The title of this thread clearly indicates that I was posting an article about how Lyme neuroborreliosis was viewed and described in 1999.
Yeah, thanks, got that.
And I was responding to this statement:
...and pointing out that the most recent set of treatment guidelines point out that that "difference" is more one based on tradition than "a pathophysiological basis for this distinction".RitaA: It contains a lot of detailed information about the differences between early and late neuroborreliosis.
Now...why anyone would object to, or quarrel with, my pointing that out is, frankly, sort of mystifying... I mean, that is the statement...it is clear... and it would appear to simply acknowledge that the distinctions between early and late may be somewhat blurred. And it appears to be geared toward protecting the patient in that circumstance.
And in general terms, as I said, there seems to be a practice of trying to play "gotcha" by digging through old abstracts and trying to find contradictions...when the 'contradiction' is simply due to more and better information being available today. A clearer and better persepective.
Also..."some people", here, seem to be obsessing on trying to play some peculiar word games with definitions, semantics...and I am, gain, trying to point out the simple futility of that...(not that I have any hope of it doing any good, whatsoever)