Cred ca fiecare pacient Lyme care s-a documentat cat de cat s-a intrebat la un moment dat: „cum se face ca incidenta microscopiei in camp intunecat e atat de mica in sistemul de sanatate de pretutindeni daca e atat de acurata?”
daca citesti forumurile americane si paginile oficiale vei gasi (sau nu vei gasi deloc) referiri in treacat la microscopia in camp intunecat. Nici macar autori de carti (fosti bolnavi de Lyme) nu specifica clar microscopia la rubrica „Diagnosticul bolii Lyme”. Toti se axeaza pe western bloturi, pcr-uri si alte metode indirecte (presupus nu foarte acurate) de a diagnostica boala.
Acum, cred ca e normal ca toti sa se intrebe: „bine, bine, dar daca e asa de simplu sa vezi efectiv parazitii la microscop atunci de ce nu se foloseste rapid la scara larga aceasta metoda, doar este inspre binele oamenilor, nu?”
Am decis sa scriu un pic si despre asta pentru ca probabil sunt multi care s-au intrebat macar o data pe parcursul bolii „unde-i adevarul?” ?
Inca de la inceput vreau sa mentionez ca personal NU neg corectitudinea diagnosticului. Am mare incredere in el, nu am incredere deplina insa in modalitatile de tratament si in faptul ca Lyme a fost pe deplin inteleasa (sau ca cineva ar detine mai mult adevar si cineva nu) si ca se transmite intr-adevar doar prin muscatura de capusa, alte hematofage sau sexual. Daca credem astea atunci de ce n-am crede ca specia umana vine cu ‘spirochetele’ in bagajul genetic inca de la aparitia primului „homo sapiens”. sa nu uitam ca prin convietuire, am luat in adn-ul nostru (prin virusi si bacterii) si parti din bagajul animalelor (si cred ca si invers). e ca atunci cand Cortez a debarcat in americi si i-a infestat pe bastinasi cu bolile Europei moderne sau ca atunci cand Columb a adus cu el din „lumea noua” o serie de boli in Europa. A existat un schimb masiv de microbi intre animale si om (mai ales dupa inceputurile domesticirii) astfel incat ipoteza prin care am putea declara ca „there is lyme in each of us” mi se pare la fel de plauzibila ca si cea cu transmiterea prin contact sexual.
Revenind, o colega „de-acum” – proaspat diagnosticata cu Lyme – mi-a semnalat urmatorul link:
http://brodiesnotes.blogspot.com/2010/04/live-blood-analysis-and-nutritional.html
care incearca sa „demistifice” o chestie numita „live blood analysis & blood” care personal mi se pare un soi de microscopie a sangelui (desi focusul lor e pe altceva si mai putin pe partea de bacteriologie/parazitologie). Pentru asta se folosesc cateva trimiteri catre documente „oficiale” si catre celebrul de acum Quackwatch.org:
„It has been claimed that chronic Lyme borreliosis can be diagnosed on the basis of
seeing spirochaetes in the blood of patients by high power (on-screen magnification
reported to be X 10,000) ‘live’ microscopy of blood. A drop of blood is placed on a
microscopy slide, covered with a cover slip, and then left to stand for a period of at
least 6 hours and up to 24 hours in a moist chamber. The film is then examined by
dark field and phase contrast microscopy. It is claimed that spirochaete forms can be
seen emerging from red and white cells in these blood films. They have been
described as being ‘intracellular L-forms’ that can be seen emerging from blood cells.
Patients and medical practitioners have been told that this test for Lyme borreliosis is
positive in chronic fatigue syndrome patients, showing that CFS is caused by chronic
B. burgdorferi infection.”„However, these tests are not being performed by medical practitioners or
clinical/biomedical trained or qualified in laboratory medicine specialties such as
microbiology, parasitology or haematology that would include specific training in
light microscopy. They are not performed in laboratories accredited for clinical
pathology testing.”
Argumente pentru afirmatia in bold:
1. Microscopy of whole blood (p7 of 9)
„The objects purported to be borreliae in the whole blood films are not considered to
be borreliae but to represent artefacts of the method used. If they were spirochaetes
the number demonstrated by light microscopy in such a small sample would indicate a
substantial spirochaetaemia which could readily be confirmed or refuted by electron
microscopy, immunofluorescence or PCR. Some of the structures appear to be
contaminating debris, as would be expected in samples collected by inexperienced
individuals (patients, carers etc) in non-sterile conditions. Other strands appear to be
fibrin produced by the clotting mechanism that would occur in whole blood held for
several hours in this way, collagen fibrils or cell membrane fragments shed from
degenerating red and white blood cells.Furthermore, the biological basis for the test is fundamentally wrong. B. burgdorferi
sensu lato is an extracellular bacterium in the bloodstream. It is not an intracellular
bacterium that could be seen ‘emerging from infected blood cells’. Moreover, any
spirochaetes in a thick blood smear, covered by a cover slip, would not remain viable
for long. Blood is not an ‘ideal medium’ for borreliae, the organisms are fragile in
vitro, requiring special media and careful temperature regulation. Spirochaetemia
occurs in the early stages of infection and is intermittent and short lived, with a low
number of organisms.”
„
Huh…?
Mai multe in linkurile din articolul in cauza.
Deci ideea principala e ca ce sa vede la microscop nu-s spirochete. Ce ziceti de asta?
Imi amintesc de o poveste asemanatoare pe care am citit-o in care o alta pacienta lyme mersese la un nene doctor in Ungaria (dupa ce initial fusese la dr. Boszik) si i se spusese ca ‘alea’ (formele din poze si clipuri) nu-s spirochete ci altceva (antigeni, bla bla) lasand-o intr-o ceata totala.
Sa fie conspiratia atat de mare? sa fie rapoartele oficiale doar propaganda, cuvinte aruncate in van?
E clar, la anu’ dau la medicina. Un gand numai bun de pus in „New Year’s Eve Resolutions” 🙂
Numai un alt blog 