Tom_W1987 - Member
Antibiotics are a limited strategic resource, they are not a right but a privilege. Get that into your entitled western mindset - and the science community doesn't owe the Lyme community any debt - we don't owe it to you to do the research. There are far more pressing disease to tackle - here's a short list - 1) Malaria 2) Malaria 3) Malaria 4) Aids 5) Dengue 6) West Nile 7) TB etc etc etc. Limited budgets, we spend our money on diseases that actually kill people.
Ah, so the people paying taxes towards your research grants, hospitals and healthcare have no right to expect to be treated. Imagine if syphillis, HIV, AIDS, cancer patients were treated the same way. Pretty twisted, but then you also advocate withholding medical treatment to pensioners so...
This makes no sense, you can't deny people treatment with known drugs that work. The only time people don't get a drug during a study is if all other treatment plans had failed. The placebo group was entirely justifiable for seeing whether there was a improvement in patient outcomes by lengthening treatment time.
it makes sense insofar that they already have a longterm chronic illness that has been allowed to go untreated for years and if you're going to perform a study with an accurate baseline via placebo, then a judgement as to whether this 14 week extension will make any difference should be made. They opted to undermine any real relevance of the study bar showing that all groups responded positively to two weeks of ceftriaxone.
You are making yourself look like the fool that you are.
Tou keep banging on about the fact that they should have used a different drug - cuz...in vitro tests....they already have....guess what...long term therapy wasn't effective.
A great scientist such as yourself Tom would perhaps temper their proclamations to the realm of known science. The paper you cited is an amalgamation of the results of seven separate studies looking at treatments at combinations of four antibiotics, which again ignores research that has already been done about their relative antimicrobial effectiveness against borellia and it also doesn't include any studies of neurological Lyme disease which is the most common form of the long-term chronic illness, nor the presence of co-infections. Again, it would appear pretty self serving and unlikely to yield any new knowledge.
Again, the presence of co-infections is highly relevant to any study of antibiotic effectiveness in Lyme:
Co-infections can exacerbate Lyme disease through immune system modulation and are considered to be the major cause for resistance to therapy [1-17]. The importance of co-infections in the disease process, i.e. their pathogenicity compared to Lyme disease, has not been clarified. In cases with double or multiple infections, to determine which infection predominates in the pathological process is difficult. There are substantial overlaps between the clinical symptoms caused by co-infections and Lyme disease. Consequently, an unequivocal assignment of the manifestations of the disease to existing infections might be difficult. The diagnostic difficulties of Lyme disease and co-infections always concern chronic Lyme disease (late Lyme disease, stage III). The synergic-pathological mechanism requires that co-infections are also present in chronic persistent form. Anamnestic consideration of the acute form of co-infections may be helpful to recognize their persistence in the chronic stage.
For the majority of co-infections, as for Lyme disease, laboratory diagnostic tests for indirect pathogen detection, including serological tests and lymphocyte transformation test (LTT, syn. LPT (lymphocyte proliferation test)) are available. Previous infection can be confirmed with serological tests, but a positive serological finding is not proof that the infection causes the current illness. It cannot prove the presence of active infection, and in case of seronegativity it cannot exclude it. Only if the occurrence of positive laboratory findings or their deterioration occur in temporal relationship with the disease state and development assumption of chronic disease may be justified e.g. espacialy in cases with previous sero-negativity or negative LTT or significancy lower initial values.
So, in short whilst it might simplify studies in focusing on administering x antibiotic and looking only at borellia in a lab, the presence of co-infections will always skew the results and in clinical application it subsequently has no effective use. In effect, it's pig headed scientists such as yourself who have no nuanced understanding of the illness who are pissing taxpayers money away on poorly designed research, which I would argue is just as serious as quack doctors praying on desperate people by plying them with RIFE machines and equally hypothetical treatments.