Yes, because it is averaged into the studies to bring down the negative correlation, even though it SHOULD NOT be included, Miklossy continues to include it. Why? Because...
Oral spirochetosis is present in 30+% of patients with no AD. In order to make the correlation appear to be a causation, she averages studies with "all spirochetes" and with "all studies." Why? Because the actual causal inference for oral spirochetes is quite poor when 30+% of non-AD patients have them.
And it turns out it is just as I thought! They used an old technique called "dark field" microscopy, using old style, standard microscopes. It turns out, in fact, that you are mistaken. Reread your own citation. They used dark field microscopy and electron microscopy.
they did mention in their paper they had observed other spirochetes that "could correspond to oral Treponema," but weren't interested in them.
Again, wrong. Reread the citation. What is said is that in the ONE case observed, they may have observed Treponema. Miklossy attempts to cover her tracks by claiming they weren't looking for the "right" spirochetes, by mumbling some weasel words about it "not being clear..." that does not justify what you've written here, AND the original authors SAY NO SUCH THING.
Any re-infection data from an Alzheimer's patient to his family would be just noise amongst the over all data. The secondary factor to the problem is poor dental health at some point for an extended period.
You don't understand epidemiology very well if you think an epidemiologist can't find a very small signal amongst an enormous background of noise. It's what they do. In a population of 60 million, epidemiologists were the first to sound the alarm that BSE was being transmitted to humans on the basis of just nine additional cases of of what appeared to be CJD (now known to be vCJD) in humans. Epidemiologists CAN connect transmissible diseases, even when the mechanism is unknown and the transmissibility is very weak or masked by other factors -- like "poor dental hygiene over an extended period." Your claim that they cannot is simply false.
We have now had 18 years since Miklossy's original "finding." She has lots of excuses for the fact that effectively no one has reproduced her results; what she does NOT have is reproducibility from other researchers.
You know, Fred, you impute an awful lot of venality and almost criminality to Miklossy's work... when I do not see any and the other scientists who have talked to us about this report do not see any either. WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVE HERE? "...covering her tracks"? What are you saying? Are you implying that she has falsified her data? That she has somehow LIED??? Does she have a motive to LIE???? Does she have an axe to grind to present false evidence... to obfuscate and present something that is not TRUE in her search for a prevention to Alzheimer's disease. What, exactly, is the dark and sinister motive that you are imputing to her?
And it turns out it is just as I thought! They used an old technique called "dark field" microscopy, using old style, standard microscopes. It turns out, in fact, that you are mistaken. Reread your own citation. They used dark field microscopy and electron microscopy.
I'm mistaken? I don't need to reread it. I know what I said and I addressed it. Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I suspect not. I discussed the electron Microscopy. These guys apparently can't afford a phase-contrast microscope and you think they can afford to do the thorough job an electron microscopy survey would require??? Hell no. They were Looking for one specific species of spirochetes, not anything else.
You are all over the board on this. Do you know what it costs to run an electron microscope? To prepare the samples? You just don't do it on everything you find. A research isolates what they are looking for and THEN prepares the sample for that... not a shotgun approach of everything. I don't think you have even bothered to read Miklossy's paper yet, have you?
Oral spirochetosis is present in 30+% of patients with no AD. In order to make the correlation appear to be a causation, she averages studies with "all spirochetes" and with "all studies." Why? Because the actual causal inference for oral spirochetes is quite poor when 30+% of non-AD patients have them.
I see. Again, you are all over the place. You seem to think that only people with diagnosed, and symptomatic AD have spirochetes... and that they have to be required therefore to be symptomatic? Your logic is completely flawed. What about PRE-symptomatic AD? Or do the spirochetes just instantly appear when the Symptoms become overt? That would be a stupid assumption, Fred. Remember, this is apparently a LONG exposure disease that is observably endemic in mouths of 85-90% of the population. It would be logical to accept that there are asymptomatic people with spirochetes in their systems because we KNOW it takes a LONG time for these diseases to evince. It does not happen over night, Fred. Ergo your argument that the existence of 30+% of patients (sic) with no AD but with oral spirochetes is completely without merit. It's remarkable that with the observed oral infections in the mouths, that the rate is not higher! In addition, these studies did not include histories that determined the condition of their hearts, arteries, or whether these people might be type 2 diabetics or pre-diabetics.
You don't understand epidemiology very well if you think an epidemiologist can't find a very small signal amongst an enormous background of noise. It's what they do. In a population of 60 million, epidemiologists were the first to sound the alarm that BSE was being transmitted to humans on the basis of just nine additional cases of of what appeared to be CJD (now known to be vCJD) in humans. Epidemiologists CAN connect transmissible diseases, even when the mechanism is unknown and the transmissibility is very weak or masked by other factors -- like "poor dental hygiene over an extended period." Your claim that they cannot is simply false.
You seem to have an agenda here and I certainly don't know what it is... but it is strange. I think YOUR claim is the false one. There is NO WAY that an epidemiologist can find that kind of thing you claim. NO WAY. When 85-90% of the population has these bugs in their mouths and you say epidemiologists would see that an Alzheimer's patient, in the later years of their lives would somehow GIVE their family what they ALREADY have. It simply is NOT possible. BULL SHIT! The relatives ALREADY have had it for years when the Alzheimer's patient first evinces symptoms of Alzheimers. What is there for the epidemiologist to find that is any different? An epidemiologist would SEE NOTHING different in the family of the AD patient than they would seen in the families of non-AD patients! You are just blowing smoke! This is a transmissible disease that everyone already has in their mouths... You are making stuff up when you say different. We in the dental offices are the one's seeing an epidemic of oral spirochetes and YOU say that epidemiologists will see something different? BAH!
This is NOT based on her original finding. Her original finding was an indicator to start looking at several things, she lists them and spirochetes were just one among several... and you are extrapolating a lot out of that. This paper is about other research that DID duplicate her findings and is a compendium and review of those findings. There is a list of those researchers at the end of the 2011 paper. . . and their findings.
Exactly what is your interest in this, what is your background that you are so upset at this research? You are the one I've found representing things I find not to be the case when I've looked. You've claimed things on this forum that were demonstrably NOT true when I've checked them. Now you are claiming their ONE case of B. Burgdorferi is somehow the other cases of seeing spirochetes. You are the one using weasel words. You are the one who started by making your claims using only the abstract. . . and apparently not even bothering to read the actual paper. You are the one using completely OUTDATED refutations that are 18 and 13 years old, when protocols usually used suggest using only papers within the last 5 years be used for refutations. You stretch credibility. You impugn the credibility of the researcher without proof... using ad hominem arguments such as "covering her tracks" from an article in a "peer-reviewed" journal. I don't know you or YOUR reputation from Adam. On the other hand, I DO know the scientists I have been working with... and they have reputations beyond reproach. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, Fred?