Does it make sense to treat for lyme with only IgG positive? Doesn't that indicate a past infection? I am IgM positive and not sick (???). My DS7 is IgM & IgG positive and very sick. My younger 2 boys are IgG positive only. They are not nearly as sick, but still have some symptoms - one has chronic headaches, is a strep carrier, and has mood lability. Both complain of various aches and pains, get sick more often than other kids their age, and complain of sore knees when we go for a walk. Are these residual effects from an old infection that their immune systems have fought off, or could they have an active infection and only showing IgG positive?
Posted by sixgoofykids (Member # 11141) on :
I was IgG positive and extremely sick. You treat based on symptoms. All the testing can show is exposure. If they are having symptoms, I'd treat.
I decided to treat my daughter. She *only* had headaches, elbow/knee pain, and learning trouble. All that is cleared. Her treatment was relatively easy compared to mine since she wasn't as sick.
I figure, if they're showing symptoms, why wait until it brings them down? I'm not saying antibiotics are the best or only way, I'm only saying I wouldn't ignore it and no, IgG positive doesn't mean it's not active. It could be that some immune support and detox might be enough to help their bodies fight off the rest of the infection.
What did the doctor say?
Posted by momcap (Member # 31420) on :
They've already started treatment, based on clinical symptoms. We don't see the doctor again for another 6 weeks, so I was just looking for opinions on the IgG only. If a person can have an active infection and only be IgG positive then I feel much better about proceeding with the treatment plan.