at the time of culture. Because Borrelia have at least 6-8 different kinds of adhesins/integrins on their cell surface, they are quickly taken out of circulation from the blood as they bind -- very tenaciously-- to matrix tissue. That is a well-known and characteristic feature of early infection in humans, not in mice. In view of these considerations, do you really think developing a better culture medium is going to help much, when that really isn't the main issue? Certainly, there is room for improvement in any laboratory test; however, I would not hold my breath for too long in this case -- in view of the aforementioned considerations.

In the above cited Barbour paper, he also notes that it is not unusual for Borrelia to form aggregates in liquid culture. These are what Sapi and others (MacDonald) incorrectly call biofilms. If you consult any good text book on Bacteriology and see what they have to say about biofilms, you will soon realize that what Sapi and others call biofilms in no way resembles the classical definition. What they see are laboratory artifacts, i.e., aggregates. But, as I said before, Sapi et al. are amateur bacteriologists.......

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by nnecker » Sat 6 Dec 2014 15:50

Henry said:
But, as I said before, Sapi et al. are amateur bacteriologists.......
I am not speaking for you Henry,but from what I am looking at, Sapi et al. are snake oil salesmen.

Lorima
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 20:47

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by Lorima » Sat 6 Dec 2014 16:55

Henry,

This Barbour paper is isolating spirochetes from ticks, not mammalian blood.

Aren't the biofilms thought to be usually in, or on, tissues, rather than in fluid? Though maybe it has been hypothesized that a little piece can get separated from the main colonies and travel through the blood to a new location (in contrast to individual spirochetes "blebbing" off of it occasionally)? I'll have to re-read the various hypotheses.

Henry, what's your (or rather, the IDSA-favored) dominant model for dissemination, in mid- or late-stage, untreated, LD? I don't recall seeing much about that, in the simplified version of the disease. It may not have been investigated; you'd probably need a non-mouse model, if it's really true that mice have spirochetemia (in the blood) even after, say, a year of infection. Though, what do the spirochetes look like, in mouse blood, late-stage? Free-swimming individuals in spiral form? (I wonder if it's even true that they stay in the blood that long; most studies on "late" infection in mice don't go on that long. More literature searching for me.)

During the early stages, when spirochetes can be cultivated from some human blood samples, has anyone, er, non-dissenting, investigated if they are freely and individually "swimming" as spirochetes, or rounded up, or stuck to cells, or in groups? I guess to find out, I'd have to read, in detail, the past literature on culture from early-stage blood samples. I haven't done that, because I'm more interested in late-stage LD. And of course, I can't believe much of what's in the mainstream literature, due to the corresponding version of necker's snake-oil bias. I'm sure that some parts of what is in the mainstream is correct, but it's very laborious to estimate which parts. It's easier to identify the blatant errors, than the parts that are correct.
"I have to understand the world, you see."
Richard Feynman

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by Henry » Sat 6 Dec 2014 17:32

Lorima: No, you are wrong. It was not just about culturing Borrelia from ticks. It is also about culturing Borrelia from human as well as animal blood. I'm sure there are many papers on this work elsewhere. But, this one is historical in context because it speak to the variables involved in the development of BSK -- and their relevance to the issues at hand.

I won't comment on your other remarks, which don't really make sense and would just be a response to your own particular biases, thereby giving them more credibility than they deserve. You just keep right on believing them. Let me know when they result in something tangible and when the next "major break through" occurs. It's astounding how so many people, who actually have done a great deal of research on Lyme disease, could be so wrong and you so right. I've known and worked with scientist my whole life and have found all of them to be very critical and independent. The thought of them being controlled to the extent that they are made to accept any concepts that they don't believe is laughable. Sort of like trying to "herd cats".

duncan
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed 5 Sep 2012 18:48

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by duncan » Sat 6 Dec 2014 18:03

Henry, I'm not quite certain what you mean by "next major break through".

Would you be referring to the legislation sitting on NY Governor Cuomo's desk waiting for his signature that would allow far more flexibility for doctors in how they prefer to treat Lyme patients both in terms of therapy and duration?

Or would you be referring to the movement to launch a formal investigation into the activities of the ALDF and the IDSA and the CDC as they relate to Lyme?

Or is it something else? I suspect it's NOT treatment since we all know the NIH for some reason has stopped researching into new Lyme treatments.

Not much in the Late Stage Lyme arena either, for some reason.

I look forward to your explanation.

Lorima
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 20:47

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by Lorima » Sat 6 Dec 2014 19:00

Henry wrote:snip
Here's the Barbour paper noting the ability to culture Borrelia on BSK starting from a single cell:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 0-0076.pdf . The statement is made at the bottom of page 522.
snip


[
Henry wrote:Lorima: No, you are wrong. It was not just about culturing Borrelia from ticks. It is also about culturing Borrelia from human as well as animal blood.
snip


Bottom of page 522, Barbour 1984 (your reference):

Image

It seems pretty clear that it was ticks, to me. Even easier, not whole ticks, but a pool of isolated tick mid-guts.

The reason this matters, is that Bb are much denser in the tick gut than in the blood. Therefore, there is less chance of losing them all, due to their being stuck to other cells, fibrin, and other assorted gunk, which would be a significant issue, in isolating sparse spirochetes from a blood sample. They're so dense in the tick mid-gut that you can dilute the sample 1 to 100,000 to get a cloned (single) spirochete.

Please explain why you think Barbour is referring to blood here.
"I have to understand the world, you see."
Richard Feynman

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by Henry » Sat 6 Dec 2014 21:42

Perhaps it doesn't say so directly here. But, he describes the development of the BSK medium that is commonly used in clinical laboratories to culture Borrelia from blood and EM biopsies.

Pandora
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue 20 Mar 2012 14:58

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by Pandora » Sun 7 Dec 2014 0:07

I can't believe this Mon-optic conversation is still going on. Look at the results at 3:08 using molecular testing to find multiple pathogens....Do you then deny them treatment just because YOU don't have the test? That is the question.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOno_2m_8LY

Post Reply