So I know I am no medical person, but I have to ask this question. When you can simlply buy a microscope and actually see the Borrelia bacteria in your blood squiggling all nastily about as it reak's havoc in its new playland, why is this not used in the labs as a definative test for Lyme? It seems to me seeing the actual B Bacteria would prove a 100% result for positive or negative?
Why are they testing for antibodies instead? I love this link the most of this guy showing how to see the bacteria yourself at home, I'm tempted to buy a microscope myself...
JamesCase, where are you?
Posted by seekhelp (Member # 15067) on :
I'm not sure. I've wondered too. Jamescase20 says he views the Lyme bacteria and other pathogens with a dark field microscope.
Posted by feelfit (Member # 12770) on :
Yikes! No wonder we feel so horrible, those were disgusting.
In answer to your question, don't know, I wonder too.
Posted by joalo (Member # 12752) on :
Excellent question!! I've been wondering the same thing! Posted by charlie (Member # 25) on :
....Because even though you're seeing squiggly stuff you can't be at all sure what the squiggly stuff is without backup from knowing what antibodies are there. Bacteria don't wear name tags.....
Charlie
Posted by adamm (Member # 11910) on :
The archpoisoners have claimed that the reason darkfield
microscopy can't be used to diagnose Lyme is that there's a
possibility that any spirochete observed could be oral
Treponema. In reality, you won't see these in your blood in any
significant numbers unless you have active oral lesions from them.
Posted by dsfii (Member # 17915) on :
haha, name tags.. I like that one. However I bet you can consider many of their "features" as nametags. Maybe a better microscope, sure there's plenty out there. Same as how we can tell the difference between dog species.
However again, I am no biologist. So I have no clue how many of these different bacteria look like twins...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)