Jordana
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 45305
posted
This is basically an article about how these things are a ***** to treat. I was reading it looking for Bart abx and dosages, but I found out something else from this article;
Bart and Brucella light up band 41, as we know.
But also -- Bart, and Brucella -- are flagellated bacteria. So that's why they're showing up 41 KdA.
I know I have Lyme but people who are wandering around online trying to figure out why they only have this band might have either one of these -- or H pylori or E coli.
dbpei
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 33574
posted
Thanks for that article, Jordana. This is so freaking scary. Although I was negative on WB when first tested for Lyme, I was ++ on band 41 for both IGG and IGM. Band 18 was also positive for both.
I am now testing positive with high IGG's for brucellosis testing through Quest Labs. I have had at least 6 positive results over the last 8 months. According to Quest (and my LLMD), this indicates chronic infection.
Perhaps it is time to do another western blot, now that I am treating aggressively for brucellosis.
Posts: 2386 | From New England | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
droid1226
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 34930
posted
I have recurring red bart streaks & tested positive for it. There's not a Dr in the whole Cle Clinic worldwide system who'll acknowledge it. I've seen one that said "If I treat you like I should, I'll lose my job"
Jordana
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 45305
posted
dbpei - you're lucky they found it.
I'm going to theorize that if they did find it, it might not be the horror you're imagining if you're aggressively treating it. It seems to me the more successful these things are at establishing full stealth and complete invisibility to the immune system, the more successful they are in general.
I'm in the same boat as you -- 41 IgG and IgM. Sure wish it was H. Pylori, but it aint.
droid -- From what I've read of buhner bart acts differently than Lyme does. It's not a parasite, it's a bacteria and should be controlled at least with abx. But it just seems to me that a buhner protocol for Bart might be even more successful than his protocol for Lyme because it's a little more straightforward as a bug in general.
We know the score. No one ever clears all the Lyme. Bart can be chronic, but it's not anywhere near as sophisticated or stubborn.
Buhner's Bart protocol is on his site. Maybe give it a whirl?
Posts: 2057 | From Florida | Registered: Feb 2015
| IP: Logged |
Jordana
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 45305
posted
BTW -- I think the reason that Levaquin and the quinolones are so successful for Bart infections is because they are the only class of abx that kill eukaryotic cells instead of prokaryotic cells.
Levaquin et. al. are actually a milder form of a chemotherapeutic drug called etopiside. So these drugs really are *chemo*.
I wouldn't take it personally but I bet it's got potential for Brucella even though the risk involved is pretty much exactly the same as going through a full course of cancer chemotherapy.
Sometimes I wonder if the Floxed among us didn't have intracellular stealth infections that flipped right out when they got nuked by levaquin.
Posts: 2057 | From Florida | Registered: Feb 2015
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic