Page 1 of 11

Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 15:54
by Henry
"Bullying Borrelia: When the Culture of Science is Under Attack"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540629

All that post on this website should read this article and then THINK about the consequences of what they are doing -- or saying.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 16:05
by Joanne60
Maybe also read the findings from the James Lind Alliance regarding uncertainties.
http://www.lymediseaseaction.org.uk/wha ... /research/

and the top ten priorities are http://www.lymediseaseaction.org.uk/wp- ... rities.pdf

As these uncertainties become properly investigated by science and related into medical practises then there should be no real need for advocacy the doctors will be fully informed and able to treat us according to our needs and then no need for such pseudo science papers that Henry refers to.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 16:20
by tosho
In all of these discussions I see one nonsense that is repeated all the time and only adds to the confusion. When talking about tickborne diseases why authors of various articles speak only about Bb?

I hope that we can agree at least on one thing - ticks carry many microbes, and many of these microbes may be transmitted to humans. Talking about chronicity and limiting it only to the case of Bb is an error that simplify the problem. Who knows, maybe when you are infected only with Bb it is easily treated? But look at the scientific papers - ticks carry/transmit various microbes. Clinical experience of many doctors shows that chronic patients have positive tests for various infections and poor response to short term abx therapy. That strongly suggest that the "infection soup" really plays a key role in chronicity of an illness.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 16:30
by Henry
Joanne60: Many of these "uncertainties" have been adequately addressed in peer-reviewed scientific publications. It is just that some -- such as you-- fail to accept findings that conflict with your particular bias. They are excellent examples of science denialism.

There is ample evidence that extended antibiotic therapy is not beneficial for the treatment of PTLDS and may even be unsafe. For those who disagree. the time is long overdue for them to present convincing peer-reviewed data in that regard from the published results of placebo-controlled studies, and/or present convincing evidence that the alternative treatments suggested in your tract indeed offer significant benefit. So far, all we have is biased testimony -- no scientific data. Furthermore, the clinical relevance of cysts forms and biofilms has NEVER been demonstrated or proved to be of ANY significance. They are just products of the imagination........... and often laboratory artifacts......

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 16:32
by Bagge
tosho wrote: I hope that we can agree at least on one thing - ticks carry many microbes, and many of these microbes may be transmitted to humans. Talking about chronicity and limiting it only to the case of Bb is an error that simplify the problem. Who knows, maybe when you are infected only with Bb it is easily treated? But look at the scientific papers - ticks carry/transmit various microbes. Clinical experience of many doctors shows that chronic patients have positive tests for various infections and poor response to short term abx therapy. That strongly suggest that the "infection soup" really plays a key role in chronicity of an illness.
Tosho, you often make good points and in my opinion bring welcome input into this forum. However, I urge you to carefully consider each individual source of that clinical expertise. You do not know exactly how others are making their clinical diagnoses, what tests they are using, how they interpret symptoms, how or if they rule out other diseases and what treatments they advise. These are things no one should ever assume about another physician's treatment, skill or expertise in any given field.
.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 17:24
by tosho
I know what you mean and I agree with that. Nevertheless, the problem of multiple tickborne infections in patients is not surprising:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15606643
Guidelines for the diagnosis of tick-borne bacterial diseases in Europe.
"Since the identification of Borrelia burgdorferi as the agent of Lyme disease in 1982, 11 tick-borne human bacterial pathogens have been described in Europe."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term ... l%20Europe
[Pandora's Box: pathogens in Ixodes ricinus ticks in Central Europe].
"Besides the singular detection of Coxiella burnetii and Francisella tularensis in one tick collection site the overall prevalence of Anaplasma phagocytophilum, borreliae, rickettsae and babesiae in Ixodes ricinus amounted to 15%, 14%, 6% and surprising 36% and 51%, respectively. Bartonellae were detected in about 7%."

These are just examples.
So you see, limiting discussion to Bb is not very rational. (cheap trick? ;))

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 17:40
by Henry
Tosho: No one disputes the fact that ticks can carry and transmit a variety of infectious agents. However, to suggest that the symptoms associated with borreliosis are due to any of them -- without additional supporting data-- is a "leap of faith" and not reasonable. Are you advocating that the long accepted definition of borreliosis be changed -- as suggested by Burrascano-- to that of an ill-defined multi-infectious disease? Come on. That doesn't make sense. We know how to detect and diagnose many of the infectious agents/diseases that ticks transmit. Incidentally, with the exception of Babesia and viruses, most -- if not all -- of the bacterial pathogens carried by ticks are susceptible to doxycycline, the drug of choice for treating borrreliosis.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 18:31
by tosho
I am talking about chronic symptoms. And yes, when there is a multiple infection the definition should be changed but it's certainly not an easy task. I don't see anything irrational in this way of thinking.

And good luck with treating late Bb infection accompanied with other tbds with 4 weeks of low dose doxy. I think that even you don't believe in what you say, Henry.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 20:23
by duncan
Henry, is it fair of me to assume you are not a sufferer of Bb? Never fell through the Lyme diagnostic cracks? Never subscribed to the treatment regimen prescribed by the IDSA guidelines, only to find they were inadequate?

I am sorry if this is common knowledge, but it isn't to me, and somehow I think it may be relevant.

Re: Bullying Borrelia

Posted: Sat 12 Jan 2013 21:40
by Henry
Duncan: Such information is quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Do people with cancer have greater knowledge of its cause and treatment than those who don't, but who study the disease and the evidence-based research connected with it?