Re: How to see Borrelia Bergdoferi using a microscope

[Guest guest]

> For all you DIYs

> Regards

> Windsor

>

> http://www.lyme-diagnosis.org.uk/

Lord, I wish that level of cash would do it. I'd be doing this in an

instant. Unfortunately these bodies cant be ID'd, and could be derived

from red cell membranes etc. I've run across claims that these do not

appear, and contrary claims that they often DO appear, in healthy

controls - but I havent seen a large data set either way. They cant be

concluded to be microbial based on what we see here; if they are I dont

know how we know they arent contaminants. It takes some hours for them

to appear, I hear, which is plenty of time for a few contaminating

microbes to multiply greatly.

Fluorescent antibody against Bb would go a long way towards determining

whether these are Bb; fluorescin-conjugated murimidase would probably

be very helpful in determining whether they are bacterial at all. I

wish I could get a fluorescence scope. Damn, do I wish. But they cost a

pretty penny. Thats what the Bowen test is using. But I've not seen

anything from Bowen about whether what theyre seeing is also found in

healthy controls, or is reduced in improved patients, etc. Thats too

bad.

[Guest guest]

Dear

You are spot on , of course.

The problem appears to be that no one has set up the whole gamut of testing

on a reference population, and then gone back and analysed the test

differences in the light of individual biochemical differences in the

patient ( perhaps correlated with disease stage)

I grew up in the area of Australia now known to be the focal point of tick

borne infections. Had my first tick nearly 50 years ago, can trace my

downhill progress from that point. Tested equivocal to Borellia in the

early days when burgdorferi antigens were the only ones testable. Now clear

but don't believe one bit of it

Regards

Windsor

[infections] Re: How to see Borrelia Bergdoferi

using a microscope

>

> > For all you DIYs

> > Regards

> > Windsor

> >

> > http://www.lyme-diagnosis.org.uk/

>

> Lord, I wish that level of cash would do it. I'd be doing this in an

> instant. Unfortunately these bodies cant be ID'd, and could be derived

> from red cell membranes etc. I've run across claims that these do not

> appear, and contrary claims that they often DO appear, in healthy

> controls - but I havent seen a large data set either way. They cant be

> concluded to be microbial based on what we see here; if they are I dont

> know how we know they arent contaminants. It takes some hours for them

> to appear, I hear, which is plenty of time for a few contaminating

> microbes to multiply greatly.

>

> Fluorescent antibody against Bb would go a long way towards determining

> whether these are Bb; fluorescin-conjugated murimidase would probably

> be very helpful in determining whether they are bacterial at all. I

> wish I could get a fluorescence scope. Damn, do I wish. But they cost a

> pretty penny. Thats what the Bowen test is using. But I've not seen

> anything from Bowen about whether what theyre seeing is also found in

> healthy controls, or is reduced in improved patients, etc. Thats too

> bad.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bela Bozsik is using a flourescent monoclonal antibodies to detect

borrelia. He spoke at the Tick-bourne Diseases conference in

Sheffield, UK, last June. AW says that his patients are testing

positive with Bozsik's technique. That's not conclusive proof that

what he's seeng is borrelia but is highly suggestive. I have no idea

whether healthy controls have been tested.

Sue

> Lord, I wish that level of cash would do it. I'd be doing this in an

> instant. Unfortunately these bodies cant be ID'd, and could be

> derived from red cell membranes etc. I've run across claims that

> these do not appear, and contrary claims that they often DO appear,

> in healthy controls - but I havent seen a large data set either way.

> They cant be concluded to be microbial based on what we see here; if

> they are I dont know how we know they arent contaminants. It takes

> some hours for them to appear, I hear, which is plenty of time for a

> few contaminating microbes to multiply greatly.

>

> Fluorescent antibody against Bb would go a long way towards determining

> whether these are Bb; fluorescin-conjugated murimidase would probably

> be very helpful in determining whether they are bacterial at all. I

> wish I could get a fluorescence scope. Damn, do I wish. But they cost a

> pretty penny. Thats what the Bowen test is using. But I've not seen

> anything from Bowen about whether what theyre seeing is also found in

> healthy controls, or is reduced in improved patients, etc. Thats too

> bad.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info ,I just google Bela Bozsik & came up with this ..some

useful info on combination therapy..

http://www.lymediseaseaction.org.uk/conf2005/bozsik2/bozsik_sat.html

[infections] Re: How to see Borrelia Bergdoferi

using a microscope

Bela Bozsik is using a flourescent monoclonal antibodies to detect

borrelia. He spoke at the Tick-bourne Diseases conference in

Sheffield, UK, last June. AW says that his patients are testing

positive with Bozsik's technique. That's not conclusive proof that

what he's seeng is borrelia but is highly suggestive. I have no idea

whether healthy controls have been tested.

Sue

> Lord, I wish that level of cash would do it. I'd be doing this in an

> instant. Unfortunately these bodies cant be ID'd, and could be

> derived from red cell membranes etc. I've run across claims that

> these do not appear, and contrary claims that they often DO appear,

> in healthy controls - but I havent seen a large data set either way.

> They cant be concluded to be microbial based on what we see here; if

> they are I dont know how we know they arent contaminants. It takes

> some hours for them to appear, I hear, which is plenty of time for a

> few contaminating microbes to multiply greatly.

>

> Fluorescent antibody against Bb would go a long way towards determining

> whether these are Bb; fluorescin-conjugated murimidase would probably

> be very helpful in determining whether they are bacterial at all. I

> wish I could get a fluorescence scope. Damn, do I wish. But they cost a

> pretty penny. Thats what the Bowen test is using. But I've not seen

> anything from Bowen about whether what theyre seeing is also found in

> healthy controls, or is reduced in improved patients, etc. Thats too

> bad.

>

[Guest guest]

I think thats roughly as close to proof as you can get. I guess

robust cross-reaction of specific antibody can happen, but a great

deal of molecular biology is based on the notion that its very rare.

For example, antibody-specificity-based assays like western blots and

ELISAs are used not only for diagnosis, but also for various sorts of

scientific investigations all over medical and non-medical biology.

I just wish we could get the research establishment interested in

this.

" tensevern " <tensevern@...> wrote:

>

> Bela Bozsik is using a flourescent monoclonal antibodies to detect

> borrelia. He spoke at the Tick-bourne Diseases conference in

> Sheffield, UK, last June. AW says that his patients are testing

> positive with Bozsik's technique. That's not conclusive proof that

> what he's seeng is borrelia but is highly suggestive. I have no idea

> whether healthy controls have been tested.

>

> Sue

>

>

> > Lord, I wish that level of cash would do it. I'd be doing this in

an

> > instant. Unfortunately these bodies cant be ID'd, and could be

> > derived from red cell membranes etc. I've run across claims that

> > these do not appear, and contrary claims that they often DO

appear,

> > in healthy controls - but I havent seen a large data set either

way.

> > They cant be concluded to be microbial based on what we see here;

if

> > they are I dont know how we know they arent contaminants. It

takes

> > some hours for them to appear, I hear, which is plenty of time

for a

> > few contaminating microbes to multiply greatly.

> >

> > Fluorescent antibody against Bb would go a long way towards

determining

> > whether these are Bb; fluorescin-conjugated murimidase would

probably

> > be very helpful in determining whether they are bacterial at all.

I

> > wish I could get a fluorescence scope. Damn, do I wish. But they

cost a

> > pretty penny. Thats what the Bowen test is using. But I've not

seen

> > anything from Bowen about whether what theyre seeing is also

found in

> > healthy controls, or is reduced in improved patients, etc. Thats

too

> > bad.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I just watched Dr Gows DVD. It seems his approach is very thorough.

He started with a gene chip. Many groups studying gene expression

stop there. But he also is using RT-PCR and western blots to confirm

the numbers on genes whose expression is substantially different in

CFS.

Furthermore, to make sure the antibody isnt binding cross-reactively

in the western blots, he has been recovering the proteins to send

them in for mass spectroscopy, which can identify them definitevely.

This is one example of a person not being satisfied to rest on the

specificity of the antibody in a western blot; instead he takes a

further measure. But I have seen many other cases where people

publish western blot data without mass spec to confirm it.

Im totally impressed with what Gow is doing, tho it remains

preliminary so far.

" " <usenethod@...> wrote:

>

> I think thats roughly as close to proof as you can get. I guess

> robust cross-reaction of specific antibody can happen, but a great

> deal of molecular biology is based on the notion that its very

rare.

> For example, antibody-specificity-based assays like western blots

and

> ELISAs are used not only for diagnosis, but also for various sorts

of

> scientific investigations all over medical and non-medical biology.

>

> I just wish we could get the research establishment interested in

> this.

>

>

> " tensevern " <tensevern@> wrote:

> >

> > Bela Bozsik is using a flourescent monoclonal antibodies to detect

> > borrelia. He spoke at the Tick-bourne Diseases conference in

> > Sheffield, UK, last June. AW says that his patients are testing

> > positive with Bozsik's technique. That's not conclusive proof

that

> > what he's seeng is borrelia but is highly suggestive. I have no

idea

> > whether healthy controls have been tested.

> >

> > Sue