Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 27 Dec 2011 18:11

"tosho":
In a first line? To those who create guidelines.
Those are their OPINIONS, Tosho.

And the fact is...that those opinions are supported by the best scientific evidence available. They are backed up by controlled studies.

Do you mean that they are not entitled to interpret the evidence and express their interpretations of it without consulting Tosho as to the morality of it all?

How can I tell you the exact reasons?
For a reasonable thinking person it is unacceptable to see over and over again the same stories of people that were failed and abandoned by medicine in a field of tickborne diseases.
So, a 'reasonable' person can see this 'failure'...and blame the people that are studying the illness...instead of the nature of the illness itself?

And you label this: "reasonable"?

Again...and for the umpteenth time, Tosho, no one is denying that some people continue to experience symptoms following conventional treatment.

They just disagree over what the cause is. And I really don't see how a scientific dispute becomes "immoral" in your eyes. (And I wish you would be more careful with that word, please. You do understand that its use suggests impure motives, do you not? I think we have all heard more than enough of that kind of talk).

Not only tosho, but quite a lot of other people too.
Well, I am asking Tosho, though. And, are you familiar with the logical fallacy that is often called "Twenty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
"Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is used, though often sarcastically, to justify a point of view by alluding to its general acceptance. It is a demonstration of argumentum ad populum and is falsified prima facie by the French obsession with Jerry Lewis as a comic genius in the 1960s.
PS. I remember the origin of this, though, coming from ads about a type of perfume used, with the "twenty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" slogan attached. But, I could be wrong...

tosho
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 0:54
Location: Poland

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by tosho » Tue 27 Dec 2011 18:30

Spanky wrote: Those are their OPINIONS, Tosho.
How bad that these opinions became a standard.
Spanky wrote:And the fact is...that those opinions are supported by the best scientific evidence available. They are backed up by controlled studies.
I thought we already covered this issue that much more studies and trials are needed (future of the science, as you call it, Spanky). Tickborne diseases are relatively "new" in medicine, so creating prematurely strict guidelines is simply wrong.

Spanky wrote:Do you mean that they are not entitled to interpret the evidence and express their interpreatations of it without consulting Tosho as to the morality of it all?
Can you be a bit less sarcastic?
Spanky wrote:So, a 'reasonable' person can see this 'failure'...and blame the people that are studying the illness...instead of the nature of the illness itself?
Studying the illness? They have a great and accurate tests and 4 weeks cure for tickborne diseases, so everything is fine, there is not much to study! Post-lyme syndrome? Wait 9 years and you will get better spontaneously. NOT!
Spanky wrote:"Twenty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"?
Yep, I've noticed it quite a time ago that you like sarcasms.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 27 Dec 2011 18:43

"tosho":
How bad that these opinions became a standard.
Really?

Why? Because Tosho and 'a lot of other people' think so?

With no evidence to back them up?

Okay...since you are the resident moralist here, what do you think of the morality of labeling people whose OPINIONS you happen to disagree with as being "immoral"?

I thought we already covered this issue that much more studies and trials are needed (future of the science, as you call it, Spanky). Tickborne diseases are relatively "new" in medicine, so creating prematurely strict guidelines is simply wrong.

Oh, I see. Since Tosho doesn't agree...we need more studies until we can get one that agrees with what Tosho BELIEVES.

Again...yeah, that's "reasonable". Let's just forget about the evidence...and go with what Tosho and like-minded people "believe" to be the case.
Can you be a bit less sarcastic?
I don't know. I have never really tried.

Why? Do you find my sarcasm to be "immoral"? I always thought it was a perfectly acceptable rhetorical device...(and much, much preferrable to what I'd really like to say).

Yep, I've noticed it quite a time ago that you like sarcasms.
"Twenty Million Frenchmen can't be Wrong" isn't a "sarcasm", Tosho...it's a logical fallacy. And I invoked it, here, to reply to your suggestion that 'a lot of other people' believe this, also.

In other words: "so what"? The fact that a lot of others say the same thing doesn't make it any more or less correct.

Twenty million Frenchmen can be wrong.

(Or Americans, for that matter, as evidenced by some of the morons we put in the White House. Present occupant excepted).

X-member
Posts: 6888
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by X-member » Tue 27 Dec 2011 18:56

It is a pity that no physician take part in this discussion.

Because if this was a cancer forum instead, and the question was how to take care of a patient with disseminated and complicated cancer (including some other thing that complicate it, like an infection maybe), the physician who wanted the correct answers and help probably have exploded by now, when the discussion over and over again only go back to early and uncomplicated cancer.

I think it is much better if skilled physicians help people who suffer from a more complicated Lyme infection!

And, (if I understand correct) that is what this topic is about!

tosho
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 0:54
Location: Poland

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by tosho » Tue 27 Dec 2011 18:59

Spanky wrote:Really?

Why? Because Tosho and 'a lot of other people' think so?

With no evidence to back them up?
Evidence is in a real life, but some are not interested in it.
You know what? Nothing is impossible when there is a good will. Me an many other people can't fing a good will in constant denialism.


Spanky wrote:Okay...since you are the resident moralist here, what do you think of the morality of labeling people whose OPINIONS you happen to disagree with as being "immoral"?
I am not the resident moralist here.

Spanky wrote:Oh, I see. Since Tosho doesn't agree...we need more studies until we can get one that agrees with what Tosho BELIEVES.

Again...yeah, that's "reasonable". Let's just forget about the evidence...and go with what Tosho and like-minded people "believe" to be the case.
Do you have a trouble understanding about existence of real people that were abandoned and not helped by medicine in a field of tickborne diseases??

Spanky wrote:Why? Do you find my sarcasm to be "immoral"?
Uhh, again...

Goodbye.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 27 Dec 2011 19:20

"Carina":
I think it is much better if skilled physicians help people who suffer from a more complicated Lyme infection!

And, (if I understand correct) that is what this topic is about!

Well, you do NOT understand correctly what this topic was all about.

This topic was about a proposed piece of legislation before the US House of Representatives.
Last edited by Spanky on Tue 27 Dec 2011 23:57, edited 1 time in total.

X-member
Posts: 6888
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by X-member » Tue 27 Dec 2011 19:28

From the first post in this topic:
The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) estimates that only 10 percent of Lyme cases may be reported. Lyme disease can lead to chronic illness and can affect every system in the body, including the central nervous system. Advanced symptoms include arthritis of weight-bearing joints, neurological and cardiac problems, encephalopathy and memory problems. The CDC has determined that from 1992 to 2006, the incidence of Lyme disease was highest among children aged 5 to 14 years of age.
Spanky, you wrote:
Well, you do NOT understand correctly what this topic was all about.

This topic was about a proposed piece of legislation before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Ok, I do not understand! :roll:

X-member
Posts: 6888
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by X-member » Tue 27 Dec 2011 19:32

From the first post again:
(1) ensure interagency coordination and communication and minimize overlap regarding efforts to address tick-borne diseases;

(2) identify opportunities to coordinate efforts with other Federal agencies and private organizations addressing such diseases;

(3) ensure interagency coordination and communication with constituency groups;

(4) ensure that a broad spectrum of scientific viewpoints is represented in public health policy decisions and that information disseminated to the public and physicians is balanced; and

(5) advise relevant Federal agencies on priorities related to the Lyme and tick-borne diseases.

X-member
Posts: 6888
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by X-member » Tue 27 Dec 2011 19:35

Shall we stick to the topic, and stop talking like "everyone in the whole world suffer from uncomplicated Lyme"?

And leave the questions regarding more complicated Lyme to skilled physicians, instead?

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 27 Dec 2011 19:43

"tosho":
Evidence is in a real life, but some are not interested in it.
Well, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that what you mean there, (as is usually the case)...are anecdotal patient reports of improvement after undergoing extended antibiotic therapy.

That's NOT "evidence"...but mere observation.

And so, you then hypothesize that the improvement is related to the antibiotic therapy.

And so, you subject this hypothesis to testing, under controlled methods, so that you can screen out other possible explanations.

And when this has been done...the results, unanimously...do NOT support the proposed interpretation, or hypothesis. If that benefit were REAL...you would see that reflected in the results. And you do NOT.

Therefore, there must be some other explanation for the observed improvement.

The mere passage of time, for instance.

You know what? Nothing is impossible when there is a good will. Me an many other people can't find a good will in constant denialism.
What you label as "constant denialism", is, in reality...refusal to agree with YOUR point of view.

You seem to want to take it to the next level by labeling the people who disagree with you as being "immoral". Not particularly attractive, Tosho.
I am not the resident moralist here.
Whew. Thank goodness. (That's sarcasm, BTW).

Do you have a trouble understanding about existence of real people that were abandoned and not helped by medicine in a field of tickborne diseases??
Well, no, Tosho, since I went through my own series of horrors and unfortunate medical adventures, as I have detailed here...if you bothered to notice.

But it wasn't the "immoral" IDSA Guidelines that was the problem. It was medical ignorance...on the part of my examining physicians. If anyone is to blame, it was the doctors who saw me.

But look, Tosho...take a step back, here...

Medicine doesn't have all the answers. And sometimes, doctors miss things, despite their best efforts, that may appear crystal clear later with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. People do their best and sometimes can't help.

Unless you somehow think that this denialism is somehow intentional...and you need strict proof of that...I would suggest that you might want to 'dial down' (to borrow a phrase) your rhetoric.

What seems more than a bit peculiar to me, trying to follow all of this for years...is that there seems to be some unspoken attempt to make the IDSA somehow guarantors of the patient's health.

All we are talking about is an attempt to provide doctors who see patients with the best advice and information possible. Would you rather they not do this at all?

It doesn't do any good to then label them "immoral" just because you don't care for their approach.

Post Reply