Re: Samento
jlepine_at_cybermesa.com
Date: 01/16/05
- Next message: EGriffin70: "Any LLMD's in SC?"
- Previous message: GregGerber: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- In reply to: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Samento"
- Next in thread: Sayle: "Re: Samento"
- Reply: Sayle: "Re: Samento"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Jan 2005 22:32:20 -0800
weisman wrote:
>When you use the word "duc" do you mean "duck"; if so, do you think
>this is helpful? If so, how?
1. Yes, as in Quack
2. Yes, it's a convenient shorthand
3. So glad you asked.
The term applies to those genius MDs who use a negative test result to
"prove" that the patient does not have Lyme disease.
That despite the CDC's clear warning that their SURVEILLANCE criteria
should NOT be used as a DIAGNOSTIC criteria or to negate a CLINICAL
diagnosis.
Most ducs don't know now, if they ever did, how to make a clinical
diagnosis. Many of them seem to feel that if they don't make the
diagnosis of Lyme then they won't have to deal with something that is
intellectually beyond them.
Recently a local duc, with my CDC positive WB in hand, said: Well, you
know, your fatigue could EASILY be caused by Sleep Apnea.
The term especially includes the New Mexico State Epidemiologist, Dr.
C. Mack Sewell who is NOT an MD and is not licensed to practice
medicine in New Mexico or any other state.
He recently stated by email that "we can't have Lyme here because we
don't even have the vector."
It also includes one of my daughters who IS an MD currently working for
the CDC in Atlanta. She never was my brightest kid.
>For example Bryan Skyking Cure of the Day Rosner who is now selling
his
>self published paperback for almost $40 plus shipping.
What a bargain! Especially since it comes from such a rigorus
scientific mind as that of a real estate salesman.
>Yes this is pure quackery.
Worse than that: he is now saying that Rife works better in the absence
of antibiotics.
>Those in Lymeland determine competence purely on the basis of whether
>or not the lab produces positive results for them NOT on the basis of
a
>rigorous examination of the facilities or validation of the tests
utilized.
Are you suggesting that they are hallucinating the presence of bands on
a Western Blot?
Do you think that my report to CDC, 5 band positive, will be rejected
because it was done at Igenex?
>Some people actually don't have Lyme.
Yes, and they are diagnosed and miraculously cured by Herbal Healers
(of the flu) ...or crippled.
Is that the point you were trying to make?
In the meantime, real Lymies are stuck between the stupidity of the CDC
and the crass greed of the quacks. It's a complicated bug that won't
yield to simplistic approaches. So how does saying that some people
don't actually have Lyme help those that actually do and come to this
board looking for help?
I try to explain those complexities by making these 6 points about the
nature of it:
It is a spirochetal bacteria, like Syphilis.
There is no "gold standard" test for diagnosis.
There is no "silver bullet" for cure.
There is no test to prove clearance.
It morphs.
It may mutate.
Thinking about it in simplistic 19th century terms won't solve the
problem.
" When we see a new phenomenon we try to fit it into the framework we
already have....It's not because Nature is really similar; it's because
the
physicists have only been able to think of the same damn thing over and
over
again "
Richard P. Feynman
You may take that as directed at you personally, Mr Weisman.
Joe
- Next message: EGriffin70: "Any LLMD's in SC?"
- Previous message: GregGerber: "Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter"
- In reply to: a_weisman_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Samento"
- Next in thread: Sayle: "Re: Samento"
- Reply: Sayle: "Re: Samento"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
