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.
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 0:14

I doubt if you would believe what I told you anyway. Go to PubMed and do the search yourself.

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 0:41

Velvet, here is a blood culture study from Wormser:

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/184/8/1070.full

He had a 48% positive rate on UNTREATED EM LYME PATIENTS.Sapi had a 94% positive rate from some ,maybe all(no patient history of course) treated Lyme patients..Obviously,Sapi is culturing something that standard BSK is not.

The only way I will believe in Sapi's results, is for an independent reputable institution do a side by side comparison of the two culture methods from each patient, and then examine the difference.Remember,"before ramping up a clinical test, I'd want to see it test in more than one paper and by more than one lab. The solution is get bulletproof evidence"


That's it, period, end of story.

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 0:53

Wormser's blood culture study netted only a 48% positive rate in UNTREATED EM Lyme patients? Not much lacking in that effort, eh Henry? That's one heck of a culture you're advocating.

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 1:11

Henry also said:
I don't believe what Burrascano says. It is extremely difficult to culture Borrelia from blood and only within a very narrow time window, quite early after infection. I'd like to see what he is calling a "positive culture". It must be an artifact -- costing $550-$950 to boot!!! Better yet, let him bring forward someone knowledgeable person who can authenticate the validity of the test.

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 3:05

Henry wrote:I doubt if you would believe what I told you anyway. Go to PubMed and do the search yourself.
Oh, you're going to regret telling me to do that!

So, I went all the way back to 1982 in a PubMed search for AG Barbour's published papers and could not find the "cultured Borrelia from one cell" claim. But I did find some interesting stuff...

Barbour has known about Lyme disease in Wisconsin, a supposedly non-endemic area, since 1984!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6334942
Lyme disease in Wisconsin: epidemiologic, clinical, serologic, and entomologic findings.

LD is widespread in Wisconsin, with ecologic and clinical features similar to those occurring along the eastern seaboard.
Then, what's all this crap about Lyme only being on the US East Coast? Ignored epidemics usually get worse not better with time.


He has also known about co-infections since 1983!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6682178
Simultaneous occurrence of babesiosis and Lyme disease.

In addition to that, Barbour has known since 1986 that ticks are not the only carriers of Lyme disease:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2873190
The etiologic agent of Lyme disease in deer flies, horse flies, and mosquitoes.

Thank you nnecker for providing me with something to go on. I think there is room for improvement with a 48% positive culture rate for Lyme disease confirmed cases. And so, apparently, does Dr. Wormser going by his update to that 2001 paper you posted:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21490189
Improving the yield of blood cultures from patients with early Lyme disease.
Liveris D1, Schwartz I, Bittker S, Cooper D, Iyer R, Cox ME, Wormser GP.

Approximately 45% of untreated United States patients with early Lyme disease associated with erythema migrans have a positive blood culture based on microscopic detection of Borrelia burgdorferi in Barbour-Stoenner-Kelly medium after 2 to 12 weeks of incubation...The findings of these investigations suggested that if the yield can still be enhanced further, this would have to be accomplished by developing innovative approaches to enhance the sensitivity of the culture method per se, rather than by further increases in the volume of material cultured (6).
This paper is 10 YEARS LATER, mind you. In 10 years, the culture method could not be improved?

I think Dr. Wormser would have mentioned if he could culture Borrelia from "one cell".


nnecker:

Sapi did use blood from 2-tier positive patients - she had to be sure the blood she was trying to grow spirochetes from actually contained spirochetes. She doesn't know for sure whether Lyme is chronic - which is why she wanted to improve the culture test. Only after she proved it worked better than older culture methods would she be able to see if she can grow Borrelia from previously treated Lyme patients' blood.

It would not have benefited her in the least when it came to proving her culture method worked if the blood she used had been already treated with antibiotics. On the ALS intake form, she says that you should be off antibiotics for at least 4 months before ordering a culture. But most definitely not for her research paper! She needed 2-tier, EM rash confirmed cases of Lyme disease to ensure that she would get results.

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 3:31

Just do the side by side validation test. Sapi culture vs standard BSK.That will tell you everything you need to know.Why are you making this so difficult?

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 3:48

Because I'm a difficult person!

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 4:00

You can't compare the 48% figure for Wormser vs the 94% figure for Sapi since they did not run their tests on the SAME specimens. To really assess the superiority of one procedure vs the other, you need to culture the SAME clinical specimens in tandem using both conventional BSK and the Sapi modification of BSK. Perhaps they both might give the same results?

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 4:03

No, really, I am a difficult person, but I'm also stuck in this damn bed, so I won't be culturing Borrelia myself any time soon.

Sapi did a side-by-side comparison. That's why I pointed out figure 1 from her paper - not just to bore my opponent into submission.

;)



Another really strange thing I found from searching Alan Barbour's papers was this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3729689/
Elevated Carbon Monoxide in the Exhaled Breath of Mice during a Systemic Bacterial Infection

Alan G. Barbour,1,* Charlotte M. Hirsch,2 Arash Ghalyanchi Langeroudi,1 Simone Meinardi,2 Eric R. G. Lewis,1 Azadeh Shojaee Estabragh,1 and Donald R. Blake2

Blood is the specimen of choice for most laboratory tests for diagnosis and disease monitoring. Sampling exhaled breath is a noninvasive alternative to phlebotomy and has the potential for real-time monitoring at the bedside. Improved instrumentation has advanced breath analysis for several gaseous compounds from humans. However, application to small animal models of diseases and physiology has been limited. To extend breath analysis to mice, we crafted a means for collecting nose-only breath samples from groups and individual animals who were awake. Samples were subjected to gas chromatography and mass spectrometry procedures developed for highly sensitive analysis of trace volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere. We evaluated the system with experimental systemic infections of severe combined immunodeficiency Mus musculus with the bacterium Borrelia hermsii. Infected mice developed bacterial densities of ~107 per ml of blood by day 4 or 5 and in comparison to uninfected controls had hepatosplenomegaly and elevations of both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines. While 12 samples from individual infected mice on days 4 and 5 and 6 samples from uninfected mice did not significantly differ for 72 different VOCs, carbon monoxide (CO) was elevated in samples from infected mice, with a mean (95% confidence limits) effect size of 4.2 (2.8–5.6), when differences in CO2 in the breath were taken into account. Normalized CO values declined to the uninfected range after one day of treatment with the antibiotic ceftriaxone. Strongly correlated with CO in the breath were levels of heme oxygenase-1 protein in serum and HMOX1 transcripts in whole blood. These results (i) provide further evidence of the informativeness of CO concentration in the exhaled breath during systemic infection and inflammation, and (ii) encourage evaluation of this noninvasive analytic approach in other various other rodent models of infection and for utility in clinical management.
Had you guys seen that one before? I don't remember it. It sounds crazy, but it is intriguing.

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 13:40

Velvet said:
Sapi did a side-by-side comparison.
That's the point I am making.An independent reputable institution must validate this comparison before it will be accepted by the mainstream medical community.

Now if Sapi was working with a reputable lab with a proven track record,I would put some weight into what she did.But with the abomination that's going on over at ALS now,everything Sapi has done is trash to me until independently proven otherwise.
Last edited by nnecker on Sat 6 Dec 2014 14:06, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply