AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

Everything relating to microscopy hardware: Objectives, eyepieces, lamps and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#1 Post by dwkst5 » Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:44 pm

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00E3IR8 ... microscope

Amazon was easy to get link from, but will probably buy right from Amscope. To me, it appears it will be sufficient for viewing Borrelia spirochaetes. I wanted to see if any of you know if the objectives are a good enough quality to get decent clarity at 1600x or 2400x. This is my first scope purchase.

Thanks for your time

ted
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 12:34 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#2 Post by ted » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:21 pm

To me, it appears it will be sufficient for viewing Borrelia spirochaetes.
What is it that makes you think that this microscope will be sufficient ?

dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#3 Post by dwkst5 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:27 am

They are normally 0.2 to 0.3 micrometers wide, length up to 15-20um on average but the determining factor as to the difficulty in viewing them is the width.
1600x with high resolution appears to be enough to atleast make them out, from what I've read, but I know different optics provide different contrast and resolution.

2400x would seem plenty powerful, but if objectives are shoddy and it is blurry it won't matter. Phase contrast/darkfield is preferred to brightfield and a stain due to their size. Also, phase contrast is necessary due to my viewing them in suspensions mostly. I am not familiar with other components of scopes, and wanted to now if anything jumps out to anyone as too low quality for my mission.

User avatar
lorez
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:48 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#4 Post by lorez » Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:52 am

Hello,

Please be careful with the enticements of the AmScope folks. 1600X and 2400X are somewhat of a gimmick that often captures the imagination of the beginner.

The bacteria you would like to look at are a challenge and the key to seeing them is light control and resolution. They can be seen with a 100X objective, with oil, when properly used.

I don't think the scope you are looking at is going to be what you are hoping for when it comes to darkfield and phase. Sadly enough, all systems are not created equally.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#5 Post by apochronaut » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:18 am

Depending on when and where one receives a B. Burgdorferi infection it may or may not present, as spirochaetes in the blood. If the infection is recent, you may find them, just making they're way into the system, via the bloodstream, with a 40-100x phase objective but it is a little like trying to find a lost Budgie, that flew out the door. They are few and fleeting. B. Burgdorferi is highly pleomorphic and if the infection has been around very long, it settles into a number of forms , which seem compatible with various tissues. The spirochaetes are most often associated with synovial fluid and the upper spinal cord and brain, whereas the non-flagellated, ribbon form is usually in the blood, along with spheroplasts. When viewing blood, patience is required. The mutant ribbon form doesn't make itself evident, usually for about 2 hours after incubation at close to body temp, and after up to 24 hours, some reversion to the spirochaete form takes place in the blood as well as corpuscle paracitization. I have observed the ribbon form, approach a clotted red corpuscle and wrap itself around it, and assume a spirochaete form in the process. I suspect that there is something about the surface tension of fresh blood, that inhibits the formation of the coiled form.
Generally speaking, a better , used, 100 watt microscope from one of the major mfg. from the past or present will give you more guaranteed results, than an oriental cheapo from Amazon in searching for an organism, that even the man that discovered them, said of them; "you can't even find them in a smear. they are there but you don't see them". As it turns out, if you are looking for spirochaetes, as Willi Burgdorfer was, they are very hard to find in the blood but not so hard to find as pleomorphic forms in the blood, or as the spirochaete form in other juicy tissues, as well as a tick's stomach, where they were originally identified..
Last edited by apochronaut on Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
75RR
Posts: 8207
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Location: Estepona, Spain

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#6 Post by 75RR » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:42 am

https://www.amazon.com/AmScope-T690C-PC ... 23&sr=8-23

$1,379.98

That is a serious amount of money for a first microscope - is this a business investment?
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)

charlie g
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#7 Post by charlie g » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:56 pm

Welcome to forum. Wow..you intend to 'drop duckets' for task of specific spirochaete observing...very risky to purchase a microscope for this function . As Lorez states...lighting setup of a microscope with quality optics permits 100X oil-objective veiwing of spirochaetes. With phase contrast optics, 40X, and 60X phase objectives easily permit observations of active spirochaetes in wet- mount slide preps.

Spirochaetes are in a lot of places...look at a tooth-pick harvested glob of tooth/gum line plaque collected before your morning brushing. This is what Anton L. entertained guests with at high society dinner parties. Spread this sample evenly with saliva and a tad of normal saline..on slide with cover slip.

Spirochaetes 'in the wild'...from pond water are quite easy to find...the slide prep of course easier to maintain as you observe the slide for a long time.

Without specific antibody staining...your establish that you are observing 'morphotypes' of spicochaetes..it's shaped like a duck, it acts like a duck...it's a duck. But you state a clear intent for observing visually Genus and species of spirochaetes...very risky to spend 1G+ for this goal. Have you learned/looked into techmiques of blood smear slide prep? Have you looked into techs for whole blood slide prep observing...these tasks are done all the time, but they have learning curves.

Think of getting a scope with phase contrast 20X, 40X and an oil 100X objective.

I have not done it...but I sense 'fixed/permanent' prepared slides of: 'spirochaetes' might be available for purchase low cost.

Buy one or more of these slides...use the scope you buy to observe these spirochaetes...get a sense of how to set up the microscope to observe these spirochaete preps.

I'm nervous that you are on a quest for: 'spirochaete viewing'..of a specific genus and species...again, welcome to forum! charlie guevara

dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#8 Post by dwkst5 » Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:33 pm

Thank you all for your comments, didn't expect such expansive spirochaete knowledge. I am well aware of their pleomorphic nature. I am also aware live viewing, non-fixed, is the best bet. That is why phase contrast is a must. I also know they do not aggregate in the bloodstream much after the initial bacteremic sort of stage. I have read that leaving a blood sample out for several hours may get them to change into more of a coiled form from any other forms. Also, they can invade cells and it has been reported that once left out (maybe oxygen deprivation?) they start to emerge from intracelluar locations and assume the spirochaete form to try and travel.

If I am successful in finding them, or other infections such as Ehrlichia, Bartonella, Babesia, some harder to find then spirochaetes, I may just drop the $1300 for a fluorescent kit and $500 for a few fluorescent tags to confirm what they are. Culturing these organisms can be difficult from what I understand.

I am a pre-med student that has struggled with such infections, and once you reach a certain point the immune system is modulated in a way that antibody production to these pathogens ceases. Some can also change their surface proteins, such as Lyme spirochaete with its vlse cassette. I need confirmation besides symptoms that the infections are still active, before I destroy natural flora and such.

I just need something with the accuracy to identify spirochaetes and the other predominantly intracellular agents. I don't mind it will take awhile. Spirochaetes have also been founds in saliva, urine, and semen samples. Hopefully, it doesn't come to that :? .

For all you saying phase is needed, this comes with 3 phase objectives. The plan is to use a slide with indentation, which they make, then coverslip the top. As long as the sample isn't too deep, I should be fine.

For those saying Amscope isn't good, what would you recommend that isn't $5k? Amscope might not be best, but I'm looking for best dollar for x amount of quality ratio.

Thanks for replies

Oktagon
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:52 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#9 Post by Oktagon » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:31 pm

Dear Dwkst5:

You mentioned the fact that you are pre-med student (I'm assuming undergrad Bio/Biochem major or track). The project you are undertaking is quite complex, as was pointed out earlier. Also, if I understand your posts correctly, you are attempting to self-diagnose. This is probably the most dangerous thing to do aside from attempting to perform a major surgery on yourself. Not only are you ill-equipped for the task, but at this stage you are simply not qualified. Please don't take this as an offense, but it is just fact of life. Do you think you can replace an MD specializing in infectious diseases, a clinical microbiologist, potentially a rheumatologist and immunologist plus array of methods and equipment available to a major medical center? If you are interested in this project for purely academic reasons, than you may find that immunofluorescent staining is a much better approach then phase contrast. As far as microscope, you are probably looking at research grade fluorescent microscope from the "big 4", and $5K is not even where they start new. Try $30K+. You will probably be better off with used instrument purchased from reputable dealer. That you can possibly get it for under $2500.
Last edited by Oktagon on Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tom Jones
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#10 Post by Tom Jones » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:31 pm

Delete
Last edited by Tom Jones on Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#11 Post by dwkst5 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:12 am

This is why I did not mention it in the first place. Live blood analysis is called a scam, because most doing it make outrageous claims. They recommend supplements due to imagined red blood cell morphology changes, sometimes actually there and due to oxygen exposure and clotting, identify contaminants as pathogens, and sometimes just make shit up because customers have never seen blood under a microscope before.

The first guy to use a microscope and find bacteria was considered a fraud. He was rediculed and blackballed in the field of medicine. It took years for him to convince people these "animalcules" as he called them existed.

Blood tests are crap. Western blot and ELISA testing are highly inaccurate. You cannot rely on tests that involve antibody production, as that is relying on the immune system actually working. When a pathogen can change forms, protein expression, and otherwise evade the immune system, bind Complement Factor H, modulate inflammatory cytokines, bind antigen binding complexes with excreted parts of its membrane, form biofilm aggregates, then blood work is no longer accurate.

PCR testing requires several spirochetes or pathogens in a sample to amplify, or else it is negative. It is not sensitive, but highly specific. I know what I am looking for. The Infectious disease society of America was sued for conflicts of interest and corruption and anti-trust by Attorney General of Connecticut. They did not abide by terms of them dropping case. They still do not take research conflicting that of their own board. Due to this, the correct research on Lyme disease has not been passed on to physicians, such as CDC criteria for Western Blots being unsensitive and overbearing and unnecessary.

Why we got away from using microscopes to assist in diagnosis when the immune system is incompetent, and the organism is so equipped to evade antibody production, is beyond me. I can get treated from clinical symptoms, and previous documented infection, but I would like to confirm first.

This really isn't any concern of yours, although I appreciate the input. However, in this instance, the input is misguided. I know more about this, read hundreds of studies, than any infectious disease specialist or PCP. They are not even made aware that several studies have found actual fluid transmission in cats, dogs, and atleast the presence of spirochaetes in human blood, saliva, and genital fluids. It is unethical to test human transmission, so they won't. However, if it can be passed by contact (urine, saliva) and sexually in those tetrapods, it is likely so in humans. Maybe that is why so many Lyme patients do not recall a tick bite.

Lyme has also been found in fleas, mites, biting flies, and several species of mosquitos, sometimes up to 6 days or more. Of course, no more funding goes into it.

Anyways, I just needed to know if these optics would provide clarity at that magnification. I have not really gotten a straight answer. I know on paper they will, but will they actually? If anyone wants the peer reviewed studies for any of my claims, just let me know or email me at dwkst5@mail.rmu.edu .

Thanks

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#12 Post by apochronaut » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:21 am

Tom Jones wrote:Dwkst5,


If it did work, recognized clinical labs would be performing Lyme testing using that technique. None do. That should tell you a lot right there. Have you ever found peer reviewed journal articles, in reputable journals, properly evaluating LBA or comparing it to mainstream methods in any clinical setting?


Tom
While live blood analysis may be mostly smoke and mirrors, when used in many naturopathic clinics, when it comes to Borreliosis diagnosis, most clinical laboratories are smoke and mirrors as well. Their track record of determining the incidence of Borelliosis in submitted samples is dismal. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
Treponema Pallidum, the agent of syphilis( also called " the great immitator") , a pleomorphic spirochaete is diagnosed to this day ,definitively, using DF microscopy. Any lab that does not do so, is a fraud. Syphilis is much more widespread than is thought, due to poor diagnosis and it's habit of going latent, for up to 15 years after the initial infection.
B. Burgdorferi, is a closely related organism, with a similarly pleomorphic style, and latency periods. It is best diagnosed, using DF microscopy. Phase is another option. Using live blood has it's value but only , as pointed out in my earlier post , if the infection is fairly recent and the organism is just in the process of becoming established. It does not maintain the spirochaete form easily in blood. If one understands it's other forms, and follows certain protocols of incubation , then finding it in the live blood of an infected person is not that difficult, with an adequate microscope system and the knowledge to use it well.
A study by the College of American Pathologists, covering 516 clinical labs, and these are people very skilled in the use of microscopes for diagnosis and the only arbiters of accuracy, when it comes to clinical laboratories, found 55% of them were inaccurate when it comes to diagnosing lyme disease. How was this determined? By using microscopes...essentially live blood and serum analysis
Labs, use Elisa and Western Blot and both are woefully inadequate in diagnosing Lyme disease, for a number of widely known reasons. Why are they used? It's very simple. They are sold at the trade fairs associated with every lyme disease conference by their makers, they come with false claims of accuracy, an idiot in the lab with 1 hour of training can run a test, or multiples at one time, so they are a cheap test, and usually, the patient who they are run for doesn't know any different. Who is there to tell them , they have been duped ; the pathologist around the corner? Elisa and western blot are perfectly suited to the needs of insurance companies and medicare programs, that don't want to spend money on patients.
Last edited by apochronaut on Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#13 Post by apochronaut » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:24 am

Elisa is primed using a lab strain of B. Burgdorferi , B-31 that has been derived from one cell from Colorado. There is no evidence that wild strains, which become infectious agents, produce an immune response similar enough to that expected by the Elisa test.

dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#14 Post by dwkst5 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:54 am

apochronaut wrote:Elisa is primed using a lab strain of B. Burgdorferi , B-31 that has been derived from one cell from Colorado. There is no evidence that wild strains, which become infectious agents, produce an immune response similar enough to that expected by the Elisa test.
Indeed, non-approved labs are outcasted due to using more than one strain of bacteria. Igenex uses the N40 strain as well as the B31 for the western blot. Still, there are over 20 strains unaccounted for. Why we use a decades old cell line for current diagnosis is astounding. It is like using the same influenza strain for a flu vaccine every year for 60 years. Things have variation.
apochronaut wrote:
Tom Jones wrote:Dwkst5,


If it did work, recognized clinical labs would be performing Lyme testing using that technique. None do. That should tell you a lot right there. Have you ever found peer reviewed journal articles, in reputable journals, properly evaluating LBA or comparing it to mainstream methods in any clinical setting?


Tom
While live blood analysis may be mostly smoke and mirrors, when used in many naturopathic clinics, when it comes to Borreliosis diagnosis, most clinical laboratories are smoke and mirrors as well. Their track record of determining the incidence of Borelliosis in submitted samples is dismal. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.
Treponema Pallidum, the agent of syphilis( also called " the great immitator") , a pleomorphic spirochaete is diagnosed to this day ,definitively, using DF microscopy. Any lab that does not do so, is a fraud. Syphilis is much more widespread than is thought, due to poor diagnosis and it's habit of going latent, for up to 15 years after the initial infection.
B. Burgdorferi, is a closely related organism, with a similarly pleomorphic style, and latency periods. It is best diagnosed, using DF microscopy. Phase is another option. Using live blood has it's value but only , as pointed out in my earlier post , if the infection is fairly recent and the organism is just in the process of becoming established. It does not maintain the spirochaete form easily in blood. If one understands it's other forms, and follows certain protocols of incubation , then finding it in the live blood of an infected person is not that difficult, with an adequate microscope system and the knowledge to use it well.
A study by the College of American Pathologists, covering 516 clinical labs, and these are people very skilled in the use of microscopes for diagnosis and the only arbiters of accuracy, when it comes to clinical laboratories, found 55% of them were inaccurate when it comes to diagnosing lyme disease. How was this determined? By using microscopes...essentially live blood and serum analysis
Labs use Elisa and Western Blot and both are woefully inadequate in diagnosing Lyme disease, for a number of widely known reasons. Why are they used? It's very simple. They are sold at the trade fairs associated with every lyme disease conference by their makers, they come with false claims of accuracy, an idiot in the lab with 1 hour of training can run a test, or multiples at one time, so they are a cheap test, and usually the patient who they are run for doesn't know any different. Who is there to tell them , they have been duped, the pathologist around the corner? Elisa and western blot are perfectly suited to the needs of insurance companies and medicare programs, that don't want to spend money on patients.

I know most forums have double posting rules...but I can't wait. Just wanted to say, I like this guy up here.

Edit: I just copied the post and merged them. I like the in-depth reasoning we have going on here guys, but do not want a mod closing this and me not getting my answer. Is the consensus, as long as my methods are proper, that the scope is capable mechanically/optically for viewing? Appreciate all the input. If anybody knows of better performance for the price, feel free to chime in. Keep in mind phase contrast and darkfield is expensive, factor that into this deal.
Last edited by dwkst5 on Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tom Jones
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#15 Post by Tom Jones » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:58 am

Delete
Last edited by Tom Jones on Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lorez
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:48 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#16 Post by lorez » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:11 am

If anybody knows of better performance for the price, feel free to chime in.
I have an Olympus CH2 with a phase set including 10,40, and 100X objectives that is much better than the scope you are looking at.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#17 Post by apochronaut » Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:36 am

Tom Jones wrote:dwkst5,


Please provide references that all Elisa Lyme tests are "primed" by the lab strain B-31 and that strain has no relation to wild, infectious strains so the test is useless diagnostically

Tom
Like any tool, live blood analysis can be abused. The easy access of cheap Chinese microscopes, complete with DF ,( albeit almost useless),has given many people the belief that there is this overlooked, yet accurate technology out there , that conventional medicine doesn't acknowledge. The fact is, that live blood analysis is a conventional diagnostic tool. It is just used for specific diagnostics, not everything, which is the folly that the LBA zealots make.
My reference to syphylis, clearly went over your head, which doesn't speak well about your experience working in labs, or the lab. The relationship between the disease progression occurring as a result of a Treponema Pallidum infection and the disease progression as a result of a Borrelia Burgdorferi infection is well established and yet one of those , is diagnosed as a result of a tradition of accurate DF blood or serum analysis; essentially, your demeaned LBA analysis, yet the other, with according to the CDC possibly 300,000 cases a year occurring in the U.S.A., requires a statistically inaccurate mechanized analysis. The CDC, admits that the reported incidence of this disease is likely as much as 10 times lower than actual, largely due to their clarity, regarding the inaccuracy of the lab results. Yes, I have this information and data available to me but so could you, if you cared enough to spend the time and look it up.

Tom Jones
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#18 Post by Tom Jones » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:04 am

Delete
Last edited by Tom Jones on Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
75RR
Posts: 8207
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Location: Estepona, Spain

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#19 Post by 75RR » Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:24 am

Is the consensus, as long as my methods are proper, that the scope is capable mechanically/optically for viewing?
Surprised that your studies so far have not provided you with the answer.
Surely there must be people capable of guiding you on this at your College/University?

You never did answer my question as to whether this is a business investment for you.
Are you planning to start-up an LBA operation?

Your initial proposed investment of $1300 plus talk of an additional $1800 for fluorescence would seem to indicate so.
If I am successful in finding them, or other infections such as Ehrlichia, Bartonella, Babesia, some harder to find then spirochaetes, I may just drop the $1300 for a fluorescent kit and $500 for a few fluorescent tags to confirm what they are.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#20 Post by apochronaut » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:35 pm

Tom Jones wrote:apochronaut
My reference to syphylis, clearly went over your head, which doesn't speak well about your experience working in labs, or the lab.
Really? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You may be talking about syphilis. I'm not. I'm talking specifically about live blood analysis.

I didn't demean LBA. I said it was fraud. That's worse than demean. It is a useless and misleading waste of time. It has no value.

Instead of accusing me of professional stupidity, you might just cite some reputable references to show me I'm wrong, because try as I might, I can't find any! A Google Scholar search failed to show anything useful, but I might not have been careful enough with my search terms. I await enlightenment.

I'm not here to insult anyone, and I'd hope you will refrain from any more insults as well. Laboratory testing is extremely important for everyone's health and well-being. It has to be done properly, including that done by amateurs trying to self-diagnose, to provide the maximum benefit with the minimum risk to patients. This is not a game.

If you have any useful, peer reviewed data, from a reputable research journal, please provide links or usable citations. Like I said in an earlier post, I've eaten my words occasionally before, but only when confronted with real, verifiable data. Otherwise, my position stands: LBA us useless.

Tom
Good. I'm glad you have everything under control.
Unfortunately, for many of the thousands of people who have symptoms that collectively point to Borreliosis as the cause, yet have received one or more negative lab test results from incompetent, yet fully accredited labs and so are not considered to be infected, it is a little more difficult. If they want to self diagnose, that is entirely up to them, isn't it?
Keep checking google scholar, you'll find something that suits your requirements, eventually, because I suspect you aren't really looking for information, so much as data with which to verify your position.

Tom Jones
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#21 Post by Tom Jones » Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:18 pm

Delete
Last edited by Tom Jones on Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#22 Post by dwkst5 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:37 pm

Tom Jones wrote:apochronaut

Self diagnosing is, of course, up to anyone. And it's understandable why someone with a problematic set of symptoms would want to try it. It just doesn't work very well, and is one hell of a lot more complicated than people imagine.

Insisting that labs, or their testing personnel are incompetent based on the prevalence of negative results in a potentially symptomatic population is silly as dwkst5 will find during the persuit of his or her medical studies. Diagnosticians use a preponderance of evidence as the vast majority of testing does not give an absolute result, or only lead to one disease or condition. Every test has a percentage of false positive and false negative results. This gives you positive and negative predictive values for the test results to help inform the diagnosis. Sadly, no test is perfect. Many, however, are all that we have. It's pretty unlikely something more useful will pop up out of alternative medicine. Not impossible, just unlikely.

As for actual lab testing competence, or incompetence, they are required by law to go through blind test challenges for almost all the non-waived tests they perform. See: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Gui ... chure8.pdf Perfect? Nope. But it's the best we have right now.

As for the data, it's claims as to the usefulness of LBA I'm disputing. I have yet to see any references from you, or anyone else confirming the legitimacy of that method for the diagnosis of Lyme or anything else. Your failure to provide any tells me you have none. And that, is precisely what I am saying. There is no evidence to support LBA as a useful method. It's really a waste of time and money for someone to try and self-diagnose using a method no one has confirmed works.

You certainly have the right to believe in it without scientific evidence to support that view. Don't suggest I, or anyone else should do so as well.

Tom
Are you serious? How do you think we discovered bacteria cause illness? How do you think we diagnosed infections before Western Blots and such? You were already given an example with another spirochaete illness and darkfield microscopy, for current times. Sure, you could miss an infection if you relied purely on a scope in some cases, but you can miss alot by only relying on typical bloodwork also. Why not use both?

On way into lab, even though on thanksgiving break, to plate a 4th gen. Going in everyday on break to create ampicillin resistant strains. Want to measure phosphotase activity in resistant strains to eachother and wildtype.

When I am done, I will do the easy job of finding situations where microscopes can identify infections.

Whoever asked, no, this is not a business investment. It is a health investment. For myself and immediate family. Too much liability otherwise.

I am surprised at the lack of direct responses to what scope, or if this one, will be fine.

Edit: To be clear, health investment is what it seems...No, I am not going to charge my family. No, I will not get any monetary benefit from this

Edit2: Oh and you are still confusing my goal and "Live Blood Analysis." I already told you, that is something different. That is a new phenomena where practitioners claim to diagnose vitamin imbalance and pH issues from blood viewing. That is not what I am doing or advocating for.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_blood_analysis

"Proponents believe that live blood analysis provides information "about the state of the immune system, possible vitamin deficiencies, amount of toxicity, pH and mineral imbalance, areas of concern and weaknesses, fungus and yeast." Some even claim it can "spot cancer and other degenerative immune system diseases up to two years before they would otherwise be detectable" or say they can diagnose "lack of oxygen in the blood, low trace minerals, lack of exercise, too much alcohol or yeast, weak kidneys, bladder or spleen."[1] Practitioners include alternative medicine providers such as nutritionists, herbologists, naturopaths, and chiropractors.[4]"


Not what I am doing sir. So your statements hold no value.

Tom Jones
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:47 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#23 Post by Tom Jones » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:37 pm

Delete
Last edited by Tom Jones on Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lorez
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 1:48 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#24 Post by lorez » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:48 pm

I am surprised at the lack of direct responses to what scope, or if this one, will be fine.
There are probably not too many in this group who have had a chance to evaluate the scope (other than me) so you shouldn't be too surprised that the response to your original question has not gotten much traction.

I did suggest that there were significant differences among the available phase and darkfield sets, but I don't think you saw them. I also mentioned that I did have an Olympus that was a better instrument.

This discussion has gone so far off the rail with regards to your question it's no surprise you are not getting an answer.

dwkst5
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 9:38 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#25 Post by dwkst5 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:17 pm

75RR wrote:
Is the consensus, as long as my methods are proper, that the scope is capable mechanically/optically for viewing?
Surprised that your studies so far have not provided you with the answer.
Surely there must be people capable of guiding you on this at your College/University?

You never did answer my question as to whether this is a business investment for you.
Are you planning to start-up an LBA operation?

Your initial proposed investment of $1300 plus talk of an additional $1800 for fluorescence would seem to indicate so.
If I am successful in finding them, or other infections such as Ehrlichia, Bartonella, Babesia, some harder to find then spirochaetes, I may just drop the $1300 for a fluorescent kit and $500 for a few fluorescent tags to confirm what they are.
I said before it is not for money making whatsoever, but I did want to comment that I do know on paper it is fine. The inquisition was about true quality and capability, not just paper stats. Figured I should reitterate.
lorez wrote:
I am surprised at the lack of direct responses to what scope, or if this one, will be fine.
There are probably not too many in this group who have had a chance to evaluate the scope (other than me) so you shouldn't be too surprised that the response to your original question has not gotten much traction.

I did suggest that there were significant differences among the available phase and darkfield sets, but I don't think you saw them. I also mentioned that I did have an Olympus that was a better instrument.

This discussion has gone so far off the rail with regards to your question it's no surprise you are not getting an answer.
I saw them, must have forgotten to quote you and reply before. I know Olympus is one of the best manufacturers, but an equivalent model from Olympus would be alot more I believe. Sometimes off-brands manufacture to similiar or equal quality, have factory that makes parts for best scopes make the parts for their off-brand, and such. I didn't know if this was such a case.

You would still urge me to go with a used scope from a reputable brand such as Olympus or Nikon? What are some reputable places to buy used from.

Thanks for your time

User avatar
75RR
Posts: 8207
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Location: Estepona, Spain

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#26 Post by 75RR » Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:05 pm

You would still urge me to go with a used scope from a reputable brand such as Olympus or Nikon? What are some reputable places to buy used from.
You will get much more bang for your buck from a used finite microscope from one of the big 4.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)

billbillt
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:01 pm

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#27 Post by billbillt » Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:39 pm

dwkst5 wrote:https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00E3IR8 ... microscope

Amazon was easy to get link from, but will probably buy right from Amscope. To me, it appears it will be sufficient for viewing Borrelia spirochaetes. I wanted to see if any of you know if the objectives are a good enough quality to get decent clarity at 1600x or 2400x. This is my first scope purchase.

Thanks for your time
I think your best approach is to find out exactly what you need them buy what YOU LIKE...

BillT

Oktagon
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:52 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#28 Post by Oktagon » Thu Nov 24, 2016 2:51 am

What started as a somewhat misguided question about equipment had turned into a debate about LBA and its merits. I agree with Mr. Tom Jones regarding merits of LBA.
While ELISA and Western Blots can occasionally produce false-negatives, the statement regarding sensitivity of PCR is highly inaccurate. PCR does not require several copies of genomic material to be amplified. You only need one. Furthermore, new methods, such as digital PCR are sensitive to one copy even in less then optimal samples. Microscopy in general will only work when high number of pathogen cells are present in the sample, so at that point PCR would have detected the pathogen long time ago.

kinase
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:18 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#29 Post by kinase » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:17 am

Investing a fluorescence setup just to do that is a huge waste of money, especially if it's not going to be Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, or Nikon. Where would you do this to keep it contamination free? Have you done fluoro imaging before? I don't normally use fluoro stains to look for bacteria, but I can't think of any that aren't antibodies, that are specific for Lyme bacteria. Or any bacteria for that matter. You'd at the very least need antibodies. Is there a primary specific for Lyme bacteria? You'll need a secondary as well. Those alone are gonna run you about 400-500 bucks. You'll also need fixative that doesn't destroy your antigen, permeablization buffer, blocking buffer... It's going to cost a lot.

At that, let's say you pull the best visual conformation anyone has ever done on Lyme bacteria and you've convinced doctors of that. Even then, you'll have to tell it apart from other similarly shaped bacteria. I think the best they'll do for you is write you up for some Doxy or some other antibiotic and that's about it. I'd just go to the doctor and be like, I think I have Lyme. See what they say.

Also as they said, I highly doubt those >1000x lenses are going to allow you to see anything. It might just make helical shaped bacteria look like rods. SEM might help you, I've seen spirochetes and rods on those before, they're really cool. But you'd still need a way to differentiate genus/species.

apochronaut
Posts: 6268
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: AmScope T690C-PCT200-PL sufficient for spirochaete viewing?

#30 Post by apochronaut » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:28 am

Yet, DF microscopy continues to be the definitive methodology used for the diagnosis of syphilis and giemsa stained smear, a valued diagnostic tool for giardia, as two examples where microscopy is very relied on as a diagnostic tool.
While ELISA is widely used to identify many antigens, it has been shown to be not just slightly inaccurate as a method to diagnose Borreliosis but very inaccurate. If it were not deemed inaccurate by those that have mandated it's use, then there would not be an almost wholesale shift towards what is called a two tier diagnosis, where western blot is also included in the protocol. The mistake that is being made with this protocol is that the ELISA is the primary test being performed and the western blot is only being used , if the ELISA test is positive, almost as though there is a desire to get a negative . What should be done, is use the western blot test , if the ELISA is negative, in order to challenge it's accuracy.
B. Burgdorferi are unusual organisms, with a wide variety of strains, morphologies and tissue preferences. The ELISA test, with it's strain specificity, primed with a specific cultured strain , is ill suited to identify a wild and varied , pleomorphic organism, with any degree of reliability. Researchers involved with Lyme disease and those involved in a more general way with pleomorphic organisms( cwd , L-form, or atypical) tend to rely on phase contrast ; dark field, sometimes coupled with incident fluorescence, microscopy. Lately , atomic force microscopy, an imaging system, based on the physical mapping of structure has been used as well.
It is easy to see why the ELISA is used. The machines are already there; they found favour during the fear days over AIDS and sophisticated micro technique is probably not that evident in routine lab settings, so the machine is used. It is cheap. Even the CDC and NIH, clearly have misgivings about the state of affairs with regards to the test procedures for Lyme, since they state that the diagnosis for Lyme disease should be based on the symptoms.
Further, if one is going to look for B. Burgdorferi, the B.Burgdorferi of a classical morphology, in a live blood smear, one that you might have every reason to believe should harbour them, you will most likely be disappointed. You are unlikely to find them. B. Burgdorferi, does not take the spirochaete form in human blood very easily. It has to be tricked into reverting. Oxygen deprivation, rouleax formation, incubation temperature, serum viscosity and ph all influence the state in which you will find the organism in human blood. It's better to just look for one of it's pleomorphic forms, though. Spheroplasts and non-flagellated ribbons seem happy in human blood and once you know what you are looking at, they can be found in abundance, in an infected person, and yes, even in one with multiple symptoms, who tests negative for Lyme disease by ELISA and western blot. I have many pictures of them and from live blood and so do the growing community of pathologists, oncologists and microbiologists, who research this unfortunate epidemic.

Post Reply