Discussion in 'Lyme Disease and Co-Infections' started by wdb, Jun 17, 2017.
Be careful getting lyme treatment:
June 16, 2017
I do not doubt that this occurs, but without stats it´s not really worth much.
It´s also a bit misleading I would say to put septic shock in the abstract, since it is most likely that the patient got it from the PICC line not being removed. You might as well include it in a article warning about the dangers of not removing PICC lines. I guess you could say that it is relevant to Lyme, but only if the article warned about the dangers of IV treatment for Chronic Lyme.
The tone of the article sounds quite biased to me and I'm disappointed that the CDC puts out things like this.
There are certainly risks that come with treatments for chronic lyme, but such is the nature of the disease. There aren't any better treatments out there yet and it's as if the CDC would rather just brush off the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are suffering with legitimate health problems related to being bitten by a tick, and have us do nothing to treat the issues we have. It seems like the 5 patients discussed were cherrypicked to paint the picture the CDC wants rather than to give the complete picture.
It's also really funny that they say on the right side "Systematic investigation into the scope and effects of these complications, including the rate and extent of infections and the pathogens associated with these infections, would be helpful to inform clinical practice and fully characterize the risks associated with treatments for chronic Lyme disease," and in another part of the website "CDC research shows that Lyme disease has been spreading geographically in recent years and CDC estimates that it affects about 300,000 people per year." From what I can tell, they put very little money into lyme disease research (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Noticed that ILADS wrote a response to the CDC publication:
Worth a read, as it thoroughly disputes a couple of the points that the CDC made.
That is, in fact, what they did. And tried to pass it off as a "scientific study." As I recall (probably you'll find the details in the ILADS response posted by @wherearemypillows above) the authors of this paper actually sent out a solicitation for reports of any cases of bad outcomes related to treatment of chronic Lyme and then reported the cases they received as if they were found during a properly designed epidemiological study.
That's like posting an advertisement to send in reports of "any bad things that ever happened to you at X-Burger" and then reporting the events collected (say, maybe a certain number of chokings, episodes of nausea, diarrhea, trips and falls, and maybe a robbery or two...) as being specifically related to eating at X-Burger, with no comparison to not eating at X-Burger, eating at some other fast-food restaurant, or not eating at all... Headline: "Beware of eating at X-Burger: you might choke, vomit, trip or be robbed!".
Of course, the primary thing left out in this sort of report is the risk to the patient of not being treated for their chronic Lyme. The assumption is that avoiding treatment is harmless (based on the underlying assumption that "chronic Lyme" doesn't exist anyway. Sigh.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.