Is someone keeping a list of links that constitute the best proof we have for the existence of chronic Lyme?
It would be nice to have a collection all in one place of the most scientifically compelling research.
Posted by miyamotoi (Member # 41833) on :
Its probably better to ask about evidence for persistence/chronic Lyme rather than proof. Here are some of the many summaries and research papers reviewing the evidence. There is rarely true proof in science but rather the accumulation of supporting evidence.
When the evidence is both thorough and overwhelming, it approaches proof. Because persistence or chronic Lyme is not "believed" to exist by many in the mainstream, that leads to very few studies and therefore little evidence. Animal study evidence is nearing overwhelming. But then the argument is "its animals"
Its impossible to prove a negative so the mainstream relies on not doing studies on humans to minimize evidence and then "believing" rather than analyzing incomplete evidence. They prefer to conveniently minimize and arrange for inadequate evidence when they can. But study by study, the evidence is accumulating albeit slowly. It wouldn't be hard to show but not if you don't want to.
In 2009 Steven Phillips did a fairly good discussion and summary of issues and evidence at that time:
2014 Cameron and Loriane Johnson "Evidence assessments and guideline recommendations in Lyme disease: the clinical management of known tick bites, erythema migrans rashes and persistent disease"
I could make this more complete if desired. I have most of the important papers.
The simple fact the CDC did a high profile webinar on persistence suggests they are preparing themselves for minimal embarrassment when the tide turns.
The fact that Adriana Marques changed her recent xenodiagnosis persistence trial results from 3 positives to 1 positive is telling. The change was because 2 of the xenodiagnosis DNA recoveries were PCR+sequenced and 2/3 genotypes had been seen in her lab before. So she conveniently claimed they "might" be contamination in her top flight NIH lab.
That's the first time I ever saw a genotype thrown out because its bee seen before. So that translates to changing a 14% persistence finding to a 3% by manipulating the positive test criteria to something rather extraordinary in that it suggested her lab couldn't do a test without contamination. That suggests she should get out of the lab business.
[ 07-31-2014, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: miyamotoi ]
Posted by Razzle (Member # 30398) on :