posted                      

quote:

---

Greatcod
Frequent Contributor
Member # 7002
posted 09 September, 2007 11:30 AM

This is an email I recieved from Randy Sykes in CT. Yale patented an Bbabd 41 test which they claim is 94% accurate, then mothballed it.


"Yale says don't pay attention to band 41 because it means nothing. Yet they have patented a test for lyme that only uses band 41. They also claim the test is over 94% accurate.

These are the people who have been working to hang DR. Jones for treating lyme disease and refuse to respond to Attorney General Blumenthal's subpoena. This test has been put in moth balls.

US patent # 5,618,533

Also the second link, page 5 at the top right, one paragraph down, Dr Steere says that if you have band 41 this means that you either have gum disease, syphilis or lyme disease. He also states that you can tell the difference between these illnesses by a clinical diagnoses. All the lymies have band 41 but few people produce many other bands, Randy Sykes

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=P

---

quote:

---

TerryK
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8552

"Totally weird that a control group would have any known infections, let alone a spirochetal infection. Does this make sense to anyone? Does anyone know or have proof that this is true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Steere
Most troubling, Steere chose to make 20% of his control - 25 serum samples - serum derived from syphilis patients. While this group formed 20% of the control, the disease's annual incidence in the United States is about 3 cases per 100,000 - an incidence of far less, by a multiple of 300, than 1%.

This statistical manipulation dramatically impacted the importance of the 41 KdA band on blotting, because syphilis cross reacts with Lyme blots at 41 Kda due to their both possessing a key flagellar potein structure.

It has since enabled Steere and his cronies to confabulate that seroreactivity to the 41 kDa antigen is 'normal', when in fact it is largely only seen in advanced spirochetal infection - usually only in gingival infections when visible pus-filled pockets are present."

---

quote:

---

Aligondo Bruce
Frequent Contributor
Member # 6219

what steere etc. have distorted is the relative importance of the 41 kDa band. I pointed out the israeli frequency because the same studies in america demonstrate that about 40% of the pop carry positivity to the 41 Kda band {in endemic areas}.

In israel, it is something like 8 %. Israel doesn't have Bb, but does have related relapsing fever borrelia. what I am saying is that due to its constitutive expression, the flagellin band is probably the Best indicator of exposure/ possible latent infection, and is probably the mainstay of the ab response no matter stage of infection.

Bb differentially regulates protein expression of surface proteins, such as osp a, b, and c. They are regulated according to stage of infection, tissue type, and microenvironment. VlsE, another surface protein, is also regulated in this manner. However, flagellin is not differentially expressed.

What happens in very late CNS disease? No one really knows, BECAUSE IT HAS NEVER BEEN ADEQUATELY STUDIED. THE STEERE CRITERIA were designed for early, acute disease. As far as I know, VlsE is not transcribed in the CNS, and flagellin is one of the only proteins I know of that IS transcribed.

Steere intentionally 'swift-boated' the relative meaning of the flagellin ab response. Sure, you see a cross-reaction in people who don't have exposure to Bb, BUT IT IS MUCH LOWER incidence than we are lead to believe. Typically, wrt oral spirochetes, a response is only seen when the gums are visibly infected.

As far as the poles go, and other europeans, I'm fairly certain that the 41 band they demonstrate is reflecting exposure to Bb. However, it is NOT the same strain of bacteria we see in the US. And did you know that in Europe, only 3 bands are necessary on WB to be regarded as positive? Did you know that DOGS in america require only 3 bands to rate a positive?

That's right folks...under the steere criteria, we are treated worse than DOGS.

---

quote:

---

From a seasoned poster:

the number of people exposed is in the millions. the reason you can't get treated is they have decided that only early disease merits diagnosis and treatment. the bacterium itself is the most bizarre human bacterial pathogen known, and is poorly understood.

they don't know how many people are carrying a permanent relapsing brain infection. you can't get diagnosis or treatment because they have to pretend it doesn't exist and use labels like 'post lyme' and 'CFS' etc. for those who manifest illness.

Look at what steere did in his 1992 study which is the foundation for the CDC serodiagnostic standard. He and others often look back on this and refer to a 'normal' control, but in fact the control was taken from sick people...MS sufferers, CFS sufferers, in sum, conditions which could have been caused or complicated by late Bb infection. Moreover, he threw in 25 syphilitic patients which constituted 20% of the control. Hoever, syphilis itself has an annual US incidence of 3 per 100,000.

this statistical chicanery, which fudged the result at 41 kDa on Bb blot by many multiples, is significant, because syph serum will cross react at 41 kDa to Bb western blots. it allowed them to 'swift boat' the importance of the reaction to 41 kDa, which is the earliest and most consistent human ab response to Bb infection, being present in all stages as opposed to the rest of the proteins which are variably expressed according to stage, tissue type, even temperature.

Flagellin {41kDa} is necessary for Bb to survive under all conditions, and is constantly expressed, including in late CNS infection. Yet they chose to swift-boat this response.

---

quote:

---

Now, let me tell you about the real DARK SIDE of the steere/dressler criteria.

These criteria were designed to enable one thing: a vaccine trial for the OspA vaccine. That's why the band to OspA at 31 KdA was left out of the criteria for positivity, even though it is very specific to Bb.

Why then was it necessary to distort the importance of the flagellin response? I'll tell you why. It's because they had to test the vaccine in an endemic area.

And a significant percentage of vaccinees were ALREADY SHOWING seropositivity to Bb exposure and possible latent/asymptomatic infection as manifested by the 41 band and maybe a few others, but not enough to be 'positive' by CDC standards. {remember, in europe 3 bands = I have lyme disease, in the US, 3 bands = normal}.

In other words, they had to run a vaccine trial on a group of people who had already been exposed or infected by Bb. If you utilize scientifically honest criteria, then YOU CAN'T DO THE TRIAL, BECAUSE A LARGE NUMBER OF YOUR VACCINEES ARE ALREADY INFECTED OR EXPOSED BEFORE THEY EVER GET THE VACCINE.

So by using less restrictive criteria, you create a situation in which there is no way to distinguish whether or not the vaccine is effective. Basically, a lot of people got a worthless vaccine.

this paradigm...which plunged thousands of vaccinees from infected areas into an unknown realm {what happens when you vaccinate someone who has already been exposed, or is manifesting late stage latency} and MAY have been the reason we saw so many reports of adverse reactions.

Individuals who were carrying latent infection, as manifested serologically by a limited ab response, these people were CUT OUT of the medical community, and they had to pretend nothing was wrong with them.

And wrt [with regard to] lyme encephalopathy, Bb protein expression primarily in brain years after initial exposure, that has never been studied adequately to know what is signficant and what is not. All we really know is that flagellin is constitutively expressed even in brain infection."

---

Posts: 1176 | From KY | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoosiers51:
I don't know if this would be weird, but could you get out a highlighter and highlight the line that says that it's a clinical diagnosis when you send this stuff in?

Not sure if they would look at that as helpful or what, but it's a thought.

Good luck...hope you get it!

---

Posts: 1176 | From KY | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by disturbedme:
Thanks again nenet!!!! Love the band 41 articles and info!!!

---

quote:

---

Do you have any studies that stress that lyme disease is a clinical diagnosis more than depending on the serum results? That would be especially helpful since I don't have a positive test.

---

Sure, the CDC themselves say it. Should be easy enough to convince them that is a credible source eh?


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047449.htm


From the CDC Case Definitions (linked above):


"This surveillance case definition was developed for national reporting of Lyme disease; it is not intended to be used in clinical diagnosis."


This is stated on most WB results (I know this is printed on the bottom of Igenex WB results).

The case definition calls for a certain number of bands to be positive on a Western Blot test. That is then termed "CDC positive" or "CDC negative" on your results.

The term "CDC positive" means positive for CDC surveillance criteria ONLY, which they never intended to be used as clinical diagnostic criteria. In that link the CDC says again and again, in different ways, that Lyme is currently a clinical diagnosis.


Also from the CDC Case Definitions (linked above):

"The case definitions contained in this report establish uniform criteria for disease reporting and should not be used as the sole criteria for establishing clinical diagnoses, determining the standard of care necessary for a particular patient, setting guidelines for quality assurance, or providing standards for reimbursement."

Surveillance criteria for disease spread is primarily designed to be extremely restrictive, and is expected to miss many real cases of disease (something the CDC also readily admits to in their reported numbers caveat).

It would take some reading up on epidemiological research processes to understand this more fully. But suffice to say, the CDC is kind of the final word on this subject, especially when you are dealing with people that either don't know much about Lyme, or those that want to only refer to the assumed authority, or those that want to try to deny or ignore proof for sero-negative Lyme and Chronic Lyme (for instance, an insurance provider).

--------------------
Dr. C's Western Blot Explanation

Lymenet Success Stories

ILADS Treatment Guidelines

Medical & Scientific Literature on Lyme

"Long-Term Antibiotic Therapy Improves Persistent Symptoms Associated with Lyme Disease"

Posts: 1176 | From KY | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged |