Re: The LDA is wrong about the IDSA Guidelines

One of the most important studies that relate to
chronic infection and the cyst forms is the mouse
infectivity test.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9774573&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

And I really wish you would "get it" about
band intensity.

Chromotography is exceedingly incomplex.
It is, really, a molecular seive. In Thin Layer,
the glass is plated with silica (sand). In High
Pressure Liquid Chromatography, the columns
are loaded with sand (silica) or a coated silica.

Yer pushing the crap through sand. This separates
out the analytes. The same thing happens in gel
electrophoresis (Western Blotting).

Now think, You've separated the substances, the
next thing you want to do is quantify them.

In TLC we spray with dyes and/or use different
wavelengths of light and, yes, a simple polaroid. This
does not quantify, but merely detects and is what
we call a "slopametric" method.

In HPLC, we use a spectrophotographic method
that amplifies a single absorbed by the analyte.
The signal corresponds to quantity. It's a billion
times more precise for analyzing QUANTITY,
since we always compare the signal against a
known standard quantity of something.

Get it?

Compare to a known standard concentration of something.


People with inflammatory diseases like arthritis and
acrodematitis have the Steere's genetic background
or something similar.

Their blood is full of antibodies. Ours is not.

Either their HLA molecules hold onto the antigen
too tightly and/or they send excessive downstream
inflammatory signals, or the antigen actually binds
the HLA molecule (is a superantigen).
http://www.actionlyme.org/ANTIGEN_FLOPPERS_AND_HYPERBINDERS.htm

The bad guys say you can only have a "disease" if
you have an inflammatory response, but we know that
Lyme is a parasite, and is stealth. So to say we
only have Lyme DISEASE if we have arthritis is
patently FALSE.

Chronic blebbing and chronic changes to the surface
antigens in most people result in "seronegativity" for
two reasons.

1) As I show in my bioweapons page, we become tolerized
to the lipoproteins and no long make antibodies to them.

2) We make antibodies to antigens on the bug that
they stopped expressing once they were no longer in
the tick (the bugs become host-adapted).


All of this means, we only can look for Borrelia-specific
flagellin as the only VALID way to test for Lyme, since
everyone seems to make antibodies to flagellin, regardless
of their HLA type. Yale says in their patent the "VAST
MAJORITY" of all cases of Lyme, have an antibody to
flagellin.

ALL OF THAT means the IDSA Guidelines are bogus
because they are all based on Klempner's study which was
invalid, because the testing was invalid.

We have no idea what kind of patients Klempner had
and it is very unlikely that he used the right DNA primers
to assay for Bb in the spinal fluid of these victims.

The only thing to be said about IDSA's guidelines is
what we said 5 years ago in response to Klempner's
study.

Only it should be said more clearly, and leave out the
historical garbage.

That the bad guys know and have published the reverse of
what they publish now, and that the FDA and all other
sciences have rules for the validation of an analytical
method which were met in 1991 by Yale with their
flagellin test, is scientific misconduct.

CDC and IDSA insist the Dressler/Steere method is
valid when they know it is not.

That Wormser et al do not use the same primers they use
when they want to find borrelia in a tick or in EM, that
they regularly uses on patients, means they know that OspA
is the wrong DNA to amplify in any human who complains
of chronic illness.

This is scientific misconduct, as are the entire guidelines.

The only way we are going to win is if everyone understands
this basic science. Basic Chemistry. And it is not that
complicated.

Separations Science is a no-brainer.

Except when you have Lyme brain and can't remember
what you did one second before in the lab.

You have to prep samples in a range of concentrations
so you know your signal is unaffected and corresponds
to concentration exactly. (We have regression software
for this. In fact we have chromatography software that
capture the whole signal and does the entire analysis-
I tested and recommended the system they now use
at Pfizer, which is TurboChrom.)

The ultimate goal is to detect the lowest concentration
of the analyte in question, reliably. Western Blotting is
very sloppy chemistry, and Weinstein tried to validate
the exact opposite of what we do in a lab.

High concentration, or high signal, or high band
intensity is NEVER a goal or a validation requirement.

This is what Weinstein did:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=PureSearch&db=pubmed&details_term=8053960%5BUID%5D

Any chemist would split their sides laughing at that nonsense.

It's like saying an elephant can only be called an elephant
if it weighs 87 megabazillion tons.

We want to detect the very tiniest amount of Borrelia specific
flagellin antibody, for starters. Then we look at all the other
valid indicators of disease process...

This is actually very, very simple stuff and common sense,
if you give it a chance.

And the only way to argue it.

The testing is deliberately bogus, therefore anything the
bad guys have said about patients who test positive to
the bogus Steere method (or who don't) is INVALID.

The bad guys have not reported anything valid since the early
1990s. Dearborn was meant to hinder the actual numbers of
reported cases, and to narrow the serodefinition of "Lyme Disease"
to only arthritis in a knee.


Borreliosis does not belong to NIAID, it belongs to
Parasitic Diseases. It's not commonly an infection
to which most people have an allergy response.

Dattwyler says he only sees about one such "Steere's Knees
Disease" patient per year.

Kathleen

Joel, the two tiered testing is meant for arthritis
patients. ELISA captures the high antibody response
of arthritis,

Thank you, Kathleen, for at least not responding with insults.

But I must tell you AGAIN, that I really, REALLY am NOT Joel. (I
absolutely swear upon pain of death, my mother's life, etc, etc).

It's just not me.

(And I am not "Jewish" or a "Jew", either. Really. So, if you are
trying to hurt me with that...it isn't working and you are just hurting
yourself and your own credibility with that. I wish you would stop.
Please).

Honestly, from what I have read, though, I worry more about others
believing that more for the injury it may do to Joel's reputation.
Seems to me, he has written some very insightful pieces. In other
words, I don't consider myself to be at his level of understanding.

Admittedly, as I have said many times, I do not have a technical
background. I don't think it means I am incapable of understanding,
though, necessarily.

THEN you supposedly do the Western blot to see
if *borrelia* are causing the inflammatory response
or the high antibody response.

Well, I am really trying to address here how the various entities apply
the constructs here...and really not attempting to debate their
scientific validity.

I think the issues here are over just correctly interpreting what is
actually meant by the IDSA...and NOT over whether what is meant is
scientifically valid or not. I leave that to you...I don't consider
myself competent to engage in that type of analysis.


Yes, IDSA fully disclaim their guidelines.

Well, I am a lawyer, though, or used to be one, at least...and I will
tell you that is smart on their part. I see that as necssary and
customary and not particularly ominous in any way.

But saying that these guidelines are not substitutes for sound clinical
judgment and are voluntary in nature really is more of what might be
though of as a sort of framework for proper perspective...how to view
them in proper persective.

You can't, in my opinion, just dismiss that as being a "disclaimer".
Disclaimers have to be interpreted to mean what they say, in other
words. You are supposed to give terms their "plain and ordinary
meaning".

If someone wants to suggest that something really means something other
than what it says on its face, then they have to prove through other
evidence what was actually intended.

Still looks to me as though they meant to say that "clinical
discretion" is very much intact.

Did you hear Klempner say he found the HLA haplotype
HLA-DQB1*0602 in a very high percentage of "seronegative"
patients.

Yes. And I have heard the audio also...(courtesy of yourself, I
believe).

Don't waste your time with Pat's statements, you know
better than that.

Well, it sort of looks to me as though the LDA now is sort of emerging
as the dominant factor in the patient community...that the LDF is
slowly waning in influence.

It looks to me as if they really blew this one...bigtime...and that
sort of has consequences for their credibility as a patient advocate.
Whoever is responsible for this...

Why do you bother?

Oh hell, I don't really know... to tell you the honest-to-god truth.

(You know...damned interesting question...thanks for asking).

And...as long as we are sort of almost communicating here...I will say
that I almost agree with a post you put up the other day about a Duray,
Dorward study (I think it was) that showed cyst forms in tissue...

...at least that it POTENTIALLY has great signifigance.

I don't think, however, it necessarily invalidates the current state
of the art, though, as I think you suggested.

But, yeah, the IDSA people managed to overlook that and similar
material. There are, I think, certainly problems there...with the IDSA
stuff, I mean...mostly with what they did NOT say in regard to
persistence issues.

.

Relevant Pages