momintexas
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 23391
posted
If you've likely been carrying Lyme for years, but it doesn't seem to cause you any symptoms - would you treat?
Posts: 1408 | From Tx | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. What's the point? You don't get rid of the infection 100%, you get rid of the symptoms and rebuild health so your immune system is strong enough to keep you healthy.
-------------------- sixgoofykids.blogspot.com Posts: 13449 | From Ohio | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- I would treat - most definitely - myself to a movie, in a real movie theatre. A nice meal with friends in a restaurant. A night at the symphony and a day at the beach. I would treat myself to LIFE.
Seriously, though, I'd leave it be but if you are pulled to know more - I would consult a seasoned LLMD and consider his or her advice on that.
It may be best to just have excellent nutrition and self-care -- and have a LLMD who has at least seen you so that you are not going to have to wait months as a "new" patient if symptoms do pop up.
There may be one or two key supplements that can keep you symptom free forever (or whomever you are asking about or for).
The LLMD might want to study your blood, history, etc. You may have something very unique that is worth learning more about - for both you and the LLMD. But many can carry lyme and not have symptoms.
It may be the strain of borrelia (not all are the same), it may be you. But it is for sure, lucky. And I'd really not want to mess with that. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
onbam
Unregistered
posted
I don't think I woul. While treating can apparently reduce the risk of spreading it (that would be one of the major appeals for me at this point), I don't know if any treatments are non-toxic enough to be taken for the potential decades until a cure comes out. My hunch would be no. Then there would be the possibilities of drug-resistant bacteria and the fact that treatment seems to sometimes make an asymptomatic infection symptomatic.
As an aside:
Eva Sapi recently reported that Samento and Banderol might be non-toxic, but, as I posted the other day, a Swiss researcher named Martin Seivers reported that Samento made things worse.
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
No, I would definitely NOT treat. It would just bring the Lyme out of hiding...no point in doing that.
Only reason with no symptoms I would treat is if I was JUST infected, like saw the tick, etc.
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552
posted
Very funny Keebler! Yes, agree with others here. I would NOT treat except to dinner out and a good movie. LOL
If I thought I had lyme I would make sure to keep a good working immune system, eat a good diet, stay away from stress, take a good multi vitamin etc. etc... NO steroids and NO amalgams.
Terry I'm not a doctor
Posts: 6286 | From Oregon | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
Also, if you drink alcohol, I would not drink much. Never two days in a row, and never more than like 2-3 drinks at a time. I feel like alcohol makes my buggers come out of hiding.
Other things that can provoke Lyme include surgeries (though not always the case) and car accidents, and pregnancy. So watch out for all those things, and I think you'll be okay.
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
hoosier i think you could be right. i think i may of had lyme for years but it didnt affect me. i did drink a good amount though and my hangovers started getting very bad. a few years later i got sick
-------------------- sick since 9-09 igg, 18,23,41 reactive igm, 41 reactive Posts: 436 | From Kansas City | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
seekhelp
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 15067
posted
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Posts: 7545 | From The 5th Dimension - The Twilight Zone | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
momintexas
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 23391
posted
Knowing what I know now, I almost wish I had never started treatment.
My symptoms are far worse now than they were a year ago.
I feel like a snow globe that was once settled and is now all shook up and there's a blizzard. I wish it would settle back down.
Hubby has suspicious test (he got it done so I'd stop nagging), but says he won't treat bc he doesn't have any symptoms that bother him.
Thanks for your input, I guess it is better to just let it be.
Posts: 1408 | From Tx | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
17hens
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 23747
posted
OK guys, now you all are NOT funny!!
After reading your posts, I'm confused...
My son has 3 different bart rashes, is very thick in the middle (oddly for a 16 yr. old), and has occasional air hunger. Otherwise, he feels fine.
You are saying that he should not treat? Treatment might make him sick (more than just temporary setbacks)? He should wait until some unforseen stress or illness or accident happens? He should just grow up, date, go to college, get married, have kids but not worry?
I thought many of you say you've had it for years but got sick "recently". That means even if you could, you wouldn't go back in time and treat before you were sick?
My words might sound sarcastic but I'm really not intending it that way. I am really interested in your thoughts... and I'm really confused right now...
-------------------- "My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever." Psalms 73:26
bit 4/09, diagnosed 1/10 Posts: 3043 | From PA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's not what I'm saying. If there are NO symptoms, I would not treat. The goal of treatment is to have NO symptoms. How would you decide when to stop treating if you weren't having symptoms?
If there ARE SOME symptoms, I would treat. Not necessarily with abx, but I would treat.
-------------------- sixgoofykids.blogspot.com Posts: 13449 | From Ohio | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552
posted
17hens - your son has symptoms so he needs to treat. If he had no symptoms, then in my non-professional opinion, he should not be treated. From what I've read and heard, many if not most LLMD's would agree.
My understanding is that lyme is like a virus, once you are infected, you will always be infected and the immune system will need to keep it at bay.
Co-infections are different in my opinion. If you have an active co-infection like babesia or bartonella AND lyme, symptoms or not, I would treat because from what I understand, you can get rid of them except perhaps the viruses. Babesia and Bartonella can both suppress the immune system. Why have an infection in your body that can rear it's ugly head at any time if you can get rid of it before becoming symptomatic?
Usually the reason people get sicker during treatment is either because they are toxic and need to add more support and possibly toxin binders to their protocol or co-infections have become problematic and need to be treated side by side with lyme.
edited to add: When I'm talking about the reasons people are sicker - I mean aside from the expected cyclical herxing.
momintexas
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 23391
posted
I agree with Terry. Hens, if your son has symptoms it should be addressed.
I have Lyme and so does our son. I wanted hubby tested bc it seemed odd that my son and I have it. My son has and has had symptoms for a long time. He is also in treatment, and is now doing well. It took several different abx to figure out what works for him, but I think we are on the right track now.
I had minor symptoms that took over 5 years to figure out. When I say, if I could go back and not treat, I say that bc I am not tolerating abx well. I have an appt with a new LLMD this Fall and am hoping for a new route to take.
I'm only saying that I regret it bc I'm having such a hard time with treatment.
As Terry stated above, I think once infected with Lyme, we can carry it for a long time and not have issues. Then something comes along and it gets triggered.
Posts: 1408 | From Tx | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
bcb1200
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 25745
posted
My doctor is clear. If no symptoms then DO NOT treat.
-------------------- Bite date ? 2/10 symptoms began 5/10 dx'd, after 3 months numerous test and doctors
IgM Igenex +/CDC + + 23/25, 30, 31, 34, 41, 83/93
Currently on:
Currently at around 95% +/- most days. Posts: 3134 | From Massachusetts | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
lyme in Putnam
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 11561
posted
Why wake the beast? Feel good.
-------------------- He took u to it, He'll you through Posts: 2837 | From NE. | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
17hens
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 23747
posted
Alright, I'm calming down!!
Ok, so there's a difference between minor symptoms and no symptoms. Sure. My son has minor symptoms and needs to be treated - makes sense.
Sorry for over-reacting, it's just that I've never been totally secure in my decision to get my son treated. I mean, if his rashes don't go away, how would the doc know when to stop treatment? How do you know if treatment worked?
But you all think it's the best thing too. That makes me feel better.
Six, what protocol would you use if not abx?
Thanks for your patience with me, everyone. I appreciate it.
-------------------- "My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever." Psalms 73:26
bit 4/09, diagnosed 1/10 Posts: 3043 | From PA | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
'Kete-tracker
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 17189
posted
If it "doesn't seem to cause [you] any symptoms"... what the heck makes you think you Have Lyme disease??
(Pls excuse the exasperation)
Posts: 1233 | From Dover, NH | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
'Kete-tracker
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 17189
posted
Woe.. Whoa. Just read post above mine. Your SON? "Minor" symptoms? Rashes?? Who are we talking about here?
Posts: 1233 | From Dover, NH | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Lauralyme
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15021
posted
If it was me I would do heavy metal chelation.....to prevent lyme symptoms from ever appearing.
-------------------- Fall down seven times, get up eight ~Japanese proverb Posts: 1146 | From west coast | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
Also, it's not like car accidents, surgeries, etc ALWAYS make Lyme come out of hiding. They have been known to, in some cases. I'm not saying the person who is infected is a ticking (no pun intended) time bomb.
So I'm not saying once the infected person has to have surgery, they are in trouble......just saying IF they get some kind of very significant illness that begins after something I mentioned, then you can consider Lyme as a culprit.
I would also avoid vaccines that are not necessary. I relapsed after a vaccine.
These are just things to avoid if you can, but I'm not saying an infected person will eventually show symptoms. I hope they don't!!!
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- Even if without symptoms, once a person has had lyme or anyother tick-borne infection: Should never give blood or be an organ donor - or donate any tissue (even corneas).
In fact, those who have ever had Babesia are banned from giving blood for life. If the blood banks could understand that there is no cure for lyme, they would surely also put lyme in the same category. But, that is just too political. Still, we all know this so it's important to keep our blood to ourselves - and to make (or change) our final arrangements in order to keep our infections from affecting the lives of others.
However, one could take American Red Cross First Aid &/or CPR courses - and maybe even go through instructor training - as a different way to help others. There are also other volunteer positions with the Red Cross, etc. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
NO.
Posts: 797 | From New York | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
sutherngrl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16270
posted
NO WAY!
A lyme diagnosis is based on symptoms. Thats how you get the diagnosis. In my opinion if you don't have symptoms, then you don't have lyme.
Posts: 4035 | From Mississippi | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
sutherngrl
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 16270
posted
Oh and I do agree that if you get a fresh tick bite, you should definetly treat. That is a safety precaution. Better safe than sorry.
Posts: 4035 | From Mississippi | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
sammy
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 13952
posted
If I had no symptoms I would not have gotten tested and certainly would not treat.
Posts: 5237 | From here | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/