LymeNet Home LymeNet Home Page LymeNet Flash Discussion LymeNet Support Group Database LymeNet Literature Library LymeNet Legal Resources LymeNet Medical & Scientific Abstract Database LymeNet Newsletter Home Page LymeNet Recommended Books LymeNet Tick Pictures Search The LymeNet Site LymeNet Links LymeNet Frequently Asked Questions About The Lyme Disease Network LymeNet Menu

LymeNet on Facebook

LymeNet on Twitter




The Lyme Disease Network receives a commission from Amazon.com for each purchase originating from this site.

When purchasing from Amazon.com, please
click here first.

Thank you.

LymeNet Flash Discussion
Dedicated to the Bachmann Family

LymeNet needs your help:
LymeNet 2020 fund drive


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations.

LymeNet Flash Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» LymeNet Flash » Questions and Discussion » Medical Questions » Does anyone have any other hypotheses? This is how stupid the anti-CLD folks are

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Does anyone have any other hypotheses? This is how stupid the anti-CLD folks are
BobG
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 39642

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BobG     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EBMOD replying to Bob Goode. You are showing your ignorance of how science and medicine work. If we are going to frame the question that way, here is a list of things that are equally valid causes of CLD type symptoms:

alien abduction
Roger Rabbit
differential calculus
me

It is impossible to prove/disprove a universal statement. Logic 101.

This is one of the oldest quack arguments in the book, along with the other tactic of dumbing down a nuanced complicated topic into a false simplicity.

We have to look for observable evidence that something DOES exist before we just assume it does and then try to disprove it.

These are all basic tenets of medicine/science and you are showing a pattern that is routinely observed around here, and it explains WHY you have been sucked into the CLD racket. You don't have the intellectual tools to know you are being suckered.
5
•Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Bob Goode EBMOD • 18 minutes ago
I'm showing my ignorance and you think those are equally valid scientific claims for CLD (OK, PTLDS if you prefer)? I have to admit, I haven't gotten my day off to that good of laugh in a long time. I hope now one else on this board knows your identity or professional affiliation. First, starting with Biology 101, I don't think Roger Rabbit has the microscopic dimensions to be able to be a cause for CLD. It is plausible, if not probable, that Roger Rabbit could be a vector for causative agent for the symptoms. Let's summarize again and slow things down for you. There are three general hypotheses for CLD (OK, PTLDS, if you wish): 1) immunological after treatment; 2) residual damage as a result of initial treatment; and 3) persistent infection (I'm happy to entertain others) [there was someone on here mumbling about 'dem nerves]. Now here is the difference between you and I. I accept the possibility for ALL three of these as possible contributing factors because I account for ALL of the science and clinical evidence. I don't exclude any and jump to conclusions based on a few limited and poorly designed studies involving antibiotic treatments that were NEVER designed to answer the fundamental question of the persistence hypothesis. There was an intention to try to determine if the protocol, AS DESIGNED, was effective. Based on these poorly designed studies with limited statistical power, folks make Arguments from Ignorance that persistence is not a root cause or even a contributing factor and ignore long standing and growing data supporting the persistence hypothesis (Northeastern, John Hopkins for starters). If you accept persistence as a legitimate hypothesis, then you have to accept long term antibiotic treatment as a ethical and Hippocratic imperative. OK now, please explain to me where I am being unscientific and not you? Notice I didn't claim Roger Rabbit (or Peter Rabbit or Roberta Rabbit) was equally valid. Now based on very poor science and a very likely Type II error, folks want to deny a class of treatments to lots of people suffering horrifically who may benefit from these treatments. Do you see or not see the problem here? Are you for real?

•Edit•Reply•Share ›

Avatar
Bob Goode • a few seconds ago
PS. Yes, it really is this simple.

Posts: 360 | From Massachusetts | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | LymeNet home page | Privacy Statement

© 1993-2020 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


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, NJ 08534 USA


| Flash Discussion | Support Groups | On-Line Library
Legal Resources | Medical Abstracts | Newsletter | Books
Pictures | Site Search | Links | Help/Questions
About LymeNet | Contact Us

© 1993-2020 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to Terms and Conditions.