Re: comments on steere, etc.

However, let's be clear. The Dearborn criteria for serologic DIAGNOSIS
is seperate and distinct from the CDC case definition.


And nothing you quoted shows that Evans caveated about seronegativity
or unreliability of serodiagnosis (and if she did it would emphasize
the "problem" of "false positives" NOT false negatives, the REAL
demonstrable problem. >>>

wrong. the CDC serology standards are, except in cases of EM, required
to be positive in reportable cases of lyme disease. so her caveat does
apply to interpretation of blood testing results.


<<I still don't know where you infer this "duty to specifically warn"
from though eugene.


Particularly when, as ddm has said, what YOU think should be warned
about is NOT necessarily something Steere et al AGREE. I don't know why

you can't accept that this is (most likely) a question of their
OPINIONS rather than deliberate mendacity--and their OPINIONS are
something they're entitled to, including the right to be wrong. Just
>>>

it is clearly unethical not to mention the fallibility of CDC algorithm
when people have died or been severely disabled as a result of among
other things seronegative lyme disease. it's not an opinion. it's a
fact which is being ignored.


<<The CDC surveillance case defintion which is for epidemiologic
purposes
(lousy epidemiology by the way, it makes no effort to count the actual
incidence of the disease, it measures geographic spread and numerical
increase without ever trying to get a handle on the actual
numbers--some might say that by using this type of surveillance, which
results in underreporting and undercouting, by more than a factor of
ten, that the CDC is actually DELIBERATELY trying to understate the
seriousness and impact of the disease--each year they report there were

15,000 or 20,000 cases and THAT number is then used by the popular
press--and amazingly enough by some Lyme advocacy groups--talk about
shooting yourself in the foot--when CDC admits that the number is more
than ten times higher--but 15 or 20,000 sounds much better than
250,000--in fact a Lyme program a few years ago was sponsored by the
"rare diseases" section of CDC--that was a new conference about
serodiagnosis in part).>>>

totally agree. one thing that bothers me about some of the writings and
utterances about lyme disease is the use of the word "rare". I think
scientists need to be more specific on what "rare" means. when we're
talking about the most common vector borne disease with tens of
thousands of annual cases, "rare" could easily number in the thousands.
Sometimes people see the word "rare" and think about things like prion
diseases which have a 1 in one million incidence.

I've recently read an article by david dennis wherein he states in the
same sentence that lyme disease is massively underdiagnosed and over
diagnosed without clarifying. what I think HE meant to say was lyme
disease by the steere standard is underdiagnosed but lyme disease by
the LLMD standard is overdiagnosed. there is probably an element of
truth to this but I think in general it is probably vastly
underdiagnosed...in some studies populations in an endemic area were
estimated to have a 10% asymptomatic infection rate which is huge! and
a disaster because at some point in the future some of these people
will come down with late LE. and that's the real nightmare, when you
start going nuts and it's been years if ever that you had a tick bite
you can remember, no swollen knees, etc.

the bottom line on what I can gather from steere is he does not agree
or cannot for some reason admit to certain beliefs which the CDC and
NIH hold on underdiagnosis and relevance of serology in diagnosing most
lyme cases. which sort of makes him an outcast . he definitely occupies
an extreme, sort of the anti-bransfield.

.

Relevant Pages

  • CDC appears to promotes Spread of Lyme Disease
    ... CDC appears to promotes Spread ... Director For Lyme Disease Concerns ... To begin with the CDC states that Lyme Disease is a clinical diagnosis. ... On the whole patients have had very positive ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: Idiot Doctors
    ... and getting the doctor runaround. ... accept the results of a diagnosis performed by a specialist. ... diagnosis these difficult cases of Lyme disease. ... the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Is The CDC Promoting The Spread Of Lyme Disease?
    ... Is The CDC Promoting The Spread Of Lyme Disease? ... and not for patient diagnosis. ... On the whole patients have had very positive ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: New articles on the website of the CDC
    ... > provide links to the public regarding the following two articles on ... > -Effective Retrieval of Lyme Disease Information on the Web ... in the midst of all the literature on the CDC site. ... And many patient websites. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: "Fraud" at Dearborn
    ... the NIH and CDC BOTH now stress that serology is only ONE ... > is "100%" sensitive in late Lyme and you say the CDC is stressing ... > needed for the diagnosis in virtually every case except EM. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
Loading