treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
up for truth
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
CaliforniaLyme
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 7136
posted
5 to 1*)!!!!!!!!!!!!
-------------------- There is no wealth but life. -John Ruskin
All truth goes through 3 stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer Posts: 5639 | From Aptos CA USA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
As a struggling Lyme and possible co-infected patient, I was very pleased to read your publication. Over the past few months I have been thinking the exact same thing. With the controversies at hand it is evident that we are drastically missing the big picture.
I worked at a manufacturing corporation for several years where we were involved in studies of our own products as well as analyzing competitors products. One key thing I learned from that was a study can be designed to give the information desired simply by setting it up to do so; i.e.: influencing parameters etc.
From researching studies of IDSA, NIH & CDC opinions and guidelines I have noticed that they limit the research issues to that of Bb. I have not seen any research of how co infections influence Bb activity or morphing cycles in the human system. Cannot find them any where!
I have been pondering this for a while now and, although I am not a scientist or medical professional, I keep coming up with the same conclusion. Bb alone may be treatable per the guidelines suggested but, as your pub offers, adding a co infection - which seems to be more the norm than isolated incident - complicates the factors dramatically.
You mention several of the typical and accepted co's but note that you left out others, such as mycoplasma's. These, based on my research, also have a high level of infection rate along with Bb. One study stated as high as 86%!
Now my theory goes a bit further....
I suspect that adding a co-infector complicates treatment not only by the actual co-infector but suspect it plays a vital role in the activity of Bb. I suspect it is a cicular incident occurring due to the addition of a co. I dont know if say a mycoplasma or bartonella effects the morphing cycles of Bb. Studies have shown that Bb morphs to different stages and in a hostile environment can even go dormant, later morphing and, when finding a better host environment, reactivates. If there is a co factor effecting the host as we know it does, how does the co factor effect the viability and activity of Bb and vice versa? Does Bb react differently with a co present than when alone in a host?
If you treat and begin getting a handle on a co by lowering loads, does Bb become more active, complicating what is being hit and allowing the co to regain ground in the host?
I mentioned mycoplasmas as an additional co but what about parasites? It is commonly found in chronic patients that parasites is also an issue. I am uncertain if this is an actual co infection or if it is simply by having a good host system than parasites become an additional issue. Either way, once again, add a parasite to the mix of a host that already has Bb and a co-infector, what effects does it have?
It seems to me that we have been using the wrong approach in dealing with the guideline issues we are fighting. It seems to me that we are missing the much bigger picture. It seems to me that more emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that while Lyme guidelines may be accurate in MOST situations of Bb infection alone, then it is a trigger for adding co factors to the diagnosis and base treatment on that fact. It also seems to me that it would help ease the tragic insurance battles if this key factor were understood and implemented.
Additionally, I wish there were researchers out there willing to step up and start studying the effects of each infector when adding another to it. I cannot imagine there wouldnt be massive evidence and direction come into light with this type of study.
Again, I want to thank you for your encouragement to hold on as the medical industry is starting to come up toward us that more is going on and we are struggling out here waiting for answers, direction and treatment to make us better."
-------------------- Seeking renewed health & vitality. --------------------------------- Do not take anything I say as medical advice - I am NOT a dr! Posts: 830 | From TN | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote from the last letter to the editor by Feder responding to the other letters: "There is no evidence that these or any other ticks transmit bartonella.1"
Now, how much garbage will people swallow without balking? Below are just two studies showing bartonella in ticks, there are many others
Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2006 Spring;6(1):99-102. Links Co-detection of Bartonella henselae, Borrelia burgdorferi, and Anaplasma phagocytophilum in Ixodes pacificus ticks from California, USA.Holden K, Boothby JT, Kasten RW, Chomel BB. Center for Comparative Medicine, Schools of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA.
Presence of Bartonella DNA was explored in 168 questing adult Ixodes pacificus ticks from Santa Cruz County, California. Bartonella henselae type I DNA was amplified from 11 ticks (6.55%); previously, two (1.19%) were found to be infected with Borrelia burgdorferi and five (2.98%) with Anaplasma phagocytophilum. Detection of B. henselae was not dependent on co-infection. The present study offers additional evidence that Ixodes spp. ticks may act as hosts and possibly vectors for B. henselae.
Wiad Parazytol. 2005;51(2):139-43.Links [Capreolus capreolus and Ixodes ricinus as a reservoir of Bartonella in north-western Poland][Article in Polish]
Bogumiła S, Adamska M. Katedra Genetyki, Uniwersytet Szczeciński, al. Piast�w 40B, 71 - 065 Szczecin. [email protected]
Capreolus capreolus and Ixodes ricinus as a reservoir of Bartonella in north-western Poland. The purpose of the study was to assess the prevalence Bartonella in Capreolus capreolus from north-western Poland forest. Supplementary, ticks infesting roe deer were also screened in order to ascertain their role as vectors and reservoirs of Bartonella. The samples of blood from 98 animals from north-western Poland were PCR-screened. Bartonella DNA was detected by using primers complementary to the intergenic spacer (ITS) between the 16S and 23S rRNA genes, which is used for identification of over a dozen species of this genus. Products of three different sizes were detected: 230 bp and 290 bp may represent two strains of B. capreoli, and 190 bp may be identify as B. bovis. All three amplicons were detected in blood, the 290 bp fragment from B. capreoli was present only in ticks, Ixodes ricinus. Generally, Bartonella infection in C. capreolus amounted to 21.4% of individuals, but was much higher during the autumn-winter seasons (62%), than in spring (4.3%). The results show that C. capreolus may be a reservoir for at least two species, i.e. B. capreoli and B. bovis, and probably do not cause persistent infection in roe deer. The high percentage of infested individuals during spring (84%) and infection detected in I. ricinus (5.2%) show that ticks are reservoir and vector of Bartonella.
PMID: 16838623 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Posts: 416 | From france | Registered: Oct 2001
| 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!
![[bow]](graemlins/bow.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic