Possible Source of Post-Lyme Complications Is Revealed

Michiel Tack said:
. So it was in the location where patients were having symptoms and it was still there after full antibiotic treatment, suggesting the s suggest that B. burgdorferi PG material persists in long after the Lyme bacterium is eradicated.
Click to expand...
This is an assumption.

I think what they have demonstrated suggests Bb PG can cause an antibody response that is peculiar to Bb. I'm ok with that. But they have not demonstrated this happens naturally post-infection. There is no reason to conclude this is debris or nonviable spirochetal blebs. This can be interpreted as happening during persistent infection.

It would be little different from isolating OpsA for vaccine purposes and concluding this is the only protein that causes a problem.

They may have it right, but they may not.

This is Steere's Moby Dick. This has been the refrain for 35 years, and he's yet to nail it down - "it" being proof that Lyme arthritis always happens in the absence of infection.

To me it indicates little more than part of Bb has been shown to cause Lyme arthritis. Gee. We knew Bb was causing that already.
 
duncan said:
This is an assumption.
Click to expand...
yes (but I did use the term suggesting...).

It's certainly possible that this is only part of the mechanism of what is causing the problem. I suppose, if these findings are confirmed, that the next step would be to try to treat the B. burgdorferi PG and see what happens with the symptoms.

I don't want to rule out the possibility that the Lyme bacterium persists in the body without us being able to 'see' it. I just don't understand why so many in the Chronic Lyme community favor that theory over other ones, like the one presented in this paper. Don't see what the difference is. I would think the logical position for advocates is to remain agnostic until more is known why patients remain ill after an acute Lyme infection.
 
Michiel Tack said:
I don't want to rule out the possibility that the Lyme bacterium persists in the body without us being able to 'see' it. I just don't understand why so many in the Chronic Lyme community favor that theory over other ones, like the one presented in this paper. Don't see what the difference is. I would think the logical position for advocates is to remain agnostic until more is known why patients remain ill after an acute Lyme infection.
Click to expand...
The reason the cause matters is that proper treatment is predicated on the correct cause.

You are correct, though - they may have it right. They just haven proven it yet. They know that, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom