Myth: "IGeneX Lyme tests are always positive"

Dr. David Marz, the MD who had been diagnosed with ALS but got better with antibiotics after testing positive for Lyme, tested Lyme-negative several times on the much-maligned IGeneX tests, until he used antibiotics prior to testing. No Lyme test has no false negatives, but it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a false positive. Testing positive means that it is an absolute fact that living Borrelia spirochetes have once found their way into the bloodstream. And as long as it is not proven that they are fully eradicated from the CNS - something exceedingly hard to do since there is no reliable test to date that can exclude neuroborreliosis - it has to be assumed that a case of ALS could be a Lyme symptom. There are countless examples of people testing Lyme-negative on IGeneX tests.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

IGeneX stance is that Lyme testing according to the deliberately limited "Dearborn" criteria finds only 8% of Lyme infections. IGeneX's explanation :[15]

IGeneXThe problem with "ordinary" Lyme tests is that they have been made so insensitive that they are worse than useless. Western Blot tests are usually specific to the B31 strain of Borrelia only, while there are many other strains. And they do not look for band 22, 23, 25, 31 and 34, even though those bands have been patented as the most specific bands for Borrelia.

Therefore, the very best Lyme tests that are commonly used suffer from 69% false negatives, and that is best-case. with ALS patients, that figure may well be much higher, because of documented OSP variation in the brain - an immune-privilleged site. Meaning, there are no IgM antibodies and very little IgG antibodies circulating any more, months or years after infection, but an active infection is firmly established in the CNS. A PCR of cerebrospinal fluid usually turns out negative as well, because spirochetes avoid this fluid like the plague, as Dr. Øystein Brorson has shown.

Tom Grier is a Microbiologist at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Duluth, Minnesota, USA. He explained why Lyme tests are notoriously unreliable - even less reliable than tossing a coin. [16] Dr. Grier wrote in even much deeper detail [17] about the deep inherent flaws of Lyme testing.

14 (search for "I tested negative by Igenex")

Copyright violations result in a DMCA to the host + invoice with our content licensing fee.

1.  Tony Mach    Wednesday, October 31, 2012

"No Lyme test has no false negatives, but it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a false positive."

Every test has false positives. Each and every one.

Every, period.

Even the very good HIV tests currently in use have false positives. That's why you get tested by a second (different) test if the first HIV test is positive.

Saying things like "there are no false positives" is a major disservice to anybody having fallen ill with such a disease. You give people a false certainty in lab results, which is especially galling when these people might have something different.

2.  Sarah Vaughter    Wednesday, October 31, 2012

I diasagree with your assertion that all tests have a significant amount of false positives. PCR tests have a very small percentage of false positives, basically only when contamination with rogue nucleic acids have occurred. That is due to methodological errors, not due to inherent flaws in the test itself.

A positive PCR for a correctly performed Bb DNA means that Bb DNA is present in the patient, and that means active infection, period.

Since your comment is obviously an attempt at disinformation, I did some research into your person and discovered that you are a "chronic Lyme denier":

parakoch [dot]

You do not understand basic principles of science, such as evolution. Example: In the posting below, you deny that bacteria have evolved mechanisms to counteract the actions mounted against them by immune systems, and you use dishonest discussion tricks to make your point:

parakoch [dot]

I intentionally broke the links, such as not to give you a higher search engine ranking for your agenda-based tripe. By lumping in real LLMDs with quacks and peer-reviewed research findings with voodoo junk, you have squandered your credibility and lost the benefit of the doubt.

When responding to another comment, please mention its number.
Comments need to be approved. Check updates to this page with F5.
We reject comments with profanity, sloppy writing, suspected SPAM,
requests for medical treatment advice, customer support issues or
criticism to the article without using logical, scientific arguments.


After Saturday comes?