The Challenge of ‘Chronic Lyme’ - The New York Review of Books

ahimsa

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I thought this was in interesting article so I thought I'd share it here:

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/25/the-challenge-of-chronic-lyme/

That chronic Lyme exists in the realm of experience doesn’t mean it isn’t real: sorrow is real, tingling is real, tension headaches are real—and I can’t know if my patients have those things unless I ask them. When medicine does not acknowledge the reality of the subjective—the thick reality of lived experience—we fall laughably short in our efforts to serve patients. What is a life but experience, and why does illness matter except insofar as it affects the way we feel and the experiences we have or are denied?

Lidija Haas began her review for The New Yorker of Porochista Khakpour’s Sick, a memoir of chronic Lyme, by asking “Is Lyme disease a feminist issue?” Haas describes how disease in women is painfully under-studied and how physician bias affects women’s health. The most famous case of this is multiple sclerosis (MS), an often-debilitating autoimmune disease that is more common in women. As Haas mentions, MS was essentially chalked up to hysteria until the invention of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), which allowed doctors to see the characteristic lesions in the brains and spines of patients with MS. When doctors could see it, we designated it as real.

But MS was real before the MRI, and chronic Lyme is also real. It comprises a constellation of symptoms and a community of sufferers, too often attended to by unscrupulous providers. Insofar as the history of chronic Lyme is a history of physicians’ ignoring, downplaying, or refusing to investigate the symptoms of women, chronic Lyme is also a feminist issue.

Should women’s suffering be listened to, attended to, and investigated? Yes. Does our suffering deserve heroic efforts to develop and provide evidence-based therapies? Absolutely. But is our suffering caused by tick bites? Usually not.

PS. I'm not looking for a debate on Lyme. Please don't ask me any questions. I don't know enough about it.
 
Reading this, I could not help but wonder if the new IDSA Lyme Guidelines were due out soon or something...

How is a doctor from Idaho qualified to speak with any perspective of meaningful, hands-on experience of Lyme disease? Shouldn't they practice in an endemic area? How did she not realize that the patient talking about a malarial disease was perhaps talking about babesia, but just didn't know enough to articulate that? How does she not know it's not just the 2T, it's getting there - it's getting past the ELISA, which is by itself questionable?

Unfortunate piece.

All rhetorical questions, btw, and not directed at @ahimsa. :)
 
Last edited:
I can understand the doctor's frustration when meeting patients with diffuse symptoms, but I wish she wasn't so eager to dismiss the idea of chronic lyme.

Should women’s suffering be listened to, attended to, and investigated? Yes. Does our suffering deserve heroic efforts to develop and provide evidence-based therapies? Absolutely. But is our suffering caused by tick bites? Usually not.

Came across this news release from NIH today:
Tickborne diseases are likely to increase, say NIH officials

The public health burden of tickborne disease is considerably underreported, according to the authors. For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports approximately 30,000 cases of Lyme disease annually in the U.S. but estimates that the true incidence is 10 times that number. According to the authors, this is due in part to the limitations of current tickborne disease surveillance, as well as current diagnostics, which may be imprecise in some cases and are unable to recognize new tickborne pathogens as they emergehttps://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...ficials?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Back
Top Bottom