Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

HAS CDC GOT IT WRONG AGAIN FOR LYME DISEASE TESTING?

Posted Apr 22 2014 12:25pm
The Culture tests for Lyme Disease reported on by Dr Sapi posted about earlier here   caused concern for some CDC researchers who rapidly published - crying contamination!  here

Recently  Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)   here   further criticised the culture methods promptly followed by further comments on Medscape these can be read  here   including Dr MacDonald's excellent explanation.

Not that any investigation of the Advanced Laboratory labs has been undertaken! 

From the Director of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology New York University School of Medicine in response to the criticisms by the CDC of the best Lyme test in the world: here

I have read with great disappointment several reports by the CDC, Fort 
Collins Group, spear-headed by Barbara Johnson, criticizing Advanced 
Laboratory’s culture technique results reported by Dr. Eva Sapi last year, 
as being “probably contaminated”. Worse than that are the numerous lay 
reporters and professional medical news media all jumping on this 
bandwagon without just cause. On top of that, these journalists 
erroneously reported that contamination of cultures did occur when the 
CDC, in fact, did not say or prove that. None of these reporters have had 
the decency to investigate before casting stones. I have personally 
become involved reviewing the great accomplishment of Advanced 
Laboratory’s development of a culture technique reported to have a high 
sensitivity (94%) which is more than double the CDCs supported assay 
techniques sensitivities. In light of the high reported sensitivity of the 
culture assay one would think that the CDC should be involved in aiding 
and supplementing such procedures helping to perfect same (if they feel 
it lacking) for the public good instead of discarding it outright. That does 
not seem to ring right to me. Interestingly the CDC did not criticize the 
culture technique itself (which by the way is excellent in my review) 
instead they assert that they “cannot rule out” contamination of the 
reported results. Yet interestingly, if contamination was so rampant not 
one of the controls was so contaminated and yet they ignore this. And in 
two reports I saw that will be soon published, a supercomputer Blast 
genome of GenBank analysis disputes Johnson’s contamination 
speculation. 

I have firsthand knowledge of Advanced Labs facilities, their personnel, 
and their analytic techniques, which in my professional opinion are 
excellent. 

 Philip M. Tierno, Jr., PhD 

Frm Director of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology 

New York University School of Medicine 

Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches