| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Lyme Forum » Seronegative Lyme disease. Dissociation of specific T-...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| lipanz... |
 Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
FROM 1988 - Now if one is seronegative - that's itYOU DON'T HAVE
LYME DISEASE.......
Seronegative Lyme disease. Dissociation of specific T- and B-
lymphocyte responses to Borrelia burgdorferi
RJ Dattwyler, DJ Volkman, BJ Luft, JJ Halperin, J Thomas, and MG
Golightly
Add to Personal Archive
Add to Citation Manager
Notify a Friend
E-mail When Cited
PubMed Citation
Abstract
The diagnosis of Lyme disease often depends on the measurement of
serum antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes
this disorder. Although prompt treatment with antibiotics may abrogate
the antibody response to the infection, symptoms persist in some
patients. We studied 17 patients who had presented with acute Lyme
disease and received prompt treatment with oral antibiotics, but in
whom chronic Lyme disease subsequently developed. Although these
patients had clinically active disease, none had diagnostic levels of
antibodies to B. burgdorferi on either a standard enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay or immunofluorescence assay. On Western blot
analysis, the level of immunoglobulin reactivity against B.
burgdorferi in serum from these patients was no greater than that in
serum from normal controls. The patients had a vigorous T-cell
proliferative response to whole B. burgdorferi, with a mean ( +/- SEM)
stimulation index of 17.8 +/- 3.3, similar to that (15.8 +/- 3.2) in
18 patients with chronic Lyme disease who had detectable antibodies.
The T-cell response of both groups was greater than that of a control
group of healthy subjects (3.1 +/- 0.5; P less than 0.001). We
conclude that the presence of chronic Lyme disease cannot be excluded
by the absence of antibodies against B. burgdorferi and that a
specific T-cell blastogenic response to B. burgdorferi is evidence of
infection in seronegative patients with clinical indications of
chronic Lyme disease.
Source Information
Department of Medicine, State University of New York, School of
Medicine, Stony Brook 11794-8161.
This article has been cited by other articles: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 14, 10:16 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
And do the authors still agree with what they said in 1988...or have
their opinions changed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 14, 10:16 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Here's a link to the Bratton, et al, article cited in the NY Times
article:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1368852/diagnosis_and_treatment_of_lyme_disease/
Under the heading, "Post Lyme Syndrome", the following appears:
==================================================================================================="Further, continued infection with B burgdorferi has not been
demonstrated in these patients, and patients with ongoing subjective
symptoms do not consistently have positive serology against B
burgdorferi.30 Trials have shown that extending the initial course of
antibiotics does not decrease the incidence of posttherapy subjective
symptoms.28 At least 2 prospective trials have shown that repeated,
intensive antibiotic treatment does little to address the pain and
altered cognition associated with this syndrome".31
====================================================================
What that means, basically, (in my opinion) is that the "burden" of
proof is shifted.
Those that would suggest continuing infection need to address and
confront the above statements directly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lipanz... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 15, 10:47�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jul 14, 10:16�pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
FROM 1988 - �
And do the authors still agree with what they said in 1988...or have
their opinions changed?
Changed of course. I have the complete article of this. That is
only the abstract as nejm didn't start putting complete articles on
web site in 88. There is more to this article. I may dig the
complete article up or try to find it somehow on web. Or type parts
of it. The group of the patients involved were later retreated and
symptoms were gone -of course I don't know what happened after. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lipanz... |
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 15, 11:38�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jul 14, 10:16�pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
FROM 1988 - �
Here's a link to the Bratton, et al, article cited in the NY Times
article:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1368852/diagnosis_and_treatment_o...
Under the heading, "Post Lyme Syndrome", the following appears:
===========================================================================�========================> "Further, continued infection with B burgdorferi has not been
demonstrated in these patients, and patients with ongoing subjective
symptoms do not consistently have positive serology against B
burgdorferi.30 Trials have shown that extending the initial course of
antibiotics does not decrease the incidence of posttherapy subjective
symptoms.28 At least 2 prospective trials have shown that repeated,
intensive antibiotic treatment does little to address the pain and
altered cognition associated with this syndrome".31
====================================================================
What that means, basically, (in my opinion) is that the "burden" of
proof is shifted.
Those that would suggest continuing infection need to address and
confront the above statements directly.
In ref to your link - now that is a different article than what I
posted.
This is part of the last paragraph from my article in the NEJM written
by the so called experts. Dattyler etc. Now as I said before if one
is such a great expert in the field of borrelia how can one make later
such a turn of face - of complete opposite opinion. Pay off from the
ins. cos. No use going any further......go to all the videos on U-
Tube.......
The T-cell response of both groups was greater than that of a control
group of healthy subjects (3.1 +/- 0.5; P less than 0.001). We
conclude that the presence of chronic Lyme disease cannot be excluded
by the absence of antibodies against B. burgdorferi and that a
specific T-cell blastogenic response to B. burgdorferi is evidence of
infection in seronegative patients with clinical indications of
chronic Lyme disease.
Source Information
Department of Medicine, State University of New York, School of
Medicine, Stony Brook 11794-8161.
This article has been cited by other articles: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:36 pm
|
|