Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease Test

Medical topics with questions, information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
duncan
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed 5 Sep 2012 18:48

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by duncan » Sun 30 Nov 2014 17:52

The main issue? No, I would not agree. It's served a a red herring for far too long. Many individuals have a history of testing positive according to IDSA criteria and STILL get tossed into the PTLDS garbage bin.

It's a distraction, Henry, and shame on you for embracing it simply because there are some unscrupulous clinicians out there. Every corner of the medical community has its share of charlatans. Including the Lyme community. But pointing to them as if they undo the damage wrought by crappy science using crappy tools is a cop out. Too many from the IDSA ilk seem more intent on discrediting their competition than they are in helping the legitimately sick. The system is dysfunctional and it's the patients that have to shoulder the burden AND pay the price.

It's not even about whether or not someone tests positive via the 2T, is it? Because mainstream Lyme is indiscriminate about what it disallows as a diagnosis once "treatment" has been rendered. When did it lose sight of the patient? How about a retrospective study plotting that timeline?

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by Henry » Sun 30 Nov 2014 18:47

Come on, Duncan. You're losing it. Get a good grip on your self. It has always been a question of accepting the certainty and rigorously reviewed results of evidence-based research, instead of "guessing". Those who think that they have chronic Lyme disease and have failed to respond to extended antibiotic therapy claim it is due to; (a) treatment for an insufficient amount of time; (b) the formation of antibiotic-impervious biofilms; (c) not using the right combination/type of antibiotics; (d) Borrelia being sheltered in an environment that can not be reached by antibiotics; (e) antibiotic resistance of cyst forms; (f) the presence of a co-infection; and (g) still other contrived reasons for "treatment failure". However, the obvious conclusion, i.e., that they just may not have Lyme disease after all is seldom -- if ever-- considered. That would explain it, wouldn't it.

duncan
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed 5 Sep 2012 18:48

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by duncan » Sun 30 Nov 2014 19:21

No.

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by nnecker » Sun 30 Nov 2014 19:53

Duncan wrote:
It's served a a red herring for far too long.
Looks like you maybe losing it Duncan.

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by nnecker » Sun 30 Nov 2014 20:42

Henry said:
It has always been a question of accepting the certainty and rigorously reviewed results of evidence-based research, instead of "guessing". Those who think that they have chronic Lyme disease and have failed to respond to extended antibiotic therapy claim it is due to; (a) treatment for an insufficient amount of time; (b) the formation of antibiotic-impervious biofilms; (c) not using the right combination/type of antibiotics; (d) Borrelia being sheltered in an environment that can not be reached by antibiotics; (e) antibiotic resistance of cyst forms; (f) the presence of a co-infection; and (g) still other contrived reasons for "treatment failure". However, the obvious conclusion, i.e., that they just may not have Lyme disease after all is seldom -- if ever-- considered. That would explain it, wouldn't it.
From: Poll: who has had IV abx? Did it help??:

http://www.mdjunction.com/forums/lyme-d ... id-it-help
I will be the first to answer. I had took IV cefotaxime.
How long into treatment did you start?

> I started IV 9 months into treatment.

How long did you take IV abx?

> 3 months

Do you think they helped?

> I think that they helped the lyme, but forced the Bartonella and strep into bio-films.

Do you think they could have been used longer?

> I think if I would have had a second abx. to target Bartonella, and I would have taken IV longer I would have seen better results.

duncan
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed 5 Sep 2012 18:48

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by duncan » Sun 30 Nov 2014 22:45

nnecker, yes, Henry already offered up that opinion.

It's good to see you are running true to form.

Lorima
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 20:47

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by Lorima » Mon 1 Dec 2014 1:41

Henry wrote
...how many peer reviewed research publications they have on Lyme disease (don't count opinion papers or abstracts). Yes, do a PubMed search and let's examine their credentials . After so doing, you will find that the ILADS crowd "can't hold a candle" to the accomplishments of the authors of the IDSA guidelines, who are truly the international experts on Lyme disease.
It's silly to expect family practice doctors (ILADS) to turn into academic researchers and fill up pages in PubMed. Even if they could, they'd have to neglect their patients to do so. You're setting up a false dilemma. It isn't IDSA vs. ILADS. It's Steere and IDSA followers (bad, stagnant science) vs. the vacuum that we find, where the good science should be.

The patients need
1) physicians who observe their illness accurately, and take them seriously, and
2) good science, to help those physicians figure out how to care for them.

Henry wrote:
It has always been a question of accepting the certainty and rigorously reviewed results of evidence-based research, instead of "guessing".
"certain...rigorous...evidence-based"
You're using buzz words here, and not thinking about their meaning. In the dominant LD literature, the "certainty" is spurious, neither the observations nor the logic are "rigorous", and the "evidence base" has been cherry-picked. Steere's arthritis patients, and Wormser's people with a physician-diagnosed EM, do not comprise the universe of people infected with Bb. They may not even be the majority. We just don't know, because of how badly the science has been handled.

You can't research a disease by throwing out all the patients whose symptoms are difficult to measure. You can choose a little corner of the disease field and characterize those few patients - but you can't then claim that these are the "true" patients and all the rest are "false". Not everything that is real, can be quantified like a swollen knee or an EM rash, using a tape measure.
"I have to understand the world, you see."
Richard Feynman

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by nnecker » Mon 1 Dec 2014 13:32

Duncan said:
nnecker, yes, Henry already offered up that opinion.
That's not opinion,that's reality.

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by nnecker » Mon 1 Dec 2014 14:56

Lorima wrote:
You can't research a disease by throwing out all the patients whose symptoms are difficult to measure.
I guess Lyme has come down to a numbers game.Both sides have their numbers and won't be persuaded by the other sides numbers no matter what you tell them.So yes,we have to listen to Duncan's clock tick until we know which sides numbers are right.

Until then,we can have a lot of fun arguing about those numbers. :woohoo:

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease

Post by Henry » Mon 1 Dec 2014 15:12

For those who don't understand my main argument, it is that it is impossible to make a diagnosis of Lyme disease based on an array of non-specific symptoms alone, regardless of ones clinical experience. Under such circumstances, the results of a positive laboratory test are essential to make the diagnosis of Lyme disease. If the results of an approved and widely used test are negative, one is safe to assume that the patient does not have Lyme disease. It does the patient no good whatsoever to be treated for Lyme disease if he/she doesn't have it. The best thing to do is to search for other causes for the symptoms -- if one REALLY wants to help the patient. This is not an uncaring attitude. It is simply good sense and good medicine, that benefits the patient in the long run. Now, I have said enough on this subject.

Post Reply