Search results

We know of a few bacterial and parasite infections that persist in the face of treatment, and that are commonly failed by diagnostics. Borrelia comes to mind, as do bartonella and babesiosis. For at least a portion of ME/CFS patients. persistent unresolved infection should remain on the table.

I suppose it frequently depends on which parts of the brain are impacted. I would think it's usually involving areas of the brain that effect both symptoms, so it seems as if they are related - and, in fact, they may be in the sense that they both may be downstream brain issues.

Long Lyme? Amy Proal used that re-branding, I think. To me it's like saying Long Syphilis. It just isn't right.

In a word, ego. Hubris is wrecking the discipline anyway. There's no reason I can think of that that deficit wouldn't manifest as a juvenile need to set us straight in our own back yard.

"quotidian." That sums up the message for me, in a very distressing I've-heard-this-tune-before kind of way...

Specific to or with? If you can take this literally, clearly a range of cognitive deficits is widely acknowledged in pwME. Other brain stuff, too, like balance and autonomic dysfunction (which since it's rooted in the brain I imagine qualifies as neurological).

Sickness behavior is at least one step removed from symptoms. It's diagnosing from the outside. Veterinarians like it, and coined it, because, well, horses and cows cannot speak or sign. When applied to humans, at best it is a social construct. On a darker level, the term can devalue symptoms...

Cute piece. Left me with a faint aftertaste, a sorta Sorority-like vibe. Oh wait! I forgot the air quotes: Sorority-like "vibe".

I red-flagged them at "sickness behavior". In my book it's little more than a dog whistle. Are we talking about symptoms? Then call them symptoms.

Literally, i.e., zero identifiable pathogenic antibody? Or "negative" results according to someone's metric - one that actually may demonstrate pathogenic antibodies? I think it's an indictment of current medical science that I should have to ask either question.

I think this is an important study, @Andy , @Hutan , @jpcv . This study could be a banner study for ILADS. If I'm the CDC/IDSA, this study may make me more than a little nervous. I don't know where to begin. First, the authors don't pull punches in the study itself. The name of the disease...

Ikr? Ok, I'm trying to read the entire study. First, they were mentored by Steere. Second, they test the Brazilian strain - whatever it is - against the North American G39/40 strain, using the Dearborne 2T algorythm. Not surprisingly, they had to modify that because they weren't getting good...

Why is this math so difficult? Is it a spirochete that causes disease? Is it a form of Borrelia? We don't need a mainframe computer to perform the calculations. Moreover, we've seen this silliness before in the US midwest with Masters Disease (STARI). It's like some agencies cannot get out...

Oh, FFS.

So, this is a big deal, this MTTT. Go to the CDC Lyme website and there are now TWO accepted methods to test positive for Lyme: The conventional 2-tier with an ELISA and Western Blot, and this "new" MTTT. The modified two-tiered test -MTTT - with two first tier or ELISA tests - counts just so...

Dapsone. Ick.

Looks like a Hopkins endeavor, at least some of its authors. Cool premise for early Lyme, i.e. before IgM's typically kick in with Lyme. Left me a little uncomfortable with emphasis on in-vitro and rodent references, but there's some pedigree here author-wise. 63 is a small sample but may be...

It got my attention. What for me is possibly even more disconcerting, is I suspect (but do not know) this estimate did not include seronegative Lyme patients. Add those individuals into the mix and that 200 million mark may be lowballing it.

Or different prevalences of various tick species and Bbsl strains, depending on geography.

A small correction if you don't mind: Seropositivity doesn't necessarily reflect current infection, it can at best only indicate exposure. That being said, Lyme almost invariably progresses from IgMs to IgGs, so we'd expect everyone who tested positive for past exposure to technically test...