I was reading about the Bowen Q-RiBb antigen test for Lyme, babesia, and ehrlichia. It stands for quantitative rapid identification of Borrelia Burgdorferi.
Instead of detecting antibodies, like the western blot, it detects antigens from the actual pathogen. Supposedly it can detect the cell wall deficient form (cystic or L-form) of Bb also.
The test was developed by Dr Joanne Whitaker from the Bowen Research and Training Institute, which I believe is now called Central Florida Research, inc.
I have read some opinions questioning whether almost all people would test positive, like how almost all people would test positive for CMV, for example.....except that the CMV would be an IgG antibody showing past infection....and this test detects antigens, not antibodies.
They claim it is 100% sensitive. We all know that if something sounds too good to be true then it probably is. Or....has there been a break through in Lyme research???
According to the Central Florida Research Inc website, they test blood samples from all over the world. Tests must be ordered by a physician/healthcare practitioner. Insurance does not cover the test, and the test must be prepaid. Each test ranges from $250-$500.
Has anyone on this board had this Q-RiBb test done? If so, was it just for lyme, or were you also tested for other tick-borne diseases? Could you please share your results and opinion?
Posted by bejoy (Member # 11129) on :
I had it. I think it was a very good test. Bowen closed down, probably from too many positives.
The technology moved on to Central Florida Research (CFR) where they do a computerized version of the test.
I have not heard much about it since they opened about a year ago.
Posted by adamm (Member # 11910) on :
Is it true that the test never returned a negative result?
Posted by JKMMC09 (Member # 15795) on :
A friend of mine attended a conference where Joann Whitaker (creator of the Bowen test) was the main speaker .
When asked if everyone tests "positive" , her reply was that only "(1) human and (1) dog " , of all tests performed , were negative .
Sounds VERY suspicious. My LLMD will not use this test.
Posted by adamm (Member # 11910) on :
how many tests were performed? were all of the samples from patients complaining of Lyme symptoms?
Posted by Dekrator48 (Member # 18239) on :
Thank you all for your replies! Perhaps there are more people on this board who can also contribute their experiences and opinions.
Posted by bejoy (Member # 11129) on :
Opinion only, but well researched:
By the time most people got around to choosing the Bowen test, they were already fairly desperate, were pretty sure they had lyme, and had ruled out just about anything else.
That means that nobody really went looking for the Bowen test unless they fit the criteria for an ILADS clinical diagnosis.
Makes sense that a good sensitive test would come up positive under such circumstances almost 100% of the time.
Also considering that Lyme Borrelia is a far bigger epidemic than most folks will be willing to understand.
It could be a large contributing factor in so much (or even all) of the MS, Parkinson's, pre-senile dementia, chronic fatigue, and fibromyalgia cases, etc, etc.
Most people test positive for Epstein Barr virus, and nobody seems to think that's so odd or question the validity of the tests.
Makes sense to me that just as many could have been exposed to lyme and some be asymptomatic (as far as they know.)
But we are dealing with a loaded political and financial arena when it comes to lyme.
EVERY single person I am still in contact with from where I grew up in CT has or "has had" lyme and is still symptomatic, or has MS and/or one of their kids is autistic. EVERY ONE I STILL KNOW!
Other states I have lived in - not so much lyme diagnosis, but THE SAME SETS OF SYMPTOMS in themselves or at least one family member.
Lida Mattman was nominated for the nobel prize for her work on stealth bacteria. I tend to have faith in her research and her testing.
Those who don't, well, enjoy your sweet dreams, that is, if you can sleep at night.
Posted by tcw (Member # 15698) on :
I can not find much in terms of details about the test. It claims to be able to detect Bb in cell wall deficient form, but most if not all of the antigenic components of Bb are present in the outer cell wall. Without details of how the test works or some type of numbers showing sensitivity/specifictivity in peer reviewed literature I am very suspicious. Sounds far too good to be true.