Fluoroquinolones (including ciprofloxacin)

It is interesting that the "Ciprofloxacin" marker is high whereas "Fluorcinolone-Group" is about three times lower. Have you found an explanation? If not, can you or your doctor clarify with the lab? Which exactly substances they detect under "Fluorcinolone-Group" and why its value is so different from the Ciprofloxacin marker (which belongs to Fluoroquinolones group of drugs)?

I have been severely injured by an adverse reaction to Ciprofloxacin about 2.5 years ago. Still haven't recovered. I did the same test at about 9 months out. It indicated "high" concentration of Ciprofloxacin and "borderline" "Fluorcinolone-Group" but I was not able to obtain a clarification regarding "Fluorcinolone-Group".

Your finding seem to indicate the following possibility:
Ciprofloxacin molecules remain in the tissues for a long time, from where they can be picked up by / leach into the bloodstream, where they can be detected by the blood test of this kind.

If that's the case, then perhaps continued supplementation of Mg, Ca and other Ciprofloxacin chelators still makes sense even years after the intake. Because according to the literature, they get chelated by Ciprofloxacin making it much less potent. That's why the drug label indicates Ciprofloxacin shall not be taken together with Mg and Ca and a few other things.

Wishing you continued healing.

 

I had an odd reaction to antibiotics once. I suspect it was ciprofloxacin but I don't have all my medical records and it was years ago. It caused me marked irritability. I thought it was very bizarre to have neuropsychiatric side effects from an antibiotic. I continued my course of the drug because there were limited alternatives and I didn't have any lasting effects.

 

I am pretty sure this is pseudoscience. Intracellular electrical capacity in lymphocytes means nothing at all as far as I am aware.

Note that the form says that the test is only for research purposes and not suitable for clinical use.

I do hope that members can see that this tells us nothing at all, other than that likely bogus test are being sold as if they were real.

 

I was unable to find the description of this method. I would not say it immediately means "pseudoscience" though. It is a German lab not sure if it was a proper translation. I wonder if someone raised this question with the lab, or found the description of the test approach.

E.g. Shimadzu, a leading manufacturer of Liquid Chromatography instruments, describes Electric Conductivity Detection method to detect inorganic anions. Inorganic Anion Detection : SHIMADZU (Shimadzu Corporation) I am not sure, is that that maybe?

EDIT:
Here is the lab's high level description of the method Lab on Chip Technology - IGL Labor GmbH (igl-labor.de) . There are some references in the literature, e.g. Recent Progress in Lab-On-a-Chip Systems for the Monitoring of Metabolites for Mammalian and Microbial Cell Research - PMC (nih.gov)

It is a disclaimer, we get it. Those affected like myself are conducting a research so to speak. Because unfortunately, there is nothing else readily available - we are dealing with a poorly studied area (of Fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome). A testing like this is perhaps the best you can get, presently. I agree the method raises valid questions that must be answered (what is the method, exactly? How accurate and specific is it?). But it does seem to show a consistent signal. And there is no evidence that it is bogus.

 

Just that a report like that screams 'Hi, guys, here's a bogus report for you'. If a test is not suitable for clinical use you do not release it for clinical use. You don't just add a 'disclaimer'.

Rather than the best you can get this may well be the worst.

 

Here is how I interpret their disclaimer:
The lab is fine to offer this test for research purposes. In order to be fit for research use, it must provide meaningful results. Clinical use is linked to the use of the test for diagnosing a disease, they want to disclaim that this test is sufficient on its own, and limit their liability.
In the 2021 version of the report that I did the language of the disclaimer is as follows:
"Results of this test are for investigational (and research) purposes only. The result should not be used as a diagnostic procedure without confirmation of the diagnosis by another medically established diagnostic product or procedure."

The reasons for this carveout seem to be:

1. The fact that finding certain substances in your body does not necessarily mean they are causing your illness (ie. diagnosis), which is reasonable. E.g. the fact residual Ciprofloxacin molecules found years later, may or may not be the cause of your symptoms. In other words, they provide a measurement tool; it is outside of their domain to determine whether substances and concentrations detected by the test cause an illness.
2. Limitation of liability. E.g. business liability insurance premiums may be much higher if you don't have such disclaimer.

My conclusion, such disclaimer does not mean that test does not provide meaningful and useful insights. It does indicate a reasonable limitation of diagnostic use and liability on part of the lab.

 

I think you are being far too generous.
Reliable tests don't have disclaimers like this. They don't need them.
Tests used in research are published in scientific literature, and paid for by grants, not sold on the open market.
As a clinician I wouldn't have gone within a million miles of a report like this.
I think you have to remember just how bogus medicine there is out there nowadays.
Germany and Belgium seem to be prime sources for these things.

 

Mother is left unable to walk after taking just three ANTIBIOTIC pills to treat a UTI

Mother is left unable to walk after taking just three ANTIBIOTIC pills to treat a UTI: Disabled vet husband she previously cared for is also in a wheelchair (msn.com)