Aa
CD-57 questions
I belong to many of the Lyme Disease support groups on FB. A new one just started for people with a very high CD-57 yet are very sick. They are trying to figure out between themselves if there is something else, perhaps a co-infection that makes them have this very high CD-57 yet be so very ill. None of their LLMD know the answer. It goes against everything most of us were taught or learned that the lower the CD-57, the worst your Lyme was or the sicker you were. I thought I would bring this to everyone's attention. Mine was an 8 in January and I was very sick. I am going to test mine again soon. I am feeling better (not cured) but interested in the number.
I know this thread is a little old, but just thought that I would give my two sense... Bartonella is known to increase CD57 counts. People can be extremely sick and ate up with Bartonella and have high counts. Also, Bartonella can increase VEGF levels. This can make people susceptible to cancer. I believe cancer can raise CD57 counts. Totally opposite to most of the other infections, which lower CD57 and VEGF levels.
MY CD4 count was fine, yet my CD57 count was only 5 -- and I tested positive for Lyme, Mycoplasma, Anaplasma, HHV6, EBV. Clinically dx'ed with Bart and Babesia. Also have mold toxicity, which is also said to lower CD57 counts.
Got my CD57 checked after a year of treatment, and I am now at a 10. Perhaps I'm making a little progress, not really sure what better is suppose to feel like. So I cannot tell.
MY CD4 count was fine, yet my CD57 count was only 5 -- and I tested positive for Lyme, Mycoplasma, Anaplasma, HHV6, EBV. Clinically dx'ed with Bart and Babesia. Also have mold toxicity, which is also said to lower CD57 counts.
Got my CD57 checked after a year of treatment, and I am now at a 10. Perhaps I'm making a little progress, not really sure what better is suppose to feel like. So I cannot tell.
Hmm, I don't know of any tissue acetaldehyde testing and any urine tests out there, have not convinced me that they can reflect tissue status, in any logical way. It might be just another money grab, but that's only my own opinion.
The important thing to note here is the critical need to have proper gastric levels and a healthy microflora, which help in its breakdown.
Have you had your gastric levels checked?-you can do the Betaine HCL challenge or the baking soda burp test on your own. Just do a search.
Cheers.
Niko
The important thing to note here is the critical need to have proper gastric levels and a healthy microflora, which help in its breakdown.
Have you had your gastric levels checked?-you can do the Betaine HCL challenge or the baking soda burp test on your own. Just do a search.
Cheers.
Niko
Niko- What do you know about testing just acetaldehyde? - since its a byproduct of Candida? Not much info on this.
I googled it - this was copied from a forum:
"Unfortunately, excessive acetaldehyde could just be an indication of mineral deficiencies, and could result in as many questions as answers. Also, acetaldehyde is often stored in various areas of the body like the muscles, joints, brain, vitreous humor and other areas, so it may be possible that the blood content may not be as high because of the tissue content, I'm just suggesting. Also, while I have read a good bit about candida production of acetaldehyde, I am not aware if any other organisms within our body produces acetaldehyde as wastes. Since the formation of acetaldehyde is an actual step in the Krebs cycle, with indistinguishable sources of origin, it may not be a reliable test.
Personally, despite my candida improvements, I continue to use 300 micrograms of liquid molybdenum to help breakdown any acetaldehyde that my be stored in harder to reach body tissue."
So this person thinks acetaldehyde testing it is set off by too many other possible factors. I dont know anything about testing it.
I googled it - this was copied from a forum:
"Unfortunately, excessive acetaldehyde could just be an indication of mineral deficiencies, and could result in as many questions as answers. Also, acetaldehyde is often stored in various areas of the body like the muscles, joints, brain, vitreous humor and other areas, so it may be possible that the blood content may not be as high because of the tissue content, I'm just suggesting. Also, while I have read a good bit about candida production of acetaldehyde, I am not aware if any other organisms within our body produces acetaldehyde as wastes. Since the formation of acetaldehyde is an actual step in the Krebs cycle, with indistinguishable sources of origin, it may not be a reliable test.
Personally, despite my candida improvements, I continue to use 300 micrograms of liquid molybdenum to help breakdown any acetaldehyde that my be stored in harder to reach body tissue."
So this person thinks acetaldehyde testing it is set off by too many other possible factors. I dont know anything about testing it.
CD-4 alone is just a better marker for autoimmune disorders such as Lupus. My doc told me that it is a combination of CD-3, CD-4 and CD-57 values is what may collectively point to Lyme diagnosis along with clinical presentation.
if you DO want to know more about this topic, Ginger Savely wrote a piece on it overall that conveys the ambiguities mentioned above. Search for:
everything you wanted to know about cd57 savely
She is an RN who has worked in the Lyme field with at least one well known LLMD. From my scant reading on the topic, I think cd57 may have its useful aspects, but it's not the silver bullet of diagnosis that has sometimes been said.
Then again, I'm not any more medically trained than my dog was. so fwiw.
everything you wanted to know about cd57 savely
She is an RN who has worked in the Lyme field with at least one well known LLMD. From my scant reading on the topic, I think cd57 may have its useful aspects, but it's not the silver bullet of diagnosis that has sometimes been said.
Then again, I'm not any more medically trained than my dog was. so fwiw.
Here's what I think is the bottom line from Niko's comments above:
"The fundamentals underlying the CD-57 in its connection to Lyme disease have not been fully explained (scientifically) yet."
Full stop. I wouldn't spend any time worrying over it, given how complex and unclear the answers have become to what was a hoped-for straightforward measure of Lyme status.
My doc had been an early user of CD-57, but when I was treated several years ago, it was not part of the diagnostic approach nor discussed with me further after an initial measurement. An apparent dead end, but as the saying goes, you've got to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince ... or in this case, a good test.
We are on the cutting edge of medicine, all of us -- so I wouldn't despair, but rather look to more promising methods and approaches. Take heart, comrades, and carry on!
"The fundamentals underlying the CD-57 in its connection to Lyme disease have not been fully explained (scientifically) yet."
Full stop. I wouldn't spend any time worrying over it, given how complex and unclear the answers have become to what was a hoped-for straightforward measure of Lyme status.
My doc had been an early user of CD-57, but when I was treated several years ago, it was not part of the diagnostic approach nor discussed with me further after an initial measurement. An apparent dead end, but as the saying goes, you've got to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince ... or in this case, a good test.
We are on the cutting edge of medicine, all of us -- so I wouldn't despair, but rather look to more promising methods and approaches. Take heart, comrades, and carry on!
Mojogal, I don't intend to discourage you, but it is very complex.
Can you detail what exactly took place in your MTHFR treatment.
And who helped you with this?
This is very precise science and there are far too many variable factors
and very few people have much knowledge in this field.
If the approach is not highly individualized and all the bases are not covered, there's a good chance it will not work well.
But please read on:
Jackie, I was referring to Candida treatment, in order to "bypass" the genetic defects successfully.
Methylation processes are inhibited by Candida, thus rendering any nutrigenetic treatment (very complex, individualized and expensive).
I can explain in details if you really want to, but in simple terms here it goes:
It involves two main substances, methionine synthase and acetylaldehyde.
The first one,methionine synthase, is a very vital enzyme, responsible for DNA repair and other processes, directly or indirectly, requiring methylation.
In certain gene mutations, like in MTHFR, methionine synthase is limited.
The second one, acetylaldehyde, a potent methionine synthase inhibitor, is a byproduct of Candida.
Conclusion: Candida inhibits Methylation.
Before seriously addressing the gene mutation, it would make sense to
eliminate such a potent inhibitor, considering its prevalence.
So when someone is not making progress, after having tried "everything",
this is an important imbalance to rule out!
The fundamentals underlying the CD-57 in its connection to Lyme disease have not been fully explained (scientifically) yet.
As far as CD-57 goes, it is not unlike most lab findings, which are based on statistical models, so you end up having false negatives and false positives.
However most Lyme patients will still have low CD-57 counts and as they're improving their count will rise in most.
Note that the tests are very time-sensitive and must be done within 12 hours from the blood draw, from what I understand.
Good luck to you if you live outside NC or TX, where the only 2 labs which are able to test CD-57 properly are located. On the other hand, if you own a private jet...lol!
My opinion, too complicated, for what it's worth. Another(medical) money grab, perhaps?
Best wishes.
Niko
Can you detail what exactly took place in your MTHFR treatment.
And who helped you with this?
This is very precise science and there are far too many variable factors
and very few people have much knowledge in this field.
If the approach is not highly individualized and all the bases are not covered, there's a good chance it will not work well.
But please read on:
Jackie, I was referring to Candida treatment, in order to "bypass" the genetic defects successfully.
Methylation processes are inhibited by Candida, thus rendering any nutrigenetic treatment (very complex, individualized and expensive).
I can explain in details if you really want to, but in simple terms here it goes:
It involves two main substances, methionine synthase and acetylaldehyde.
The first one,methionine synthase, is a very vital enzyme, responsible for DNA repair and other processes, directly or indirectly, requiring methylation.
In certain gene mutations, like in MTHFR, methionine synthase is limited.
The second one, acetylaldehyde, a potent methionine synthase inhibitor, is a byproduct of Candida.
Conclusion: Candida inhibits Methylation.
Before seriously addressing the gene mutation, it would make sense to
eliminate such a potent inhibitor, considering its prevalence.
So when someone is not making progress, after having tried "everything",
this is an important imbalance to rule out!
The fundamentals underlying the CD-57 in its connection to Lyme disease have not been fully explained (scientifically) yet.
As far as CD-57 goes, it is not unlike most lab findings, which are based on statistical models, so you end up having false negatives and false positives.
However most Lyme patients will still have low CD-57 counts and as they're improving their count will rise in most.
Note that the tests are very time-sensitive and must be done within 12 hours from the blood draw, from what I understand.
Good luck to you if you live outside NC or TX, where the only 2 labs which are able to test CD-57 properly are located. On the other hand, if you own a private jet...lol!
My opinion, too complicated, for what it's worth. Another(medical) money grab, perhaps?
Best wishes.
Niko
I have taken the MTHFR and have found 2 but it really hasn't had a big effect on my getting well.
I have been off ABX for over a year but again, the increase in CD-57 in a very ill man is still and has always been very hight so that proves it can't be used as a marker for progress.
I don't think it can be used to project Lyme conditions when this guy I know is deathly ill with a CD-57 of 311. I agree, no need to treat candida before Lyme.
1 -- pls explain why candida needs to be eliminated prior to treating Lyme
2 -- "This finding is just a marker, not a diagnostic criterion for Lyme's disease, albeit consistent with Lyme disease status (lower count indicates disease progression, higher indicates improvement)."
If low CD57 is associated with infections/conditions other than Lyme, why is CD57 useful in diagnosing and/or tracking progress against Lyme? Would it not overlap with other conditions that the patient may have at the same time as Lyme?
2 -- "This finding is just a marker, not a diagnostic criterion for Lyme's disease, albeit consistent with Lyme disease status (lower count indicates disease progression, higher indicates improvement)."
If low CD57 is associated with infections/conditions other than Lyme, why is CD57 useful in diagnosing and/or tracking progress against Lyme? Would it not overlap with other conditions that the patient may have at the same time as Lyme?
Hi everyone.
I'm here for my "once in blue" visit.
Perhaps I can shed some more light.
CD-57 is just an identifying marker on the surface immune cells, to identify a specific type of immune cell, (BTW 57 is just a number in the sequence the identifying marker was discovered - CD stands for Cluster Designation)
so CD-57 is linked to NK cells but in lower numbers than in CD-56, yet very relevant to LYME DISEASE patients, who have much lower levels than the so-called healthy range of 100-360 count per mcL.
This finding is just a marker, not a diagnostic criterion for Lyme's disease, albeit consistent with Lyme disease status ( lower count indicates disease progression, higher indicates improvement).
If I were a Lyme's patient, I would put my energy and money into genetic testing first, specially for MTHFR mutations (1st) and HLA (2nd),, but I suggest you totally eliminate candida*, before addressing these, should you test positive.
* This can take a very long time. Rule of thumb, 2 months per year of candida from its onset, which is unsymptomatic at first, on very strict comprehensive anti-candida protocol.
I can see some people shaking their heads here, but yes, the field of epigenetics, nutrigenomics and such are exploding nowadays and if your LLMDs are not up with the latest developments in these areas, you may be missing an opportunity to return to normal health.
Cheers.
Niko
I'm here for my "once in blue" visit.
Perhaps I can shed some more light.
CD-57 is just an identifying marker on the surface immune cells, to identify a specific type of immune cell, (BTW 57 is just a number in the sequence the identifying marker was discovered - CD stands for Cluster Designation)
so CD-57 is linked to NK cells but in lower numbers than in CD-56, yet very relevant to LYME DISEASE patients, who have much lower levels than the so-called healthy range of 100-360 count per mcL.
This finding is just a marker, not a diagnostic criterion for Lyme's disease, albeit consistent with Lyme disease status ( lower count indicates disease progression, higher indicates improvement).
If I were a Lyme's patient, I would put my energy and money into genetic testing first, specially for MTHFR mutations (1st) and HLA (2nd),, but I suggest you totally eliminate candida*, before addressing these, should you test positive.
* This can take a very long time. Rule of thumb, 2 months per year of candida from its onset, which is unsymptomatic at first, on very strict comprehensive anti-candida protocol.
I can see some people shaking their heads here, but yes, the field of epigenetics, nutrigenomics and such are exploding nowadays and if your LLMDs are not up with the latest developments in these areas, you may be missing an opportunity to return to normal health.
Cheers.
Niko
To my understanding, CD-57 was initially thought to track a Lyme infection closely, as being diagnostic of Lyme. Over time, it seems instead to be a general marker of inflammation that is affected by many things other than Lyme.
Because CD-57 is not specific to Lyme, it is not particularly useful in diagnosing and/or treating Lyme because it can be thrown off by so many other things. It's one data point among many, not an answer.
Because CD-57 is not specific to Lyme, it is not particularly useful in diagnosing and/or treating Lyme because it can be thrown off by so many other things. It's one data point among many, not an answer.
I've heard that CD-4 counts are a good marker in atypically high CD-57 count patients with chronic lyme.
It's good to hear you're feeling better. Have you stopped taking antibiotics, because I hear the CD-57 is supposed to make the jump after the doc believes a sustainable remission has been made, worthy of discontinuing ABX and continuing with preventative measures. A few weeks after, if the remission is a good one, the CD-57 is supposed to have a substantial increase. We tested mine again, 6 months into the antibiotics, but nowhere near being able to discontinue, and there was a minor improvement...It was at 59 to start and had gone up to 71. He thinks mine should jump up over 100 once we've determined I've had enough ABX/killed off enough of the infections to sustain a remission.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Lyme Disease Community
Fearing autism, many parents aren't vaccinating their kids. Can doctors reverse this dangerous trend?
Can HIV be transmitted through this sexual activity? Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia answers this commonly-asked question.
A breakthrough study discovers how to reduce risk of HIV transmission by 95 percent.
Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia provides insight to the most commonly asked question about the transfer of HIV between partners.
Before your drop a dime at the pharmacy, find out if these popular cold and flu home remedies are a wonder or a waste
Fend off colds and the flu with these disease-fighting foods
