“Widespread Borrelia miyamotoi Tick-borne Fever Found in US” – this was the headline this year from Medscape magazine (6/12/2015). Borrelia has been bad enough but
now we have to worry about another tick-borne disease. This is particularly bad due to the current testing norms which base all antibody markers to the specific B31 strain of Borrelia burgdorferi (even though there are 100 strains of Borrelia in the US and over 200 world-wide).
According to the Medscape article,
Borrelia miyamotoi disease (BMD), a tick-borne infection that can cause more severe symptoms than Lyme disease, was first reported in the northeastern United States in 2013 but is becoming more common and should be considered in all areas where deer tick–transmitted infections are endemic, according to a case-series published online June 9 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The researchers suggest that Borrelia miyamotoi might be almost as common as human anaplasmosis among tick-exposed patients who present with fevers in the endemic areas, and they recommend that it be included in routine differential diagnosis protocols.
The timing of BMD peak incidence suggests that, unlike the transmission of Lyme disease pathogen Borrelia burgdorferi, the new infection might be transmitted by unfed larval ticks, who acquire it by transovarial transmission from the infected female tick. This has immediate clinical and public health implications.
Given the fact that each female tick produces 3000 larval ticks, the implications are terrifying.
Add to that the fact that most people would never see or notice the bite of a larval tick due to their tiny size, the likelihood of infection increases exponentially.
Diagnosis and testing which is already difficult, becomes almost impossible.
Testing is a very frustrating topic for people who suffer with chronic Lyme disease, and I continue to promote the services offered by Advanced Lab Services in Pennsylvania which is available everywhere in the US except New York. A description of the test is found here.
The controversy around this blood culture stems from a nasty rumor about contamination. Read more about the contamination and subsequent independent lab evaluation report by Dr. Teirney here.
Due to the unreliable testing currently supported by the CDC, one would think that they would welcome a test with 94% accuracy with open arms. Aren’t they supposed to track epidemics in the US? Isn’t that their charter?