Boston Globe Chronic Lyme ARticle

[KaraM]

It kind of blows my mind how they can interpret studies with 17 cases as statistically valid enough to publish in the NEJM...

Also, to say the results challenge the argument that chronic Lyme exists, doesn't make sense to me. If the individuals they studied eliminated the infection, then were bitten again, then yes, it's a new infection, not chronic Lyme. But what about the people who never got rid of the infection but stopped treatment too early...

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2012/11/15/repeat-symptoms-lyme-disease-are-from-new-infections-not-caused-relapse-study-finds/mAQj6U9ujhuCAMy3d1GkcJ/story.html

[LNN]

I saw this article in yesterday's NYT - had the same thought. Then I saw Allen Steere's name and knew it was a set-up. 17 people? Using only blood samples? It was a foregone conclusion before they started the "research".

[mdmom]

It reminds me of the time that last year when I went to hear a doc from Hopkins speak about chronic Lyme. He convinced the crowd that he does believe in chronic Lyme (Hopkins docs are usually nay-sayers); however, he said that chronic Lyme does not exist because everyone at some point would have received antibiotics for something. So if they had antibiotics in their lifetime and contracted Lyme, then he said you can't call it chronic Lyme because it would have been treated by whatever antibiotic was given. He kept calling it "Post Lyme Syndrome."

 

Really? He almost had me snowed during the presentation. On my ride home, I came back to reality and realized what an idiot he is.