posted
The words are different, but the strategy is eerily the same.
Whenever the "system" has an ulterior motive NOT IN THE PUBLICS BEST INTEREST, they initiate a persistent and repetitive onslaught of propaganda from XYZ government agency and it's public sector sycophants, which is specifically designed to demean and further isolate whatever group is on the verge of seeing behind the "wizards curtain".
Courts do it all the time.
When someone questions the "system" the courts are designed to protect, the courts follow a method of
1. Ignoring the plain language of the law,
2. Disallowing any discussion or argument about the technicalities of the "law" in question in open court, and
3. Call plaintiffs argument "frivolous" or other such vacuous insult, and then keep repeating that methodology over and over again until it gets cited as precedent by other courts, and repeated by the media.
Here are some questions I'd like to ask as a rebuttal (in no particular order):
1. Before the infectious agent which causes Lyme was identified, the people who were infected with it were diagnosed with what?
Were those Doctors wrong in there dignoses?
Based on what evidence do you now know you are right enough to take a chance with peoples lives?
2. What is the mechanism which causes the so-called, often cited "resistance" in infectious bacteria?
A course of antibiotics which is too short, or one which is too long??
3."Furthermore, long-term antibiotic therapy may be dangerous and it also can lead to complications for the patient, such as:
. blood stream catheter infection (for those on intravenous antibiotics)
. and Clostridium difficile colitis (a potentially severe infection of the bowel). "
Since one of the two listed dangerous side effects of so-called "long term" antibiotic treatment is Clostridium difficile colitis, what is the rate of incidence of this infection in people on long term antibiotics?
What is the incidence of this infection with people NOT on long term antibiotics?
What is the rate of infection due to hospital visits?
What is the normal treatment for this infection?
How dangerous is the treatment relative to the dangers of un or under-treated lyme/lyme like infections or other tick borne diseases?
4. What data is being used to support the guidance that long term antibiotic usage, particularly for patients reporting subsequent relief of symptoms, is more dangerous then the possibility or reality of infection with an agent which causes symptoms similiar to Syphilis, MS, RA, Alzheimers, ALS and the like?
5. "...one substantive change in IDSA's treatment recommendations is that some selected, high-risk tick bites may be treated with a single dose of the antibiotic doxycycline but only under certain conditions.
Those conditions include a reliable identification that the bite came from a deer tick that has been attached for 36 hours or longer."
When was the guidance changed from 24 to 36 hours?
Will you bet your credentials on the diagnosis that I am absolutely NOT infected if the tick was attached for 35 hours 50 minutes?
How about 34 hours?
What repeatable scientific evidence are you using to suggest that biological systems and infectious agents accurately utilise man-made timetables?
6. "..and if preventive treatment can be started within 72 hours of the time the tick was removed."
So a "single dose" is effective at 72 hours or before?
What dosage is recommended at 72 hours and 5 minutes?
7. "IDSA states that most patients who develop Lyme disease are cured with a single course of 10 to 28 days of antibiotics, depending on the stage of their illness."
What test and/or test results are being utilised to make this assertion?
How do you confirm that infected patients are in fact "cured", or that people who test negative are not actually infected?
Isn't it true that the CDC emphatically states that diagnosis of Lyme disease cannot be either confirmed or denied based on the inaccuracy of the current tests?
8. "Occasionally a second course of treatment is necessary. More prolonged antibiotic therapy is not recommended and may be dangerous, according to Dr. Wormser."
Isn't that a non-sequitor based on the rest of your stance?
Why would a second course be necessary?
Was the intitial dose too low?
Was the course not long enough?
How much more dangerous is a 60 day course versus 30?
If a second course became necessary, what would preclude the necessity of a third course, or a fourth, etc.?
9."This is as authoritative a statement as they come from an evidence-based medicine approach."
A patient presenting with symptoms IS THE FOUNDATION OF EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE. Without that, you usually don't need a doctor. No?
Please remeber that Doctors are not Scientists!
In many cases even they don't understand the vaunted "peer reviewed" scientific literature they quote!
And like so many other diciplines, Doctors and Scientists are merely humans with their own individual agendas.
Science is NOT real life.
And scientists change their assessments all the time....afterall until just recently Pluto was a planet, and in the '70's scientist adamantly warned that civilisation was on the verge of extinction due to GLOBAL COOLING!
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead Posts: 63 | From USA | Registered: Jul 2006
| 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/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic