[Pessimism alert: the following is a bit grim.]
I wonder how this test compares with Igenex's Lyme Urine Antigen Test (LUAT). I'll have to do some research and refresh my memory.
Edited: I just found some information about the Igenex test; it was Klempner et al. who published a paper criticizing it. I'll post a link when I have more time to search.
Edited again: See links in new post, below.
The other problem is, that if the testers dared to say that they found Bb antigen in people's urine who don't meet the CDC criteria, their test would automatically be thrown out, because the CDC, etc. thinks its testing scheme doesn't have any false negatives. In other words, as long as the current tests are the gold standard, any test that contradicts them will be said to be "inaccurate" - as with Igenex. Ceres has a lot of business and some governmental people on their boards, but no guideline authors, so unless there's a big change in Lyme public health strategy afoot, and Ceres has powerful support under the radar, it's never going to get to the point where it helps the patients.
Finally, I'm not sure there is likely to be antigen in the urine of people whose borrelia are living in, say, the brain. That's a long journey, from the brain through the kidney to the urine, and there are cells whose job it is to clean up any debris, even tiny debris, in the bloodstream. But who knows, in biology you never know until you try. It's possible it could work - have to wait for data, if we can get any, after it goes through the multiple sieves between the bench and the public, none of which are biased toward identifying more Bb-infected patients
. If you find antigen, okay, they're infected (or have "amber deposits") but if you don't find antigen, it's silly to think you've shown that the person's whole body is Bb-free
Even the key scientist here is biased in favor of the autoimmune theory:
And it’s those antibodies that can cause problems, Liotta says. Antibodies fight infection and react to the proteins in the bacteria. But antibodies don’t stop with the infection—they move to attack proteins in the nerves, joints, and brain, Liotta says.
“The bacterium doesn’t directly cause the damage,” Liotta says. “It’s the immune response that’s doing the damage. The goal is to have a way to detect Lyme disease even before you make antibodies against it. Then you could treat the patient with antibiotics, and they wouldn’t get all those terrible symptoms. Or, if someone has joint problems and they’re convinced they have Lyme disease—and there are thousands of people who feel that way—it gives us a way to definitively say they do or don’t have Lyme disease.”
And the CEO says "It would be good not to be flooding every tick bite with antibiotics". Unless they're doing some sophisticated PR here and actually, in private, have a clue, it doesn't look like they're on our page.
Sorry to be a wet blanket; I'm refining my knowledge of the business and political angle of Lyme, and need to air my thoughts here, even though they may sound unduly cynical to some. I'll try to focus on posting about some good scientists, doctors, and public health officials after this round of investigation, so I'm not always shooting down hope. I don't think that there are no
good, competent people in medicine, just that there aren't any who are currently powerful in the core Lyme establishment.
Okay, back to work. Later, L.