Great interview w/ microbiologist Holly Ahern -
outbreaknewstoday.com/history-behind-lyme-disease-controversy-whats-new-lyme-research-59386/EXCELLENT interview and is a great 30-min snapshot of the Lyme controversy that you can share with people who ask "why" - she hits on almost all of the issues:
History of the Lyme controversy - The root cause of the Lyme controversy, which was the early science based on a biased and limited definition of Lyme, which involves only an EM (bullseye) rash and discounts the majority of how Bb manifests into Lyme disease that manifest with ALL the OTHER symptoms we all know)
- Despite early studies that showed the EM rash shows up in only 20% of patients, early on when study subjects were culled and when MDs were asked to identify cases with the EM rash, the instances of the EM rash went from 20% to 80%--because that was the only qualifier they were looking for. This confirmation bias subsequently became the "rule of thumb" and EM rash became THE identifier for what constitutes Lyme disease.
- How this early and limited anchor-bias science is the foundation for most of the other research and clinical trials (qualifying participants with only the EM rash) that underpins the subsequent diagnostic and treatment protocols still employed today, which exclude, ignore, reject the majority of Lyme cases.
- Including a study on antibiotics from 2016 that still only qualified trial subjects with EM rash.
- Patients left with few options since IDSA team is still winning the public relations war.
She shares that this Lyme cabal is "doubling-down" and is developing a NEW diagnostic and treatment guidelines that will be based on the same limited science... - That this limited approach science continues not to evolve with Lyme disease, contrary to all other disease medical evolution, because the SAME dozen or so rheumatologist and research cabal is still at the helm of Lyme in CDC and IDSA leadership and until they are removed, we will NOT advance Lyme truths
- She mentions the financial conflicts of interest of the patent-holders of the antigens used in the tests, who have determined the testing protocol the CDC posts on their website and recommends the same tests they financially benefit from.
- of over 12,000 Pub Med articles on Lyme/Bb, only 200 of them are written by this cabal and their associates, yet this limited science remains the foundation of nearly all "approved" diagnostic and treatment protocols that ignores most people with Lyme
- She mentions the limitations of the serological testing and the refusal by insurance companies to cover treatment w/out a positive test
- The CDC recently ranks frequency of disease: #1 chlamydia, #2 Lyme and #3 gonorrhea - She does the quick math on how many people are not being counted with the implications of poor testing and ineffective treatment protocols that are based on an infrequent manifestation of the EM rash and the skewed numbers of people who go on to develop serious problems...
The interviewer asked "what is the motivation" for the ongoing controversy and limited science only for Lyme and not for other infectious disease; and she replied that "no one knows" why but that the anchor bias has proliferated but the science is there and all it would take is an open process.She discusses the critical dangers with this new "prophylactic dose" of antibiotics protocol rolled out in Rhode Island recently - here's more info on this
www.healthline.com/health-news/rhode-island-pharmacists-offer-quicker-cheaper-lyme-disease-treatment - this "single-dose" approach is based on a 2001 paper that was published before the IDSA guidelines in 2002 - which again, was a repeat of the EM rash determinant of effectiveness of the prophylactic and that nymph ticks are associated with the EM... Conveniently, the end result was baked into the data results that the prophylactic dose prevented the rash and therefore prevents Lyme disease from developing (yet, the EM rash doesn't show up in the majority of cases anyway so this doesn't indicate anything about
whether or not a person has contracted Lyme). A double whammy.
- Despite nearly all other medical advice to "take all the abx" prescribed for infections, she reviews the microbiological dangers of exposing the Bb to such a short-course of abx allows the bacteria to go into dormant state, which is likely to prevent the required immune response for a positive test result and also drives the Bb into persister state.
She talks about the panel being convened to republish old 70s-80s papers that rehash the same old pseudo-science and demonize patients all over again; they are also creating new IDSA guidelines - She brought up the contentiousness against patients challenging the Lyme lies and the "Lyme Loonies" comment made by NIH's Philip Baker.
- if the current official 'science' is so accurate, why the need for a closed process or to renew effective guidelines?
- they're doing everything they can to subvert any challenge - like the Federal Working Group that is supposed to re-evaluate the science and make recommendations - this is the first time in the 40-yr history of Lyme that ANYONE on the patient side has been included.
Was there good news?
Despite the fact that the CDC acknowledges the limitations of the serology testing they promote, they are not funding research for better tests. Thankfully, private advocacy organizations are developing new technologies.New research being done at Northeastern University and Johns Hopkins is also looking into ways to affect the persister stage (so this is good for the acknowledgement of xenotype persister cells and also hopefully affect prevention of that stage) and more effective treatment.She doesn't get into the issues with the initial vaccines nor does she share any info on the new vaccines in development so this still remains a concern.
-p