Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Expanding blood testing scope and frequency of tests for AIT

Expand Messages
  • jascallaw
    Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 11, 2011
      Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.

      I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were worthless from my point of view.

      This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I am sorry.

      For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the business.

      What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the last outfit is too far away to be practical.

      With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be very problematic, for reasons also described below.

      Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few weeks.

      For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is so different than in the US please continue to read on.

      The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their experience in the public sector.

      I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.

      The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests were performed by at least three different labs.

      In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector, is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a lot less straightforward than in the US.

      It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.

      This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests because you ask for them.

      Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this was a doctor in private practice.

      Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance, the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.

      Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.

      Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.

      I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful with future letters when I receive them given this experience.

      Jasper
    • jorge25000
      Jasper, Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 12, 2011
        Jasper,

        Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.

        Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?

        The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your health may have been compromised).

        Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk? I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.

        Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.

        This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs, sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)

        You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent & treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved.

        Thanks again for your attention and efforts!

        --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
        >
        > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were worthless from my point of view.
        >
        > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I am sorry.
        >
        > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the business.
        >
        > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the last outfit is too far away to be practical.
        >
        > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be very problematic, for reasons also described below.
        >
        > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few weeks.
        >
        > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is so different than in the US please continue to read on.
        >
        > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their experience in the public sector.
        >
        > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
        >
        > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests were performed by at least three different labs.
        >
        > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector, is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a lot less straightforward than in the US.
        >
        > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
        >
        > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests because you ask for them.
        >
        > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this was a doctor in private practice.
        >
        > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance, the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
        >
        > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
        >
        > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
        >
        > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
        >
        > Jasper
        >
      • helminthdonor
        Yeah, I am also not sure why anything more than quarterly results is needed. Why would you do it every 2 months instead of every 3 months? Also, can AIT
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 13, 2011
          Yeah, I am also not sure why anything more than quarterly results is needed. Why would you do it every 2 months instead of every 3 months?

          Also, can AIT elaborate on the exact current techniques that are being used to clean the hookworm larvae and the whipworm ova? Marc wrote that the technique changed in recent times. Please share the current technique.

          Thanks.

          --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jorge25000" <andrew.callan@...> wrote:
          >
          > Jasper,
          >
          > Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.
          >
          > Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?
          >
          > The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your health may have been compromised).
          >
          > Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk? I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.
          >
          > Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.
          >
          > This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs, sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)
          >
          > You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent & treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved.
          >
          > Thanks again for your attention and efforts!
          >
          > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
          > >
          > > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were worthless from my point of view.
          > >
          > > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I am sorry.
          > >
          > > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the business.
          > >
          > > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the last outfit is too far away to be practical.
          > >
          > > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be very problematic, for reasons also described below.
          > >
          > > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few weeks.
          > >
          > > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is so different than in the US please continue to read on.
          > >
          > > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their experience in the public sector.
          > >
          > > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
          > >
          > > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests were performed by at least three different labs.
          > >
          > > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector, is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a lot less straightforward than in the US.
          > >
          > > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
          > >
          > > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests because you ask for them.
          > >
          > > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this was a doctor in private practice.
          > >
          > > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance, the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
          > >
          > > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
          > >
          > > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
          > >
          > > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
          > >
          > > Jasper
          > >
          >
        • davehiggins.geo
          Jasper, etc., I personally would be happy if all donors were tested twice yearly (with a thorough panel of tests). With additional testing after risky
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 13, 2011
            Jasper, etc.,

            I personally would be happy if all donors were tested twice yearly (with a thorough panel of tests). With additional testing after 'risky' behaviour, similar to the way nurses receive additional testing after accidentally pricking themselves with a needle. Risky behaviour would be defined as anything that raises a persons risk of exposure to a pathogen (unprotected sex, certain foreign travel, surgery, etc.)

            I should say, something which I didn't mention in my earlier post, that I don't personally feel the need to actually see the test results. A simple declaration, published after each new set of results, would be acceptable to me (with perhaps the latest batch of test results available on demand to someone who's actually about to undergo helminthic therapy). I'm all for openness but these are your personal medical results, I have no need to see them, and additionally most people here are not capable of correctly interpretting said results (leading to all kinds of potential problems). Furthermore, as an additional protection of the privacy of the donors I would leave the testing of 'risky' behaviour undeclared except for a certification that it is performed 'as required' and you lay out in a document, signed by the donors, what 'as required' means in practice. (Funny how legal and medical protocols sound very alike sometimes :)

            Best wishes,
            Dave.


            --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jorge25000" <andrew.callan@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jasper,
            >
            > Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.
            >
            > Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?
            >
            > The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your health may have been compromised).
            >
            > Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk? I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.
            >
            > Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.
            >
            > This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs, sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)
            >
            > You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent & treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved.
            >
            > Thanks again for your attention and efforts!
            >
            > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
            > >
            > > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were worthless from my point of view.
            > >
            > > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I am sorry.
            > >
            > > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the business.
            > >
            > > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the last outfit is too far away to be practical.
            > >
            > > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be very problematic, for reasons also described below.
            > >
            > > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few weeks.
            > >
            > > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is so different than in the US please continue to read on.
            > >
            > > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their experience in the public sector.
            > >
            > > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
            > >
            > > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests were performed by at least three different labs.
            > >
            > > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector, is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a lot less straightforward than in the US.
            > >
            > > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
            > >
            > > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests because you ask for them.
            > >
            > > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this was a doctor in private practice.
            > >
            > > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance, the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
            > >
            > > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
            > >
            > > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
            > >
            > > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
            > >
            > > Jasper
            > >
            >
          • Becky Liddle
            I agree with jorge 25000 that testing every other month seems over-the-top. I would much rather see you test once a year, save the money you would have spent
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 13, 2011
              I agree with "jorge 25000" that testing every other month seems over-the-top.
              I would much rather see you test once a year, save the money you would have spent on 5 extra sets of tests, and (when revenues allow) reduce the cost of helminths sooner, to make it more affordable. I think there are likely more people not doing helminths due to the cost than there are holding off for fear you have gotten some dread disease in the last 2 months.
              Thanks for all you do!
              Becky


              Begin forwarded message:

              Re: Expanding blood testing scope and frequency of tests for AIT

              Posted by: "jorge25000" andrew.callan@...   jorge25000

              Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:16 am (PST)



              Jasper,

              Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.

              Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?

              The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your health may have been compromised) .

              Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk? I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.

              Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.

              This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs, sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)

              You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent & treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved.

              Thanks again for your attention and efforts!

            • jascallaw
              Hi, Thank you in turn, well said. As to the frequency of testing to provide the most assurance I think once every two months is appropriate. I can also work on
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 15, 2011
                Hi,
                Thank you in turn, well said.

                As to the frequency of testing to provide the most assurance I think once every two months is appropriate. I can also work on identifying cheaper methods, I have to admit to shock when presented with the bill. In the US I would expect to pay about a third of that, so it must be possible here. As to my phobia about needles, I might ask for an anti anxiety drug before the procedure. I know it sounds like lunacy, given what I have done, to be phobic about needles, but there it is.

                As to preparing doses only after a test result that is impractical for hookworm. We have not been able to work out a way to store them for any period of time, refrigeration kills 90% within 24 hours. But we are working on this issue, having cracked it with whipworm.

                There is also the issue of having to be able to ship according to our client's schedules. particularly those who have to travel to pick up the dose. Often they have to do it during a holiday or a three day weekend, because of work or other commitments.

                We tried, briefly, in the interest of efficiency and stress reduction, to confine shipping and production to once or twice a month, but because of the above it did not work out.

                So testing prior to dose preparation is impractical, hence the idea of doing it once every two months.

                As to what parasites I host I have been tested by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, they confirmed the presence of hookworm and whipworm only, using a combination of ELISA testing and culturing my stool sample, as well as examining it using microscopy.

                But even if I did have other parasites hookworm larvae and whipworm ova are so distinct that it is impossible, given we prepare each dose by hand while examining the specimen with a microscope, that other organisms could slip by and get into a dose.

                Nothing we do is automated, even though this is possible and would make the process much less labor intensive. But the drawback of automation is that quality control is harder, and dose size would be within an unknown tolerance, regarding numbers of organism in the dose.

                Nottingham originally used an automated method but discovered that hookworm larvae clump together rather than being distributed evenly throughout the carrier solution.

                They had thought that by determining the density of hookworm larvae in a given volume of fluid that all they had to do was draw up a given fraction of the total volume to get the desired dose. This proved to be wrong.

                Our reputation is everything, one sick client, one client given too many helminths, and we would be out of business.

                Besides that I, like everyone but psychopaths, could not live with myself were we to harm anyone. In fact we would shut down the company, lawsuit or no, if we thought we had harmed anyone. Preparing the doses by hand helps ensure we do not.

                Besides which I have already promised we would test every two months, I cannot now go back on that. A promise is a promise.

                As to high risk behaviour, I am a 46 year-old man, married to the woman of my dreams, and I lead a pretty boring life in terms of my social life. The only potential risk would be if my wife to be unfaithful to me, doubtful, or if I were to travel to a third world country. I have no plans to do that for quite a while, but if or when I do I will get supplemental tests for whatever period the doctor feels necessary to guarantee I am not infected with any new nasty.

                Jasper

                --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jorge25000" <andrew.callan@...> wrote:
                >
                > Jasper,
                >
                > Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.
                >
                > Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?
                >
                > The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your health may have been compromised).
                >
                > Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk? I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.
                >
                > Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.
                >
                > This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs, sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)
                >
                > You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent & treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved.
                >
                > Thanks again for your attention and efforts!
                >
                > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
                > >
                > > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were worthless from my point of view.
                > >
                > > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I am sorry.
                > >
                > > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the business.
                > >
                > > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the last outfit is too far away to be practical.
                > >
                > > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be very problematic, for reasons also described below.
                > >
                > > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few weeks.
                > >
                > > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is so different than in the US please continue to read on.
                > >
                > > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their experience in the public sector.
                > >
                > > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
                > >
                > > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests were performed by at least three different labs.
                > >
                > > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector, is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a lot less straightforward than in the US.
                > >
                > > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
                > >
                > > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests because you ask for them.
                > >
                > > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this was a doctor in private practice.
                > >
                > > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance, the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
                > >
                > > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
                > >
                > > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
                > >
                > > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
                > >
                > > Jasper
                > >
                >
              • Helminth Donor
                Can you describe the technique you use to make sure the hookworm larvae and the whipworm ova are clean? How did this technique change over time? On Thu, Jan
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 9, 2011
                  Can you describe the technique you use to make sure the hookworm larvae and the whipworm ova are clean? How did this technique change over time?

                  On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:45 AM, helminthdonor <helminthdonor@...> wrote:
                   

                  Yeah, I am also not sure why anything more than quarterly results is needed. Why would you do it every 2 months instead of every 3 months?

                  Also, can AIT elaborate on the exact current techniques that are being used to clean the hookworm larvae and the whipworm ova? Marc wrote that the technique changed in recent times. Please share the current technique.

                  Thanks.



                  --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jorge25000" <andrew.callan@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Jasper,

                  > Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.

                  > Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?

                  > The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your health may have been compromised).

                  > Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk? I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.

                  > Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.

                  > This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs, sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)

                  > You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent & treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone involved.

                  > Thanks again for your attention and efforts!

                  > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
                  > > 
                  > > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were worthless from my point of view.
                  > > 
                  > > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I am sorry.
                  > > 
                  > > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the business.
                  > > 
                  > > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the last outfit is too far away to be practical.
                  > > 
                  > > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be very problematic, for reasons also described below.
                  > > 
                  > > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few weeks.
                  > > 
                  > > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is so different than in the US please continue to read on.
                  > > 
                  > > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their experience in the public sector.
                  > > 
                  > > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
                  > > 
                  > > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests were performed by at least three different labs.
                  > > 
                  > > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector, is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a lot less straightforward than in the US.
                  > > 
                  > > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
                  > > 
                  > > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests because you ask for them.
                  > > 
                  > > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this was a doctor in private practice.
                  > > 
                  > > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance, the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
                  > > 
                  > > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
                  > > 
                  > > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
                  > > 
                  > > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
                  > > 
                  > > Jasper
                  > >
                  >

                • jascallaw
                  We are going to open-source our techniques, including videos on Youtube, as soon as possible. I would expect in the next six months. But in short we use a
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 9, 2011
                    We are going to open-source our techniques, including videos on Youtube, as soon as possible. I would expect in the next six months.

                    But in short we use a combination of flotation, centrifugation, filtration, and flocculation to separate whipworm from faeces, it is then incubated in an aerated one molar sulphuric acid solution for three weeks, then soaked in Chlorhexidine for at least a day, then washed with various antibiotics and then suspended in a buffered saline solution called M9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorhexidine

                    Hookworm are mechanically separated using their instinct for migration up and out of whatever they are incubated in, and then washed repeatedly as above before also being suspended in M9.

                    All our techniques are based on other's research which is available to anyone.

                    Jasper

                    --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, Helminth Donor <helminthdonor@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Can you describe the technique you use to make sure the hookworm larvae and
                    > the whipworm ova are clean? How did this technique change over time?
                    >
                    > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:45 AM, helminthdonor <helminthdonor@...>
                    > wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Yeah, I am also not sure why anything more than quarterly results is
                    > > needed. Why would you do it every 2 months instead of every 3 months?
                    > >
                    > > Also, can AIT elaborate on the exact current techniques that are being used
                    > > to clean the hookworm larvae and the whipworm ova? Marc wrote that the
                    > > technique changed in recent times. Please share the current technique.
                    > >
                    > > Thanks.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jorge25000" <andrew.callan@>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Jasper,
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your
                    > > kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has
                    > > limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited
                    > > reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.
                    > > >
                    > > > Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the
                    > > business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone
                    > > provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?
                    > > >
                    > > > The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional
                    > > fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all
                    > > screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be
                    > > infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine
                    > > testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do
                    > > before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the
                    > > stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a
                    > > safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason
                    > > to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly
                    > > comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency
                    > > (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your
                    > > health may have been compromised).
                    > > >
                    > > > Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk?
                    > > I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses
                    > > only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree
                    > > there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the
                    > > hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a
                    > > realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see
                    > > other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.
                    > > >
                    > > > Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent
                    > > testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for
                    > > you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as
                    > > there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND
                    > > ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.
                    > > >
                    > > > This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from
                    > > a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking
                    > > barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs,
                    > > sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)
                    > > >
                    > > > You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent &
                    > > treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so
                    > > a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone
                    > > involved.
                    > > >
                    > > > Thanks again for your attention and efforts!
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you
                    > > as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring
                    > > when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the
                    > > limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I
                    > > genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why
                    > > others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that
                    > > we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases
                    > > the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were
                    > > worthless from my point of view.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I
                    > > am sorry.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the
                    > > business.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results
                    > > here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ
                    > > donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work
                    > > initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the
                    > > last outfit is too far away to be practical.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional
                    > > tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take
                    > > courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic
                    > > infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared
                    > > before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent
                    > > the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up
                    > > in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require
                    > > weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be
                    > > very problematic, for reasons also described below.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I
                    > > live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those
                    > > results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every
                    > > two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few
                    > > weeks.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is
                    > > so different than in the US please continue to read on.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that
                    > > most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice
                    > > have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue
                    > > to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their
                    > > private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their
                    > > experience in the public sector.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to
                    > > obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised
                    > > medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to
                    > > have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector
                    > > medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner
                    > > (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and
                    > > send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of
                    > > Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered
                    > > the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology
                    > > being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types
                    > > of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to
                    > > get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare
                    > > organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests
                    > > were performed by at least three different labs.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector,
                    > > is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason
                    > > that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent
                    > > in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered
                    > > simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here
                    > > are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a
                    > > lot less straightforward than in the US.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor
                    > > working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering
                    > > them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of
                    > > consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the
                    > > doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical
                    > > reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in
                    > > private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run
                    > > system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run
                    > > system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both
                    > > private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to
                    > > that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests
                    > > because you ask for them.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when
                    > > they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the
                    > > patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the
                    > > doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results
                    > > with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if
                    > > your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call
                    > > periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even
                    > > for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set
                    > > up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state
                    > > run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this
                    > > was a doctor in private practice.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only
                    > > performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is
                    > > unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a
                    > > bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance,
                    > > the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School
                    > > of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the
                    > > country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and
                    > > found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they
                    > > did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the
                    > > test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is
                    > > necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool
                    > > directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have
                    > > done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact
                    > > the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter
                    > > confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for
                    > > Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful
                    > > with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Jasper
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Helen Love
                    Do you have the test results available now?
                    Message 9 of 13 , May 13 11:44 PM
                      Do you have the test results available now?

                      --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > We are going to open-source our techniques, including videos on Youtube, as soon as possible. I would expect in the next six months.
                      >
                      > But in short we use a combination of flotation, centrifugation, filtration, and flocculation to separate whipworm from faeces, it is then incubated in an aerated one molar sulphuric acid solution for three weeks, then soaked in Chlorhexidine for at least a day, then washed with various antibiotics and then suspended in a buffered saline solution called M9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorhexidine
                      >
                      > Hookworm are mechanically separated using their instinct for migration up and out of whatever they are incubated in, and then washed repeatedly as above before also being suspended in M9.
                      >
                      > All our techniques are based on other's research which is available to anyone.
                      >
                      > Jasper
                      >
                      > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, Helminth Donor <helminthdonor@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Can you describe the technique you use to make sure the hookworm larvae and
                      > > the whipworm ova are clean? How did this technique change over time?
                      > >
                      > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:45 AM, helminthdonor <helminthdonor@>
                      > > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Yeah, I am also not sure why anything more than quarterly results is
                      > > > needed. Why would you do it every 2 months instead of every 3 months?
                      > > >
                      > > > Also, can AIT elaborate on the exact current techniques that are being used
                      > > > to clean the hookworm larvae and the whipworm ova? Marc wrote that the
                      > > > technique changed in recent times. Please share the current technique.
                      > > >
                      > > > Thanks.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jorge25000" <andrew.callan@>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Jasper,
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed response as well as your
                      > > > kind words. I completely understand your point of view on why testing has
                      > > > limited benefits but I'm glad to see you embrace that even the limited
                      > > > reassurance it can provide makes it very worthwhile.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Re: testing frequency, I applaud your thinking to make it the best in the
                      > > > business. Do you have a specific reason for choosing 2 months or can anyone
                      > > > provide a medical rationale for what frequency makes the most sense?
                      > > > >
                      > > > > The only analogy I can think of is to blood/organ donors, professional
                      > > > fighters, & pardon the reference but adult industry actors who are all
                      > > > screened prior to when anyone else will be exposed to whatever they could be
                      > > > infected with. I don't know how frequently you harvest ova but I imagine
                      > > > testing & getting results would not be feasible or timely enough to do
                      > > > before every harvest. Nor do I think that really necessary given the
                      > > > stability of your health but it would be extremely reassuring from a
                      > > > safety/QA perspective if it is possible. Unless someone has a medical reason
                      > > > to explain the need for frequent testing I personally would be perfectly
                      > > > comfortable with a quarterly, bi-annual, or even annual testing frequency
                      > > > (in addition to any special circumstances if you have reason to believe your
                      > > > health may have been compromised).
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Re: additional parasite exposure, does anyone see that as a major risk?
                      > > > I'm pretty sure AIT has an effective protocol for confirming that your doses
                      > > > only contain NA or TTO but can you please confirm? I hope we can all agree
                      > > > there's no need for you to put your health at risk or even go through the
                      > > > hassle of taking anti-helminthics then reinfecting unless this is a
                      > > > realistic risk - I don't know enough to comment on that so I'm eager to see
                      > > > other more knowledgeable people's thoughts.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Unless someone is able to provide medical rationale for more frequent
                      > > > testing and parasitic risks my personal opinion is that there's no need for
                      > > > you to incur the hassle & expense of overly frequent testing as long as
                      > > > there is a comprehensive, regularly scheduled & publicized donor testing AND
                      > > > ova screening&cleansing protocols in place.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > This all assumes that you also promise not to do anything high risk from
                      > > > a immunological perspective of course, such as but not limited to walking
                      > > > barefoot in latrines, exposing yourself to the potential for STDs/STIs,
                      > > > sharing needles w/ intravenous drug users, etc ;-)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > You have no shortage of "skin in the game" considering the time, talent &
                      > > > treasure you've put into this therapy which we are all very grateful for so
                      > > > a reasonable testing program should be more than enough to satisfy everyone
                      > > > involved.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Thanks again for your attention and efforts!
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Hi, it is clear that regular testing is very important to many of you
                      > > > as assurance that we are free of disease, and that you find it reassuring
                      > > > when those tests come back negative. That alone makes them worthwhile.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > I have to apologise for not understanding, based on my knowledge of the
                      > > > limitations of these tests, why this would be important to others. I
                      > > > genuinely did not see what value they provided and so did not understand why
                      > > > others would find them so important. I viewed this from the perspective that
                      > > > we had to ensure every dose is absolutely pure, regardless of what diseases
                      > > > the reservoir does not have, and so from that perspective the tests were
                      > > > worthless from my point of view.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > This attitude was, in retrospect, extraordinarily stupid on my part. I
                      > > > am sorry.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > For that reason I propose making our testing regimen the best in the
                      > > > business.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > What I will do is get tested every two months, and publish the results
                      > > > here, and I will get all the tests that are routinely performed on organ
                      > > > donors. Finding a doctor willing to go along with this may take some work
                      > > > initially, but I have started calling doctors today. I have moved, so the
                      > > > last outfit is too far away to be practical.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > With respect to tests for parasites, rather than getting additional
                      > > > tests if I travel to the tropics what I propose instead is that I will take
                      > > > courses of various anti helminthic drugs to clear any possible parasitic
                      > > > infection I may have acquired, and then reinfect with samples prepared
                      > > > before I leave when I have completed the course of drugs. This will prevent
                      > > > the need for testing for all the possible parasites I might have picked up
                      > > > in travel, which is far more efficient that obtaining tests that require
                      > > > weeks or months to obtain. Obtaining them with any regularity would also be
                      > > > very problematic, for reasons also described below.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Please understand that given the nature of obtaining tests where I
                      > > > live, described below, that I cannot promise I will be able to publish those
                      > > > results every two months reliably, even though I will obtain the tests every
                      > > > two months as promised. Publishing the results here may be delayed by a few
                      > > > weeks.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > For those of you who are interested in why obtaining tests like this is
                      > > > so different than in the US please continue to read on.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > The differences in obtaining tests here all derive from the fact that
                      > > > most healthcare here is socialised, that even doctors in private practice
                      > > > have spent most of their careers in the public sector, and usually continue
                      > > > to provide their services in the public sector, as well as within their
                      > > > private practice. Their attitudes and approach is steeped in their
                      > > > experience in the public sector.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > I actually had to use a mix of private and state organisations to
                      > > > obtain these tests for instance, because I do not qualify for socialised
                      > > > medicine here, and besides could not obtain them just based on my desire to
                      > > > have them from the public sector. You cannot just walk into a public sector
                      > > > medical clinic and ask for a particular test or tests in this country.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > The process involved making an appointment with a general practitioner
                      > > > (private practice), who then referred me to a specialist to draw blood and
                      > > > send out the samples for testing. I was also referred to the School of
                      > > > Tropical Medicine (state run) for the Strongyloides test, who then ordered
                      > > > the tests, most of which were sent out to various large labs, pathology
                      > > > being largely centralised in facilities who specialise in particular types
                      > > > of tests. The specialist I visited ordered the standard blood tests. So to
                      > > > get the tests I had to make appointments with three different healthcare
                      > > > organisations, with two to three weeks between appointments, and my tests
                      > > > were performed by at least three different labs.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > In addition, the protocol here for testing, even in the private sector,
                      > > > is far more conservative than in the US. This no doubt is part of the reason
                      > > > that the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare here is about half that spent
                      > > > in the US. Nor is defensive medicine practiced, in which tests are ordered
                      > > > simply to insulate the doctor from potential lawsuits, the Tort laws here
                      > > > are profoundly different. Translation: getting tests done and ordered is a
                      > > > lot less straightforward than in the US.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > It would have been impossible to obtain these tests from a doctor
                      > > > working for the public health service, without a good reason for ordering
                      > > > them. Because the user is not paying for the tests at the point of
                      > > > consumption, what tests are performed are at the sole discreton of the
                      > > > doctor, and since the public is paying the doctor must have a clinical
                      > > > reason, and a good one, for ordering the tests.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > This attitude is reflected in the private sector, all doctors in
                      > > > private practice here working, at least partly, outside the state run
                      > > > system, have spent most of their careers working within the state run
                      > > > system. Even when they set up in private practice they usually handle both
                      > > > private and public patients. So their attitude to testing is very similar to
                      > > > that of doctors working only for the state. They just don't order tests
                      > > > because you ask for them.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Furthermore, labs do not send results direct to patients, even when
                      > > > they are paying for the tests. Printed copies are not routinely sent to the
                      > > > patient at all, what is more typical is that if there is an abnormality the
                      > > > doctor's office calls you to schedule an appointment to discuss the results
                      > > > with you so that remedial treatment or advice can be offered. Typically if
                      > > > your results are normal you just don't here anything, you have to call
                      > > > periodically to find out, over the telephone, that everything was fine. Even
                      > > > for the blood tests I was asked why I wanted a copy, they are just not set
                      > > > up to send these tests out routinely. From the point of view of the state
                      > > > run health service this is an unnecessary expense, so why do it? But this
                      > > > was a doctor in private practice.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Additionally, because medicine here is socialised, most tests are only
                      > > > performed at centralised, national labs, particularly if the test is
                      > > > unusual. Which makes enormous sense financially, but also creates a
                      > > > bottleneck for performing these tests. So when I request, as a for instance,
                      > > > the Strongyloides test, I was referred by my doctor to the Liverpool School
                      > > > of Tropical Medicine, who then sent my sample out to the one lab in the
                      > > > country performing that test, Strong ELISA. They also cultured my faeces and
                      > > > found no evidence of Strongyloides there, either. Although reassuringly they
                      > > > did fine hookworm and whipworm, in abundance.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Obviously this adds time at each step, both to schedule and perform the
                      > > > test, the communication between each organisation, but also when it is
                      > > > necessary to obtain a copy of said test in print. I cannot contact Liverpool
                      > > > directly, I have tried, they just told me to contact my doctor. Which I have
                      > > > done, they must then contact Liverpool, and for all I know they must contact
                      > > > the lab. Then the letter has to be passed back down that chain.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Add to this that they are a little quizzical as to why I want a letter
                      > > > confirming what I have already been told, that I am negative for
                      > > > Strongyloides, and you can see how this takes time.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > I can absolutely guarantee I am going to be a great deal more careful
                      > > > with future letters when I receive them given this experience.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Jasper
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • jascallaw
                      I have been turned down by two doctors for the tests so far, unnecessary . I will post them here as soon as I have them.
                      Message 10 of 13 , May 14 6:00 AM
                        I have been turned down by two doctors for the tests so far, "unnecessary". I will post them here as soon as I have them.
                      • Helen Love
                        Do you have any idea of how many helminths you are hosting of each type? Have you ever had a lab who was able to correctly diagnose your helminth infections?
                        Message 11 of 13 , May 21 10:31 PM
                          Do you have any idea of how many helminths you are hosting of each type? Have you ever had a lab who was able to correctly diagnose your helminth infections? I have read that the CDC offers a reference lab service, I'm sure they would get it right. I am just wondering, how would patients know they were getting necator americanus versus ancylostoma sp. Do you get your iron and such monitored, I know some people have had a drop while others had a rise. Well, if you are still on here chatting with us, I'm sure you are pretty healthy:) How long have you been hosting each type and have you done any kill-offs?

                          Do they have free STD clinics where you are such as planned parenthood in the states where you might get at least an HIV and hepatitis tests? I know you can buy a HIV test here at wal----ns that you mail out...


                          --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I have been turned down by two doctors for the tests so far, "unnecessary". I will post them here as soon as I have them.
                          >
                        • Helen Love
                          Bump
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jun 6, 2011
                            Bump

                            --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Helen Love" <hematoxophile@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Do you have any idea of how many helminths you are hosting of each type? Have you ever had a lab who was able to correctly diagnose your helminth infections? I have read that the CDC offers a reference lab service, I'm sure they would get it right. I am just wondering, how would patients know they were getting necator americanus versus ancylostoma sp. Do you get your iron and such monitored, I know some people have had a drop while others had a rise. Well, if you are still on here chatting with us, I'm sure you are pretty healthy:) How long have you been hosting each type and have you done any kill-offs?
                            >
                            > Do they have free STD clinics where you are such as planned parenthood in the states where you might get at least an HIV and hepatitis tests? I know you can buy a HIV test here at wal----ns that you mail out...
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > I have been turned down by two doctors for the tests so far, "unnecessary". I will post them here as soon as I have them.
                            > >
                            >
                          • jascallaw
                            Rather than answer, and continue to answer, all these questions periodically I would refer you to my most recent blood tests and to the history of posts here
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jun 7, 2011
                              Rather than answer, and continue to answer, all these questions periodically I would refer you to my most recent blood tests and to the history of posts here and elsewhere on these topics.

                              I have been replying to these questions, or close variants, for four plus years now, so you will find plenty of replies specific to your questions if you are willing to expend the effort.


                              --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "Helen Love" <hematoxophile@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Do you have any idea of how many helminths you are hosting of each type? Have you ever had a lab who was able to correctly diagnose your helminth infections? I have read that the CDC offers a reference lab service, I'm sure they would get it right. I am just wondering, how would patients know they were getting necator americanus versus ancylostoma sp. Do you get your iron and such monitored, I know some people have had a drop while others had a rise. Well, if you are still on here chatting with us, I'm sure you are pretty healthy:) How long have you been hosting each type and have you done any kill-offs?
                              >
                              > Do they have free STD clinics where you are such as planned parenthood in the states where you might get at least an HIV and hepatitis tests? I know you can buy a HIV test here at wal----ns that you mail out...
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In helminthictherapy@yahoogroups.com, "jascallaw" <jascallaw@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > I have been turned down by two doctors for the tests so far, "unnecessary". I will post them here as soon as I have them.
                              > >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.