elenacook said...
Pirouette, I will comment on what you've said in more detail later , but I'd just like to note that the enforced narrow definition of Lyme did not originate with the Lymerix vaccine - it was something Steere and colleagues tried to impose from the beginning.
After a brief admission that Lyme was more than just "a rash and arthritis", the Denialists went backwards full throttle and tried to restrict the definition to a rash, arthritis and meningits and facial nerve palsy - all supposedly "easily cured" with short courses of antibiotics.
Why? Well, apart from the arthritis , (which was simply undeniable as some patients had grossly swollen joints), the rash, meningits and nerve palsy were already very well-documented in European literature and Steere knew he could not erase history.
The much larger picture of crushing fatigue and pain, and neurodegenerative effects long-term had never been documented. so it was easier to pretend they do not exist.
Hi Elena -
I'm in a bit of a hurry so I didn't read through my long post but I agree with your general statement here - not sure what I posted that suggested otherwise.
From my reading, it's clear that the process of working toward a vaccine, which likely began in early 80s wasn't too far behind the original science after "discovery" so the process of limiting the definition became one big mess pretty early on.
Also, early on in the definition process, this narrow definition was in response to ensuring that this new discovery was a NEW microbe, not something previously discovered, which Steere et al. couldn't get credit for. The science had to fit the discovery, not the other way around.
There were many reasons for the backtracking.
-p