health

Over 14% of world's population has had Lyme disease: study

6 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

6 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

On important correction is that the study searched for presence of antibodies, not the bacteria itself, so saying that the bacteria was found in the blood of 14.5% of the patients is mistaken, what was found is evidence that the patients were infected in the past, not necessarily at the moment of the test.

Still, the study is quite interesting even if the authors have to make a lot of assumptions, they made a very good job justifying them and controlling for everything they could think could affect the results. As the authors metion it is quite possible the actual prevalence to be higher because not every country test for the disease.

Western Blotting is expected to give better results because it is not only more sensitive, it also gives more information that can let the people running the tests make a more accurate determination, but it has the disadvantage of not being well suited for high throughput testing, so research that is conducted in hundreds or thousands of samples at the time can't easily confirm the results with the WB.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

More than 14 percent of the world's population has had Lyme disease, the most common tick-borne illness, according to a major review of the available research.

This sounds like a high number.

 In highly endemic areas of the United States, such as Connecticut and Southern New York, the annual incidence is approximately 0.5 cases per 1,000 persons 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5029759/

On important correction is that the study searched for presence of antibodies, not the bacteria itself,

The medical language the study uses is correct; your understanding is wrong.

The bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) is found in the blood of people infected with Lyme disease, according to medical sources such as the below which discusses:

Concentrations of bacteria in blood 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5029759/

Another source:

Survival of Borrelia burgdorferi in blood products

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2773025/

Another mistake you made relates to the concept of testing "for presence of antibodies". That is too broad of a generalization, and is not terminology used by medical professionals.

In fact, the test would be searching specifically for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb)

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The medical language the study uses is correct; your understanding is wrong.

The original report says the authors compared studies according to their seroprevalence, not their current infection status, and that different one of the reasons why some studies have lower numbers is that patients may have been infected a longer time in the past, which makes the antibody levels drop.

If the authors of the scientific report say they are not examining the presence of the bacteria in blood then the one that did not understood the article is you.

Your mistake is thinking that just because the bacteria can be found in blood during the acute infection that means it is the only, or even the main way to detect infection, this is a mistake, the actual way to detect infection is the same as in many other diseases, detection of the antibodies.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Over 14% of world's population has had Lyme disease: study

An extremely high number, when in the US CDC reports yearly infections with Lyme disease as low as 35,000.

If the authors of the scientific report say they are not examining the presence of the bacteria in blood then the one that did not understood the article is you.

You made the error in comprehending the text:

The bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), which causes the disease, was found in the blood

Your mistake is thinking that just because the bacteria can be found in blood during the acute infection that means it is the only, 

You are mistaken because that is not what is written; you are attempting to change the scenario to suit whatever it is you want to argue as a non-medical professional.

Many studies have tested for the present of the bacteria mentioned in this article:

DNA of Bp was present in blood samples up to day 24 post-challenge, 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7171858/

For review, another mistake you made relates to the concept of testing "for presence of antibodies". That is too broad of a generalization, and is not terminology used by medical professionals.

In fact, the test would be searching specifically for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb)

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), which causes the disease, was found in the blood

That is completely false.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/6/e007744

The title itself contradicts you because it explictly mentions Global seroprevalence

You apparently don't know what seroprevalence means, but it is a value that completely depends on serology, which is the levels of antibodies in blood, not the pathogen. There is no genetic sequences detection, no culture of the bacteria, nothing actually that is necessary in order to find it. The only things being analyzed were detection of antibodies by ELISA or by western blotting.

You are mistaken because that is not what is written; you are attempting to change the scenario to suit whatever it is you want to argue as a non-medical professional.

It is completely clear you have not even read the actual report, and don't understand it. which is why your new "argument" is again to imagine things about other commenters and try to pass that as if it were a fact (and as if it has any importance).

Can you quote from the article titers of the bacteria that supposedly you think they found? no? well, that is because that was not done at all.

For review, another mistake you made relates to the concept of testing "for presence of antibodies". That is too broad of a generalization, and is not terminology used by medical professionals.

that makes even less sense, because anybody with even a minimum of common sense would easily understand that the antibodies being mentioned are obviously those related to the bacterial infection.

Or what? do you imagine anybody would think 85% of the people were found without any kind of antibodies? that makes no sense. This is like saying you are incorrect because you only mention antibodes against Borrelia burgdorferi without clarifying they are about the bacteria that actually infected them, not any bacteria they could have been close by.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That is completely false.

Wrong.

As per the article:

The bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), which causes the disease, was found in the blood 

You apparently don't know what seroprevalence means,

I read the same article you read from which you cut and pasted a few parts.

It is completely clear you have not even read the actual report, and don't understand it. which is why your new "argument" is again to imagine things about other commenters and try to pass that as if it were a fact (and as if it has any importance).

You mistook a clear issue, and you are arguing about something different, which is understandable as you are not a medical expert or even a medical professional.

that makes even less sense, because anybody with even a minimum of common sense would easily understand that the antibodies being mentioned are obviously those related to the bacterial infection.

Wrong again, because if you were a medical professional you would know that antibodies can tske 4-6 weeks to appear int he blood of those infected with Bb.

Or what? do you imagine anybody would think 85% of the people were found without any kind of antibodies? that makes no sense. This is like saying you are incorrect because you only mention antibodes against Borrelia burgdorferi without clarifying they are about the bacteria that actually infected them, not any bacteria they could have been close by.

You did not understand the medical terminology so again:

For review, another mistake you made relates to the concept of testing "for presence of antibodies". That is too broad of a generalization, and is not terminology used by medical professionals.

In fact, the test would be searching specifically for antibodies against Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb)

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites