Re: Updated IDSA guidelines issued for Lyme Disease

the problem is, they consistently cite "evidence-based medicine" as a
sort of catchphrase. but really, it's just PROPAGANDA. there's plenty
of EVIDENCE they ignore, and plenty of EVIDENCE which they cite which
is actually deliberate scientific and statistical fraud.

in other words, it's a huge load of bull***. when steere/dressler {as
an example} used a control group for the retrospective study composed
of 125 patients...what was the composition of the control group? well,
it was 25 CFS sufferers, 25 2nd stage syphilis, uh, 25 flu vaccinnees,
and the rest were a mish mash of ALS, MS, etc. this control group has
been REPEATEDLY cited by other IDSA authors {eg shapiro} as a "normal
control", when it is in fact NOT normal. these people were all sick,
many of them {CFS, MS, etc} with disorders the etiology of which is
UNKNOWN and which can easily be confused with lyme disease {both
directions}. but steere only mentions the possibility of MS or CFS
being misdiagnosed as lyme disease, not the converse which is lyme
disease being misdiagnosed as CFS, etc.

additionally, as I have mentioned before, there are only ~2,000
syphilis cases reported every year in the US, and most of these are
PRIMARY genital syphilis, not later stages. yet this group comprises
20% of the "normal" control. THAT IS STATISTICAL FRAUD. and it allowed
steere to 'smear' the WB response to 41kDa, since syphilitic serum will
cross-react with Bb lysate on WB at 40 kDa. {yeah, not 41 kDa, another
fraudulent aspect which recombinant antigens would avoid} in other
words, it enabled steere to make a WB response appear "normal" at 41
kDa, when in fact nothing is further from the truth.

Even that chicken*** Wilske has stated that 41kDa is one of the MOST
IMPORTANT and SPECIFIC bands on western blot.

There are literally dozens of examples of such fraudulent studies which
have been allowed to enter the scientific realm by the IDSA/CDC
powerbase...some of them deliberate propaganda {ie, the study from new
guinea penned by Dennis cronies from CDC, WB reactivity likely due to
endemic yaws, never mentioned in article by authors} which have allowed
shapiro and other wormser buddies to create a MYTHICAL picture of the
REALITY of lyme serology and pass it off to the unsuspecting populace
and terrorized scientists as TRUTH.

36/125 members of the retrospective control from steere/dressler were
IgG ELISA positive or indeterminate...which according to CDC guidelines
should have been {in presence of symptoms & signs} tested by WB for
lyme reactivity. Yet this was the CONTROL GROUP for those exact same
CDC parameters.

Why steere didn't use a control group of healthies, ELISA -, from an
area NOT ENDEMIC for lyme, such as Arizona or even another country with
reflective demographics but no lyme - I'm not sure, but it's probably
the same reason that virtually ALL the literature on positive SPECT
scans in CFS originate at lenny sigal's scientific whorehouse smack dab
in the middle of the lyme epidemic.


the 3rd Man wrote:
Mockingbird wrote:

well, when wormser makes blanket statements such as "because most
patients are diagnosed early...etc."...where is his EVIDENCE for such a
statement?

Hell, I dunno.

I think it must be sort of like in those old commercials where "when
asked, most doctors recommend..." But I did notice that these are the
recommendations of an "expert" panel (he says somewhat
sarcastically)...and who designated them as "experts"?...well, they
did, of course.

also, wormser himself has published that even in TREATED LD patients
symptomology continues in ~ 20% {not 5%} of EARLY patients MONTHS
later. what happened?

I would say that there has been a consistent attempt to downplay both
the severity and prevalence of this disease form the Steere-oids. I
would also say that what I just said is a gross understatement.

wormser has been very interesting to read lately...this article, also
the article he co-wrote with shapiro...there were many statements which
are insupportable, which are not backed by evidence...it seems to me
that these guys are on some sort of POWER TRIP, flexing their
racketeering muscles, as opposed to having any interest in patient
welfare or pursuit of actual scientific truth.

Now, now...let's calm down, shall we?

We both know that you don't have any evidence of criminal
misconduct...so let's not damage our own credibility with that sort of
hysteria...okay?

Read what they say in regard to "objective" evidence of continuing
symptoms after "appropriate" therapy.

See, there is where I think the real problem lies. In my opinion, it
really stems from a philosophical outlook...AND...if you can explain
what you see from fairly simple, rational parameters, then you do NOT
go looking for the more sinister or conspiratorial...UNTIL you see
evidence of such.

In "evidence-based" medicine, my complaints of symptoms are not useful
unless they can be substantiated through some sort of "objective"
quantification.

And, if they cannot be so confirmed, my impression is that they are
discounted.

Think about that. This isn't a vet's office where the patient can't
tell you what the problem is...and yet, we won't believe you unless you
can prove it? In other words, I go to the doctor and say, "it hurts
when I do this"...and instead of him saying, "well, don't do that"...he
now says, "well, none of our tests indicate that it hurts when you do
that".

It's IDIOCY. Absolute nonsense. And several times in these guidelines,
I have noticed where symptoms I have experienced...and continue to
experience...are deemed "rare"...and not "objective".

Oh, really? Again, where is the "evidence" for that assertion?

anyone well-read in lyme disease literature could blast apart these
arguments. the only reason they get published is NOT because of the
message {which is ***}, but because of the MESSENGER. and in this
case, the MESSENGER happens to be the infectious disease MOB BOSS.

Well, a more benign and less conspiratorial explanation might be that
they are concerned over possible over-reaction to the disease and a
natural unwillingness of all human beings to admit fault.

If you have been around the Lyme scene for awhile, you might detect a
note of retreat, even uncertainty now appearing on several issues.

Unless I am mistaken, the stuff on co-infections is now being presented
upfront...and I think the "LLMD" crowd can claim a well-deserved moral
victory there.

The natural conservatism of these guys is going to cause them to always
be bringing up the rear.

These people aren't scientists, they are criminals. criminals posing as
scientists, just as the mafioso were criminals posing as GARBAGEMEN.

Now, now, now...is that really helpful? It may make you feel better to
say it...but in the long run, it probably hurts the credibility of Lyme
patients overall...don't you think?

.

Quantcast