Page 2 of 3

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 16:33
by Henry
This is what Aucott says:

" The aim is to characterize those patients that develop post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome and analyze the immunological pathways triggered as the disease progresses in those patients.

"This grant allows us to expand our research and gain a better understanding of the disease," Aucott says. "It also allows for greater diversity among participants so we can get more substantive information that can inform future developments in the field of Lyme research and discovery."

Note: The analysis of "immunological pathways" obviously requires having laboratory test results and data.

The language is sufficiently broad and inclusive enough to encompass the issues that I raised. Perhaps productive interactions between the Aucott and the Big Data groups would "sharpen" their focus a bit more . Wouldn't you agree this would be beneficial ? If so, you and Lorima -- simply because of the perspectives you might bring to the table-- ought to be encouraging such interactions.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 16:37
by Lorima
Apples and oranges, Henry.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 16:40
by Henry
No, you are wrong. Productive interactions between the Aucott and Johnson groups can only be helpful and -- at the very least-- serve to sharpen ones focus on the relevant issues. That should be obvious to anyone interested in searching for solutions, rather than just "keeping the pot boiling" and prolonging the controversy.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 17:04
by Lorima
:roll:
[Edited to add: As Duncan points out below, Henry went back and edited the comment that prompted my dismissive eye roll, to make it appear that he had said something more substantive. It originally just said "No, you are wrong." What is a reasonable person supposed to do with that?]

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 17:22
by Henry
Unfortunately, I don't see a "smiley" that best describes a closed mind, Lorima.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 17:23
by duncan
Henry, do you realize people can see when you go back and edit your posts AFTER the discussion has moved forward?

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 17:30
by Henry
Yes, and they can modify their response accordingly.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 17:55
by Lorima
Henry, this little editing trick is the kind of thing that made me realize early on that there was, and is, something seriously wrong in the mainstream Lyme disease field. You don't even seem to know why it looks sleazy.
This kind of thing may go unremarked in some medical, political, or business circles, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me and those who share my moral and intellectual values.

Now, regarding the substance of your argument, you are recommending combining a self-selected, self-reported survey project, with a formal medical study. Both these projects have their place in the world, but they are incompatible methodologically.
Your suggestion is absurd. The only question is whether you know that, or not.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 18:56
by Henry
Lorima: Your paranoia has gotten the best of you. You have falsely attributed my motives. My editing in no way is a devious maneuver as you imagine. It's just that, by the time I get around to posting a response because of phone call interruptions etc. a response has been posted by the same individual while mine was in preparation. So, the responses get "out of sequence". What's wrong with making a revision in a case like that ? Also, there are times that I wish to add what I think is pertinent information to a previous post -- as a revision, afterthought, or update. What's wrong with doing that? I assure you that there are no other motives for my actions.

Furthermore, your judgement concerning the substance of my argument is itself absurd. Since representatives from both the Aucott and Johnson groups were invited to share the stage at the same AAAS sponsored program (see Lorraine Johnson's description of the meeting that I posted), the organizers must have felt that what they each had to offer was indeed relevant, even though you do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps, the organizers believed -- just as I do-- that both groups would benefit from productive interaction to sharpen their focus on the relevant issues. It's called trying to find common ground, instead of exacerbating controversy. That's how progress is made.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 19:15
by duncan
Henry, you may wish to pull up a chair and review the respective methodologies at play here.

You also appear to be getting ahead of yourself. I suggest you do some basic research to find out what kind of markers Aucott is broadly searching for. Remember Lipkin? Remember Naviuax? Both researching the same disease, but from very different vantages, with very different techniques and qualifiers - and very different results, naturally.

You gotta appreciate this.

No one would argue with the idea that collaboration is a good thing where possible. Perhaps Marques should be consulting with Johnson? Or Mead with MacDonald? Heck, I'd be delighted to try to help out the ALDF. :D

Back to Aucott. I like that he seems to get the severity and debilitating nature of Lyme, especially after treatment fails. But I do have some concerns as to the mechanisms he may consider to be at the root of persistent symptoms. Those concerns would be immaterial assuming he approaches the new research agnostically or impartially, e.g. he also looks for signs of persistent infection, not just aberrant immune reactions.