Dr. Says Lyme disease does not exist

[msf]

If we need to go beyond 'this doctor is bit of an idiot' we could point out that he is using specious reasoning. When he says there is no evidence of it, he is referring to the fact that people have been unable to culture Lyme from samples from post-treatment Lyme patients, which ignores the fact that this is very difficult to do in Lyme, pre or post-treatment. So it is no more evidence that post-treatment Lyme doesn't exist than it is evidence that pre-treatment Lyme exists.

Furthermore, the principle has been proven in multiple animal models, so it's another case of doctors believing that humans are special, which is a risky guess when you are talking about one of the world's oldest surviving bacteria - these doctors obviously think that we were able to evolve ways to defeat Lyme in the last few million years, when other species have been failing to do so for hundreds of millions of years.

 

[msf]

Hmm, I might have been exaggerating somewhat, but something like it has probably been around for at least 15 million years: http://www.livescience.com/46007-lyme-disease-ancient-amber-tick.html

 

[duncan]

Yes, msf, I couldn't agree more.

Most culture positive incidences come from the Erythema Migrans rash, which typically only occurs during early acute stages. After that, Bb is notoriously difficult to culture, just like syphilis.

Also, one must look at how the notion of successful treatments - what is now standard IDSA protocol - emerged. There is a seminal study from 1983 that purportedly divvies up Lyme symptoms into Major and Minor manifestations. Strangely, the Major manifestations reportedly could be mitigated usually with the recommended abx therapy. Not so the symptoms that for whatever reason were relegated to the category of Minor manifestations; those frequently persisted, and persisted with a vengeance.

But this study arguably set the stage for clinicians - and insurance carriers - to claim a Lyme patient was cured, even though he/she was debilitated by so called Minor manifestations.

 

[msf]

From a quick google it looks like ticks have been around for at least 120 million years, I wouldn't be surprised if something like Borrelia has been around for a good portion of that.

 

[Hip]

This would obviously do nothing to convince people that chronic Lyme doesn't exist just like all those who are safely vaccinated does nothing for those who are convinced vaccinations can cause autism.

No, I think it would actually convince scientists.

You could so a similar thing for enteroviruses and ME/CFS: at the moment, enteroviruses are linked to ME/CFS, but there is at present no definitive proof that they can cause ME/CFS.

But if you could get say 5,000 people to agree to be deliberately infected with an enterovirus, and if out of those infected people you then observe a certain percentage rapidly developing ME/CFS, that would offer defintive proof that enteroviruses can actually cause ME/CFS.

But obviously such an experiment is never going to be done.

How are Dr. Marshall and chronic Lyme even related?

In infectious disease research, there is a tradition of scientists deliberately infecting themselves with the pathogen in question in order to study the disease. Dr Marshall's experiment is just one example of this tradition.

That's the reason I used it to illustrate the act of infecting yourself with the pathogen you are studying.

The onus of proving chronic lime exists is on the lyme literate doctors since they came up with the new theory.

In science I don't think there is any onus or requirements on any particular group to perform experiments producing empirical data which can support or falsify a theory. Anyone, if they choose, can perform experiments.

If those who don't believe in chronic Lyme want to produce data to support their view, inoculating themselves with Borrelia would be a very simple and easy way to do this. So why don't they do it? If you are good scientist, you always want to advance science.

Obviously the people who do believe chronic Lyme exists will not undertake such an experiment, because they fear it will result in chronic Lyme.

 

[msf]

Yeah, I suggested this research method in another thread - who would be worried about infecting themselves with a disease that is always, in every single case, cured with a couple of weeks of Doxy?

 

[msf]

I guess the IDSA would say that they are scared of post-Lyme disease, but this again just shows their hypocrisy and duplicitousness - if they were really worried about a post-Lyme disease they would study it.

 

[duncan]

You'd be hard-pressed to find any substantive NIH-sponsored research efforts into either Late Stage Lyme or Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome.

It's kind of difficult to report on something you're not looking for.

 

[Hip]

My opinion is that chronic lyme does not exist but post treatment lyme does. Studies are showing that the original infection starts a set of cascading symptoms, even though the original infection is eradicated. This means different treatments.

That is certainly a possibility at this stage: that the original infection may have triggered some dysfunction in the body such as autoimmunity, which continues even after the infection has been cleared up.


However, if we consider the analogous situation of chronic coxsackievirus B myocarditis (heart muscle infection), this is another disease in which, after the original acute infection, chronic symptoms can remain in the heart, even though in adults no infectious virus can be found in these chronic cases.

However, we now know that in chronic infections, enterovirus can change its form and become an intracellular infection that can live inside heart cells on a long term basis (this intracellular form is called a non-cytolytic enterovirus).

Because the intracellular form of the enterovirus does not produce normal viral particles, this infection was not readily detected, and this is why autoimmune-type immune dysfunction was thought to be the cause of the chronic symptoms found in chronic myocarditis following coxsackievirus B infection.

But now with the discovery of non-cytolytic enteroviruses, the more likely explanation of these chronic symptoms would appear to be this intracellular enterovirus infection, which can persist indefinitely inside cells (more info here). Non-cytolytic enteroviruses of course are also speculated to play a major role in enterovirus-associated ME/CFS.



There is similar situation with Borrelia. This bacterium is pleomorphic, which means that Borrelia can change forms, and exist in different forms. In particular, there is evidence that Borrelia can exist as an intracellular infection, hidden away inside cells.

It may be that these intracellular forms of Borrelia are the primary drivers of Lyme disease in its chronic phase, and because these intracellular forms of Borrelia are not readily detected or treated, some researchers may assume that after the acute phase, the infection has cleared up, and assume that the chronic symptoms are due to continued autoimmunity or suchlike.

However, if an intracellular form of Borrelia is still hanging around hidden inside human cells, just as enterovirus does, this may be a much more likely explanation for the chronic symptoms of Lyme.

 

[barbc56]

But if you could get say 5,000 people to agree to be deliberately infected with an enterovirus, and if out of those infected people you then observe a certain percentage rapidly developing ME/CFS, that would offer defintive proof that enteroviruses can actually cause ME/CFS.

But obviously such an experiment is never going to be done.

Of course it wouldn't because of ethical considerations.

In infectious disease research, there is a tradition of scientists deliberately infecting themselves with the pathogen in question in order to study the disease. Dr Marshall's experiment is just one example of this tradition.

Tradition? Can you cite some cases.

In science I don't think there is any onus or requirements on any particular group to perform experiments producing empirical data which can support or falsify a theory. Anyone, if they choose, can perform experiments.

Technically, others can do experiments, but that's not the usual procedural expectations in science.

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Evidence_in_science

However, if an intracellular form of Borrelia is still hanging around hidden inside human cells, just as enterovirus does, this may be a much more likely explanation for the chronic symptoms of Lyme

This is speculation based on an in vitro study. It may or may not be true. More studies are needed before this is defintive.

I've said my piece, take whatever you want from it. I just don't have the time nor the energy to comment further.

Barb

 

[duncan]

Understandably so.

 

[Hip]

Tradition? Can you cite some cases.

Unfortunately not off hand. Around 3 or 4 years ago I watched a very interesting TV documentary on the history of infectious disease researchers going to places like Africa, and some examples of self experimentation came up in this documentary.

I remember one of the researchers who infected himself with some Africa pathogen, can't remember which, was in his 60s or 70s when he did it, and he took the risk because he felt that if he inadvertently died, at least he had lived a fairly long life already. Over the course of a year or so he became very sick and bedbound, but he persisted and persisted, until when finally he had observed enough and gathered enough data, he took an antimicrobial to clear the illness.

There were other examples of this too. To me it seemed like a pretty noble thing for these scientists to do.

 

[RustyJ]

I


I don't know about other studie but in vitro studies don't necessarily translate to humans.

Barb

The point of my post wasn't really about the efficacy of the ABs, but about the CDC's reluctance to publicly admit to persisters, when others with strong links to the CDC are involved in researching ways to kill persisters.

 

[duncan]

Or diagnose them, Rusty. As a group, they present en mass that current diagnostics are swell. But individually, on a per patent basis, that consensus seems to teeter on the tenuous ...if not founder and break apart altogether.

 

[msf]

When barb56 says that chronic lyme is speculation based on in vitro studies that isn't quite accurate - it's also based on in vivo studies in animals (including non-human primates), and as I pointed out in my previous post, there are reasons why this hasn't been replicated in humans (they sacrificed the animals to find the Borrelia).

 

[Hip]

For anyone with Lyme: assuming this intracellular form of Borrelia is the cause of many of the chronic Lyme disease symptoms, then it's quite possible that some of the immunomodulator treatments used to fight the intracellular enteroviral infections found in ME/CFS might also be useful for Lyme.

A Th1 immune response is required to fight intracellular pathogens, whether they be viral or bacterial; whereas a Th2 immune response is required to fight bacteria that are located extracellularly (ie, bacteria that are not living inside human cells).

Oxymatrine and inosine are immunomodulators which ramp up the Th1 response, and might therefore help fight intracellular bacteria.

I do not have Lyme myself, so have not looked into this condition very much, but if I did have it, I would researching on how best to clear intracellular infections of this bacterium.

I believe these intracellular forms of Borrelia lack the cell wall that bacteria normally have. Bacteria that convert into a form that has no cell wall are known as L-form or spheroplast bacteria. As many antibiotics work by attacking the bacterial cell wall, such antibiotics are presumably not going to work against L-form Borrelia.

More info on L-form bacteria: L-form bacteria - Wikipedia

 

[Hip]

Another finding that perhaps adds weight to the idea that chronic Lyme disease might be caused by an intracellular infection of Borrelia is this:

If we look at ME/CFS, which has near identical symptoms to chronic Lyme, we find that the two bacteria which are known causes of ME/CFS, namely Chlamydia pneumoniae and Coxiella burnetii, are both obligate intracellular bacteria.

An obligate intracellular bacterium is one that always creates intracellular infections; it has no choice in the matter. In other words, these obligate intracellular bacteria cannot create extracellular infections located outside of cells; they can only live inside cells. (This contrasts to L-form bacteria like Borrelia, which are more versatile, and capable of changing form, which allows them to live either inside or outside human cells).

So the only two bacteria known to cause ME/CFS both live inside cells. This perhaps hints that it may be the intracellular of Borrelia (the L-form / spheroplast form of Borrelia) that causes the ME/CFS-like symptoms of chronic Lyme.

 

[sianrecovery]

I recently rested positive for borrelia and babesia. If you want to read thousands of research references to how these tricky blighters persist Barb, excellent free resources are to be on James Schaller's personalconsult.com
website. It is a website with its eccentricities for sure, but his work on the haematology of babesia, and the means and mechanisms for its persistence is impressive.
I find the whole attack on the idea of chronic Lyme puzzling; these are robust organisms, and many of our medications are useless or inadequate. If a bacteria or protazoa can exist in the brain, or in difficult to see or access intracellular environments, why wouldn't they be hard to find? Schaller makes the excellent point that most labs have inadequate training and equipment and motivation to find them anyway. Once again, I return to Thomas Kuhn and the structure of scientific revolutions - medicine doesn't see what it doesnt expect to see.
I also am saddened that on returning to PR after a break, I now have a disease process that I expected to justify and defend.

 

[svetoslav80]

In medical science, you need to put your money where your mouth is.
Similarly, those medical professionals who think there is no such thing as chronic Lyme disease need to prove their claims, and they can do this by injecting themselves with Borrelia bacteria.

The doctor doesn't say that Lyme can't cause long term consequences. On the contrary, he says that "some patients may experience symptoms after appropriate treatment for Lyme". And while we agree that this "some" is much bigger number and the symptoms may never resolve, we can't know if this is caused by active infection or it is just the consequences of already impaired nervous system (despite the infection being cleared) .

 

[svetoslav80]

I'd go a bit further, and say that they need the full tick experience. It's quite possible that chronic patients are successfully treated for Lyme, while undetected co-infections go untreated and continue to cause problems.

Technically , only infection with Borrelia is called Lyme.