Study finds Igenex has a 57.5% FALSE positive rate - I'm horrified!
- Thread starter cyclist
- Start date
@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 testing.
And then this... "when using revised interpretation criteria and recombinant antigen WB, demonstrates a specificity of 91.7%" -- Are they now using revised criteria? Are they now using recombinant antigen WB (a new method) for doing the WB? Was this done just for retesting? Is this the new Igenex standard? And even if they some how get down to only 2 false positives, what denominator are they using to get a 91.7% specificity. It's not 37. This paragraph is incomprehensible. It is the crux of the response, it should be spelled out clearly. Are they being intentionally vague?! Besides the fact that the rest of their response is ridiculous, more self aggrandizement and marketing. I can go on and on. It's disturbing.
By the way, I'm sorry to read about your experience. And how interesting that you witnessed first hand, healthy people testing positive thru igenex. I actually want to send me healthy neighbor for testing to see what comes back! But, I'll be damned if I give Igenex another dime.
@Valentijn - Unfortuntately, the Lab Specialty B is definitely Igenex. When going through the article, they describe the testing that Lab Specialty B does and it matches exactly to Igenex. Further, Igenex responded to this. Igenex is not responding to false positive put out by another lab...it's their lab. And hope the above answers your question on my opinion of the igenex response.
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 testing.
And then this... "when using revised interpretation criteria and recombinant antigen WB, demonstrates a specificity of 91.7%" -- Are they now using revised criteria? Are they now using recombinant antigen WB (a new method) for doing the WB? Was this done just for retesting? Is this the new Igenex standard? And even if they some how get down to only 2 false positives, what denominator are they using to get a 91.7% specificity. It's not 37. This paragraph is incomprehensible. It is the crux of the response, it should be spelled out clearly. Are they being intentionally vague?! Besides the fact that the rest of their response is ridiculous, more self aggrandizement and marketing. I can go on and on. It's disturbing.
By the way, I'm sorry to read about your experience. And how interesting that you witnessed first hand, healthy people testing positive thru igenex. I actually want to send me healthy neighbor for testing to see what comes back! But, I'll be damned if I give Igenex another dime.
@Valentijn - Unfortuntately, the Lab Specialty B is definitely Igenex. When going through the article, they describe the testing that Lab Specialty B does and it matches exactly to Igenex. Further, Igenex responded to this. Igenex is not responding to false positive put out by another lab...it's their lab. And hope the above answers your question on my opinion of the igenex response.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 539
- Likes
- 899
Is it possible the false positives via Igenex in the healthy controls was due to the fact that Igenex's old criteria allowed for an "Igenex positive" test with only bands that are known to cross-react with common antibodies that the healthy controls likely did have like EBV? And thus when Igenex changed their criteria a person could no longer be "Igenex positive" without having Lyme specific bands??
Also in the Fallon study when they say "false positive" are they talking about Lyme specific bands showing up in the healthy controls and creating a false "CDC positive" or that the healthy controls were deemed "Igenex positive"?
Also in the Fallon study when they say "false positive" are they talking about Lyme specific bands showing up in the healthy controls and creating a false "CDC positive" or that the healthy controls were deemed "Igenex positive"?
- Messages
- 539
- Likes
- 899
my brain doesn't work well enough to read/comprehend the small in-depth details of the Fallon study or this either
http://austinpublishinggroup.com/chronic-diseases/fulltext/chronicdiseases-v1-id1009.php#
so I'm relying on others interpretations of it. Just an FYI in case my questions seem dumb
http://austinpublishinggroup.com/chronic-diseases/fulltext/chronicdiseases-v1-id1009.php#
so I'm relying on others interpretations of it. Just an FYI in case my questions seem dumb
@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 rehashing the lyme controversy or the general shortcomings of testing. Igenex has been claiming something, that now appears to be independently tested, and proven false. I most certainly feel misled.
This is not about market competition, it's about science. The specificity rate of a diagnostic can be tested and calculated. And whether it was tested correctly, calculated correctly, and advertised correctly by Igenex -- is what this post is about.
That's fine, but if they are misrepresenting the specificity of their testing, it's a major problem.
Both Stonybrook and MDL will report out a 31 band.
If in fact Brian Fallon's results are true, and that half of the normal healthy population will test positive for Lyme through Igenex, then this far outweighs any "appealing elements" - imo.
This is not about market competition, it's about science. The specificity rate of a diagnostic can be tested and calculated. And whether it was tested correctly, calculated correctly, and advertised correctly by Igenex -- is what this post is about.
That's fine, but if they are misrepresenting the specificity of their testing, it's a major problem.
Both Stonybrook and MDL will report out a 31 band.
If in fact Brian Fallon's results are true, and that half of the normal healthy population will test positive for Lyme through Igenex, then this far outweighs any "appealing elements" - imo.
Last edited:
@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 for investigation. Given what Igenex was claiming, to find these results among medically healthy controls, is absolutely outrageous (imho).
Unfortunately, the Igenex response is so cryptic, it's hard to know what's going on. Hopefully, they've improved their testing, out of good will, or fear of a regulatory investigations. (Whatever it takes!)
And I'm hoping other PR members may have additional information to share on this subject, particularly, what (if any) changes Igenex has made....which can put all of our minds at ease.
To address your second question, Table 2 shows multiple rows. For example, the 23/40 (57.5%) false positive rate is for the WB IgM or WB IgG (laboratory criteria). For WB IgM or WB IgG (CDC criteria), the Igenex false positive rate is 10/40 (25%). And for just WB IgM (CDC criteria), the Igenex false positive rate is 8/40 (20%). There is a row for each, including the Elisa and also 2-tier testing schemes.
Igenex isn't the only lab shown either. There are 4 columns, one for each lab. Hope this helps!
Unfortunately, the Igenex response is so cryptic, it's hard to know what's going on. Hopefully, they've improved their testing, out of good will, or fear of a regulatory investigations. (Whatever it takes!)
And I'm hoping other PR members may have additional information to share on this subject, particularly, what (if any) changes Igenex has made....which can put all of our minds at ease.
To address your second question, Table 2 shows multiple rows. For example, the 23/40 (57.5%) false positive rate is for the WB IgM or WB IgG (laboratory criteria). For WB IgM or WB IgG (CDC criteria), the Igenex false positive rate is 10/40 (25%). And for just WB IgM (CDC criteria), the Igenex false positive rate is 8/40 (20%). There is a row for each, including the Elisa and also 2-tier testing schemes.
Igenex isn't the only lab shown either. There are 4 columns, one for each lab. Hope this helps!
Last edited:
Hey, folks, why are people ignoring @Valentijn's comment?
This seems to me to make the entire anti-Igenex argument being promulgated here moot. Unless someone knows for sure that @Valentijn is incorrect? (Which she generally isn't...)
This seems to me to make the entire anti-Igenex argument being promulgated here moot. Unless someone knows for sure that @Valentijn is incorrect? (Which she generally isn't...)
@valentinelynx - I responded, see post #22.
Regardless of whether one wants to defend or support Fallon's results, this is old news, and your usage of tense appears to be in error. This is from 2014, and IgeneX reportedly retooled their protocol. Why disinter old news? Have I missed something?
Science, yes, but I would disagree with your declaration that it's not about market competition. See @barbc56 comment.
That's quite a leap from one dated study with a small sample size.
If Im not mistaken, IgeneX reports both bands omitted from the conventional WB due to the Lymerix vaccine, i.e. bands 31 and 34. Moreover, it measures against TWO stains, B31 and 297. This is getting more data into the hands of the patients. This is a good thing for many people.
BIG "if". And pretty much irrelevant if in fact IgeneX recalibrated its protocol.
Science, yes, but I would disagree with your declaration that it's not about market competition. See @barbc56 comment.
That's quite a leap from one dated study with a small sample size.
If Im not mistaken, IgeneX reports both bands omitted from the conventional WB due to the Lymerix vaccine, i.e. bands 31 and 34. Moreover, it measures against TWO stains, B31 and 297. This is getting more data into the hands of the patients. This is a good thing for many people.
BIG "if". And pretty much irrelevant if in fact IgeneX recalibrated its protocol.
Last edited:
@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 selection bias. Testing healthy volunteers is not rocket science. And when the Igenex results are returned, there is a paper trail. The results of the study ARE true, unless someone has a reason to believe otherwise?!
And most importantly, @duncan - If you know that igenex has retooled their protocol -- I would love more information. What changes were implemented and when exactly did this occur? Would greatly appreciate any documentation on this?? In fact, this is precisely why I made this post....
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 selection bias. Testing healthy volunteers is not rocket science. And when the Igenex results are returned, there is a paper trail. The results of the study ARE true, unless someone has a reason to believe otherwise?!
And most importantly, @duncan - If you know that igenex has retooled their protocol -- I would love more information. What changes were implemented and when exactly did this occur? Would greatly appreciate any documentation on this?? In fact, this is precisely why I made this post....
@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!!
@cyclist, the study that you were "horrified" about came out in Sept of 2014. And with all the news about persisters etc that has occurred in the interim, and developments both on the diagnostic fronts with direct antigen testing in the wings, and pulsed treatments and retooling of old drugs etc, and movements to legislate change in some states, this can be interpreted as old news.
A sample size of 40 against an annual population of over 300,000 in the US alone is hardly adequate. Indeed, much of the history of Lyme assessments, at least in the US, has been done with limited sample sizes, as the three RCTs sadly but amply demonstrate.
I do not use IgeneX, so I do not know the specifics of the protocol they are using now. You may wish to contact them directly - I have found them to be very helpful and open when I have contacted them. What I do know as a Lyme patient is that every data point I can garner that helps shed more light on the TBDs I harbor, helps me make better decisions.
A sample size of 40 against an annual population of over 300,000 in the US alone is hardly adequate. Indeed, much of the history of Lyme assessments, at least in the US, has been done with limited sample sizes, as the three RCTs sadly but amply demonstrate.
I do not use IgeneX, so I do not know the specifics of the protocol they are using now. You may wish to contact them directly - I have found them to be very helpful and open when I have contacted them. What I do know as a Lyme patient is that every data point I can garner that helps shed more light on the TBDs I harbor, helps me make better decisions.
- Messages
- 539
- Likes
- 899
@cyclist
oops accidentally erased the post. here is the link again.
http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5481
oops accidentally erased the post. here is the link again.
http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5481
@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 abstract in pubmed before clicking through to the article. It was posted Nov 2015 and Raphael Stricker posted it on behalf of the Directors of Igenex, Harris and Shah. As part of their response, they discuss retesting the false positive samples.