kgg
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5867
posted
I appreciate this ND making a video about this new test.
Her explanation confuses me. It is my understanding that the nature of Lyme and the immune reaction causes IgG and IgM to be not helpful.
That the immune system is effected by Borrelia to be depressed. So that if tested, you can be IgG or IgM positive or negative but it is not reflective of true immune status.
Has that understanding changed lately?
Posts: 1856 | From Maine | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Phoiph
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 41238
posted
My understanding based on the video, is this test would be best utilized as a "screening" tool if you had just recently been bitten, before the immune system had time to become suppressed.
The advantage would be a lower cost than a more detailed Igenex test, being able to do it yourself with a finger prick (no prescription, no lab), and having results within a few days.
That said, to add to kgg's point, since they group IgG and IgM results together, even if just bitten, how would anyone know if a positive result was due to a current or past infection?
Posts: 2083 | From Earth | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
And even though I had a positive Igenex test it still took me forever to convince a doctor I had Lyme as the "CDC guidelines" were not met.
I had a hard time finding a LLMD near me.
But once you have Lyme it is my understanding that IgG and IgM will always show positive.
-------------------- Hiker53
"God is light. In Him there is no darkness." 1John 1:5 Posts: 10236 | From Illinois | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Phoiph
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 41238
posted
Hiker53,
I'm not sure that both IgG and IgM will ALWAYS show positive with past infection (?), but the fact that they frequently do makes this test even more ambiguous.
If you were someone who had just been bitten and believed you had never been exposed to ticks in the past, a quick turnaround screening (so treatment could be started sooner) might be useful.
Even so, more testing would likely be needed if the result was positive, and more $ spent.
Better to have the tick itself tested as a screening if possible.
Posts: 2083 | From Earth | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, a lot of people (like me) never see the tick so can't take it to be screened.
But I am glad to see more tests available.
-------------------- Hiker53
"God is light. In Him there is no darkness." 1John 1:5 Posts: 10236 | From Illinois | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Phoiph
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 41238
posted
Hiker...Or like me, who didn't know what a tiny nymph tick was (thought it was a scab) and left it there!
Posts: 2083 | From Earth | Registered: Jul 2013
| 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/