• 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.

Search results

  1. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    I continued to research this. I have spoken with several ILADS physicians -- and there appears to be NO reasonable explanation for this high false positive rate. It is ludicrous to believe that nearly 60% of the normal, healthy population in upstate NY (where the controls were supposedly...
  2. cyclist

    Tickplex a new test for Lyme and Co-infection

    Ceres Nano is also using nanotechnology for their new lyme test which is looking for outer surface protein A (ospA). http://www.ceresnano.com/ Seems interesting. All these labs say they're reliable - hard to know who to believe.
  3. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    Just found this link on another PR thread, that talks about the Fallon study. Video: http://globalnews.ca/video/2098060/explaining-the-mysteries-of-lyme-disease
  4. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    It appears the Band 31 confirmation test is not new, and has been around since 2008. http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5684&sid=d2c18fe851b5054339d74ec9f70ac511&start=10 http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5794 And "LymeorSomething" also posted about...
  5. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @TrixieStix, These are great links, thank you for sharing! I also think the truth is somewhere in between. But it's nearly impossible to find balanced commentary and objective, critical thinking on the matter.
  6. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @Belbyr - I appreciate your reporting back. And I'm sorry they weren't more helpful...
  7. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    But, I suppose that Chronic Diseases International is a step up from the only other time Igenex has "published" their test sensitivity (in 2007)-- in the Townsend Letter...
  8. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    The "science" that you're referring to wasn't even published in a journal that is indexed by PubMed. In order for a journal to be included, it needs to meet PMC's scientific quality standard. Why can't Igenex publish in a real journal?!
  9. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    I've already called them and they were not helpful at all - in fact, downright rude. I've had it with the "history" - if this is "old news" to you, then move on to another thread.
  10. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    Great! Can you ask exactly what the changes are, and when they happened? From the article posted by @TrixieStix - it seems it's based on the band 31 confirmation testing and interpretation changes for Band 83-93...but I'm not sure. Would be so great if you could report back!
  11. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    "Arguably" - key word. And it appears to be highly argued. And, if Igenex changed their criteria or methodology to reduce their false positives, then they should use their new methods (whatever that is ?!??) to calculate the new positivity rate (a positivity rate, not a sensitivity rate)...
  12. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    That is one of many! And because patients have already been treated, and their are multiple plausible explanations for persistent symptoms, this study can not infer sensitivity. This is explicitly stated in the paper. So the statement you're referencing - is false. Period.
  13. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    Thanks for this links! I agree. I was told that nearly the entire population has been exposed to Epstein Bar Virus by the time they reach adulthood, and yet only subset of folks actually get Mono. I have IgG for EBV but never had mono either.
  14. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    This is unequivocally false. The Fallon study was NOT designed to infer sensitivity -- and the authors specifically state this. The Lyme patients have already been treated with antibiotic therapy, some having extended courses, and there are several plausible theories for ongoing symptoms...
  15. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @duncan - To repeat, this post is about the Brian Fallon's study, Igenex and the false positive rate found in the study. Specificity can be tested, and measured. It is science -- statistics! I am not interested in the marketing, competition dynamics, politics, or conspiracy theories. There...
  16. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    How do you explain how Igenex markets a greater than 97% specificity and Fallon found a 42.5 % specificity (i.e. 57.5 %false positives). I don't think it's a leap, it's the next logical thought.
  17. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    Stonybrook and MDL also report 31 and 34. At this point, their use of 2 strains is great self-marketing. It's unclear if their "unique methods" are really beneficial. Maybe it's a contributing factor to the horrible specificity found in Fallon's study.
  18. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @Valentijn - In the publication, the authors describe Lab B to have an in-house WB using 2 different strains and the exact interpretation criteria that Igenex uses. Further, Igenex responded to the article in the pubmed commons sections. If you haven't seen this, it can be found underneath the...
  19. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @TrixieStix - THANK YOU so much for sharing. I haven't seen it, and haven't found any discussions on the Fallon study. I will read tonight when I have some extended time. Really appreciate your finding this!!
  20. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @duncan - The Igenex response on Pubmed was dated Nov 2015 - a little over a year ago. This is not my definition of "old news." I agree and wish the sample size were larger too. However, as I mentioned previously, 40 subjects is decent, and there is no evidence to suggest any sampling or...
  21. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @valentinelynx - I responded, see post #22.
  22. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @TrixieStix - It's most certainly possible that in response to the Fallon study, they have changed their interpretation criteria and/or methodology -- to reduce these false positives. If I were Brian Fallon and found this in one of my studies, I would send it straight to the regulatory agencies...
  23. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @duncan - I'm afraid I disagree. Igenex has been purporting very high specificity rates -- and the Brian Fallon study blows that out of the water. This post is about the Brian Fallon study, and their findings of an outrageously high false positive result from Igenex. This is not a post...
  24. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @Esther12 - thank you for that article, I will most certainly take a look! And thanks for the kind words, I most certainly feel misled.
  25. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    I wonder the same. I also wonder if these findings have been replicated by other research groups. I hope other members have insight...
  26. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @Belbyr I agree! And the fact that they're even retesting at all - is an inappropriate response. They can retest all they want after the fact, it doesn't change what the actual results of the study are...it doesn't take back the false positives for the 23 healthy volunteers at the time of...
  27. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @TrixieStix , I was not aware of that article, thank you for posting! This is exactly the type of information I was hoping to glean from this post. I will read it tonight with great interest. However, at this point, I will also view anything coming out of Igenex with skepticism. Prior to the...
  28. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @Daffodil - I have also read that late stage/chronic lyme patients have impaired antibody production which may make testing antibody response more challenging. However, my understanding is that this has no bearing on FALSE POSITIVES, which is the concern being presented in this thread. Yes...
  29. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    Don't even know where to begin! I appreciate all the interest in the thread and all those who have taken time to participate! I will try to respond to as many as I can now (and more later if I don't get it). I must first learn how to reply w/ multiquote (appreciate your patience!).
  30. cyclist

    Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!

    @Helen - yes, this is very concerning as most ILADS doctors in the US are ordering Igenex testing. Thank you for the links regarding tickplex. I will most definitely look into this! @Belbyr - if you click through the pubmed link and then open the article in PDF, it's easiest to read the...