Can someone explain to me why so many very sick, immune compromised people wirh candida, and probably other infections have almost always normal blood count?

I mean these things happen: candida grows, other bacteria viruses spread but there is no immune response.

WHY?

I dont't remember well but wasn't there somewhere a theory that mercury makes the immune system 'blind' to all those pathogens? If so, how? Are there any studies, and theories out there that explain this? Is there some explanation?

I think it's quite crucial to wonder why this the way it is because normal blood count is usually the basis for doctors to ignore things.

That's a great question. I'm not sure, but maybe it's adrenal? I do know that early, mid stage adrenal fatigue the immune system gets suppressed. In the later stages of adrenal fatigue, the immune system runs around unchecked causing autoimmune issues. However, I have autoimmune issues and my WBC counts have always come back normal too. I don't get it. I've wondered the same thing. I did a little looking around and so far have found nothing.

Hi Jinx, I wish I knew. I remember when I was very mercury toxic, I went and got tests done and the doctor faced me and said "by the results of these tests, you should be bouncing off the walls with health" and I glared at him and said "Do I look bouncy to you?" (I was pale as a sheet).

He decided that I was depressed and was going to send me to a blind psychiatrist to get the help I apparently needed.....um yeah, I think the real blindman was the doctor in front of me. So I walked out.

I've had this time and time again, normal blood test results and nothing to show for my suffering. I guess I must have been eating darned good and somewhere, somehow, my body was reaping benefits that I was just not feeling most of the time.

I don't really understand the mechanicisms of mercury and exactly why basic typical blood tests seem to miss it altogether. You can show plenty of this and plenty of that, but mercury can be blocking it's action, so you feel no benefit. Though blood tests will often show you have plenty of it. Mercury can distort the way things work, but tests will still show yu're fine.

It's typical Jinx. I don't even bother getting these tests now, I just waste my time. Doctors can't look past this into anything deeper. Often it's the way results are interpreted I believe too. I think there would be a way, but it's not known by them how. Some who are more savvy with mercury toxicity, might have a way of reading into it more and finding a pattern or digging much deeper and discovering what's really going on.

E.g. hair test results usually show mineral derangement in mercury toxicity, but often typically "low" levels of the mercury itself. THe stuff hides, it's stored/bound up and/or a person can be poisoned by even apparently "low" amounts. Some tolerate much higher levels of mercury and show to be quite healthy, even with a high level on their testing. But this can also mean that their body eliminates the mercury and pushes it out to be excreted to where the levels show up nicely on testing. High levels can mean be acute toxicity and sickness, or a person detoxing the metals, etc. Low levels can mean low levels, everything is fine, or retention toxicity etc.

Many reasons for these weird resutls on tests that don't really seem to give the real picture.

I think………….

I think its because of the way they do the tests and how they judge the test results.

Lets say they test 1000 people. They plot all 1000 test results on a graph and you get a bell curve…..like this…..

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...p;resnum=1&ct=image&cd=2

They then take a certain percentage…lets say 90 pct…and call that normal. All people within the 90pct are classed as normal. That’s from the mid point of the graph, the highest point, 45pct in each direction.
The rest is abnormal. So abnormal is 5pct on each side of the bell curve at the outer limits of the curve. (where is says “definitely more than others” on that link)

All those 90pct “normals” are very varied…look at the scope of difference that normal can be away from the mid point. The mid point is “Optimal health” or best health.

If you are in the 5pct zone and the end…only the most horrendous results will be there. Only the most sick people will be here.

Which is why the test result comes out as fine. Its because of the way western medicine judges the tests. You have to be seriously ill to fall into the 5pct ill part, by which time it’s a bit late. If your test result comes in at 44pct away from the mid point, you are only 1 pct away from being classed as “out of range”, but you are clearly more sick that healthy….but to western medicine, because of they way they judge the results….you are “in range” and “fine” even if you are only 1pct away from “out of range” !!

Unless your test result is at the top of the bell curve, you are not in optimal health and you are sick….just western medicine only takes the sickest people to be sick…..something to do with insurance me thinks!

Not sure if that is clear? It is to me, vaguely.

I have read about this, but I can’t remember where, nor can I find it googling it….so this will have to do. ask more questions if you want and I will try and answer.

All my test results from my regular doctor where “in-range” – my doctor sent me home to….. I quote….”enjoy my good health.”

this may help.

http://www.drrind.com/thyroidscale.asp

Jinx, I think this question is a very thoughtful one. Afterall, if we could accurately and reliably test for all of the diseases that are plaguing us, then we'd be in a better position to remedy our situations because we'd know what was making us sick and what remedy it would be sensitive to.

I think the issue of testing is fraught with politics, greed and money. Also, lack of imagination, short-sightedness, and sheer inability. For example, scientists are not going to develop better tests unless someone funds the operation. And no one will purchase tests unless some sort of money can be made from them. These days, the approach of rationing testing seems to be the norm. People don't want to pay for the testing -- this includes consumers/patients, insurance companies, countries with socialized medicine schemes, and even doctors who don't want to pay the overhead for having certain testing kits serve as overhead in their offices.

Anyway, as far as mercury, candida and infections showing up in blood work, there is more to the equation then what I mention above, I think. It depends upon how the test is being conducted. Some of the standard testing for pathogens, for example, do not look specifically for that pathogen (i.e., virus, fungi, bacteria). Rather, the testing will merely measure one's immune system response to a pathogen. Since many people have an inaccurate immune response (i.e., from mercury), then it's impossible to measure an immune response accurately and directly without getting a LOT of false negatives.

Put these factors together with the fact that there are many strains of a particular pathogen and traditional testing might only test for one or two strains of a pathogen, and that's almost a guarantee that many will test false negative.

The particular traditional testing for Lyme Disease, for example, is a perfect case in point of how this works. I've posted this in the Lyme Disease section of the Forum, but I'll paste it here as well. It might help explain why testing for antibodies (or immune system responses) for certain pathogens is so indirect and unreliable.

Some of the Nine Reasons below could very well be explanations in whole or in part, as to why candida testing is so unreliable and why testing for many other pathogens is nearly impossible with some of the current methods of tests being used today.

Note: Bb = borellia burgdorferi = the bacteria that causes Lyme Disease


(NOTE: The standard tests for Lyme Disease do not look for the bacteria, but rather the immune system's response to the bacteria. The ELISA and Western Blot both test for antibodies which is what the immune system produces when infection is present. Because the tests look for this indirect measure of infection, false negatives are not uncommon.)

A. Antibodies against Bb are present, but the laboratory is unable to detect them. [Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) is the Lyme disease bacteria.]

B. Antibodies against Bb may not be present in detectable levels in patients with Lyme disease. Reasons are listed below.

1. The patient is currently on, or has recently taken, antibiotics. The antibacterial effect of antibiotics can reduce the body's production of antibodies.

2. The patient is currently on or has previously taken anti-inflammatory steroidal drugs (such as those taken to treat rheumatoid arthritis) or certain anticancer drugs. These can suppress a person's immune system, thus reducing or preventing an antibody response.

3. The patient's antibodies may be bound with the bacteria with not enough free antibodies available for testing. [I think this reason is very important and prevalent. For this reason, some of the worst cases of Lyme disease test negative - too much bacteria for the immune system to handle.]

4. The patient could be immunosuppressed for a number of other reasons and the immune system is not reacting to the bacterium.

5. The bacterium has changed its makeup (antigenic shift) limiting recognition by the patient's immune system.

6. The patient's immune response has not been stimulated to produce antibodies, i.e., the blood test is taken too soon after the tick-bite (2-6 weeks). Please do not interpret this statement as implying that you should wait for a positive test to begin treatment.

7. The laboratory has raised its cutoff so high that a patient's previously positive test is now borderline or negative.

8. The patient is reacting to the Lyme bacterium, but is not producing the "right" bands to be considered positive.


Hope this helps in some way.

Sharon

Hello,

my tests hasn't been normal since many time ago. The first time I suffer a panic attack and went to the hospital they made me a blood test, and of course, the test was normal. I went back to the hospital many times since that day and they made me new tests, and they were normal except the white cell count. I had too few neutrofiles and too much linfocites. I told that to my m.d. and he told me that this was normal, that many people has the same abnormalities with white cells as me, that it was "normal", that I shouldn't be afraid of this. All my test since that day showed this until the last test I was made last year. In that test my number of neutrofiles was too high and the number of linfocites was too low, apart from another abnormalities. Do you know what my doctor said?... That it was normal, that many people had the same abnormalities, incredible.


Sergio

I hear you Sergio.

I had blood test done in 2005 and most 2006, and they all showed I was completely normal.

than a blood test done on 24.11.06 and 10.05.07 showd I had, same as you, too much neutrophiles and to little lymphocytes. My doc also said it's normal.
Guess what happened right before 24.11.06 ? I got mercury poisened at the dental office afterwhich my health immediately collapsed.
Truly incredible.

guys thanx for all your input, i put the same question on the mercury-freqent chelation-yahoo board and got two replies, one from Andy Cutler himself. Here they are:

- FROM JACKIE:
"Can someone explain to me why so many very sick, immune compromised
people wirh candida, and probably other infections have almost always
normal blood count?

I mean these things happen: candida grows, other bacteria viruses
spread but there is no immune response.

WHY?

---------Andy talks about immunity and immune disfunction in a number of
places in AI. Some relevant pages are 27, 45, 51, and 109. There are others,
just look in the index. On page 27 he says "Mercury causes immune
disregulation." On page 45 he says, "Mercury directly interferes with
neutrophils killing yeast." and "If you don't have enough NK cells you will
suffer recurrent viral infections because cells that harbor viruses don't get
killed." On page 51 he says, "Mercury changes the ratios of the various kinds
of antibodies produced. Thus there may be excessive production of some classes
and underproduction of others (IgG 1 and 3, and sIgA often being underproduced)
leading to susceptibility to certain infections."

So I think some of these abnormalities aren't things measured on standard
blood tests. And with so many things with mercury, you often fall within the
so-called normal range, but probably on the low end, but not low enough to send
up any red flags. But this had baffled me also, before *I* figured out myself
that mercury was my problem, I couldn't believe that nothing showed up in lab
work saying I was sick or something was wrong. I think mercury is very tricky
that way, and another reason it is hard to convince people that you actually are
sick.-----Jackie



I dont't remember well but wasn't there somewhere a theory that
mercury makes the immune system 'blind' to all those pathogens?

---------I'm not sure what Andy's take on this is, but the above statement
about low NK cells allowing viruses to linger because cells that harbor viruses
don't get killed, I guess would answer this. Page 45 of AI. I also believe it
is Dr. Omura that promotes this theory, but he also promotes using cilantro for
chelation. I believe he has patients do cycles of chelation and then
antibiotics to clear the body of metals and viruses. Now this is not part of
Andy's protocol, and actually Andy does have his own version of this. You use
his frequent dose protocol for safe chelation, and then there are lots of
natural antivirals and immune boosters you can take to address the viruses.
This is discussed alot on A-M, and you can find some info in the onibasu/wiki,
and there is also a Viral File over at A-M that you might want to take a look
at.-------Jackie

----------And on a personal note, I truly believe in this theory or fact,
because I definitely seem to have this problem, but I believe it has gotten much
better by taking immune boosters, etc.---------Jackie



If so, how? Are there any studies, and theories out there that explain this?
Is there some explanation?

------------If you search archives, I don't remember which group though, maybe
AMC, I recall someone discussing Omura's work. And I believe Andy explains
this, at least somewhat, in his book on above mentioned pages. On page 45 of
AI, he says, "The effects of mercury on the immune system have been reviewed by
Pollard and Hultman as well as Enestrom and Hultman." I also believe that
Bernie Windham from DAMS has compiled much information as to the effects mercury
has on the immune system, and the whole body, etc.-------Jackie



I think it's quite crucial to wonder why this the way it is because
normal blood count is usually the basis for doctors to ignore things.

----------You are absolutely correct. If your tests are in the *wide* normal
range, then your mainstream doctor won't bat an eye or do a thing for you. And
that is the other problem, is that the ranges on these standard lab tests are
*way* too wide. Only 2.5% of the population is considered low, and 2.5% is
considered high. Well, alot more than 5% of the population is
sick!---------Jackie "

-FROM ANDY:
"There are about 25,000 lab tests available. They are for very specific issues.
In any sick
person almost all of them will come back normal. There is no test for 'being
sick.'

Andy"