Page 3 of 6

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 0:38
by Lorima
You're kidding, right?

If you re not kidding, watch the first several minutes of this video from the CDC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7L61d-- ... ata_player
There is an amusing slide showing Steere as a choir director, and three agents singing from his score, presented without irony. Also bar charts of Steere's numerous papers over the years. It's delightful to have been presented with evidence of such slavish devotion, by the perpetrating agency itself.

If you want the detailed history with exhaustive referencing, read Weintraub's book Cure Unknown. Or with Harvard cachet but worse referencing, Edlow's book Bull's-Eye. And/or review the literature yourself.

But I know you won't do any of these things Anyway, your memory problems would disable you from understanding. You should have gotten on top of this, when you first got assigned to the LD program. Now I'm afraid it's too late.

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 19:13
by Henry
Actually, I have read "Cure Unknown" and have found it to be biased and rather tiresome; the animosity against Allen Steere in that book is matched only by the same degree of animosity you often express in postings on this site. In short, it is a book written for "believers" to re-enforce their views, suspicions, and misconceptions

Since you mention Allen Steere, one of the co-discoverers of Lyme disease, let's contrast his rather outstanding accomplishments with those of Dr. Richard Horowitz, the "hero" of "Cure Unknown". I just did a PubMed search of Steere's scientific publications; he has a total of 263 peer reviewed publications, of which 234 are on Lyme disease. By contrast, Horowitz has no publications dealing with Lyme disease or babesiosis -- none. There is no record of him having done any clinical research on either of these diseases. So, what is the "evidence" to support his "theories" about how to treat Lyme disease that he peddles in books sold on Amazon? From testimonials. Unless one sees all of the data for patients treated in the same way and the percentage that benefit from such treatment -- to take into account such factors an a placebo effect and natural healing-- it is impossible to determine if his therapeutic approaches are beneficial and safe. That's what's commonly referred to as doing a placebo controlled study. There's is no evidence to indicate that he has ever done such studies to assess the efficacy of any of his therapies for Lyme disease. There are others like him who peddles their remedies in books sold on Amazon. Before I would allow him to treat me or a member of my family, I would insist on seeing all of the data to see if there really is likely to be any benefit. That's what a reasonable and responsible person would do. If he had anything useful to offer, don't you think by now everyone would be using it -- especially people like Yolanda Foster-- and there would be no controversy about Lyme disease? And I haven't even mentioned the cost of such unproven therapies........

Towards the end of the CDC video you posted, Allen Steere was asked a question on the natural history of Lyme disease. This is something that I've often wondered about. You should listen carefully to what he had to say. Lyme disease was around for a very long time before the etiology was determined in the mid 1980s. During that time, it was common for children to be running around with what primary care physicians in NY often called "Montauk knee". I asked several colleagues, who were born and raised in Rhode Island during that period, just what they and their parents did about it? They said nothing -- it just went away. Knowing what we now know about Lyme disease, I would advise anyone that has it to get treated with antibiotics early; however, it is reassuring to know that the human immune system can cope with this infection when called upon to do so. It's another factor that one must keep in mind when evaluating the efficacy of unorthodox therapies to treat what is commonly called chronic Lyme disease. Sometimes people will -- and often do-- get better, even when nothing is done. That happens.

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 19:32
by nnecker
Pamela Weintraub wrote:

"Dr. Richard Horowitz brought [my family] back from the brink of Lyme disease hell to true health. In WHY CAN’T I GET BETTER, Horowitz discusses...chronic disease and the cascade of problems that may start with infection but ultimately go far beyond it... His provocative insights apply to chronic illness writ large.” — Pamela Weintraub, award-winning author of Cure Unknown



Weintraub and Horowitz are both preying on the gullible to make money.Kooks preying on kooks.

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 20:22
by duncan
Henry, Horowitz is not the hero of Cure Unknown. Are you sure you have read it?

As to your anecdotes about Montauk Knee, although interesting, they are far from scientific. More to the point, simply because some people may be able to clear the infection - or suppress it - without intervention, it doesn't mean most others can. Even the IDSA admits up to 20% who seek treatment for Lyme, and are confirmed with Lyme, see little to no relief of many symptoms.

Meanwhile, you may wish to catch up on recent research findings that seem to undermine claims as to the frequency of IDSA-recommended treatment success. I refer you to persister studies from Northeastern and Tulane and Johns Hopkins (Lewis, Embers, and Zhang, and associates).

Have you figured out the C6 yet? Or come up for an answer regarding how the 2T can be infallible when some IDSA supporters are claiming its accuracy needs to be qualified by geography?

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 20:32
by Henry
The studies of Lewis, Embers, and Zhang are in vitro studies and are not germane to what may be occurring in vivo with respect to the innate and acquired immune response to infection. That should be obvious.

I suspect you comments about C6 have to do with the publication of recent paper dealing with the issue of pre-test probability for 2T-testing , an issue which you appear not to understand based on your comments in a previous posting. I will not take the time to explain it to you. Consult a textbook on biostatistics or principles of serology.

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 20:45
by duncan
Yes, they are in vitro, but that doesn't mean necessarily they are not germane to what happens in vivo. We will need to see how follow-up studies play out.

But they certainly are a strong indicator that something may be amiss, and they seem contrary to earlier claims about treatment efficacy and reliability in vitro. These three studies might be interpreted as more evidence that support the suspicion that mainstream Lyme may have made serious errors these last 30 years - errors that may need to be acknowledged and remedied.

You still seem to be dodging my questions.

Edited to add: I just saw you edited your previous post. You ARE dodging my questions. :lol:

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 21:05
by Henry
No, you are wrong. If you examine the kinetics for the kill curves, they are logarithmic in nature. That is, they never reach zero or 100% kill because a logarithmic scale does not have a zero endpoint. So, that means if you start out with 100 million bacteria and kill 99% within a stipulated period of time, you still have 1 million left -- a whole lot of bacteria. If you add more antibiotics, you will kill 99% of that number, etc., etc. In other words, you always will have some bacteria left (that 1%) that can grow out. This is a laboratory experiment that all most bacteriology students know about.

Lewis himself states that, in order to demonstrate the presence of persistors in his model, you must start out with a large inoculum , i.e., 100 million bacteria as he suggests. However, in vivo, the host immune system eliminates those bacteria that survive antibiotic killing. The mode of action of antibiotic in vivo follows these basic principles. :lol:

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 21:12
by duncan
Ok, so you know your way around Wikipedia. But how does that demonstrate what I wrote is wrong? Please read what I wrote - carefully. It all comes back to accuracy, once again.

Sigh.

Now, why don't you take a stab at answering my questions?

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 21:19
by Henry
No, I have answered your questions, at least those that were substantive. You just don't like my answers. I don't intend to try to answer questions that are not based on fact. In doing so, I would be accepting the premise of your argument which I don't intend to do.

Re: A Modest Proposal

Posted: Wed 23 Dec 2015 21:20
by duncan
I see. 8-)