Topics with information and discussion about published studies related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Wed 30 Jul 2008 4:11
by X-member » Fri 13 Nov 2015 18:16
Research from Dr. Alan MacDonald supports the hypothesis of Lyme disease being a sexually transmitted disease. He has done an autopsy of a testicle belonging to a diseased patient with long term chronic Lyme disease suggesting that Lyme can be transmitted from male to female.
MacDonald is a silly old man who recycles pictures from 30 years ago. This isn’t research, it’s poor photography. There is no ‘hypothesis’ that a tick-borne, non-communicable infection also is a STI. There is good data from actual researchers to show it is not. In addition, one does not autopsy a testicle…unless it is attached to a body. This would be a biopsy, but a biopsy of what is unknown since there is no clinical, laboratory or epidemiological definition of “chronic” LD. (And how would a retired pathologist living in Florida get hold of the testicle of some mysterious patient in the first place? Has he got a lab in his garage? Does the homeowners’ assoc. know? What did he do with it post-biopsy? The kitchen disposal, perhaps?)
Assuming for one second that what MacD says is B. burgdorferi in this lonely testicle, it does not prove that B. burgdorferi is sexually transmitted. It proves that B. burgdorferi, which disseminates through the skin and briefly through the blood could have reached the testes. But the same might be said for other infections such as TB and mumps, or E. coli spilling over from a UTI. No one thinks these are examples of STIs. Unless you’re MacD hoping for some attention, or Stricker hoping to double-bill.
- Posts: 8480
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18
I only posted the link (from NorVect) in this thread, hv808ct.
My name is Carina, I am not NorVect or Dr MacDonald.
- Posts: 469
- Joined: Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:47
hv808ct, why do you care so much if some people believe Lyme is a sexually transmitted disease? Does it hurt you? or the patients? or society? You seem overly upset about what is really just an exploration of a theory. Surely, you can't think that you know everything there is to know about B.burgorferi and co., can you?
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat 15 Nov 2014 18:47
Thanks for the info on all sides. An issue I've been keeping an eye on. As virulent (groan) as the conversation can be here I appreciate at least the ATTEMPTS to appeal to empiricism and reason.
Don't know anything about the evolution of STDs in nature but want to learn about it. I agree (and hope) that it would seem unlikely vector-borne lyme would have the advantage w sexual transmission as being basically injected right into a person's bloodstream for an evening.
- nature a crazy bitch.
And on the human side of evolution, I see those sneaky self-promoters infiltrate and corrupt innovation, even in my creative field. And just read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin, where he astounds with the recent history of prejudice for string theory in the physics peer-review / academic circle, where incestuous, show-offy math has essentially replaced the pursuit of what-in-tarnations-is-going-on-up-in-here.
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 20:47
I'll pick up "The Trouble with Physics" at my local library. Thanks for pointing it out. It sounds like what goes on in academic medicine.
Medicine has been called "the youngest science" and it is true that before the 20th century medicine was mostly charlatanism. There is a long tradition of pretending to know what to do for patients. The training is still rote, and the culture is still authoritarian. So maybe it is not surprising that medicine hasn't attained the rigor I expect, from experience in my field (molecular biology).
I wonder if areas of science have always been this full of baloney and we (or I, at least) just didn't know it? Or has it really been going down hill in the last few decades? It's going to be hard to create, or re-create, the culture of widespread rigor and honesty that most educated people attribute to science.
"I have to understand the world, you see."