CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Medical topics with questions, information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
Posts: 1448
Joined: Wed 14 Nov 2007 1:19
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by Claudia » Wed 8 Apr 2009 17:26

Snippets from LymeMD's April 7, 2009, blog posting, posted on page 21 of this thread:

It is important that researches be found who will take these anomalies seriously and help solve these mysteries.

These organisms appear right under your eyes.

All you need is a drop of blood and a standard light microscope set at 1000 power.

We need scientists: parasitologists, microbiologists, molecular biologists, experts in DNA sequencing at high powered universities and research centers who have the expertise to solve the riddle. What are these mystery bugs and what role do they play in the course of human disease?
I know this is LymeLand and all, but I still have to force myself to suspend my disbelief in that no one, anywhere else, but these two in-house labs, are studying and reporting on these common, highly abnormal blood smears in the sickest of Lyme disease patients.

Are the "llmd's" that are ordering these smears and getting positive results actively reporting these results and information to outside sources for help in diagnosing and treating their patients? What is the standard procedure when unusual "mystery bug" infections or strange results are found in the lab work of ill patients in the medical community?

As far as research laboratories go, I googled "list+of+research+facilities+laboratories+that+study+emerging+infectious+diseases" and got a wealth of potential resources to send these blood samples: ... tnG=Search

Another source of appropriate, potentially motivated and interested researcher contacts could likely come from authors publishing in the following related journals:
The editors of Journal Watch Infectious Diseases ( ... ched.shtml ) review the following journals when selecting articles to summarize:

American Journal of Epidemiology
American Journal of Medicine
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
Annals of Internal Medicine
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Archives of Internal Medicine
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine
British Medical Journal
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Critical Care Medicine
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
Emerging Infectious Diseases
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology
Journal of the American Medical Association
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Journal of Hospital Infection
Journal of Infectious Diseases
Journal of Pediatrics
Journal of Travel Medicine
Journal of Virology
Nature Medicine
The New England Journal of Medicine
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
and others
This all seems straight forward and logical to me, so what is and isn't happening here? And most importantly; why or why not? Anyone know?

Posts: 786
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 21:03

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by itsy » Wed 8 Apr 2009 23:38


Why not just go ask him if he has tried to report it to anyone?

He posts things like this in an attempt to get people thinking and debate..

So why not just go post that to him?

Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by Fin24 » Thu 9 Apr 2009 1:07

The analysis of a blood wet mount has become part of the routine evaluation of patients presenting with an evaluation for TBD. Positive results are seen in 70 to 80% of patients
according to whom??? and what positives??? what does that even MEAN??? that HE or the others see an identifiable organism?? and can quantify it as well as ID it?? wet blood mounts are still thankfully eschewed by mainstream Drs even LLMDs due to their very unreliable nature.

this is the very same problem I stated when this Dr started blogging--he is thinking out loud and has NO accountability as in NO one is questioning his statements of "fact"-- where are his citations to back up such bold statements??
readers see his MD and assume he is an "expert" and frankly he bothers me--like Ive said before how do you trust a professional who asks and accepts advice from lay readers??

btw dont hold your breath for real answers--he doesnt answer all queries and quite a few of my comments have been ignored and theyre of the type questioning his basis for conjecture--no surprise there!!!

as for other places for identification--again Ive stated this

we have a wonderful source of hundreds of graduate students at very well reputed higher academic institutions--universities, labs, etc--get any of those microbio depts working on identifying whats there

theyre doing PCR and genetic ID at high schools for Petes sake and I grow annoyed and frustrated at any who claim " well the CDC wont care and so all we have is the words of those 1 or 2 drs/labs and we believe them"
These organisms appear right under your eyes
It is not scientific- but my clinical experience indicates that the sickest TBD patients usually have the highest loads of these organisms- AND they usually have mixed morphologies, some resembling bacteria and other resembling parasites. Patients with the protozoa type morphologies are usually the sickest.
protozoa type morphologies
he better be kidding with this comment and sadly he isnt--what IS a protozoal type morphology??? many things even some white blood cells have a protozoal morpology and they MOVE and behave as such too!!! SO WHAT???

in all that blather the ONLY thing he said worth repeating is this
It is not scientific--and yet he tries to make it such by even attaching his "clinical experience" whihc IMHO wanes daily.

we do NOT "know" these things he claimsat all--the percent of anyone having anything on a wet mount slide--the fact that those "things" are even anything at all--or that theyre even "organsims" -Ive spent way too many classroom hours hovering over student scopes to know better--theyre not " organisms" until and unless theyre so identified - properly and classified-and so far all we hear and see is " probable, maybe, sorta, kinda"

coming from a Dr this to me is negligent blogging--the most annoying useless piece of print?? " protozoa type morphology"--meaningless in light of the very normal "protozoa type morphology" found in WBCs
( try googling " amoeboid motion of white blood cells" and then the " definition of amoebae"
and youll see immediately that just looking or moving like a protozoa isnt any basis for identification for some foreign constituent in blood)

edited to try to comply with admin's requirements
Last edited by Fin24 on Thu 16 Apr 2009 3:11, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 786
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 21:03

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by itsy » Thu 9 Apr 2009 12:59

Good morning.

I only meant to go question him about it and see what happens. He always says that he says things for the purpose of gettting people to think. His words.

I haven't had a real issue getting him to respond to me when I ask him something.

I know how you feel about his blog, Fin...and I guess if I were a sceintist it would get under my skin too. But I kinda enjoy his blog and I am not sure why. He seems like a good doc clinically...trying to help and keeping diff dx in his mind. As for his science, I have no idea, you are way better to judge.

He does say that it might be nothing but normal flora. I think he meant a large percentage of his patients come back positive for this test and he even doesn't know why. I have never had this test so I am clueless about the whole thing. I would just like to see what he would say if someone who knew something about it would ask. I am not that person because I don't know enough about it.

BTW...hope you're doing OK. My flu is almost gone and so I'm just drained.

Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by Fin24 » Thu 9 Apr 2009 23:57

Hi Itsy

glad youre a bit better

you said
I only meant to go question him about it and see what happens.
since Ive not been to enamored of the lack of answers previously now particularly impressed with the caliber of answers he has chosen to opinion is dont bother

I prefer to directly target questions to those whose answers I expect to be of uality, valuable and reliable; i.e. not he.

I dont know the kind of Dr he is, the person or even his capability--and until and unless you ( or anyone) not only go to him but also know him well enough to know his intelligence and diagnostic acumen as well as his ability to choose appropriate treatments for his pts--no one can really judge

Based upon his blog and his interaction with me and the moderator over at MDJunction months ago--I prefer to have as little to do with him and his theories--as I feel that theyre near useless anyway

what can I say--these days my patience wanes and I have less time to waste on unreliable and questionable sources--my bad

major objections for me is his waffling--saying how blood should be sterile then also adding that seeing pathogens/parasites etc is " normal"--WTF??? cant have it both ways

saying any percentage of his pts came back "positive" when no one yet even knows what that means is silly for a so called " good clinician". Positive for WHAT??? no one even he can even agree on what they see if anything at all on those slides yet he feels confident enough to call it a "positive" result?? as a Dr he should KNOW better

so again ...why bother asking HIM anything??
and anyone including you ( meaning a self admitted non scientist, nothing personal) can ask him--and see what he says
Id start with
1. how can you have it both ways--sterile blood and yet pathogens " normally" there
2.why havent YOU sent your samples out elsewhere?
3. why havent YOU asked local Bd of health and even CDC for identification input??
4. why are you saying the tests is "positive" when no one can say what that defines?
5. 70-80% of which patients?? the worst symptoms?? what about of those who get well most easily??--does he test ALL of his pts and so can make some sort of limited scientific judgement?? or does he bias it by only sending out samples from the the most ill??

Ill stop know because as Ive said--any answers from him would be useless anyways...

again very glad to hear youre doing better--wish I could say the same for either me or Evan

Posts: 42
Joined: Mon 4 May 2009 23:42

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by bigdreams87 » Mon 4 May 2009 23:48


I am a 21/m from Southern California. I have been sick for over a year. Since August 07 I have been chronically sick. I have not taken any antibiotics but have tried TOA Free Cat Claw, Nutramedix Quina, and other herbal remedies, etc. Some issues have cleared up, like brain fogginess and looking pale 24/7.

However 1 month ago I had my blood drawn from Fry Labs and had a smear sent back with the "suggestive of haemobartonella or mycoplasma" label. Dr. Fry told my Dr. that it is a protozoan with mutated DNA likely occuring from 4 bugs? Now I am on Alinia and may start Zithromax as well. I have a picture of the smear which I can upload. They also sent the slide to my Dr. and I am going to have a pathologist through my infectious disease Dr. examine it. I am also heading out to meet with Dr. Fry on Friday (it will be a 6 hour drive). I can report back what he tells me. By the way, Lyme, Bartonella and Babesia do not show up when I have antibody tests done, even though I suspect I could have the 2 latter of the 3.

Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by Fin24 » Tue 5 May 2009 23:08

protozoan with mutated DNA likely occuring from 4 bugs
what????? can you please try your best to explain what that means ( try to recall how Fry explained this)

Id be very intersted to know HOW he knows this..IF he has sampled the DNA and has identified it then he should KNOW which organism the " protozoa" is, no matter how mutated the DNA and how does he know " from 4 different bugs"? it may well be that the DNA is from the same ONE bug that shares genetic ancestry with other bugs; or simply contamination of samples ( very common btw)

blaming the inability to identify the organism on "mutated DNA" is unacceptable to me

as for the antibody tests--dont worry--many here never get positives anymore and some of us never had positives ever yet have sx and get improvements with tx.

I myslef havent had a positive Lyme test of any type in over 10 yrs and yet I occassionally break with a new multi bullseye with flaRE of Lyme sx that all lessen once I return to abx treatment

and of course let us know how it goes Fri--good luck

Posts: 145
Joined: Fri 3 Aug 2007 16:41

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by hanegalen » Wed 6 May 2009 20:20


I feel pretty sue that Fry is on to something very important.I believe however that the things he sees in his smears are only one stage of the life of a parasite that also can be obersed in the blood if you use another technique (wet mounts).According to Fry`s announcement in Kansas recently it is likely to be some kind of organism in the vincinity of babesia,malaria,theileria,Toxoplasmosis etc.As you know Fry for years has told people that it was haemobartonella etc.Which was sheer unsubstantiated nonsense.
I would like you to ask Fry on behalf of the many very sick people (including me)

a. what the organism is (has a pcr sequencing been made, is it generic or specific pcr?)
b.has he informed the CDc of the findings?If not , why not? (it takes a resourceful lab to identify a new unknown organism,keeping the info to themselves is responsible,I think)
c.has he informed the state laboratory?
d.Is the ASU involved in the research?

I really hope you will do so, Valid information will be extremely important to a lot of people.


P.S. I have no intention of hiding the fact that I have been very sceptical about Fry (even angry because of the misinformation that came from the lab).I think it is hih time that facts are put on the table.

Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat 8 Mar 2008 20:14

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by Fin24 » Wed 6 May 2009 20:49

if ASU is involved please ask which dept--my daughter is a PhD student there and Im sure she would be more than happy to find out info as it happens for me ( which of course Ill share here)

and ask if theyve done electron microscopy to see organelles yet and outcome ( if no, when will they do it) that will help identify the blobs.In addition to genetic typing, knowing what it has or dont have can start to typify it.


you may be right about where the "bug" may fall in classification--in the "piroplasm" family.
However as those are all " apicomplex" it should have a certain familiar and identifiable set of organelles--if not that makes it less likely to be one of those guys

also I agree with Gale re fry--IF he wouldve been less secretive and not been so willing to release less than proven info ,maybe we would all have known years ago WHAT it is and what if anything to do about it re tx.

Posts: 42
Joined: Mon 4 May 2009 23:42

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by bigdreams87 » Thu 7 May 2009 10:52

Here is a copy/paste of a post from a patient who saw him last week. This guy is just as sick as me:

I would have posted about a month ago, but just wanted to wait for the conference. Simply is a PROTOZOAN. This organism is not a bacteria. It has DNA properties of Toxoplasmosis Gondii and Malaria. It is the "malaria" of North America. This organism is not seen in the Tropics because it cannot survive at that tempreture. It is a single celled...Apicomplexa. It has a tail and is so small that regular blood sears will not find it. It feeds off arginine and the reproductive cycle is currently unkown. A DNA match is pending...because this could possibly have already been recognized in the Vetenarian world. It is a destructive pathogen that adheres to RBC's and it believed to be behind the majority of most of our symptoms. Finally, it is thought to live around and in water.

This is basically all the info I have. There is new data coming out everyday.

Post Reply