Re: Controlled trial ABX persistant lyme

From: derdrittemann (derdrittemann2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: 7 Jul 2004 07:22:03 -0700

GregGerber@hotmail.com (Greg Gerber) wrote in message news:<146041df.0407061520.365c2854@posting.google.com>...
> derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com (derdrittemann) wrote in message news:<f2af2263.0407051830.87a0164@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I am certainly NOT a supporter or defender of that study...but what
> > was used was a Rocephin iv and followed up with oral doxycycline...as
> > indicated by the ISDA guidelines...
> >
> > ...what part of that regimen do you think is "useless"?
>
>> "It was an outrageously sloppy study".
>
> GG

My personal interpretation is somewhat less generous, in fact.

My skepticism is that it was disingenuous from the start...so biased
that its real intention was to provide data for a foregone conclusion.

I do not have a quarrel with a great deal of even what K&L have said
about the overall situation...IF...you substitiute the word "BIAS" for
"fraud"...and although many may not see much of a semantic
difference...there is a world of difference, legally speaking.

I have not seen the study since its original publication...but it was
my recollection that the largest single group at the time the study
was prematurely terminated was the group that was taking
antibiotics...and reported that they were doing better. (Although the
numerical differences were slight...the study was ceased on the basis
that the percentage difference could not approach statistical
signifigance...which is somewhat misleading in and of itself...given
the very samll numbers).

I think you have to start with an analysis of whether this type of
study could have possibly succeeded in its stated purposes in the very
design aspects ...the "chronic" population is just too diverse for a
"one size fits all" strategy. Given the "wax and wane" aspects of the
disease...the way it was engineered seems ridiculous as well. A survey
might have been more appropriate.

Worse yet, of course, were the conclusions that were drawn from this
"evidence".

To me, this is a very clear example of WHY the Lyme community needs to
fund its OWN research. Look at what you are dealing with here. The
CDC/NIH funding of research is controlled by a group with a very
biased one-sided view of the situation.

Going to Congress and asking for more research money is likely to make
the situation even worse...as it will simply make more disasters like
this study possible.

ARE you, however, saying, that the "antibiotic regimen used was known
to be useless"...as "Bugs" indicated?

If so, WHY?