Experimental inoculation of Peromyscus spp. with Borrelia
burgdorferi: evidence of contact transmission.

Burgess EC, Amundson TE, Davis JP, Kaslow RA, Edelman R.

In order to determine if Peromyscus spp. could become infected
with the Lyme disease spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi) by direct
inoculation and to determine the duration of spirochetemia, 4 P.
leucopus and 5 P. maniculatus were inoculated by the intramuscular,
intraperitoneal, and subcutaneous routes with an isolate of B.
burgdorferi obtained from the blood of a trapped wild P. leucopus from
Camp McCoy, Wisconsin. All of the mice developed antibodies to B.
burgdorferi which reached a peak indirect immunofluorescent (IFA)
geometric mean antibody titer of 10 log2 21 days post-inoculation. B
burgdorferi was recovered from the blood of 1 P. maniculatus 21 days
post-inoculation. One uninfected Peromyscus of each species was housed
in the same cage with the infected Peromyscus as a contact control.
Both of the contact controls developed IFA B. burgdorferi antibodies
by day 14, indicating contact infection. To determine if B.
burgdorferi was being transmitted by direct contact, 5 uninfected P.
leucopus and 5 uninfected P. maniculatus were caged with 3 B.
burgdorferi infected P. leucopus and 3 infected P. maniculatus,
respectively. Each of these contact-exposed P. leucopus and P.
maniculatus developed antibodies to B. burgdorferi, and B. burgdorferi
was isolated from the blood of 1 contact-exposed P. maniculatus 42
days post-initial contact. These findings show that B. burgdorferi can
be transmitted by direct contact without an arthropod vector.

PMID: 3513648 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Brent:

Do you understand that mice are not human beings..and that we are
talking about evidence of sexual transmission in human beings..not
mice?

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

derdrittemann2..@yahoo.com wrote:
> Brent:
>
> Do you understand that mice are not human beings..and that we are
> talking about evidence of sexual transmission in human beings..not
> mice?

Compared to Brent, mice are human beings. Clearly mice are far superior
creatures with a much greater intellect when compared to Brent.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

brent wrote:
> Experimental inoculation of Peromyscus spp. with Borrelia
> burgdorferi: evidence of contact transmission.
>
>     Burgess EC, Amundson TE, Davis JP, Kaslow RA, Edelman R.
>
>     In order to determine if Peromyscus spp. could become infected
> with the Lyme disease spirochete (Borrelia burgdorferi) by direct
> inoculation and to determine the duration of spirochetemia, 4 P.
> leucopus and 5 P. maniculatus were inoculated by the intramuscular,
> intraperitoneal, and subcutaneous routes with an isolate of B.
> burgdorferi obtained from the blood of a trapped wild P. leucopus
from
> Camp McCoy, Wisconsin. All of the mice developed antibodies to B.
> burgdorferi which reached a peak indirect immunofluorescent (IFA)
> geometric mean antibody titer of 10 log2 21 days post-inoculation. B
> burgdorferi was recovered from the blood of 1 P. maniculatus 21 days
> post-inoculation. One uninfected Peromyscus of each species was
housed
> in the same cage with the infected Peromyscus as a contact control.
> Both of the contact controls developed IFA B. burgdorferi antibodies
> by day 14, indicating contact infection. To determine if B.
> burgdorferi was being transmitted by direct contact, 5 uninfected P.
> leucopus and 5 uninfected P. maniculatus were caged with 3 B.
> burgdorferi infected P. leucopus and 3 infected P. maniculatus,
> respectively. Each of these contact-exposed P. leucopus and P.
> maniculatus developed antibodies to B. burgdorferi, and B.
burgdorferi
> was isolated from the blood of 1 contact-exposed P. maniculatus 42
> days post-initial contact. These findings show that B. burgdorferi
can
> be transmitted by direct contact without an arthropod vector.
>
>     PMID: 3513648 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

"Direct contact" is not defined here. It could mean many things. And as
der pointed out, this is not human beings.

So let's say "direct contact" means contact with blood, urine, saliva
or feces. That doesn't mean it happens in humans.

But perhaps we should infect you brent with Bb and cage you with dali
and janis and see if they develop antibodies to Bb.

Also: by the way, antibodies to Bb might not show infection with
Bb--perhaps these creatures develop antibodies when exposed to Bb
infected creatures or their urine or blood or feces or saliva but don't
become infected.

It would be important to see confirmation of the organism itself.

It would also be necessary to know how the "uninfected" were determined
to be uninfected.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 31 Jan 2005 08:25:33 -0800, derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com wrote:

>Brent:
>
>Do you understand that mice are not human beings..and that we are
>talking about evidence of sexual transmission in human beings..not
>mice?

So lets stop all testing with mice because it does nothing in our
knowledge of humans.

ru serious? That was just sad.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 31 Jan 2005 08:36:45 -0800, "a_weisman@yahoo.com"
<a_weisman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>derdrittemann2..@yahoo.com wrote: 
>
>Compared to Brent, mice are human beings. Clearly mice are far superior
>creatures with a much greater intellect when compared to Brent.

I can kick your XXX in an argument. it's so easy.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 31 Jan 2005 08:42:07 -0800, "a_weisman@yahoo.com"
<a_weisman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>brent wrote: 
>from 
>housed 
>burgdorferi 
>can 
>
>"Direct contact" is not defined here. It could mean many things. And as
>der pointed out, this is not human beings.
>
>So let's say "direct contact" means contact with blood, urine, saliva
>or feces. That doesn't mean it happens in humans.
>
>But perhaps we should infect you brent with Bb and cage you with dali
>and janis and see if they develop antibodies to Bb.
>
>Also: by the way, antibodies to Bb might not show infection with
>Bb--perhaps these creatures develop antibodies when exposed to Bb
>infected creatures or their urine or blood or feces or saliva but don't
>become infected.
>
>It would be important to see confirmation of the organism itself.
>
>It would also be necessary to know how the "uninfected" were determined
>to be uninfected.

So we need more research. I think we can all agree on this. btw Where
is the research? Seems kinda important to me but what do I know.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

On 31 Jan 2005 08:42:07 -0800, "a_weisman@yahoo.com"
<a_weisman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Direct contact" is not defined here. It could mean many things. And as
>der pointed out, this is not human beings.

I thought you wanted to test on animals before humans. (fyi we are by
and large the same) Now you are saying the only real test is with
humans. OK

>
>So let's say "direct contact" means contact with blood, urine, saliva
>or feces. That doesn't mean it happens in humans.

OR Sexual contact. Why did you leave that out.

>
>But perhaps we should infect you brent with Bb and cage you with dali
>and janis and see if they develop antibodies to Bb.

Better than the disease you have.

>
>Also: by the way, antibodies to Bb might not show infection with
>Bb--perhaps these creatures develop antibodies when exposed to Bb
>infected creatures or their urine or blood or feces or saliva but don't
>become infected.
>
>It would be important to see confirmation of the organism itself.
>
>It would also be necessary to know how the "uninfected" were determined
>to be uninfected.

Fine, all I want is more research. It doesn't appear that too many
people consider it important.

One question, should we do more research on this? Keep in mind the
other research that I will gladly repost.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

brent wrote:
>     Experimental inoculation of Peromyscus spp. with Borrelia
> burgdorferi: evidence of contact transmission.

Interesting. My question is: what was the "direct contact"?

Like I stated before, there is need for such a study on humans.
To determine if B. burgdorferi is being transmitted by direct contact,
uninfected H. sapiens and infected H. sapiens have to be caged with each
other. It must be documented what kind of "direct contact" is involved.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

brent wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2005 08:42:07 -0800, "a_weisman@yahoo.com"
> <a_weisman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
intramuscular,[vbcol=seagreen] 
B[vbcol=seagreen] 
days[vbcol=seagreen] 
control.[vbcol=seagreen] 
antibodies[vbcol=seagreen] 
P.[vbcol=seagreen] 
as[vbcol=seagreen] 
saliva[vbcol=seagreen] 
dali[vbcol=seagreen] 
don't[vbcol=seagreen] 
determined[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> So we need more research. I think we can all agree on this. btw Where
> is the research? Seems kinda important to me but what do I know.


I don't think it IS important since I don't think silver is safe and
effective.

But sure study it.

My point is that morally ethically and scientifically studies are an
absolute prerequisite to use in humans.

So that means BEFORE advocating the use of silver in humans and selling
it and related products that one MUST study it and get approvals.

Personally I think the studies will show it is NOT effective and we
already know there are safety issues.

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]