This trend toward moving (albeit slowly) to direct diagnostics is long overdue. But its principle advantage seems to be people with possible early stage. Maybe early disseminated.
But not late stage with the same degree of accuracy as it can with early stage, at least not that I can see.
If I remember correctly, the nanotrap had something like 100 out of 100 hits for acute early stage. That is very impressive. We certainly need such a test within the 1st 30 days of a bite since our immune systems don't lumber into action with Bb until after, as a rule.
But late stage, the jury is still out. If memory serves me, those numbers were more like 41 hits out of 100. I may be off, but the point is patients with late stage disseminated are still not in an enviable position when it comes to diagnostics.
If you're seronegative, chronic Lyme, then there could be advantages, but the odds don't seem appealing in an absolute sense. Still, seronegative with conventional 2T, 40/100 sounds better
There is movement, too, but as with the nanotrap, it's independent sources. Maybe that is for the best. It hopefully will mean a better mouse trap, but without full-throated NIH endorsement, and with arguable pushback from other concerns, it may take a bit longer.
Posts: 225 | From Unitied States | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged |
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 41384
-------------------- "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." Posts: 3275 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged |