What if I'm not THAT sick...?

[Dufresne]

I am being treated specifically for Bartonella, based upon the marks and being positive for Lyme as a co-infection.

That's good to hear. For what it's worth Stephen Buhner claims "sida acuta really turns bartonella around." Although my antimicrobial strategy is built around drugs, I use some herbs to strengthen the protocol. Sida acuta is indeed a good herb for blood pathogens. And most LLMD's seem to be arriving at the conclusion that both drugs and herbs are necessary for a good outcome.

 

[KimmyB]

The two are not connected. You have 3 billion SNPs, and there is no reason at all to single out a CBS SNP to blame for symptoms anymore than any other SNP. The research shows no correlation. But that doesn't mean that you don't have a set of symptoms which Yasko has chosen to randomly blame upon CBS.

So... in other words... Yasko and Lynch are just peddling their wares?!

But what about the people who have followed the Yasko/Lynch protocols (or Freddd or whoever else) based on their 23andMe results, and have found better health?

Does this mean you disagree with the notion of addressing the CBS mutation before you're able to address the MTHFR mutations? (Or are you saying there's no point in addressing mutations at all?)

I'm so confused!

And raised homocysteine might also result if successful in slowing down CBS, which is associated with increased risk of many serious diseases, firmly established in a great deal of published research.

My Homocysteine is very, very, very low. It's at a 4, well below the lab range for normal. I've read in a few places how this is connected -- again -- to the CBS. But you're saying no? Just trying to understand. I'm lost!

 

[Valentijn]

So... in other words... Yasko and Lynch are just peddling their wares?!

That very much seems to be the case for Yasko, based on the complicated and protracted regimens for which she sells a lot of expensive supplements. Lynch might just be blindly repeating Yasko's claims - this seems to be a very prevalent problem both with patients and practitioners.

But what about the people who have followed the Yasko/Lynch protocols (or Freddd or whoever else) based on their 23andMe results, and have found better health?

Freddd's protocol has nothing at all to do with 23andMe or Yasko. There's also no way to know how many have been helped by Yasko's protocols, because she doesn't bother to publish anything. Is it any better than placebo? How many have experiences which contradict the expectations of her protocol? We don't know.

My observation here on this forum is that many people with supposed CBS +/+ have none of the problems which Yasko claims they should have. And many who are -/- do seem to have sulfur issues. This suggests that CBS is indeed not connected to problems.

But because 50% of the population is +/+ or +/- for C699T and 35% for A360A, nearly everyone is going to "fail" the test and have a variation which supposedly requires treatment. And some of those really might benefit from a lower sulfur diet for reasons completely unrelated to CBS, and some might simply experience a placebo effect or assume it must be helping even if they don't notice any changes.

Does this mean you disagree with the notion of addressing the CBS mutation before you're able to address the MTHFR mutations? (Or are you saying there's no point in addressing mutations at all?)

There are no CBS variations on the Yasko list which require any treatment, because there is research showing that they have very little or no impact at all. Some people might feel better if they avoid sulfur, but it has nothing to do with their 23andMe results.

My Homocysteine is very, very, very low. It's at a 4, well below the lab range for normal. I've read in a few places how this is connected -- again -- to the CBS. But you're saying no? Just trying to understand. I'm lost!

No, it's not due to CBS variations. It might possibly be due to other factors which speed up the functioning of the enzyme produced by the CBS gene, but that is purely speculation. More likely is that it doesn't involve CBS at all.

 

[anniekim]

The LTT Elispot has been assessed for accuracy, so the both the rates of false negatives and false positives is known, and look quite good thus far. The results were published, however the authors are also the people who run the lab which uses the test.

@Valentijn do you have details of results for the accuracy of the LTT elispot for Lyme. I had one borderline western blot igm band for Lyme, 23 ospc, and a negative elispot. Never sure what to make of those results. If I were to do a antibiotic challenge test do you know what the dosage for doxycline should be? Many thanks in advance

 

[Valentijn]

@Valentijn do you have details of results for the accuracy of the LTT elispot for Lyme. I had one borderline western blot igm band for Lyme, 23 ospc, and a negative elispot. Never sure what to make of those results. If I were to do a antibiotic challenge test do you know what the dosage for doxycline should be? Many thanks in advance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474945/ has the data summarized in Table 1. I don't know anything about antibiotic challenge tests.

 

[KimmyB]

Hey gang! Guess what: I HAVE LYME. I got the IGeneX test back and I'm overwhelmingly positive for Lyme, but not the co-infections (though I know that you can still have the co-infections but test negative for them).

Just figured I would update the thread, given that my original question asked if I'm too healthy to have Lyme. Turns out, I am NOT too healthy. Quite the opposite.

 

[GcMAF Australia]

Hey gang! Guess what: I HAVE LYME. I got the IGeneX test back and I'm overwhelmingly positive for Lyme, but not the co-infections (though I know that you can still have the co-infections but test negative for them).

Just figured I would update the thread, given that my original question asked if I'm too healthy to have Lyme. Turns out, I am NOT too healthy. Quite the opposite.

Around 3-10% of so called healthy people have exposure to Lyme
This probably nears 100% in a lot of ill groups such as so called "MS, Alzheimer's etc etc" probably at least some cancers
A bulls eye occurs in a only a percentage of people.
You are lucky to get a diagnosis as most dont, but are stuffed around by the medical systems