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.