Thread at Persistent Autonomic and Immunologic Abnormalities in Neurologic Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV2 Infection (2024, Neurology)
Last edited:
Can't help but wonder if antigenic variation might play some role. Also caught my attention that malaria causes this IgM to IgG mishap. I wonder if other parasites might do the same (e.g. Babesiosis), as well as other pathogens.Same MD on the panel: "I think there's a fascinating potential connection with that and Chronic Lyme Disease...Nicole Baumgarth from Johns Hopkins sees this same inability of strong switch IgM to IgG in mouse models of Lyme Disease...and whether or not that's a feature of Chronic Lyme Disease in human patients...this would be fascinating to pursue."
During Q & A, Nath responds to a question about studying more than one disease at a time. I am tired, but it seemed to me he suggested that early on in the ME/CFS study design his group was going to look at ME/CFS and post treatment Lyme at the same time, and that the NIH's Lyme head couldn't supply a single PTLDS patient. I do not recall this. If true, that's extraordinary; it makes no sense to me that she couldn't produce a single chronic Lyme patient (he actually mentions her by name).
I'm not sure whether that should be surprising. The ME/CFS cohort required 484 people to end up with 17 PI-ME/CFS study subjects. With PTLDS patients there is the additional complication that several patients are given pseudoscientific diagnoses based on "chronic lyme tests" that have absolutely no scientific validity and are no different that throwing a dice to diagnose someone. If they'd have to swift through say another 500 people, to end up with a cohort of somewhere under 10 PTLDS patients, I wouldn't be suprised if this study had only been published in the next decade. For me it's rather hard to see how much such small sample sizes would contribute in the first place.
I think one reason they found it hard to recruit sufficient ME/CFS patients was their insistence of a diagnosed infectious trigger, and less than 5 years illness duration. Maybe that applied for PTLDS too.This is pedigree Lyme shit we're talking - with the population accruing since 1999 or thereabouts. She should have had a pre-existing reservoir of qualified PTLDS patients.
Sorry, but that is incorrect - at least relative to Marques' chronic Lyme/PTLDS study participants. Each had to satisfy strict IDSA/CDC diagnostic criteria before qualifying to even meet with a Marques underling. This is pedigree Lyme shit we're talking - with the population accruing since 1999 or thereabouts. She should have had a pre-existing reservoir of qualified PTLDS patients.
Maybe. It shouldn't matter. I'd still imagine she'd have been able to pull together a decent cohort. Certainly at least one. Nath sounded bitter to me.I think one reason they found it hard to recruit sufficient ME/CFS patients was their insistence of a diagnosed infectious trigger, and less than 5 years illness duration. Maybe that applied for PTLDS too.
However, the problem with the low participant number in the intramural study for ME/CFS patients, is not that there is an insufficient amount of patients that meet the CCC or similar or that there aren't already existing cohorts of ME/CFS patients, but rather the additional things that come with participating in such a study. On the one hand that will be the obstacles posed by even participating in such an arduous study which introduces sufficient hurdles to make participation impossible for many people, on the other hand there will be certain recruitment criteria (illness duration, comorbidities, documented infectious trigger etc) and finally there will those patients that pass through this whole process but that later turn out to have different issues but a priori might not have had sufficient medical examinations (I remember one prospective ME/CFS participant later turning out to have cancer, whilst another turned out to have ME/CFS).
It was my speculation that "scam tests" such as the one offered by Armin Labs or Igenex would only make this process more complicated. Perhaps that may not be the case if the NIH would have adhered to stricter criteria from the get go. I don't know what the recruitment criteria for the Lyme part would have been, but for the ME/CFS part clearly the majority people that applied didn't meet the end criteria of the study.
a) Igenex sells some good tests. They test for more strains than just B31, and allow 2 proteins/bands, particularly relevant to late stage Lyme, that CDC testing removed due to vaccine interests, etc.
b) The NIH DID adhere to stricter criteria from the get go, as far back as I can remember, at least for their chronic Lyme study recruitment
c) I have no idea what percent of people who applied to the NIH Lyme study were turned away, but its criteria were unimpeachable in terms of CDC Lyme diagnostics standards. Of course, for people like me such standards don't carry much weight.
Most CLD patients suffer from other conditions or are patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms and are diagnosed with CLD based on unvalidated tests and criteria...
A study found that 57.5% of healthy controls could be interpreted as positive using the in-house criteria of a Lyme specialty laboratory. Culture assays claiming high positivity have raised serious concerns 5 5, 6 and could not be replicated.7 A urine antigen assay had false-positive results and the same sample varied from negative to highly positive when testing 5 fractions from each of 10 negative control samples.
Remember, we're talking over 15 years of recruiting.
So evidently Nath felt similarly to me about what he should have been able to draw from the NIH Lyme study.
I am not up-to-date with all the different current testing procedures. However, Marques writes in her paper "Persistent Symptoms After Treatment of Lyme Disease"
For the NIH that would seemingly make population recruitment as done for ME/CFS patients in the intramural study, even harder and possibly unattainable for a PTLDS cohort.