-
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Bartonella in Blood Donors - Study
- Thread starter justy
- Start date
TBD's in blood banks is potentially a big deal.
I'm not quite sure how diagnostics for Bartonella are perceived, however.
For instance, if you test positive for Bb antibodies it may or may not be significant, depending on whether you have received any sort of treatment anytime post diagnosis. So you may have a raging case of unresolved Lyme because you received inadequate treatment, but by virtue of that fact - that you received treatment - a clinician could declare you Lyme free. Even if you come up PCR positive - not an easy thing to do outside of acute cases - the findings can be dismissed as remnants.
Same for Babesia, except most don't receive treatment just on the strength of positive antibody tests. A lab also has to be able to isolate the little savages in a blood smear, and that can be devilishly difficult to do the farther out from an acute infection one gets. So, there is the potential for individuals to test positive for Babesia antibodies, and in fact have an active infection, yet never receive treatment.
So I'm not clear on how that works for Bartonella. Will these positive antibody findings and PCR findings equate to declarations that that blood supply is infected with Bartonella like this study would seem to be warning? Or will an ID person come along and say the findings are likely not as ominous since the metrics were only capturing debris from old resolved infections? The politics and publicity associated with policing the blood bank may ensure that proper concern and action results.
Either way, I suspect the risk to the blood band as an issue will garner more attention in some quarters than the corresponding risk to the general population contracting the disease through a natural vector like a tick.
Incidentally, I have tested positive for both Bartonella and Babesia antibodies and have never been given the green light to receive treatment.
I'm not quite sure how diagnostics for Bartonella are perceived, however.
For instance, if you test positive for Bb antibodies it may or may not be significant, depending on whether you have received any sort of treatment anytime post diagnosis. So you may have a raging case of unresolved Lyme because you received inadequate treatment, but by virtue of that fact - that you received treatment - a clinician could declare you Lyme free. Even if you come up PCR positive - not an easy thing to do outside of acute cases - the findings can be dismissed as remnants.
Same for Babesia, except most don't receive treatment just on the strength of positive antibody tests. A lab also has to be able to isolate the little savages in a blood smear, and that can be devilishly difficult to do the farther out from an acute infection one gets. So, there is the potential for individuals to test positive for Babesia antibodies, and in fact have an active infection, yet never receive treatment.
So I'm not clear on how that works for Bartonella. Will these positive antibody findings and PCR findings equate to declarations that that blood supply is infected with Bartonella like this study would seem to be warning? Or will an ID person come along and say the findings are likely not as ominous since the metrics were only capturing debris from old resolved infections? The politics and publicity associated with policing the blood bank may ensure that proper concern and action results.
Either way, I suspect the risk to the blood band as an issue will garner more attention in some quarters than the corresponding risk to the general population contracting the disease through a natural vector like a tick.
Incidentally, I have tested positive for both Bartonella and Babesia antibodies and have never been given the green light to receive treatment.
This is exactly what an immunologist, rheumatologist and pulmonary consultant told me about my Bart and Cpn positive tests from abroad. In fact the pulmonary specialist went one further and claimed I had never had pneumonia - he claims a lot of people are able to pick up antibodies to Cpn without being ill at all. Funny though that I had symptoms of unresolved pneumonia and then pleurisy that lasted for 10 months and included coughing up large amounts of brown mucous daily and on occasion large globs of bright red blood. I had to sleep sitting up for nearly a year and yet because I have an M.E diagnosis my NHS consultant thinks my pneumonia and lung infections where 'all in my head' and that when they resolve with antibiotics it is 'because of the placebo' - honestly you couldn't make this shit up.
Yeah, that's just wickedly wrong.
If an industry is going to employ tests - embrace those tests are useful tools - then clinicians shouldn't get to disregard the results whimsically.
Now, if the tests are inadequate, then that should be promoted heavily, and diagnoses should be primarily clinically based. The problem with that is that most clinicians are clueless when it comes to TBDs, many times just knowing enough to get themselves and their patients into bad situations. An alternative reality can be if you do manage to land a savvy physician who turns out to be morally challenged and willing to fleece patients (fortunately, I believe these are the exceptions rather than the rule). But both situations are terribly dangerous for the patient.
The way it stands now, in the world of TBDs, diagnostics are a roll of the dice, and clinical diagnoses are either largely extensions of medical politics, are a mercenary exercise.
If an industry is going to employ tests - embrace those tests are useful tools - then clinicians shouldn't get to disregard the results whimsically.
Now, if the tests are inadequate, then that should be promoted heavily, and diagnoses should be primarily clinically based. The problem with that is that most clinicians are clueless when it comes to TBDs, many times just knowing enough to get themselves and their patients into bad situations. An alternative reality can be if you do manage to land a savvy physician who turns out to be morally challenged and willing to fleece patients (fortunately, I believe these are the exceptions rather than the rule). But both situations are terribly dangerous for the patient.
The way it stands now, in the world of TBDs, diagnostics are a roll of the dice, and clinical diagnoses are either largely extensions of medical politics, are a mercenary exercise.
Last edited: