ome of the implications of Public Health England’s lack of knowledge of the Lyme spirochaete (these are only the implications that I am aware of, doctors and scientists could probably add to these). PHE do not seem to realise that the infection is intracellular and infects blood cells. This has far-reaching implications.
Firstly, the tests that they rely upon and for which they claim 100% sensitivity, do not detect the bacteria itself, but attempt to detect an immune response to the infection (antibodies). A bacterial parasite that can successfully invade host cells has an ideal niche for evading the immune system, thereby reducing the production of antibodies. There is an excellent analysis of immune-evasion strategies used by bacteria and viruses here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/article/pii/S0092867406001322
Intracellular localization is clearly a serious problem.
Intracellular localization is clearly a serious problem.
Secondly, invasion of host cells is only one of a number strategies that Lyme spirochaetes employ for evading detection. Therefore, absence of borrelia antibodies does NOT indicate absence of the infection. This means that the whole premise of 2-tier testing is unreliable, even without taking into account that the target antibodies that are tested for, must be matched to those used in the test kit. That means that related species causing borreliosis might not be detected at all.
No one yet knows if people even create antibodies to intracellular spirochaetes, L-forms, propagules and other cystic forms which from my direct observations make-up the majority of spirochaetes in an infection.
Babesiosis and malaria are other diseases in which parasites invade red blood cells. These infections are chronic, can be devastating or even fatal and as with syphilis, often rely upon microscopy for diagnosis
