Page 3 of 12

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Fri 2 Dec 2016 22:36
by Henry
Duncan: Tell me, what did you mean when you said the ELISA came up short? What does that mean? Was it negative? That's the way I interpret it. Explain.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Fri 2 Dec 2016 22:45
by duncan
I wrote "What differentiates me from someone that...etc...Or someone that doesn't even get a shot at the WB because the ELISA came up short?"

GOT IT??? What differentiates me and my results - positive on all three key metrics - from people who get shafted because their results are not in accordance with the "rules"? God, Henry - read.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Fri 2 Dec 2016 23:33
by Henry
Duncan: For heaven's dake, I asked a simple question. What do you mean when you say that the ELISA "came up short"? What does "coming up short" mean? Can you just answer a simple question?

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Fri 2 Dec 2016 23:40
by duncan
Yes, Henry. I meant that - when I said "comes up short" - if the ELISA came back with the wrong result. That's why I also added "in error."

But. That. Reference. Was. Not. About. Me.

Time to move on.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Fri 2 Dec 2016 23:50
by Henry
Duncan: This still doesn't make sense. The ELISA test results can only be interpreted as being positive or negative. This must mean that your ELISA test results were negative, but you think they were in error? Explain why you think they were in error? Is it only because you think they should have been positive? Why are you being so evasive about what should be a simple matter. The results of the ELISA were either positive or negative. If you think the results were in error, why do you think that is so? Why do you say that they (the test?) came up with the wrong results?

And what did you mean when you said "that reference was not about me". Is that another one of you hypotheticals? Enough of these word games.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Sat 3 Dec 2016 0:08
by duncan
Henry, you dear man...

I tested positive on the ELISA.

Now please move on. :)

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Sat 3 Dec 2016 0:11
by Henry
Why didn't you just come out and say that, Duncan, instead of saying that the test results "came up short in error". I'd still like to know what you meant by that phrase. What was the error? Explain.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Sat 3 Dec 2016 0:21
by duncan
I have tried to explain. It's not important.

I test positive for the ELISA. I have always tested positive for the ELISA. I test positive for the WB.

Now try to focus back on the thread, which demonstrates once again that traditional abx are not a sure thing when it comes to treatment success - which patients and leading-edge researchers and clinicians have been saying for three decades or so.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Sat 3 Dec 2016 0:37
by nnecker
Probably because they are suffering from something other then an active Lyme infection.

Re: Ceftriaxone Pulse Dosing Fails to Eradicate Biofilm-Like Bb Persisters

Posted: Sat 3 Dec 2016 14:09
by Henry
No, no, Duncan, we're not finished with this yet. So, you finally said -- in plain English-- that you were ELISA positive, which is a presumptive indication that you may have Lyme disease. Confirmation must come from the results of a WB. You said that you had a WB done. Were they IgM or IgG WBs -- or both? What bands were present?