I forwarded the recent study (Persistence of Bb after antibiotics.....) to an ISDA-thinking doctor and thought some of you might like (or maybe not) to see her response to me.
At least it gives us an appreciation for maybe the other side of the fence? I do want to note that this doctor is really a nice person....just...sigh...
"I agree it's an interesting article and is in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal. It would be much more convincing if they could culture the organism--either from the treated subjects or from the ones who received material that came from the treated ones--and of course it would be helpful to know whether the organisms they identify actually cause symptoms and what happens to the host and the organisms they identify after more time passes beyond the end of the antibiotic course.
It sounds like they're planning to do some additional studies addressing these issues--hopefully they'll have more answers soon."
Posted by adamm (Member # 11910) on :
Oy vey!
Posted by Looking (Member # 13600) on :
So unless you drop a mountain of similar studies on her desk verifying the results no change in treatment will be forthcoming.
Not suprised -- just hope we all live long enough to see how long it takes this info to be accepted.
Posted by daise (Member # 13622) on :
KS and Looking,
That IDSA attitude is well known here.
Quack, quack, quack ...
That's what we rail against!
Venting here is welcome.
daise Posted by Tincup (Member # 5829) on :
The ID doc said..
"It would be much more convincing if they could culture the organism--either from the treated subjects or from the ones who received material that came from the treated ones-"
Might you tell her that this study has once again proven the IDSA tests (their "gold standard" test as a matter of fact)- which are part of the Attorney General's investigation concerning fraud, antitrust, monopoly and exclusionary conduct related to the IDSA and their Lyme guidelines- is the problem.
NOT the spirochete situation. They were able to find the spirochetes... but like in Hopkins study.. they had to use multiple tests to do so... IF they could do it.
She said.. "-and of course it would be helpful to know whether the organisms they identify actually cause symptoms and what happens to the host"
If this study she mentions is done in mice... and they don't live long enough to carry it out further.. but IF they did this in an animal... the IDSA would say.. well that is in animals... not humans. Whimpy, whining excuses and more years of fighting.
In other words.. we are stuck by them insisting they have to PROVE everything to be able to give people something that has been shown over the years has helped. especially when they use horrible tests!
In the meantime.. millions are... and will suffer.
Plus.. if she could study this more throughly.. and put 2 and 2 together... BEFORE she gets Lyme... it sure would help! Waiting for the future "prison gang" to step up to the plate and do the right thing is not only harmful to so many... but criminal.
Posted by Keebler (Member # 12673) on :
-
They are waiting until someone proves a bacteria can cause illness ? What world DO they live in ?
Uhhh.
-
Posted by KS (Member # 12549) on :
I just keep laughing at the response. This doctor is affiliated with a Major teaching hospital in Boston and is willing to "humor" me so I keep in contact with her.....of course hoping I can get her to jump ship!
I will be following up with her regarding her 'concerns' with this study...honestly, I keep feeling like I'm on some sick Candid Camera show...
Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
Blah, blah, blah..
A lot of words put together that don't mean anything....
Sometimes these ducks remind me of a cult....brainlessly following
Whatever the leader tells them. Yeah, go ahead....drink the grape kool-aid.
Hugs,
Geneal
Posted by welcome (Member # 7953) on :
Without trying to put too fine a point on it....I wish these folks would drop D-E-A-D!
Posted by CD57 (Member # 11749) on :
Her response just doesn't say.....anything! I am curious about her comment about it being from a "respected publication". Does that mean that anything that is not from one of the (probably few) publications that they read is not even considered in their day to day practice and way of thinking?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)