Dr James Schaller
tick infection pearls facebook free books testimonials main page books and articles schaller health creed facebook testimonies search
menu main page what's new second opinion new patient meet doctor schaller location, travel

Useless Lyme Tests which Miss Most Lyme
are the Norm and Hurt People
Yet the Times Supports Them?

Michael has struggled in school and with psychiatric behavior problems for ten years. He had to go to a residential center because of his erratic behavior. He had a routine junk lab Lyme test done at a monster lab center. It was negative which is expected. When he was discharged, he had a set of labs done at IgeneX. He was positive for Lyme and Bartonella. After two months of antibiotics, he was getting A's, getting along with everyone, had new solid friends and a nice girlfriend. His mother told me about his massive improvement in tears. "I cannot believe it, I have my son back. I had lost all hope. It is a miracle."

Does the NY Times Side with Junk Labs?

The NY Times attacked IgeneX Labs, which is the Lab that saved Michael along with so many other relatives and patients known by the physicians who contacted me about this article.

The concerns of some physicians includes the following comments:

  1. The Times takes the ultra conservative position of mocking IgeneX and Bowen testing as an "unproved Lyme disease test." Most of medical practices use medications at "unapproved" doses, and most sophisticated labs from large lab centers are NOT FDA approved. So this means what? It means the Times knows very little about many types of tests done by Quest and LabCorp.
  2. They have it backwards. The routine labs done elsewhere at lab mills are usually worthless. Attacking a lab with significant Tick disease expertise is a way to kill and hurt people by missing them diagnostically. Lyme is in the brain, eyes and heart in about two weeks.
  3. The Times has no sense of the two standards of Lyme care. The side that supports IgeneX and Bowen has saved the lives of children and other relatives in many families. ILADS physicians report helping tens of thousands of pateints.
  4. "The New York State Department of Health has opened an investigation" into progressive Lyme labs. And why should we care? For a paper that is supposed to be open minded and progressive, on this issue they are acting like 1950's extreme conservatives. Most physicians never report Lyme for unknown reasons. For example, a study I posted on my web site shows only 1/40 positive cases are reported in Georgia so Health Departments have almost no real clinical data. In talking to different health department officials some physicians and educated pateints report they are clueless and clearly on the ultra-conservative side of the Lyme debate.
  5. The article shows sloppy research and no clue Lyme has two clear standards of medical care. ILADS has physicians with exceptional training and experience, above the average physician, and they have likely treated 50-100,000 patients. ILADS physicians and patients report constantly that their doctors missed their diverse Lyme symptoms during their 5-15 minute sessions.
  6. The Times tells us: "The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a warning about Lyme tests 'whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established.'" The FDA opposes any claim that any essential nutrient is useful. The CDC is often years behind many experts on biotoxin illnesses. IGeneX has successfully tested blind samples and is licensed by the Federal government and any state requiring additional state testing. Many progressive medical lab tests, available at Quest or LabCorp or other massive lab companies, that go beyond the routine family doctor's simple organ failure labs are not "approved."
  7. What Clinical Experience Does the FDA or the CDC have in treating Chronic Lyme? Compared to some pro-IGeneX Lyme experts with 7-15,000 patients, the CDC and FDA "experience" is a farce. Most of the pro-IGeneX physicians came to trust IGeneX or Bowen because the physician's themselves had Lyme, or other relatives and friends contracted Lyme and were not improving with the treatment of other routine doctors--the types of little league doctors with trivial Lyme treatment experience the Times quotes. Most physicians who get involved with progressive Lyme care do so when many relatives have a sudden cartilage loss, sudden new ADHD at age thirty, new trouble speaking, new eccentric irritability, etc, etc.
  8. We are told by the CDC and the Times that: "Guidelines from the disease control agency [CDC] recommend Lyme testing only when patients have symptoms." This is so simplistic. For example, what do you do then when a patient has no symptoms and the large junk labs come up with a positive Lyme test? Perhaps this is due to an immune system that is working and keeping Lyme slightly controlled. Meaning, this shows how clinically clueless the CDC is on Lyme illness.
  9. The Mayo Clinic could not offer the poor IGeneX "victim" anything for a diagnosis. He was ill and all their specialists came up with nothing. Did the Times ever think that his illness might be due to the most common vector illness in the USA, and one that is all over non-urban New York State?
  10. The Times quotes Dr. Wormser, who is among the most aggressive ultra-conservative Lyme anti-advocates, speaking in our Country. This is like asking Pat Buchanan to comment on Hilary Clinton. This is not news, it is a parading of the Times writer's ignorance of this issue and controversy.
  11. The poor patent felt worse on antibiotics. And? The point is? When you kill Lyme it releases endotoxins from Lyme's shell. Obviously your writer does not know this or the basic fact that antibiotics all have various side effects.
  12. The progressive tests that actually catch Lyme are accused as not being validated and published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. What? The Western Blot sure has been published, and it is simply that Igenex does a top job, while lab mills are sloppy. And Dr. Whitaker has more training than 99% of the physicians in the USA. She was given a Florida lab license, and then ignorant Floridians who were annoyed her positive rate was not the very rare positive, whined to the licensing board. So why should this massively trained seasoned lab expert bother? She was only getting samples from very ill folks who had gone undiagnosed by routine 5-15 minutes doctor evaluations. Her methods have been used for cancer work, and both published and praised.
  13. Dr. Mead of the CDC, stunningly is still in the 1980's, and linked to extreme ultra conservative restrictive diagnostic approaches to Lyme. Telling patients and physicians to rely on "the recommended two-step process [of the Elisa and then the Western Blot is] accurate in more than 90 percent of cases of long-term Lyme infection" is utterly fantastic and shows little clinical experience. This is a common problem with the CDC. They have so little real life clinical experience; they are too often behind smart clinicians in discoveries and treatment. Too often they merely help with witch-hunts of the non-IVY league clinical intelligencia.

    Some physicians have told me to look at the research on the huge numbers of false negatives with routine labs. Smart physicians, therefore, should not trust these lab mills. Dr. Mead says, "We don't want to be absolutely dogmatic that it's our way or the highway," and yet speaks with more dogma than Moses.

    One physician sent me a letter last year saying, "If I followed the CDC ultra restrictive approach I would have died, and many of my relatives and children would be non-functional and ill. I am tired of "medical" writers doing such sloppy research on Lyme and writing with gross incompetence. If a reporter is going to write on a topic, they must be careful to do all their homework--lives hang in the balance."


The material above was submitted by a few clinicians to Dr. Schaller and made into a single article with some rewording and editing. First person comments are not from Dr. Schaller. Dr. Schaller cannot support or oppose the contents. The contents are from physicians (and patients) wishing to remain anonymous from various government agencies. You are encouraged to read the Times article (August 23, 2005 "Unproved Lyme Disease Tests Prompt Warnings" by Hurley and Santora) and to read the position of the CDC and Dr. Wormser. You might also want to look at the IgeneX.com web site, the Bowen Research site, the LDA site, the LymeTimes site and the ILADS site, which offer different positions in this debate.

To Your Health!

Dr. J

Bank Towers, Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
disclaimer privacy