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