Here's a chance to make our voices heard! The areas they say have a low incidence of Lyme--well you decide.
Please post your comments on Huffington Post. I know there are many of you here that live in the areas that supposedly have a low incidence of Lyme. Hogwash!
[ 02-07-2012, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Abxnomore ]
Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
Up.
Please comment on Huffington Post regarding the incidence of Lyme.
Let's educate the public as best as we can.
Posted by aperture (Member # 34822) on :
I commented.
Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
It's an opportunity for us to help others and ourselves and get out the "true" information.
Posted by hammer (Member # 17201) on :
Got it covered!
Posted by riverspirit (Member # 19435) on :
i commented about an hour after the article went up (in the middle of the night) and there were already over a hundred comments then.
Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
Great, let's keep it going. There are 11 pages of comments now!
I have to say though, this doesn't sound as bad as people are making it out to be. They make some fair points in the literature. (Though, I admit it gets a little shady in the article) The paper says...
"...the lack of spatial structure in nymphal infection prevalence, combined with the difficulty in accurately estimating prevalence with small sample sizes, brings into question the validity of using an exact prevalence threshold to guide clinical decisions on treatment"
And
"Our results indicate that the presence of any number of infected nymphs may be considered sufficient to recommend post-exposure prophylaxis."
In other words, using tick infection rate maps like this is questionable in a clinical setting, and in fact even low risk areas are enough to consider a diagnosis and treatment.
How the author got from there, to the HuffPo quote of "In areas that are low risk, a case of Lyme disease is not impossible but it's highly unlikely, so the clinician should be considering other diagnoses." - I don't know. Maybe I will write and ask.
Posted by Cracker Jack (Member # 34734) on :
Post this map up on the huff!! Here is a map for pet owners.. Hmm the pets get better warning and care then humans.. You just got to hate the IDSA & CDC!!!
This study seems like a mixed bag to me. They clearly missed some areas of the country so obviously that's not helpful. But they did accurately identify some areas as high risk that need the recognition. For example, Northern Virginia made it into the high risk area and that's probably news to most of the ID docs in Northern Virginia, or at least the one I visited who asked me if I'd been traveling in the Northeast. Answer: no.
Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
I agree with you. At least some information is out there and there is a good amount of comments bringing additional light to the situation.
Please correct your public awareness video information. A large percentage of those who contract Lyme never present with a rash (perhaps as much as 50%), and only perhaps half of those that do present with the "bulls eye" rash. I have Lyme, presented with a rash, and two different doctors never even considered Lyme since it was not a bulls eye shape. As far as the map, that may be based on CDC reported cases...but if local MD's don't even consider Lyme, they will miss real cases and hence few cases reported. I recently went to a new Lyme support group here in Louisville, KY, and there were 30+ Lyme sufferers there who don't consider our region "low risk". Under reported yes, low risk, not in the least.
Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
Great comment! Good job. It's good to see so many comments posted.
![[rant]](graemlins/rant.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
and I thought my brain fog was gone ![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)