Re: holy crap! qPCR of EM! (Spirochete load)

[Guest guest]

:

There's quite a few papers out there which talk about spirochete

load and how if it's great can overwhelm the immune system- or the

vacinne - or anti-serum used as infection protection from challenge

with live spirochetes.

These papers that are investigating why the vaccine didn't work-

and it turns out (that for Mice) a low load of spirochetes (injected

into the mice) is considered 10 to the 2nd power and a large load is

considered 10 to the 4th or 6th power. So you can imagine what we're

talking about when we talk about a high load in humans.

As far as why chetes aren't seen by microscopy - are they using TEM

or SEM for the microscopy (I haven't read the paper you're referring

to). You know even those these suckers can get to 20 microns long -

some of them are only 100 nanometers wide, thats 0.1 microns wide -

so they AREN'T easy to see.

while we're on the size topic..

Picture THIS....

If I remember correctly an IgG un complexed antibody is 14 nanometes

in diameter that's only 0.014 microns- so picture a couple of

ntibodies have to be on a 20 micron long spirochete 100 naometer wide

spirochete - and remember the antibodies going to be attracted to

only to specific protein segments..... probably looks like mice

running up a tree trunk.

(And I think there is sometimg like 2000 antibodies mg/dl of serum.

It's a whole nuther world in there when you get it in perspective.

We just don't have all the technology to see whats happening in that

tiny world.

Barb

>

> I sooo looked for this before, but didnt find it cause I used the

> alternative term qtPCR.

>

> This is of great importance for understanding lyme.

>

> " For those specimens in which B. burgdorferi was detectable by

qPCR,

> the mean ± standard deviation number of spirochetes present in a 2-

> mm skin biopsy specimen was 2,462 ± 2,942, the median number of

> organisms was 1,450, and the number of spirochetes in positive

> specimens varied over 3 orders of magnitude (Fig. 1). "

>

> Why are 1/2 of such biopsies negative for Bb by microscopy, the

rest

> showing only a few organisms (see Hulinska, see Aberer)? This may

be

> hefty evidence that most borrelia are suboptical in size and do not

> express OspA, the common antigen used in IEM. There are other

> possible interpretations, such as lots of dead organisms with

intact

> DNA... which seems unlikely to me.

>

> http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?

> tool=pubmed & pubmedid=11923340

>

[Guest guest]

> As far as why chetes aren't seen by microscopy -

Yes, this was my main interest in this data... where are all those

genomes coming from? Is it possible they are all undegraded genomes

of dead cells? Or are some of them alive, composing the " missing

biomass " that seems to be hidden somewhere when you dig the degree of

inflammation?

> are they using TEM

> or SEM for the microscopy (I haven't read the paper you're

referring

> to). You know even those these suckers can get to 20 microns long -

> some of them are only 100 nanometers wide, thats 0.1 microns wide

> so they AREN'T easy to see.

High-performance immuno-optical (Aberer) and immuno-TEM (Hulinska). I

would expect detection of known Bb forms to be high, tho I dont know

of control data.

> while we're on the size topic..

> Picture THIS....

> If I remember correctly an IgG un complexed antibody is 14

nanometes

> in diameter that's only 0.014 microns- so picture a couple of

> ntibodies have to be on a 20 micron long spirochete 100 naometer

wide

> spirochete - and remember the antibodies going to be attracted to

> only to specific protein segments..... probably looks like mice

> running up a tree trunk.

There are metal beads conjugated to the antibodies used in IEM. I

think they are usually about 40 nm in size. The beads are black

(electron-opaque) and perfectly circular, so they are very easy to

see at 30,000x. If everything is done right and goes well, this

should make it possible to visualize any bacterium including any

putative tiny CWD under 0.1 um and smaller... if they have the right

antigens.

> (And I think there is sometimg like 2000 antibodies mg/dl of serum.

>

> It's a whole nuther world in there when you get it in perspective.

> We just don't have all the technology to see whats happening in

that

> tiny world.

I think we do have it. If antigen is there, and the Ab is

complementary, and everyhting works well, the Ab should bind. It

seems like a " needle in the haystack " affair for the complementary

molecules to find one another... and it is - but organisms run on

such events, they are the soul of biology. THe ferociously rapid

motion of molecules is why it doesnt take eternity for complementary

moleculs to bind. Proteins vibrate, and water molecules switch their

intermolecular hydrogen bonds, at something like 10 billion times per

second. Looking down there from a human timescale of seconds and

hours, you could say that every molecule in a solution is effectively

in contact with every molecule, all at once - tho that obviously is

not the case at any given instant.

[Guest guest]

The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to find a

classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing for a nice

TEM micrograph.

The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF) is probably

before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in after the

crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are you there to

whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the dead are being

carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post abx)

PCR detection looks for a 'target' DNA, so even if the sample doesn't

have a full organisms- or very many pieces of it's DNA, PCR is the

best test for finding sequences of the targets DNA.

Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to where no DNA

is left - from this a calculation can be made of (spirochete) load.

I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia DNA) and I

tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

Because my PCR test was 2 months after stopping abx, I suspect

it was pieces of Lyme DNA and not the whole organism PCR detected.

I just don't think Lyme spends much time in the blood. And most of

our snapshot tests are done on blood (or serum). Probably Lyme only

uses the blood stream like a subway system- just to get from one

tissue site to another.

Barb

>

>

> > As far as why chetes aren't seen by microscopy -

>

> Yes, this was my main interest in this data... where are all those

> genomes coming from? Is it possible they are all undegraded genomes

> of dead cells? Or are some of them alive, composing the " missing

> biomass " that seems to be hidden somewhere when you dig the degree

of

> inflammation?

>

> > are they using TEM

> > or SEM for the microscopy (I haven't read the paper you're

> referring

> > to). You know even those these suckers can get to 20 microns

long -

> > some of them are only 100 nanometers wide, thats 0.1 microns

wide

> > so they AREN'T easy to see.

>

> High-performance immuno-optical (Aberer) and immuno-TEM (Hulinska).

I

> would expect detection of known Bb forms to be high, tho I dont

know

> of control data.

>

> > while we're on the size topic..

> > Picture THIS....

> > If I remember correctly an IgG un complexed antibody is 14

> nanometes

> > in diameter that's only 0.014 microns- so picture a couple of

> > ntibodies have to be on a 20 micron long spirochete 100 naometer

> wide

> > spirochete - and remember the antibodies going to be attracted

to

> > only to specific protein segments..... probably looks like mice

> > running up a tree trunk.

>

> There are metal beads conjugated to the antibodies used in IEM. I

> think they are usually about 40 nm in size. The beads are black

> (electron-opaque) and perfectly circular, so they are very easy to

> see at 30,000x. If everything is done right and goes well, this

> should make it possible to visualize any bacterium including any

> putative tiny CWD under 0.1 um and smaller... if they have the

right

> antigens.

>

> > (And I think there is sometimg like 2000 antibodies mg/dl of

serum.

> >

> > It's a whole nuther world in there when you get it in perspective.

> > We just don't have all the technology to see whats happening in

> that

> > tiny world.

>

> I think we do have it. If antigen is there, and the Ab is

> complementary, and everyhting works well, the Ab should bind. It

> seems like a " needle in the haystack " affair for the complementary

> molecules to find one another... and it is - but organisms run on

> such events, they are the soul of biology. THe ferociously rapid

> motion of molecules is why it doesnt take eternity for

complementary

> moleculs to bind. Proteins vibrate, and water molecules switch

their

> intermolecular hydrogen bonds, at something like 10 billion times

per

> second. Looking down there from a human timescale of seconds and

> hours, you could say that every molecule in a solution is

effectively

> in contact with every molecule, all at once - tho that obviously is

> not the case at any given instant.

>

[Guest guest]

SInce it avidly adheres to collagen matrices we should look there.

But who knows what form it is in. Maybe in living tissue in vivo

there are active spirochetes at various places but they are probably

only one stage of growth. This bug is not well understood.

> >

> >

> > > As far as why chetes aren't seen by microscopy -

> >

> > Yes, this was my main interest in this data... where are all

those

> > genomes coming from? Is it possible they are all undegraded

genomes

> > of dead cells? Or are some of them alive, composing the " missing

> > biomass " that seems to be hidden somewhere when you dig the

degree

> of

> > inflammation?

> >

> > > are they using TEM

> > > or SEM for the microscopy (I haven't read the paper you're

> > referring

> > > to). You know even those these suckers can get to 20 microns

> long -

> > > some of them are only 100 nanometers wide, thats 0.1 microns

> wide

> > > so they AREN'T easy to see.

> >

> > High-performance immuno-optical (Aberer) and immuno-TEM

(Hulinska).

> I

> > would expect detection of known Bb forms to be high, tho I dont

> know

> > of control data.

> >

> > > while we're on the size topic..

> > > Picture THIS....

> > > If I remember correctly an IgG un complexed antibody is 14

> > nanometes

> > > in diameter that's only 0.014 microns- so picture a couple of

> > > ntibodies have to be on a 20 micron long spirochete 100

naometer

> > wide

> > > spirochete - and remember the antibodies going to be attracted

> to

> > > only to specific protein segments..... probably looks like mice

> > > running up a tree trunk.

> >

> > There are metal beads conjugated to the antibodies used in IEM. I

> > think they are usually about 40 nm in size. The beads are black

> > (electron-opaque) and perfectly circular, so they are very easy

to

> > see at 30,000x. If everything is done right and goes well, this

> > should make it possible to visualize any bacterium including any

> > putative tiny CWD under 0.1 um and smaller... if they have the

> right

> > antigens.

> >

> > > (And I think there is sometimg like 2000 antibodies mg/dl of

> serum.

> > >

> > > It's a whole nuther world in there when you get it in

perspective.

> > > We just don't have all the technology to see whats happening in

> > that

> > > tiny world.

> >

> > I think we do have it. If antigen is there, and the Ab is

> > complementary, and everyhting works well, the Ab should bind. It

> > seems like a " needle in the haystack " affair for the

complementary

> > molecules to find one another... and it is - but organisms run on

> > such events, they are the soul of biology. THe ferociously rapid

> > motion of molecules is why it doesnt take eternity for

> complementary

> > moleculs to bind. Proteins vibrate, and water molecules switch

> their

> > intermolecular hydrogen bonds, at something like 10 billion times

> per

> > second. Looking down there from a human timescale of seconds and

> > hours, you could say that every molecule in a solution is

> effectively

> > in contact with every molecule, all at once - tho that obviously

is

> > not the case at any given instant.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to find a

> classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing for a nice

> TEM micrograph.

>

> The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF) is probably

> before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in after the

> crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are you there

to

> whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the dead are

being

> carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post abx)

But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they express the

IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host molecules,

they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form, no

matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying mitochondria or some

such thing - they should still show up.

> Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to where no

DNA

> is left - from this a calculation can be made of (spirochete) load.

I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is called real

time PCR.

> I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia DNA) and

I

> tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

[Guest guest]

The mystery of the homes of these bugs.

Take babesia. Can't find it on repeated smears but if you find a

little RNA or even if you don't, if you treat for it, patient gets

better.

Where is this stuff hiding?

Who knows.

>

>

> > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to find a

> > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing for a

nice

> > TEM micrograph.

> >

> > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF) is

probably

> > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in after

the

> > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are you there

> to

> > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the dead are

> being

> > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post abx)

>

>

> But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they express

the

> IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host molecules,

> they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form, no

> matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying mitochondria or

some

> such thing - they should still show up.

>

>

> > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to where no

> DNA

> > is left - from this a calculation can be made of (spirochete)

load.

>

>

> I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is called real

> time PCR.

>

>

> > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia DNA)

and

> I

> > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

>

>

> Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

>

[Guest guest]

:

PCR isn't looking for the proteins expressed by the bug- it looks for

the bugs DNA sequences.

My PCR was done by MDL labs in NJ in 2002.

Real time PCR is supposed to be the best. It's a streamlined QC PCR

her's a site for you:

http://web.ncifcrf.gov/rtp/gel/rtqpcr/WhatIs.asp

Barb

>

>

> > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to find a

> > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing for a

nice

> > TEM micrograph.

> >

> > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF) is

probably

> > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in after

the

> > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are you there

> to

> > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the dead are

> being

> > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post abx)

>

>

> But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they express

the

> IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host molecules,

> they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form, no

> matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying mitochondria or

some

> such thing - they should still show up.

>

>

> > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to where no

> DNA

> > is left - from this a calculation can be made of (spirochete)

load.

>

>

> I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is called real

> time PCR.

>

>

> > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia DNA)

and

> I

> > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

>

>

> Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

>

[Guest guest]

Holy smokes, thar she blows, test #311.

http://www.mdlab.com/html/testing/available_tests.html

They wont do it unless you get a positive qualitative PCR. Do they

only do it on blood? From my reading it sounds like most blood

qualitative PCRs are negative.

Its a lil odd that no Bb test is on MDLs " comprehensive CFS panel. " I

guess most of their clients know the score on Bb, but still.

Barb, what was your qPCR score? Was it on blood? I wish they would

publish this stuff!

>

> :

>

> PCR isn't looking for the proteins expressed by the bug- it looks

for

> the bugs DNA sequences.

>

> My PCR was done by MDL labs in NJ in 2002.

>

> Real time PCR is supposed to be the best. It's a streamlined QC PCR

> her's a site for you:

>

> http://web.ncifcrf.gov/rtp/gel/rtqpcr/WhatIs.asp

>

>

> Barb

>

[Guest guest]

Jill

Something that nails your ass doesn't HIDE. You have 25 trillion red

cells and it may be when you have 15 trillion left to do the work of

the 25 that you may stop functioning as nicely. Or it may be that

the 25 trillion in large percentages are already parasitized and

incapable of performing there functions.(malaria sickness)

You gotta look at the big picture pathogens aside- your beyond

functioning nicely because of 1.--2.--3.--4.--5.. reasons.Blood

volume, skin doesn't have any recognisable micro circulation,(you

don't sweat properly)The whole body is high in scar tissue..

Focusing on babesia treatment is a little off target. Focus fully on

the bloodvolume, dehydration, blood coagulation, antimicrobial mix

before picking out to target babaesia which is pcr positive in you

and you can't see one.I just think the big focus is skewed towards

wanting to have all the bells and whistles of a lyme patient.If lyme

is in your body and thumping your ass it's the size of a parasite

and it will leave a trail of destruction that will leave NO DOUBT in

anyones mind it's your major problem.WE really have the live cell

side like Dr. that see's these things without fail. so if you

hook up with someone that will do you a live cell test it would make

your mission more accomplishable.Go there feeling shit and get

tested start treatment get tested and just watch that load....Surely

such a proffesion- not recognised medically can cut you a deal on

several visits.

> >

> >

> > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to

find a

> > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing for a

> nice

> > > TEM micrograph.

> > >

> > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF) is

> probably

> > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in after

> the

> > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are you

there

> > to

> > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the dead

are

> > being

> > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post abx)

> >

> >

> > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they

express

> the

> > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

molecules,

> > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form, no

> > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying mitochondria or

> some

> > such thing - they should still show up.

> >

> >

> > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to where

no

> > DNA

> > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of (spirochete)

> load.

> >

> >

> > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is called

real

> > time PCR.

> >

> >

> > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia

DNA)

> and

> > I

> > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> >

> >

> > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> >

>

[Guest guest]

No, Tony, it's not off target.

As soon as I finish the book I'm working on I'm clearing out time and

space to take antimalarials and herx to high heaven.

Everything I've read convinces me babesia is the key to really bad

tickborne illness--more so than just plain lyme. In vetmed, in

friends, in acquaintances, and in my own life.

It may hide from our tests, where we're looking and the way we look,

that's different.

> > >

> > >

> > > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to

> find a

> > > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing for a

> > nice

> > > > TEM micrograph.

> > > >

> > > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF) is

> > probably

> > > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in

after

> > the

> > > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are you

> there

> > > to

> > > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the dead

> are

> > > being

> > > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post abx)

> > >

> > >

> > > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they

> express

> > the

> > > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

> molecules,

> > > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form, no

> > > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying mitochondria

or

> > some

> > > such thing - they should still show up.

> > >

> > >

> > > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to

where

> no

> > > DNA

> > > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of (spirochete)

> > load.

> > >

> > >

> > > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is called

> real

> > > time PCR.

> > >

> > >

> > > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia

> DNA)

> > and

> > > I

> > > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> > >

> > >

> > > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Jill

The reason I get on your case is your the HYPERBARIC WARRIOR.This

therapy is all about red blood cells-oxygen carrying-injury healing-

malaria parasite- (in size).You can't be benefitting so much from a

therapy as you claim unless the red cells are battered by the

trillions.You need mild anemia(borederline red cells) and 20 to 30

percent reduction in blood volume to be a hyperbaric tick chick that

wants to do a flick.

tony

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to

> > find a

> > > > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing

for a

> > > nice

> > > > > TEM micrograph.

> > > > >

> > > > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF)

is

> > > probably

> > > > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in

> after

> > > the

> > > > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are

you

> > there

> > > > to

> > > > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the

dead

> > are

> > > > being

> > > > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post

abx)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they

> > express

> > > the

> > > > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

> > molecules,

> > > > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form,

no

> > > > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying

mitochondria

> or

> > > some

> > > > such thing - they should still show up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to

> where

> > no

> > > > DNA

> > > > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of

(spirochete)

> > > load.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is

called

> > real

> > > > time PCR.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia

> > DNA)

> > > and

> > > > I

> > > > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Jill

Treating babesia has alway's been a disaster in most forums. On tick

forums they treat with artesimen(sp) for six months to no avail, on

hoslistic sites they treat with asparigus for six months and seem to

have better success. I don't think they add to there toxicity as

much.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going to

> > find a

> > > > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing

for a

> > > nice

> > > > > TEM micrograph.

> > > > >

> > > > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF)

is

> > > probably

> > > > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in

> after

> > > the

> > > > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are

you

> > there

> > > > to

> > > > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the

dead

> > are

> > > > being

> > > > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post

abx)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they

> > express

> > > the

> > > > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

> > molecules,

> > > > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their form,

no

> > > > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying

mitochondria

> or

> > > some

> > > > such thing - they should still show up.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to

> where

> > no

> > > > DNA

> > > > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of

(spirochete)

> > > load.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is

called

> > real

> > > > time PCR.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found borellia

> > DNA)

> > > and

> > > > I

> > > > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know what their cut off dilutions are for low, medium or

high load - Nor do I know what my score or dilution was.

And yes- all my tests have been on serum (not whole blood).

Barb

> >

> > :

> >

> > PCR isn't looking for the proteins expressed by the bug- it looks

> for

> > the bugs DNA sequences.

> >

> > My PCR was done by MDL labs in NJ in 2002.

> >

> > Real time PCR is supposed to be the best. It's a streamlined QC

PCR

> > her's a site for you:

> >

> > http://web.ncifcrf.gov/rtp/gel/rtqpcr/WhatIs.asp

> >

> >

> > Barb

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hey...I haven't gone for babesia smear #2 yet. What do you recommend

I ask her to look for otherwise? I remember we discussed this before.

Holly jolleys, whatever...I coiuld email and ask her to look for

other stuff too.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going

to

> > > find a

> > > > > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing

> for a

> > > > nice

> > > > > > TEM micrograph.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF)

> is

> > > > probably

> > > > > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in

> > after

> > > > the

> > > > > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are

> you

> > > there

> > > > > to

> > > > > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the

> dead

> > > are

> > > > > being

> > > > > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post

> abx)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they

> > > express

> > > > the

> > > > > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

> > > molecules,

> > > > > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their

form,

> no

> > > > > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying

> mitochondria

> > or

> > > > some

> > > > > such thing - they should still show up.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to

> > where

> > > no

> > > > > DNA

> > > > > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of

> (spirochete)

> > > > load.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is

> called

> > > real

> > > > > time PCR.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found

borellia

> > > DNA)

> > > > and

> > > > > I

> > > > > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You crack me up sometimes. Treat with asparagus. This is the kind of

humor I must put up with from folks who are the descendants of

escaped convicts -ggggg.

You're right. I looked at all the literature and I'm sure Barb could

speak to this too. Its very frustrating that there are very few good

drugs for babesia and very few studies to see what would be most

effective. The few that there are, are vetmed literature, and they

seem to indicate recrudescence with all available drugs--

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't going

to

> > > find a

> > > > > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached - posing

> for a

> > > > nice

> > > > > > TEM micrograph.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or CSF)

> is

> > > > probably

> > > > > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming in

> > after

> > > > the

> > > > > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely are

> you

> > > there

> > > > > to

> > > > > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the

> dead

> > > are

> > > > > being

> > > > > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood post

> abx)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and they

> > > express

> > > > the

> > > > > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

> > > molecules,

> > > > > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their

form,

> no

> > > > > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying

> mitochondria

> > or

> > > > some

> > > > > such thing - they should still show up.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down to

> > where

> > > no

> > > > > DNA

> > > > > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of

> (spirochete)

> > > > load.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is

> called

> > > real

> > > > > time PCR.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found

borellia

> > > DNA)

> > > > and

> > > > > I

> > > > > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Jill

I'm originally from detroit.

tony

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > The answer might be that in Vivo, you just aren't

going

> to

> > > > find a

> > > > > > > classical spriochete, with antibodies attached -

posing

> > for a

> > > > > nice

> > > > > > > TEM micrograph.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The snapshot of the sample ( be it blood, tissue or

CSF)

> > is

> > > > > probably

> > > > > > > before or after some immune event - sorta like coming

in

> > > after

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > crime and doing a crime scene investigation. Rarely

are

> > you

> > > > there

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > > whitness the event, more likey you'll arrive while the

> > dead

> > > > are

> > > > > > being

> > > > > > > carried out. (analogy to DNA fragments in the blood

post

> > abx)

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But *if* the owners of those genomes arent dead, and

they

> > > > express

> > > > > the

> > > > > > IEM antigens, and those antigens arent blocked by host

> > > > molecules,

> > > > > > they should be observable on IEM, no matter what their

> form,

> > no

> > > > > > matter what. They could be 0.05 um CWD occupying

> > mitochondria

> > > or

> > > > > some

> > > > > > such thing - they should still show up.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Quantitative PCR goes on to do a serial dilution down

to

> > > where

> > > > no

> > > > > > DNA

> > > > > > > is left - from this a calculation can be made of

> > (spirochete)

> > > > > load.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think one way to do qtPCR doesnt involve this, and is

> > called

> > > > real

> > > > > > time PCR.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > I tested positive for Lyme by PCR (the test found

> borellia

> > > > DNA)

> > > > > and

> > > > > > I

> > > > > > > tested positive for a high spirochete load by QC PCR.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Whered you get qtPCR done? I want....

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>