My husband's Fry smear showed "many coccobacilli adherent to erythrocytes in rings." However, the supposed bart markings were not attached to the outside of the cells like most bart pictures I have seen; all of them were INSIDE the cells. Some cells had a lot of little black dots (maybe as many as 20)!
I checked the Fry website and there is one spot where they say sometimes bart can be on the inside of the cells. By they way, my husbands bart Igg came back positive at 1:64 for bart quintana and the lab tech there said that is a pretty significant number for bart, meaning that he probably does have it.
I would love to hear what your Fry test looked like. Did anyone have the bart on the inside of the cells? If so, did you have quintana too?
Thanks so much,
tickbattler
Posted by disturbedme (Member # 12346) on :
This is what mine looked like:
Mine are not IN the cell. And I only have a "moderate" number as it indicates, though it does look like I have MANY from what I can see; lots of little dots outside the red blood cells.
Posted by lou (Member # 81) on :
If you do a search of the archives, there will be other useful posts on whatever subject you are interested in. Here is a post I made several days, which shows that bart can be intracellular OR extracellular.
I'm getting tested for co-infections next month. I am using Fry, and doing the blood smear. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and that picture proves it. At least with all of the uncertainty surrounding tests these days, there are some that definitely show that one has something.
Posted by mikej2323 (Member # 8913) on :
I posted this shorlty after our Fry Labs report came back last week. Ours was almost identical to your results, except it didn't say "rings".
We had the same titer; 1:64. I don't know what the "normal" range is or if it's within normal limts.
I talked to them yesterday and they no longer use the number at the top right-hand corner anymore.
My Fry Labs pictures came back with "no organisms observed on stained smears". I was on Abx at the time the sample was drawn.
Overall, I'm very disappointed with spending $300 bucks for these pictures. I have not sent in the invoice to my insurance company because that may backfire if they look at the pictures.
Posted by Cold Feet (Member # 9882) on :
Munch, would you be happier if they found evidence of infection? Seriously?
Tickbattler, sorry about the news...but the results are obvious. The Fry microscopy technique is amazing!
Good luck with your next steps.
Posted by kelmo (Member # 8797) on :
Munch, I'm sorry about your results. If it makes you feel any better, my first pics with Fry labs were clean as a whistle.
After six months of abx, I had a two week break and was having horrible fatigue and neuro symptoms. We tested again, and this time bartonella showed up very clearly.
Since he is also my LLMD, he said on my results visit that biofilm may have kept the bacteria clinging to the walls of the blood vessels. After abx, it may have loosened it and allowed it into the blood stream.
Posted by cottonbrain (Member # 13769) on :
My photo looked like the one you described, tickbattler. I also had "many" and they were all within the cells, just like yours.
I asked my LLMD if they could be some other bacteria and he said that bart appear within the cells, while many others appear outside (i think).
Posted by CraigC (Member # 13732) on :
I talked to Fry, and you have to have been off abx for 14 days, for the blood smear to yield significant results. You may want to try it again, after refraining from the abx for 2 weeks.
Posted by mikej2323 (Member # 8913) on :
Our results came back and the B. quintana was 1:64 [still not sure what the "normal" is on that titer], but results stated, "many coccobacilli adherent to erythrocytes indicated with arrows. This is suggestive of Bartonella spp."
I got the blood smears AND the titer done. The Bart blood smear was positive, while the titer was not. The Babs blood smear was negative, while the titer was positive at a low level.
I HAD treated for Babs before the test was done. I'm currently treating for Babs again, and have had significant Herx reactions, so I'd say that the Fry test overall was accurate.
Haven't done any Bart treatment yet at all.....
Best,
Cass A
Posted by Munch (Member # 11323) on :
Does it state anywhere on their website to be off of Abx for at least 14 days before submitting pictures?
I couldn't find this info anywhere! It was one of the questions I had.
Since I was filling out the form and scribbling in the doctor's name to get the results with a wiggle for the doctor's signature, I couldn't really ask anyone about this.
Is my Lymebrain out to lunch? I felt I had to do it this way since 4 out of 4 doctors didn't want to be the ordering physician on the test. Then they'd be legally obligated to provide me with a diagnosis. One that if positive they know next to nothing about it.
Posted by kelmo (Member # 8797) on :
When people have asked me about the testing, I have always told them to call the office and ask for the lab tech. I won't post his name here, but you can private message me.
Posted by CraigC (Member # 13732) on :
I don't think that Fry posts it on their site, but I called and spoke to a lab tech directly [twice, actually]. Both times we discussed the tests, and I was told to be off of the abx for 14 days, for the blood smear alone.
Posted by Munch (Member # 11323) on :
Guess I wasted $300. Wish Fry would have mentioned this critical info in their instructions.
The only way to know for certain is to have the test redone while I'm OFF Abx. Then I could compare the two pictures.
