Re: Current CDC on Lyme Diagnosis

From: A_Weisman (a_weisman_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/28/04

  • Next message: Sinaj101: "Re: I need your help" 
    Date: 28 Jul 2004 13:06:29 -0700

    Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0407280616.1cef7c8e@posting.google.com>...
    > Exactly, Phyliss..Thank you.. The Bullseye is a late presentation,
    > after the rash has begun to clear.

    No that isn't right. First it depends on what you mean by "late." When
    they say "early EM presentation" they are referring to the progress of
    the rash which is generally seen (if it is an initial rash) within
    3-30 days of infection. So the central clearing occurs after the
    initial appearance of the rash but typically within days to a week or
    ten days thereafter.

    If you consider that a "late" manifestation of Lyme disease, then
    fine. But that isn't what most people think of as "late" or a "late
    symptom" or "late presentation" it is only later within the context of
    the rash. (some rashes may last longer and secondary rashes are a
    different story entirely).

    And your quibble is silly (not surprisingly). OF COURSE the central
    clearing comes later given the description that the rash appears, THEN
    expands, and THEN the central clearing occurs (in those cases in which
    it occurs).

    I don't see how that is IN ANY WAY a misleading description
    notsogreatclod.

    > The rash is indeed a "spreading
    > redness", and only in less than 10% of the cases, and those are the
    > ones seen late, is it a "Classic" or
    > "characteristic"....Steere/Yalecrap have decieved the entire medical
    > and patient community for over 25 years by insisting on a badly
    > distorted description of Lyme presentation.

    I think what appears to be distorted is your misinterpretation of
    this. Again, I am not defending the diagnostic or treatment criteria
    or guidelines of Stere or Yale or the IDSA beyond this point. I'm
    simply saying that you are distorting this point.

    There's also a problem which is that you are confusing the word
    "classic" with the word "typical." The "Classic" rash might be more
    atypical than typical. However when seen it is considered
    pathognomonic (look it up nsgc).

    >Of course, the "Classic "
    > description of a Bullseye and swollen major joints served to direct
    > just about all the Fedreral research money their way.

    How so?

    > The Forchner's, thank god, were on top of promoting an accurate
    > description
    > of Lyme presentation, but many here in the Northeast have had their
    > lives ruined by the Steere/Yalecrap criminal negligence...

    Do you have any idea of the definition of criminal negligence?

    > As I have said, Steere's description of a rash expanding from a
    > clear center is pure fiction.

    Not at all. And nothing Phyllis posted suggests otherwise. In fact it
    says that this does occur in about 10% of patients IN THAT STUDY. Also
    YOU are distorting the description which is and always has been a red
    rash that expands from the site of the tick bite and THEN develops a
    central clearing (which has always been caveated by saying that not
    all rashes have this apperance or course and that not all patients
    develop or notice a rash). I've never seen anything by Steere or Yale
    that says otherwise. If you have something, show us. I'm not saying it
    doesn't exist just that I've never seen that and I have seen things
    like what I say above consistently for the past 25 years in the
    literture.

    >He never saw anything like that, but
    > passed it off as "evidence based medicine".

    Where? And how do you know what he saw? There are plenty of cases of
    rashes following that course. Many documented by photos.

    > You know, a phone call from Steere to the CDC would get that
    > distortion
    > straightened out in no time...but Steere has never shown any real
    > concern about human wellbeing.

    That's your baseless opinion. Have you been a patient of his? How do
    you know what he has done in clinical practice or not?

    How'd you like people with no knowledge about you making statements
    like that about you in your occupation or profession (which is what,
    being a fish? or a clown? Or a clownfish?).

    >For me anyway, the hardest thing to
    > believe is the utter lack of concern about patient wellbeing. What's a
    > kid's life compared to
    > a spread in the NY times?

    Do you think the NY times article was actually complimentary about
    him? It portrayed him as the subject of a great controversy and though
    it didn't present the patient view in a balanced way, it certainly
    didn't hail Steere as a great medical hero, but one who has been
    questioned harshly.

    >You don't get to be world famous by getting
    > bogged down in unimportant lives.

    Whatever. You're a real jerk you know that? You casually defame others
    with no basis.

    Once again up on your soapbox blowing bubbles.

  • Next message: Sinaj101: "Re: I need your help"

    Relevant Pages