posted
I've heard a number of ways to try and increase the odds of "passing" a lyme test:
Taking ABX for some period, then retest.
Taking ABX for some period, going off for some other period, then retesting.
Taking ABX for some period and running a PCR test on the urine.
Of the three, the third would sound the most convincing to a non-LLMD: it's hard to argue with finding the disease itself.
What's the opinion here on this specific topic? Please don't post the obvious "it's a diagnosis, there isn't any good test" or "forget the test/doctor, find an LLMD to treat you". I'm aware of both and I appreciate the thought, but really want to concentrate on the specific topic for this particular thread.
Thanks!
Posts: 98 | From Maine | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
Pinelady
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 18524
posted
From what I have read if it is correct. Your
chances are slim at getting any WB positive within
the first 3 weeks of infection so that leaves
indicators which doc's have problem
differentiating and some say Ehrlichiosis.
I would say door number 2. Because in 3 if it is
not in the sample you get neg. In 2 need more
specifics-10 days off. If I gotta pay I don't
want anything in there to skew the works. But I think your best chances are asking the lab.
-------------------- Suspected Lyme 07 Test neg One band migrating in IgG region unable to identify.Igenex Jan.09IFA titer 1:40 IND IgM neg pos 31 +++ 34 IND 39 IND 41 IND 83-93 + DX:Neuroborreliosis Posts: 5850 | From Kentucky | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
You said.. "Of the three, the third would sound the most convincing to a non-LLMD."
No, actually. I don't agree.
If you'll look through the IDSA literature ... much of it specifically states the PCR's for urine are not good. They also state not to use PCR's.
A non-LLMD might believe that... and most likely would ... and therefore, would discount the test entirely because they don't know better.
The tests are quite good, but they would be harder to use as the only evidence to convince a non-LLMD... because they were targeted years ago and have a bad reputation.
I've seen this happen too many times.
As for your first two choices, 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another.
It depends on many other factors, how long infected, what labs, what tests, what antibiotics, what time of month (ladies)... etc.
No easy answer.
If I had to try to convince a non-LLMD that I had Lyme..
I would find a new doctor.
That would be easier, more beneficial to the patient and cheaper in the long run.
sutherngrl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16270
posted
The third is a test I am considering doing myself; but you know it is only 50% accurate so maybe not good to use to try and convince a non-LLMD that you have Lyme.
I also did number 1, took antibiotics for 2 months then retested and got band 41 only. This would also not convince a non-LLMD that you had LD.
I also know a few people that tried number 2, take antibiotics, then stop for 10 days to 2 weeks; most did not get a positive result.
So I agree with Tincup......If I had to try to convince a non-LLMD that I had Lyme, I would find another doctor.
It is practically impossible to get a CDC positive test and most non-LLMD's would like you to have the 2 tiered CDC recommended test both be positive...... even more impossible. And whats the most impossible of all, is convincing a non-LLMD of anything that relates to LD.
Good luck on your impossible mission!
Posts: 4035 | From Mississippi | Registered: Jul 2008
| 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!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic