Re: Quest negative counts more than IGeneX positive

[Guest guest]

The e-mail address for the Science Editor at the New York Times is:

scitimes@...

Sue ,

Upstate New York

[Guest guest]

Well, all IGeneX would have to do is produce some negative test

results, right? Then they can simply claim their testing is more

accurate than everybody else's.

I hope they've got those neg. test results. Anyone here test

negative with IGenX? I was equivocal. I hate to say this (and it IS

hearsay) but a reliable friend spoke to one of their top guys a few

years back and he told her that pretty much ALL patients DO test

either positive or at least equivocal. Then on the other end of the

scale is the standard testing that shows all kinds of false

negatives, So what do do? why isn't the government concerned about

that?

This is why my friend decided to not get tested. She didn't trust

any of the results. I only did the IGeneX testing to make my doc

happy. My doc says 80% of his patients who are getting testedthere

are coming back positive. And he's willing to treat equivocal reults

as positive too, so I can kind of see some people's concern over

accuracy. (although, I'm sure that " concern " is more politically and

financially motivated than driven by concern for people's health).

Has anyone here had a straight ahead negative test result from

IGenX? If so, I don't see how they can really be in trouble. But I'd

want to know what their positive/negative testing ratio is before

joining a campaign. I want reliable testing results too. If they're

reliable, then we need to fight for them. I'm still upset about

hearing that Esoterix was purchased by LabCorp. That just took one

of our last hopes for good, individualized testing out of the game.

penny

> Those of you who know something about Lyme Disease:

>

> Now might be a good time to write a letter to the New York Times.

Or

> better yet, several short letters. If enough people write, they

are

> more likely to publish a response to the article below.

>

> Last year I wrote about ten letters to the newspaper and one of

them

> was actually published.

>

> Sue ,

> Upstate New York

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/health/policy/23lyme.html

>

> Unproved Lyme Disease Tests Prompt Warnings

>

>

> > "

> > Now the New York State Department of Health has opened an

> > investigation of the California laboratory, IGeneX Inc., that

issued

> > Mr. Courcier's positive result, after receiving eight complaints

from

> > doctors and patients who said its Lyme tests also gave them

positive

> > results not confirmed by other labs' results.

[Guest guest]

Well my son and I have positive IgMs but negative IgGs, like a lot of

chronic lymies, so it doesn't look to me like IGeneX comes up with only

positives.

- Kate

On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 01:07 PM, penny wrote:

> Well, all IGeneX would have to do is produce some negative test

> results, right? Then they can simply claim their testing is more

> accurate than everybody else's.

>

> I hope they've got those neg. test results. Anyone here test

> negative with IGenX? I was equivocal.

[Guest guest]

Plenty of people test negative at Igenex - you may be confusing with

them with Bowen, which uses a different method completely.

Actually, the local doctor I just saw an hour ago was telling me

about her PA, who came down with Lyme and tested negative via

Igenex, though she had a triple plus on one of the most specific Bb

antigen bands - what many Lyme doctors, with I think pretty good

justification, would regard as a positive test.

Their internal criteria are actually more strict, in terms of Bb

specificity, than the CDC's, Penny - they'll flag a test that meets

CDC criteria " CDC positive, " meaning that the degree of specificity

in the positive bands does not meet their test. And yes, people

actually get those, I've seen more than one person asking what it

meant on Lymenet.

S.

> > Those of you who know something about Lyme Disease:

> >

> > Now might be a good time to write a letter to the New York

Times.

> Or

> > better yet, several short letters. If enough people write, they

> are

> > more likely to publish a response to the article below.

> >

> > Last year I wrote about ten letters to the newspaper and one of

> them

> > was actually published.

> >

> > Sue ,

> > Upstate New York

> >

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/health/policy/23lyme.html

> >

> > Unproved Lyme Disease Tests Prompt Warnings

> >

> >

> > > "

> > > Now the New York State Department of Health has opened an

> > > investigation of the California laboratory, IGeneX Inc., that

> issued

> > > Mr. Courcier's positive result, after receiving eight

complaints

> from

> > > doctors and patients who said its Lyme tests also gave them

> positive

> > > results not confirmed by other labs' results.