Search results

I would chalk it up to a mistake. I suspect he was alluding to arthropod diseases in general, e.g. rickettsia, and something got edited out. There is no way Lyme was more prevalent in Utah than the NorthEast US. Not sure I scapularis even existed in Utah back then.

Dark field microscopy is what he used, I think. To this day dark field microscopy is frowned upon relative to its use in identifying spirochetes. Ironic.

Agreed.

No, it is not.

Pillar! Yep. Well done!

Maybe so. What about Ft. Detrick and the eight-ball? And how could both of these researchers not allude, by name, to the Swiss Agent given that, according to Newby and that other guy whose name I forget, it was considered to be the causative agent of Lyme, or at least it was going to be...

We know he had an interest in Lyme. We also know he was not happy with the CDC/NIH/IDSA stance on Lyme. Don't you find the timing of these mini "recountings" somewhat curious, given the release of Newby's book and the resulting Congressional scrutiny? I am wondering how sanitized these...

They mention that when first trying to figure out what caused Lyme disease, EIS investigators suspected a virus. What they don't say - at least I didn't see it - it that one of the reasons EIS investigators thought it was caused by a virus is because antibiotics didn't cure enough patients. Of...

There are false positives and false negatives, regardless of the labs. Get tested at the NIH or NHS and it will hold true that x percent will be wrong results. Moreover, in general I'd wager there are far more false negatives - if only because most clinicians test when they see an attached tick...

Not sure how this would pertain to legitimate Lyme patients and the efforts to diagnose and treat them by legitimate infectious disease doctors...

This offers a behind-the-scenes look at what went on during the discovery of Lyme. It's written by two of the surviving team members. https://mbio.asm.org/content/10/5/e02166-19 It's cool on a number of levels. It is very detailed. It shares little tidbits like how strain B31 got its name...

Yep. Although, you do have the IgM vs IgG thing. There's other stuff, too. But look at the proteins. I'd like to know each one selected. Look at timing in terms of the test's efficacy (1 day after the bite? 1 week? A month? 10 years?). Look at S/S efficiency by stage, and how they calculate...

Strikingly low incidence compared to what the official line is today. The 20% number comports more with the ILADS folk. Except what he had been doing for a living for the preceeding 25 years...:)

So the timing dovetails with the case study of Lyme arthritis. But when did it first arrive in Europe? Why didn't he nail it as a causative agent possibility back in '78? So they got it was a tick vector. No biggee. Even Steere suspected that early on. But you see spirochetes, you know there's...

I am a bit confused by this article, @chrisb. WB discovered the cause of Lyme arthritis in the US around 1980, right? That was from Benach's ticks from Long Island, New York. The spirochetes from that batch of ticks would have been what we today call Bb sensu stricto. We now know the causative...

Kris Newby? In all seriousness, I also do not hold store with coincidence. It's a small, small world, especially when it comes to biological agents.

One item here is flat-out wrong. Whatever you may think of the Lyme controversy, even the most strident and conservative IDSA stalwarts will admit that Borrelia Burgdorferi can cause persistent infection. They think it's exceptional, but they admit it does happen. ILADS advocates contend not...

A US Lyme forum has picked up the story. Not a lot of posts yet, but still interesting. If anyone cares to see how the other side of the coin sees the debate: http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/137911

@Dechi, my infectious disease doctor wants me on it but I deferred for the time being until more results come in (plus I've just come off a long torturous abx protocol; I need a break). The excitement - in terms of humans trialing it - stems from a study done by Dr. Ken Leigner. I respect...

Are you suggesting it should not be important to patients that their disease be labeled as accurately as possible, and without mistakes that would lead to mischaracterization of their disease? Do you consider it being important as being "super sensitive"? ETA: In the context of the last 15 or...