Re: Prof: Chronic Lyme Disease A Lemon

On Nov 30, 3:53 pm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:09 pm, googley goo <mockingbird...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Nov 30, 11:19 am, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:36 pm, googley goo <mockingbird...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 29, 10:50 am, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 28, 10:42 pm, googley goo <mockingbird...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 28, 10:25 pm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 28, 9:22 pm, googley goo <mockingbird...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

But Feder refuted the notion that lingering symptoms mean the Lyme
bacteria is still present.

'[Continuing to show symptoms] does not mean you're still infected,"
Feder said. "That's part of this controversy."

this feder crap is such bull***. the problem is you have to get
overly scientific to point out the flaws and that *** flies right by
the reporters.

Well, saying it is 'crap' and 'bull***' isn't particularly likely to
impress anyone, either.

Why don't you just say that Feder has a 1/2 inch *** and no balls?

That's what Kathleen apparently considers to be a scientific argument.

"...some people DO
have chronic brucella and some people DO have late stage lyme"...

WHOA..."late stage" and "chronic" are two different concepts.

You know better than that.

The argument isn't about whether the symptons continue...it's the
CAUSE of those continuing symptoms that is at issue.

"But Feder refuted the notion that lingering symptoms mean the Lyme
bacteria is still present".

'Continuing to show symptoms does not mean you're still infected,"
Feder said. "That's part of this controversy."

the crazy thing about late stage versus chronic terminology...steere
and others intermingled the terms themselves in various
publications...referring to 'chronic neuroborreliosis' as distinct
from CLD...etc. very confusing...I'll reproduce one of the worst
articles ever written on the subject by steere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess in general principle, after observing all of this for too many
years, I would endorse and agree with what Cameron says, here:

"There's not enough data for Feder to come to such a strong
conclusion
that there are no benefits of treatment; we can't be sure that Lyme
disease is eradicated [by the initial antibiotics]," said Dr. Daniel
Cameron, president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases
Society (ILADS). "That's a frustration. ILADS is arguing that
physicians who went to medical school should be able to use personal
judgment when treating Lyme patients."

I think that's a very sensible view. Really, if there are
unknowns...and there certainly are...then those should be resolved in
favor of the patient's welfare. In other words, better safe than
sorry.

And...Feder... and those that would like to restrict access to
antibiotics are playing a semantic game somewhat, I think. While there
maybe no "persuasive" (depending upon who is being persuaded) evidence
of persistent infection...

...there is a growing body of evidence concerning the anti-
inflammatory and neuro-protective qualities of certain
antibiotics...applicable to "post-Lyme symdrome", one would think...

...and unless Feder and his colleagues can provide alternative
substitutes for these meds...then arbitrarily denying them is...well,
inhumane, to say the least.

On the other side of the equation, it is my suspicion (notice the
word...not "conclusion", or even "belief") that some so-called "LLMD"s
are over-prescribing IV antibiotics and convivncing themselves that
they are doing so for their patients' benefit.

I also strongly suspect that so-called "Lyme activists" are
unconsciously (yes, a great many of them seem to be unconscious)
aiding and abetting this practice...when oral antibiotics would serve
the same purpose.

From a distance, and utilizing the graphic language and imagery that
seems to be the rule, here...looks like whores and their pimps to me.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

based on what I know, my fear is that there are treatments which would
be more effective other than rocephin...which haven't been
studied...or the syndrome is being caused by a separate organism...in
either case, that there are advanced antibiotics which would be
effective...but they can't admit this because by admitting novel
organisms or exensive abx resistance profiles, they would be
admittting a bioweapons source.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fine. Whatever you say, there...

But really, "at the end of the day"...the "bottom line" is that this
is ultimately a question of medical science. A question that properly
belongs within the province of medical professionals.

It is NOT, in my opinion, a question of law...or politics...and does
not lend itself to 'grassroots' lobbying by 'Lyme activists'. Their
role seems to be simply to inflame passions, mislead patients and
generally, make as big a mess as is possible. And then complain about
it.

I would suggest to you that treatment options are best left to
practicing professionals to determine...not a bunch of goofy, unstable
internet bag ladies.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

unfortunately, the 'medical professionals' of which you speak have
themselves been misleading and inflammatory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, what I mean there is the medical profession as a whole...and not
just the select group that sets either IDSA or ILADS policy.

For instance, I have noticed that quite a few new patient inquiries
are describing having been already prescribed the 14-21 day thing,
even before test results are evaluated.

See, my belief is that the average GPs, as an entire community, will
eventually determine how this shakes out. It may take some time to
reach the proper consensus.

And...while the internet ladies may not like the decision reached in
the Jones case (personally, I don't think it was that bad)...in a
disciplinary action, it is practicing professionals who are supposed
to sit in judgment of each other for lapses of professional conduct.

Personally, I think this is the way it should be.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the jones *** was just drama designed to keep people entertained. the
evil shapiro strikes again,only to be foiled by demonstrations of
solidarity and fund-raising drives and then end result is a slap on
the wrist. it was all written up as a script in a hollywood studio.
the reason it ended now is because of the writers strike.


.

Quantcast