velvetmagnetta wrote: It is unclear if this article concluded the encephalitis is from an ongoing infection or the after-effects of one. It certainly looks like they are talking about a chronic, ongoing, relapsing infection!
I think that the article refers to late stages of Lyme disease, with patients who were not treated for Lyme disease yet, and one can say that the patients had a chronic ongoing infection.
Note that the term "chronic Lyme" has two meanings:
1. a synonym for "late Lyme", which has been used since the 1980s.
2. a name for symptoms caused by a persistent Borrelia infection, which persists despite supposedly adequate antibiotic treatments. Even years of antibiotics supposedly fail to eradicate the infection in thousands of patients.
Meaning 2 seems to be invented by the "llmds" and Lyme activists/patients somewhere during the 1990s. That's when the Babylonian confusion of tongues started regarding "chronic Lyme disease".
Regarding statement number 1:
No, I think the authors would have used the term "Late Lyme" if that is what they meant. The use of "chronic" indicates ongoing, recurring, and/or relapsing symptoms. Note that, according to hv808ct, at least one patient was
treated with penicillin, but relapsed and had to be re-treated later with another course of antibiotics...
Regarding the 1987 article, it reports 3 untreated cases that were eventually diagnosed and treated.
The first case occurred during 3/82—6/85 and was treated with 2wk of iv pen.
The 2nd case occurred during 9/83--3/86 and was treated with 2wk of iv pen.
The 3rd case occurred during 8/83--1/84. Overt ACA was treated with 4wk of oral pen. Subsequent complications occurred between 3/85--5/85 and were resolved with iv pen.
I wonder how they are doing now? Did their symptoms resolve completely? I would be especially interested to know how the patient who had Lyme for 5 years before treatment is doing, although a 5 year infection may have a very different outcome from that of a 30 year infection.
Thank you Lorima, for that information. It is taking me a while to read everything, but so far, it looks like doctors used to have no problem assuming an antibiotic-treated patient still showing symptoms was still infected.
X-member - I have been keeping up with your "Late Lyme versus Chronic Lyme" thread for a while. I read all the info you post in English! Thank you for doing that!
I hope and pray with all my being that Lyme disease is not a chronic infection because the anitbiotics I took for what I now am sure is neuroborreliosis just about killed me. And I am not exaggerating when I say that. There is now evidence from an MRI showing that I should probably be dead.
But, here I am! Still here to debate the "chronic/not chronic" issue!
So, I am really really really
looking for evidence that Lyme is not chronic because if it is, there is nothing I can do about killing it off until SOMEBODY, I don't care who - the IDSA doctors, LLMDs, the CDC - anyone
- addresses the so-called "Herxheimer" reaction that is known to sometimes be fatal. Unless there is some way to block the pain and destruction from that reaction, some of us could not even take long courses of antibiotics if we had to.
I do still have plenty of symptoms, though. And, although I am ecstatic that i have finally found a group of doctors willing to help me try and figure out what is wrong with me (and then fix it!), they have asked me if I think more antibiotics would help. They are not even LLMDs! So that means that our plight has finally reached the ears of the mainstream doctors!
They were not aware of the extent of the chronic Lyme debate and came at my situation with fresh eyes, ears, and minds. And, in their view, the view of well-educated medical health professionals completely outside the realm of the Lyme debacle, they believed it was possible that since I still have so many severe symptoms, I may still be infected.
Wow. Yeah, I know, rocket science. Well, no, just medical