|
|
Post by LymeEnigma on Oct 5, 2007 11:30:55 GMT -8
Thanks ... very interesting. I take it this is the most recent rebuttal to the paper recently published by the IDSA ( content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1422)? I have quite a few problems with the "Appraisal," myself ... it might take me a while to cover it all, however.... I'm glad that the ILADS authors are clear, here, that the 19,000+ articles out there are simply on tick-borne diseases, in general, and are not necessarily evidence backing up ILADS' stance. |
|
|
|
Post by itsybitsyone on Oct 5, 2007 11:50:34 GMT -8
You never know, he may have had to be more clear because your hubby called him to task on it...
Anyway...yeah, the IDSA's paper is awful. It ignores a lot of what we know to be true.
It seems they are more interested in discrediting ILADS than looking at the data.
One or two studies that they quote do not encompass even many of their OWN studies.
You have to question their motives. I think that they wrote the NEJM article to combat the problem they face being investigated.
Then, ILADS wrote this to answer THAT.
Look, I do not mind them debating whether or not we need antibiotics. I believe, at least right now, that all the antibiotics are doing is killing some bugs and driving the rest into hiding. I am not sure if there is a magic number...the hiding bugs, unable to come out of hiding...can they still reproduce? Can they still grow?...do they have an end to the lifespan...keep them hiding long enough and they will die....months? Years?
I don't KNOW. What I do NOT like is that they are boldly making statements they cannot prove...such as the chronic infection does not exist...where there are plenty of studies suggesting it does.
I would feel better about IDSA if they said "We don't know yet and we do not want people treated with abx for something unproven."
Otherwise, it really IS insulting and patronizing to those who do have the disease.
Nancy
|
|
|
|
Post by hakutsuru on Oct 6, 2007 17:24:31 GMT -8
Yes. Exactly.
If they had said that then they would have been honest.
It is reasonable to be opposed to long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic symptoms if it hasn't been established that it is a result of a persisting infection. It is also reasonable to be opposed to this treatment if its efficacy hasn't been established.
The main questions that should be on everyone's mind are:
What causes these chronic symptoms in some Lyme patients?
What sorts of treatments can be effective if any?
I don't think either side justifies their answers to these questions very well. I wish they would at least try a little harder.
|
|
|
|
Post by LymeEnigma on Oct 7, 2007 9:40:43 GMT -8
You hit it all right on the head of the nail, Nancy. I have to wonder why both sides are SO reluctant to give even an inch, when the current science suggests that neither side really has it completely right ... and you're right: doctors who believe in long-term therapy should be researching it, not practicing it, so that the truth might be found without all of this controversy, without turning long-term therapy into the carnival side-show so many now see it to be.
Proponents of long-term therapy have been taking the wrong approach, not following the due process all unaccepted practices must follow in order to prove themselves one way or the other, and because of that the entire view has been tarnished. It is quite maddening.
Hakutsuru, I think the questions you raise are definitely the ones we should be asking....
|
|
