Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: "Michael-U.S." <baughfam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Aug 2005 02:40:02 -0700
One of the other posts said the link broke. But it
was a short one. Talking about http://www.tnlyme.org/ ?
As for definitive ways, as far as I know, biopsy of tissue,
and then culturing the critter out is definitive, but it
has to be in the part of tissue that gets sampled. And I
don't know of any better way.
Suppose ticks had been laboratory-bred to be completely
clean of Lyme. Then were allowed to attach to someone
who may or may not have the spirochetes. And then, after
it had engorged and dropped off, it was killed and the
spirochetes were cultured. Even then, if the critters
weren't there to be 'sampled' by the tick, the culturing
would be negative. The blood is simply an undependable
part of the body to sample for the spirochete.
Even tissue sampling can be undependable. Because if they
went to the brain, that's the only place a sampling would
be of value.
Actually, I've not done any reseach on the topic in a few
years. That's why I had been quoting a European study from
6 years ago. But I know that things have not changed much
since then.
Same conditions, including poor sampling opportunity,
still exist. The coccoid form of the spirochete is
also a problem. It protects it, and may well prevent it
from being identified as present.
Someday, I may do some research on the stuff again, but
not likely to get much new. After all, the CDC reflects
this with the reminder that even in the absence of the
rash (which the person wouldn't see on the back, scalp,
etc.), sound clinical judgment must prevail. Given other
compelling evidence, a physician may choose to treat a
patient for Lyme disease when the condition does not meet
the case definition of the observed rash.
You know the routine. You're getting this from a WalMart
stock clerk, what you do or don't do is based on your own
research and discussion with your health care provider.
Now, gotta go to my IRL job. Which I quite enjoy.
Sunshine&Lollipops wrote:
> Michael, I know you have done all the legwork already but could you post all
> the definitive ways in order that Lyme disease can be detected by whatever
> means?
>
> SnL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: Janey Pooh
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- References:
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: Michael-U.S.
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: Michael-U.S.
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: DGSaba
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: saavik
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: Michael-U.S.
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- From: Sunshine&Lollipops
- Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- Prev by Date: Re: Good-bye
- Next by Date: Re: Acupuncture and fibromyalgia
- Previous by thread: Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- Next by thread: Re: ~*Online WACOC News*~
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|