Page 3 of 11

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 18:52
by duncan
Henry, what happens if and when the experts and physicians get it wrong, blow the diagnosis by saying it ain't Bb when it is, maybe because of the TT system, don't treat - or manage to under treat due to ambiguities? What if the way the system is defined today is jettisoning faithful, trusting patients out into the cold? And if you accept that premise, what if the number of those so unfortunate proves to be much higher than previous estimates, precisely because of intrinsic flaws within the diagnostic and treatment infrastructure as it has existed for the last three decades?

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 18:59
by Bagge
duncan wrote:Henry, what happens if and when the experts and physicians get it wrong, blow the diagnosis by saying it ain't Bb when it is, maybe because of the TT system, don't treat - or manage to under treat due to ambiguities? What if the way the system is defined today is jettisoning faithful, trusting patients out into the cold? And if you accept that premise, what if the number of those so unfortunate proves to be much higher than previous estimates, precisely because of intrinsic flaws within the diagnostic and treatment infrastructure as it has existed for the last three decades?
You save the money wasted on Jumbotron ads and the like, then arrange your own reputable studies, or contribute to those who are already doing the same. What you don't do is promote the bogus and dangerous treatments and diagnoses that have permeated mainstream medicine. If you want to improve on sometime, IMPROVE IT, don't circumvent by adding in a bunch of bogus, unsubstantiated methods of diagnosis and treatment that pose even more problems than the original.
.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 19:02
by duncan
Bagge, you didn't answer the question I asked of Henry. But good try, and you hang in there...:)

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 19:07
by Henry
Duncan: What do you mean when you say that the experts "blew the diagnosis" because of the faulty TT test? If the TT test is negative, then what objective test do you have to replace it so that you can truly say that they were wrong and the patient really has Lyme disease? What standard of proof do you have to replace the TT test in this case? Nothing but your "instincts" and/or bias? I don't think that is quite enough.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 19:19
by duncan
No. That is not what I said. Look, what if someone is infected with Bb, but is asymptomatic? No TT will be offered, correct? Why would it? That person would fall through the cracks, yes? Or, what happens if someone tests with say, only three bands IgG positive, but at the time of the WB test those antibodies - which can fluctuate, I believe - are at a low ebb? That person, also, would potentially fall through the cracks. Each case could develop into a "slowly progressive" late lyme stage, right?

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 19:20
by Lorima
Responding to Bagge and Henry's response to my last post:

Huh?

Oh, I see. 

I think I understand the inspiration for these aggressive non-sequiturs. But I'm on my way to the beach to view sea birds, so I'll have to respond later. 

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 20:00
by tosho
Henry wrote:In the absence of laboratory test data and based on symptoms alone, there is no definition of Lyme disease as a distinct clinical entity, i.e., a minimal definition that would enable one to distinguish Lyme disease from other non-infectious conditions with SIMILAR symptoms (e.g. fibromyalgia etc.).
The problems that TBDs cause in reality (with definitions, symptoms, testing etc.) is not an excuse to feel comfort that current recommendations, which are kind of compromise based on strict and in some way conservative interpretation of scientific papers, are good enough. Fibromyalgia is one of my "favorite" - a junk diagnosis that very often turns out to be another disease. Keep this formal talk for you, noone believes you.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 20:49
by Henry
Duncan: Ok. Tell me HOW you determine that someone is infected with Borrelia, but is asymptomatic? If one truly has Lyme disease, why would some antibodies of diagnostic relevance to Lyme disease be at a "low ebb", but not others? If one is infected for several weeks or months, all --if not most-- of the 10 bands associated with the CDC IgG Western blot criteria will be demonstrable. You are creating scenarios that do not happen in the real world.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sun 13 Jan 2013 21:22
by duncan
Henry, what if someone comes into a clinic with a deer tick embedded? No symptoms. No rash. Doctor says too early to test for antibodies. Patient waits a month, returns even though she feels fine, just as a precaution. Doctor advises against running TT because, clinically there are no symptoms. But later, weeks or months or whatever, symptoms manifest. A once asymptomatic Bb infectee is now presenting with suspicious symptoms, so finally a ELISA and WB are ordered. But by then the disease has progressed to late stage disseminated, yes? At least, in our theoretical discussion. And if it has spread to CNS, additional issues surrounding treatment now emerge.

I am not creating scenarios that do not happen in the real world.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Mon 14 Jan 2013 0:02
by Henry
Duncan: You might be interested in this report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21173795
Although it is always better to treat infections as early as possible, not lost if treatment is delayed.