Who has used the Q-RiBb test? What was your serial dilution? Have you done more than one and used it as a tool for tracking progression of the treatment / improvement?
Does anyone here think the test is entirely invalid due to the high positives or know the status of Bowen's FDA approval process for it?
Scott, I've done this just once 2 wks ago; 1.64 positive of lyme; NO co-infections.
igx POSITIVE on both igm/igg for lyme.
bettyg
Posted by SForsgren (Member # 7686) on :
Thanks for sharing. Mine was negative from Igenex but "equivocal" if you read the bands but positive at 1 to 32 from Bowen. I had confirmed ehrlichiosis from Igenex at 1:160 for HME but was negative for Bowen on that. So each one found something the other missed.
Scott
Posted by wrotek (Member # 5354) on :
this test detects antigen of borrelia that means genes of borrelia not antibodies. It U find genes of lyme in the body that means u have Lyme. antibodies can be created with other reasons for lyme but not presence of antigens , it is only from one reason-infection.
Posted by janet thomas (Member # 7122) on :
I am so excited about the Dr. Whitaker info. Just ordred it! Thanks so much!
Posted by SForsgren (Member # 7686) on :
I am so excited about the Dr. Whitaker info. Just ordred it! Thanks so much!
Posted by CapriceMom (Member # 4942) on :
I had the Q-RiBb done a couple of years ago. I was negative on the Western Blot. I never would have accepted the fact that I had Lyme Disease without the positive Q-RiBb and would not have started the antibiotic treatment that I needed. From what I have learned, what is important is whether or not you test positive. Because the spirochete is happier in soft tissue than blood it goes into the joints, muscles, organs, etc. and does it damage there. So you can be feeling better and have a high serial dilution level or be very sick and have an extremely low serial dilution level. The spirochetes don't hang out so much in the blood. So if they can find it in the blood, it is probably partying in other areas in higher concentrations. I had a second test pulled a year after the first and though I was feeling better the level was higher. Take care.
Posted by SandiB (Member # 1557) on :
Also another post by me (SandiB) on Lymenet under heading: bowen q-ribb test results.
SandiB
Posted by duramater (Member # 6480) on :
The people at Bowen can't/won't answer questions about specifics regarding their tests (e.g., strain, how test discriminates between borrelia species (this is crucial actually), specificity of marker used, etc).
Given that and the high degree of positives (means sensitivity is high which is good, suggests specificity is low which is bad), I wouldn't (A) use the test myself, and (B) put any weight into its meaning.
The existance of a patent means little as to the robustness and utility of a medical test. Clearly, others on this board have different opinions but as a science researcher, I go with data...and (A) Bowen can't/won't answer key questions and (B) there are no other sources (let alone peer reviewed and published) of data regarding sensitivity/specificity/reliability/validity data for the test.
Posted by ivebeentricked (Member # 6944) on :
I have to agree with duramater, I actually had a bowen test done, and it came back positive for babesia and very high for lyme...Despite the fact that I do have lyme, I still do not trust their test methods or results because there just isn't enough information out about them, and from what I can tell, the people at the Bowen Labs aren't willing to give up much information about their testing methods. Besides, I have heard they refuse to test the DNA of what ever it is they are seeing.
Bottom line, there is no proof that the testing methods are even sometimes accurate. If they say you have lyme and you do, that does not mean that they test correctly because everyone comes back positive from them.
Posted by SForsgren (Member # 7686) on :
That was my original position as well, but I have not heard of anyone being able to prove the test wrong. As I understand, Lida Mattman verified 43 samples of positive results from Bowen and cultured each of them and was able to find Borrelia in every single one of them. My thought at present is that it is correct and just a much more widespread issue.
Posted by duramater (Member # 6480) on :
There are SO MANY issues with the statement that Lida Mattman cultured borrelia from 43 samples that were positive, and thus the Bowen test is useful, valid, reliable, etc.
(A) Were the 43 samples RANDOMLY choosen from all that come in to Bowen?
(B) What method did Mattman use to culture bacteria? Bb is NOTORIOUSLY difficult to grow and most labs cannot grow 100% of their culture dishes that are known to have Bb. 43/43 - that is highly unlikely.
(C) Not all borrelia are equal. Saying one cultured borrelia IS NOT the same as saying one has cultured Bb.
(D) Has another lab independently confirmed these results? That's how science is done...
Posted by SForsgren (Member # 7686) on :
I watched a DVD from a recent conference where Mattman talked about how she grows the cultures. It was interesting.
Turns out the number was even higher - 316, not 43.
Sandi Lanford, a lyme advocate, states the following facts concerning the Bowen Test. "Positive Bowen Q-RiBb tests have been challenged but no other test has been able to prove these results to be incorrect. There have been no false positives, for when patients are treated, based on the Bowen results, the patients have shown remarkable improvement in their symptoms. It is also difficult to dismiss the accuracy of Dr. Whitaker's Q-RiBb test, as she has an impressive background in the development of fluorescent assays, evident in numerous published research studies. The results of the original Bowen Q-RiBb were duplicated by Lida Mattman's lab in Michigan. Dr. Mattman was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1998 for her work on Stealth Pathogens. She is a very highly respected microbiologist. On 316 same draw blood samples, 316 cultured specimens grew out the organism Bb and the Q-RiBb test was positive for all 316. The culture method is the Gold Standard for making definitive diagnoses of an infectious disease. This statement means that out of 316 blood samples drawn for this particular test, the Bowen lab blood samples came up 100% positive for Bb. The Mattman controls, from the same blood samples, were also 100% positive. The Mattman controls duplicated the Bowen Q-RiBb results."
I aagree that I wish they would provide more detail, but it seems odd to me that no one can disprove it. If it isn't accurate, why doesn't someone show that? Clearly, if it is, ignoring the truth is consistent with our society, government, and medical establishment.
Scott
Posted by SandiB (Member # 1557) on :
Thanks Scott....I recommended on another post discussion on this forum on the Bowen Q-RIBb test that everyone should order the DVD of the Greater Hartford Conference. Both Dr. M. and Dr. W. have devoted their lives to research, and explain the science behind what they have learned about Lyme and spirochetes. Very informative and educational....Dr. R., a psychiatrist puts the icing on the cake, so to speak, in his presentation.