British billionaire's family stricken

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
duncan
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed 5 Sep 2012 18:48

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by duncan » Mon 14 Dec 2015 20:32

I would not claim my testing protocol was invariably accurate, unless it were.

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by Henry » Mon 14 Dec 2015 20:50

All laboratory procedures have limitations and can be improved. However, when used in the proper setting, 2T testing has been shown to be pretty darn good when tested on many occasions vs reference panels of specimens derived from well-characterized clinical cases of Lyme disease. Furthermore, the results obtained using the C6 ELISA are consistent with those obtained using 2T testing. I would say that is a very good independent sign wouldn't you?

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by duncan » Mon 14 Dec 2015 20:56

The article you provided a link for claimed the 2T was invariably positive for those infected with Bb after many weeks or months, barring lab error or other patient issue. Invariably.

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by Henry » Mon 14 Dec 2015 21:14

You've got to admit that Invariably certainly is "pretty darn good". The reference provides evidence to support that. And, there's excellent correlation with the C6 ELISA results as well -- also noted in the reference One would expect that to be the case if both tests are valid for the diagnosis of Lyme disease.

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by duncan » Mon 14 Dec 2015 21:29

Henry, do you personally believe that "invariably" was accurately used in this context?

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by Henry » Mon 14 Dec 2015 22:04

Yes. That of course accounts for the 2 qualifiers mentioned -- lab error and immunodeficiency. To think otherwise, would be almost like defying the law of gravity. If one has an active infection for more than 4 weeks duration, that person is going to be seropositive by the criteria used for diagnosis, unless that person is immunodeficient. The situation is no different for Lyme disease than for any other infectious disease. Otherwise, the whole study of immunology is irrational -- which I certainly don't believe.

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by duncan » Mon 14 Dec 2015 22:36

Invariably means always. Not nearly or almost always. Always.

So there are never ever any false negatives? Never ever?? There have never been any reports of false negatives using the 2T? The 2T ALWAYS has captured a positive Bb infection?

C'mon, Henry. 8-)

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by Henry » Mon 14 Dec 2015 23:57

The statement was made that those who have been infected with Borrelia burgdorferi for several weeks or months are invariably positive by 2T testing. So, your analogy is false, Duncan. We are talking about false positives, not false negatives, which would be more likely the case for tests done very early during infection, e.g., at the time there is an EM and little or no detectable antibody in present in the blood. There really is no mystery about Lyme disease. It is much like any other infectious disease. If you are infected for several weeks or months, your going to make antibodies that appear in the blood and will test positive in 2T testing. It's as simple and as rational as that.

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by duncan » Tue 15 Dec 2015 0:08

a) No analogy was offered by me.
b) Using a 2T protocol that missed an infection and wrongly reported a negative on the Lyme lab would be a false negative.
c) Even Barbara Johnson has used accuracy estimates of the 2T in late stage NB as starting at 97%.
d) Hyperbole is no friend to Science - or damage control.

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

Re: British billionaire's family stricken

Post by Henry » Tue 15 Dec 2015 0:24

The point is that if a person has been infected for several weeks or more, that person will be invariable positive by 2T testing. Barbara Johnson's estimate of 97% accuracy is consistent with this concept. So, are you concerned that her percentage value was 97% instead of 100%? Actually, there have been other studies -- by Wormser et al.-- showing a positive rate of 99%-100%. So, I would not call this hyperbole.

Post Reply