I'm glad you're digging into the background of the Lyme controversy!!
Beware, this can really tax the functional components of your brain and destroy your patience.
I encourage you to ask the "owner" to debate you publicly.
I don't do Facebook or I'd hop right on there. I have grown to LOVE making fools of these fools. Some are genuinely well-meaning and concerned about
the controversy or are trying to learn. The majority have ulterior motives that are pretty questionable. Some are even paid to spread Lyme lies. After awhile you can spot them pretty easily.
That study is by Lantos. Yeah, Lantos.
Please let us know if you need any help. ;)
The essence of this study is that since the science community has failed to adequately identify why people continue to be symptomatic after what the medical community has deemed "adequate" treatment, then the patients must be wrong.
Excerpts from the study's summary:
"The scientific community has largely rejected chronic, treatment-refractory B burgdorferi infection, usually termed CLD, based on the absence of a defined patient population, the failure to detect cultivatable, clinically relevant organisms after standard treatment."
----Since the diagnostic tools used to determine if someone has Lyme before treatment are 50% accurate at best, and the diagnostic tools to determine the presence of the microbe after treatment are no more effective, this is also really, really poor and dangerous logic. I IMPLORE the scientific community to do much better.
"...the subset of chronically symptomatic patients with a well-documented history of Lyme disease, usually termed PLDS, have little evidence of active infection, and their symptoms do not respond to antibiotics any better than to placebo."
----The issues I have with EVERY study on abx that I've ever read, particularly the recent "long-term abx don't work" studies, are compounded by the fact that they never study realistic protocols that are actually being implemented successfully by LLMDs and patients all across the country and what we are talking about
all day long on our forum. To assume that Lyme & Co exists in a vacuum w/out other competing demands for immune function and other body systems and that these can all be ignored while you're treating a systemic infection(s) is idiotic. To then assert that because abx wasn't the panacea, that therefore you no longer have Lyme is ridiculous.
I'm not interested in the idiotic and ridiculous. It doesn't serve science, healing, or even an anti-Lyme agenda...
In the end, what is this group's intent? Purpose? Agenda? What are they gaining by trying so hard to actively spread their ignorance? How much are they getting paid? If they spent a fraction of their time and efforts trying to get the scientific and medical communities to do their jobs instead of trying to humiliate patients who have been abandoned and neglected by the medical industry and are left trying to save their own lives, we might have progressed more in the past 40 yrs.
KEY POINTS from the study:
"There is no accepted clinical definition for chronic Lyme disease.
----This statement depends ENTIRELY on how Lyme disease is defined and which science you accept. That makes it a false statement.
"Most patients with a diagnosis of chronic Lyme disease have no evidence of Lyme disease."
-----Since the science community can't seem to create reliable testing tools for the medical community to be able to diagnose more than 50% of those tested (not to mention the millions more people who MDs refuse to even test), the likelihood of reliable testing after treatment is every bit as suspect.
"Persistent subjective symptoms during recovery from Lyme disease are not active infection."
-----This doesn't even make any basic sense. You can't prove something doesn't exist because you can't seem to find it.
"Prolonged antibiotic courses are ineffective and unsafe patients for patients with prolonged symptoms after Lyme disease."
-----People are healing w/ abx all over the world. Of course, this is happening primarily because the LLMD community and forums like ours have eschewed the conventional and ineffective treatment protocols and are implementing protocols that are absolutely not being studied. But people are healing despite others' best efforts to sabatoge us.
In some respects, the statement that "____ doses of abx will cure LD" is false, but that concept is being abused to try to prove that a) people don't have Lyme, b) abx don't work and c) Chronic Lyme doesn't exist. Surely, the scientific community isn't this stupid, entirely.
NONE of this is useful.
Post Edited (Pirouette) : 5/10/2017 6:18:52 PM (GMT-6)