CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Medical topics with questions, information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by rlstanley » Wed 30 Jul 2008 23:29

HIker wrote:
I did a little more investigating today and called the University of Agriculture Office. A professor kindly agreed to look at my smear photo and see what he thought of it. He deals with nonhuman mycoplasma, but said he would make an exception for me.

He also said that a PCR test would immediately determine if it is mycoplasma even if the kind is not known, yet.
Excellent work.

BTW if anyone has any information regarding the questions I asked at the top of page 3, please post. I'll repeat them:

Are people who pay for these labs considered research subjects?

Are people being treated based on this lab's results?

Have these Fry lab tests been validated by any other labs?

Are there published results in a credible journal concerning the techniques and results coming from this lab?

Why is this lab considered so good?


Rita

hanegalen
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri 3 Aug 2007 16:41

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by hanegalen » Sun 3 Aug 2008 17:00

hi

just wanted to know if anybody -apart from kelmo,Hiker and me- has done the test with a positive finding and what they have done/will do in order to identify the bug?

Gale

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by rlstanley » Sun 3 Aug 2008 18:44

No one has stepped up to discuss or answer my questions, so I started searching. I found the following comment below. Any intelligent discussion (not slamming or yelling about the author) about the content?

http://lymemd.blogspot.com/2008/07/fry- ... nella.html
Friday, July 11, 2008

Fry labs: What are Hemobartonella???

I am concerned about Fry labs. The lab is owned and operated by a single individual in Arizona. Dr. Fry is a general practitioner. He is not a board certified laboratory pathologist. His website provides no peer reviewed studies or evidence of proficiency testing to support his contentions. He does not even discus his methodology.

Blogs and discussion boards reveal that many patients feel his lab is better than IgeneX. Fry labs is not in the same league. IgeneX has research studies and proficiency testing as well as proven technology. I am afraid that results from Fry labs may be of little value. I read a patient blog which stated that Fry first diagnosed Babesia and Bartonella. When these cleared the lab then diagnosed Ehrlichia. The reason given was that the Ehrlichia was able to grow when these other organisms were knocked out. This sounds like utter nonsense.

Lyme physicians who are already working outside the box, must be very careful not to jump on the bandwagon of experimental and unsupported tests, coming from questionable sources.

Co-infections are controversial. Their role in "Lyme Disease Complex" is far from settled. Babesia is difficult to diagnose. The most reputable labs in the country fail to find it on blood smears because it infects so few red blood cells.

If Fry Labs is the only place that can see it on a smear it suggests the lab is finding a lot of false positives. Again, no validation of their methodology is provided. Other organisms like Bartonella are not seen by other labs on blood smears.

Fry lab frequently reports Hemobartonella. This is a feline infection which is not transmitted by ticks or insects. This small organism is cell wall deficient and may attach to the outer surface of red blood cells. It is now considered a Mycoplasma-like organism. Germs of this sort do not stain and are not visible with light microscopy. Anyway, they are not a known Lyme co-infection.

The other type of Bartonella is a small gram negative bacteria which is transmitted by ticks and other biting insects. It may live inside red blood cells but does not attach itself to the outside of red blood cells. It is not visible by any well established microscopic test. Dr. Fry is reporting findings which are misleading, inaccurate, unsubstantiated and not endorsed by any major organization like ILADS.

One of the cornerstones of Lyme medicine is that co-infections are very difficult to prove. Their presence is frequently inferred based solely on clinical suspicions. When something seems too good to be true...you know the rest.

breezywings
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue 20 May 2008 17:01

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by breezywings » Sun 3 Aug 2008 19:03

I just wanted to thank you for posting this information. I have been digging around myself about Fry labs as I am suspicious about any findings that my doctor would get back.

I am not impressed with Fry labs because of all the reasons in your above post.

Valuable information and food for thought if anyone is thinking about basing a dx solely on this lab.

I was surprised to find out about Dr. Fry's credentials and background.

hanegalen
Posts: 145
Joined: Fri 3 Aug 2007 16:41

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by hanegalen » Sun 3 Aug 2008 19:14

hi Ristanley

I know the text you have posted.I think he makes some good points and also some that are not well founded- mistakes and misunderstandings too.Basically you are right in your sceptical attitude if you want to apply "normal" scietific/academic standards.There are no peer-reviewed articles etc etc.That is a fact.

I am too tired to get into details. Only a few comments, though.I dont know if this mystery bug (we suppose there is one) is tick transmitted or not.Fry himself, tends not to believe so (if I heard him right on the radio). That is in line with my own experience.Puzzling however that the writer seems to be certain about facts here?Also,I think the MD uses too many "argumentum ad hominum"; Fry is this or that, or not this or that ,it is not recommended by ILAD (thank God for that) ,for my taste. That does not really shed light to the central question.

However, my points has been all the time to try to find out what is fact and what is fiction.As I see it, it comes down to one simple question.What are we looking at in fry smears? This for very selfish reasons too.For me this is not an intellectual thing- but a very practical one.How can we/I find out as quickly as possible?'
What I know is that I have had so many qualified people look at the smear with the conclusion that it should be further looked into.

Gale
Last edited by hanegalen on Sun 3 Aug 2008 21:47, edited 2 times in total.

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by OneGuest » Sun 3 Aug 2008 19:40

I have been reading the lymemd blog for several weeks. It is nice to hear/read a
doctor's thoughts (assuming he is a dr!).

His statements on Fry labs are strong....not a problem.

However, he has made an error about no human M. felis.

I had found this article and had posted it earlier on another
thread here on LNE.

First,

M. Felis is the old Haemobartaonella felis.

Fry keeps saying hemo-bartonella. Bartonella in the blood. This
is according to posters who have talked with him. I assume then
he is not referring to haemobartonella, since he also uses the term
mycoplasma. Thus, he is calling these dots either bartonella or mycoplasma if
hemo-bartonella are the same thing as bartonella.

Second,

Lymemd is unaware of the following nih study, based on his
statement that there is no record of H.Felis/M.Felis in humans.

Thus, there could
be other things he is unaware of. One must read his blogs with caution befitting
a cautious lymeneteurope member. I would wonder how much he (the blogger) has investigated
about Fry labs actual practice. If Fry is using a proprietary stain, then it will not be released until more is
known of the pathogen, I would think.

As far as reporting it to the CDC, I would think he needs more information, via the PCR.
I distinctly remember all the troubles Dr. Master's had with STARI , Masters Disease, and the CDC. It took
years for the dust to settle, and I am not sure how it actually was settled, i.e. conclusions!

Also, no one can develop a treatment until the pathogen is known. Fry's
PCR machine is not even up and running, and I'm not sure it is even in the labs yet.
And how can one attribute any symptoms to this pathogen, when tickborne diseases are
in the picture.

I do believe something is there. That is it.

Ultimately, I just dont get excited about this. Something will be revealed in the future.
I think the problem is with peoples' (MD's and patients) use and interpretation of this result, and not with
Fry's findings.



Any way, here is the posting, in case lymemd comes over
here!
=====================================
Re human infection with animal associated mycoplasmas: it is a possibility.
This is from a 1997 cdc article:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm

While patients with antibody defects or those receiving immunosuppressive drugs appear to be the most susceptible to infections with mycoplasmas present in healthy tissues, emerging evidence indicates that contact with other mycoplasmas in the environment is an important hazard.

For example, the direct isolation of a feline mycoplasma (M. felis) from the joint of a hypogammaglobulinemic patient with septic arthritis was recently reported (41), with suspected transmission occurring through a cat bite 6 months before the onset of arthritis. Other examples include fatal septicemia caused by M. arginini, a common animal mycoplasma, from blood and multiple tissue sites in a slaughter house employee who had advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hypogammaglobulinemia (42), and a septicemic infection with a canine mycoplasma (M. edwardii) in a patient with advanced AIDS (M.K.York, pers. comm.).

User avatar
LymeEnigma
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 18:26
Location: The Nevada Desert, USA
Contact:

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by LymeEnigma » Sun 3 Aug 2008 20:17

If it is hemobartonella, then it wouldn't come up on a regular smear, according to this source:
Fry lab frequently reports Hemobartonella. This is a feline infection which is not transmitted by ticks or insects. This small organism is cell wall deficient and may attach to the outer surface of red blood cells. It is now considered a Mycoplasma-like organism. Germs of this sort do not stain and are not visible with light microscopy. Anyway, they are not a known Lyme co-infection.

The other type of Bartonella is a small gram negative bacteria which is transmitted by ticks and other biting insects. It may live inside red blood cells but does not attach itself to the outside of red blood cells. It is not visible by any well established microscopic test. Dr. Fry is reporting findings which are misleading, inaccurate, unsubstantiated and not endorsed by any major organization like ILADS.

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by OneGuest » Sun 3 Aug 2008 20:24


OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by OneGuest » Sun 3 Aug 2008 20:41

diaglab.vet.cornell.edu/.../mycoplasma-felis.htm

http://www.vet.uga.edu/vpp/clerk/Cowgill/Index.php

This is the smear (mycoplasma) from Cornell and U.Georgia. A good read because
they discuss artifacts. Also, the treatment info is "good"...qualified because
it is not really eradicated.

User avatar
LymeEnigma
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 18:26
Location: The Nevada Desert, USA
Contact:

Re: CDC and Fry Lab blood smear--weird info!

Post by LymeEnigma » Sun 3 Aug 2008 20:59

I guess now the two new questions are whether or not Fry uses the Wright-Leishman stain, and whether or not we're seeing in Fry's photos what we're being told we're seeing...?

I looked, but I could not find out about Fry's use or non-use of the stain, but a comparison between the feline hemobartonella slides and Fry's only show one that really could be considered similar in appearance. I wish we had a hematologist, microbiologist, or something to that effect here at LNE....

Post Reply