There have been a few studies on "chronic Lyme disease" where supposed sufferers take courses of antibiotics and fail to improve. The supposed take away message is that long-term antibiotics aren't even helpful so they shouldn't be prescribed. This is in addition to the notion that ongoing infection cannot be proved. I believe these are studies intended to deny the existence of the condition: chronic Lyme doesn't exist and it's unscientific and unethical to prescribe antibiotics for patients complaining of it.
My statement about red root relates to the idea that pathogen killing won't take place if the system can't handle the toxicity. Red root is thought to clear the body's sewage (lymphatic) system and this makes way for killing to take place. This is what I seemed to observe in myself and others have reported. Moreover some with chronic Lyme experience rather intense die-off from antibiotics, and this can be prolonged. So either way, if the prescribing doctor doesn't know what they're doing the patient is not likely to end up feeling any better. If this is indeed true then those studies I mentioned above say very little.
Lyme die-off is proven to be toxic and highly inflammatory. It's my opinion detoxifying and calming the inflammation is just as important as killing the borrelia in chronic disease. It takes time and one has to be patient to eventually prevail. It's most likely the case that the bug will not be eradicated, but controlled. That's how one feels better. This is the approach of the herbalist Stephen Buhner as well as the LLMD Richard Horowitz, or just about any other LLMD out there nowadays. Horowitz states relapse is the norm, not the exception. Interestingly Buhner believes in antibiotics for chronic sufferers when necessary, but that they should transition to herbs to maintain improvements, and Dr Horowitz suggests pretty much the same thing. I think this reflects the reality of chronic Lyme at this time, arrived at, in this case, independently by both an herbalist as well as an allopathic physician.
Buhner's strategy for borrelia is as follows:
1. Inhibiting the cytokine cascade;
2. Enhancing immune function;
3. Relieving specific symptoms;
4. Provide antibacterials as needed;
5. Support of human contact, which he considers essential.
This is taken from:
http://www.betterhealthguy.com/images/stories/PDF/BUHNER CONF NOTES.pdf
The focus is clearly on having the patient feel better as soon as possible. Further progress and pathogen load reduction can be built on this. The idea of suffering through an interminable period of die-off is antiquated and wrong. A perfect example of this is the Marshall Protocol. Lyme treatment has come a long way in the last five years and the criticism that these folks don't get any better and are being taken advantage of by pandering LLMD's is no longer even a remotely plausible charge.
BetterHealthGuy notes about Buhner:
As far as his and his partner’s experience with this treatment protocol and patient outcomes, he said that they have a 75% cure rate (patients stay symptom-free); 15% need to take some maintenance herbs to remain symptom-free; 5% get some help; and 5% get no help. He mentioned that he doesn’t like to use the word “cure”, as he doesn’t believe the bacteria leave our body completely. Instead, he strives for his patients to be “symptom-free”.
Dr Horowitz states:
So, I’m fairly sure when I look at my success rate with treating Lyme patients, usually, I’m over 90%, but there’s always at least 7% of my patients, no matter what I do, I couldn’t get them better, but this year was the first year, RealTime Labs in Texas allowed us to finally do the mycotoxins studies in my office, and now, I’m finding a lot of these resistant patients, who weren’t getting better, are in fact testing positive for mycotoxins. So, this might have been the missing piece.
You can find the terrific interview with Dr Horowitz that this one is pulled from in Justy's thread.
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...une-summit-great-interview.34273/#post-532709
Horowitz often likens Lyme Disease, what he calls Multi-system Infectious Disease Syndrome or MSIDS, to a patient coming into a doctor's office after stepping on a board with nails through it, and the doctor removing one nail and the patient still complaining of not feeling better. Well he explains, that's because there are another seven nails in the patient's foot. In the last quote above he mentions mycotoxins. This would be an example of one of these nails. It's not just the matter of treating a single infection. I believe this is the reality most of us are dealing with, even if we don't have borrelia and co. This is something the mainstream doesn't really understand. LLMD's, for whatever reason, have beaten ME/CFS researchers to this understanding, though the latter may be catching up. Brewer's study finding mycotoxins in ME/CFS at the rate of 93%, while finding them in none of the controls is evidence of this. As is Mady Hornig's theory of genes, environment, and trigger, as well as the focus on the microbiome. I believe the ME/CFS community has been over-focused on a boogeyman pathogen for too long and it's hurt the way we look at the disease, and of course the way we treat it.
I've found educating myself in cutting-edge chronic Lyme to have been very encouraging and empowering.
So
@Little Bluestem, you ask a simple question and you receive my soapbox spiel. I hope it's all right. The part about red root is in there somewhere... I think.