Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

scopeblog.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 186 posts

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#71

Post by Enginerrrd »

octodog wrote: post #68
voldacar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weeks ago the CDC lied, saying that masks aren't effective and that the general public shouldn't wear them. They did this ostensibly to keep the existing mask supply available only to medical workers. Needless to say, if they're ineffective for the general public, they're ineffective for doctors and nurses. And so people saw through the bullshit

This is seriously and dangerously wrong information. Surgical masks are particularly helpful in stopping _infected_ people from spreading the disease. New information and data on asymptomatic spreaders means that the CDC (and many other Western health authorities) are considering changing their advice. The idea is that everyone must assume they are an asymptomatic spreader. Additionally, surgical masks aren't the onl…

No, what you just said is seriously wrong. The CDC even coauthored a paper that found during the SARS-1 outbreak that among contacts of known cases, those untrained people that regularly wore surgical masks had a 70% reduced risk of contracting SARS. 60% for those that wore them intermittently. And in fact, research suggests that masks are actually MORE protective for the people wearing them.

Note the following points, with sources (The context is a bit off because I did this research in response to another question, but the points are still pretty much relevant here):

1. Regular old surgical masks (not N95 respirators), when worn by the public without training, had a strong protective effect for the people wearing them during the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak. They reduced the risk of infection by ~70%. (Source: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/2/03-0730_article)

2. Despite being very different in their ability to actually filter out fine particles, N95 respirators and surgical masks actually show no significant difference in their ability to prevent diagnosed respiratory infections including influenza, when worn by healthcare workers according to two large meta-studies. Though both had a protective effect over no mask. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868605/) (2nd source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/)

3. Improvised, homemade masks have only a marginally lower filtration efficiency than surgical masks (which we established are about as effective as an N95 respirator anyway). (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/) (2nd source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t...)

4. There is evidence in the studies linked in item 2 that hand hygiene alone did not demonstrate much of a protective effect (for civilians caring for a sick family member) against transmission of influenza compared to use of any type of mask.

5. When infected people wear a mask, it helps reduce the amount of viral shedding which occurs, presumably making them less likely to infect others. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/)

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#72

Post by wetpaws »

octodog wrote: post #69
wetpaws wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDC plain saying they are not effective and not recommending them

Wrong. It's much more nuanced than that. Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection. New data on asymptomatic spreaders means than public health authorities are considering changing their advice. The default assumption would then be that everyone has it, and should therefore wear a mask to prevent spreading it.

>Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection.

This is a common misconception, for which CDC is also partially the one to be blamed.

Laboratory tests find that improvised cloth masks block 60 – 80% of virus particles

Most experts in the early 2000s agreed that these masks were probably better than nothing.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...

http://akkie.mods.jp/2019-nCoV/images/c/c0/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B...

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#73

Post by toomim »

octodog wrote: post #68
voldacar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weeks ago the CDC lied, saying that masks aren't effective and that the general public shouldn't wear them. They did this ostensibly to keep the existing mask supply available only to medical workers. Needless to say, if they're ineffective for the general public, they're ineffective for doctors and nurses. And so people saw through the bullshit

This is seriously and dangerously wrong information. Surgical masks are particularly helpful in stopping _infected_ people from spreading the disease. New information and data on asymptomatic spreaders means that the CDC (and many other Western health authorities) are considering changing their advice. The idea is that everyone must assume they are an asymptomatic spreader. Additionally, surgical masks aren't the onl…

Unfortunately, I think you are on the wrong side of the science on this one.

First, you're implying that the data is new, but it's been around for a long time:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLrm0pqBN_5bdyysOeoOBX4p...

> Surgical masks are particularly helpful in stopping _infected_ people from spreading the disease.

One of the ways the CDC twisted the information was to pretend this is only about surgical masks. There are also N95 masks, but the advice from the CDC and Surgeon General was generalized to all masks, not just surgical masks. Like this tweet:

    Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!  

    They are NOT effective in preventing
    general public from catching #Coronavirus,
    but if healthcare providers can’t get
    them to care for sick patients, it puts
    them and our communities at risk!
Nothing in there distinguishes surgical from N95 masks, which really do block 95% of pathogens.

Furthermore, even surgical masks block 60-80% of pathogens. And if you seal the sides with tape, they block as much as other respirators.

And for the public, 60-80% is wayyyyy better than nothing!

So although it's true that there is a shortage of medical-grade masks for healthcare workers, and it's true that we should give them priority for any masks we have, it's absolutely a lie to say that "masks" in general are not effective at stopping the virus for the public.

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#74

Post by PragmaticPulp »

vimy wrote: post #33
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

Note that they're carefully dancing around the elephant in the room: As far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated that Lyme spirochetes survive a course of standard antibiotics (Emphasis mine): > Standard treatment of Lyme disease is oral antibiotics, typically doxycycline, in the early stages of the disease; but for reasons that are unclear, the antibiotics don't work for up to 20% of people with the tick-borne il…

Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease. >RESULTS: Motile spirochetes identified histopathologically as Borrelia were detected in culture specimens, and these spirochetes were genetically identified as Borreliaburgdorferi by three distinct polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based approaches. Spirochetes identified as Borrelia burgdorferi were cultured from the blood of seven subje…

> Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease.

This paper is from Marianne J Middelveen, who is well known for embracing quackery and producing questionable papers.

Her earlier claims that Lyme is a sexually transmitted disease were quickly dismissed, though not before generating a lot of noise in the media: https://www.aldf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lyme-Borreli...

She also writes papers about "Morgellons Disease", a delusional disorder in which patients believe threads and fibers from their clothing and other fabric are actually sprouting from within their skin. The condition is universally acknowledged as a delusional disorder, but MJ Middelveen treats it as a real disease with no real evidence.

> I'm not gonna bother digging up the others, honestly not worth my time to try and convince one random person.

This is my least favorite part of discussing Lyme online. So many people are deeply convinced of their chosen narrative that they unquestioningly accept any papers that support their claims, while refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. This has created quite the market for pseudoscientific researchers to peddle narratives and pseudo-research that meets the demand for what people want to hear.

In the end, it only sets the field back. I would love to see a magic combination of antibiotics that reverse PTLDS symptoms, but decades of high-dose, extended duration antibiotic trials have provided zero benefit to patients, despite the demand.

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#75

Post by rzimmerman »

jonathanjaeger wrote: post #4

When I got Lyme as a teenager I was very lucky to notice a bulls-eye pattern (which not everyone gets) and quickly get treatment, with no complications after. I wonder if this new drug, or any future drugs, that work for the 20% of the people that doxycycline doesn't help, will also help people who figured out they had Lyme very late after being infected.

I had a similar experience. I had a tick bite on my ear and didn't think much about it. A week or two later I noticed a secondary bullseye rash on my leg. I am also very lucky that my mother knew what it was and I was treated quickly with no complications.

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#76

Post by Enginerrrd »

octodog wrote: post #69
wetpaws wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDC plain saying they are not effective and not recommending them

Wrong. It's much more nuanced than that. Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection. New data on asymptomatic spreaders means than public health authorities are considering changing their advice. The default assumption would then be that everyone has it, and should therefore wear a mask to prevent spreading it.

>Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection.

Actually, they very much are.

1. Regular old surgical masks (not N95 respirators), when worn by the public without training, had a strong protective effect for the people wearing them during the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak. They reduced the risk of infection by ~70%. (Source: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/2/03-0730_article) The CDC even coauthored this one.

2. Despite being very different in their ability to actually filter out fine particles, N95 respirators and surgical masks actually show no significant difference in their ability to prevent diagnosed respiratory infections including influenza, when worn by healthcare workers according to two large meta-studies. Though both had a protective effect over no mask. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4868605/) (2nd source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/)

3. When infected people wear a mask, it does help reduce the amount of viral shedding which occurs, presumably making them less likely to infect others. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/)

In fact, if you dig into the research evaluating different mask types including homemade masks, one of them suggests that the masks are actually MORE protective on the way in than they are in preventing shedding of aerosols: (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440799/) (2nd source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258525804_Testing_t...)

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#77

Post by kaikai »

ramshorns wrote: post #66
voldacar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weeks ago the CDC lied, saying that masks aren't effective and that the general public shouldn't wear them. They did this ostensibly to keep the existing mask supply available only to medical workers. Needless to say, if they're ineffective for the general public, they're ineffective for doctors and nurses. And so people saw through the bullshit

> Needless to say, if they're ineffective for the general public, they're ineffective for doctors and nurses. This isn't necessarily true. Doctors and nurses could have training on how to use masks, whereas most people will touch their faces more with them on.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Wearing a mask correctly, in a way that gets a proper seal, is something health care pros are trained to do and most people aren’t. If you’re constantly touching the mask (which has been concentrating particles in the air) and then touching other parts of your face, the mask is less effective.

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#78

Post by James_Henry »

thomasmeeks wrote: post #56
James_Henry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is an antiviral.

It is an anti-parasitic and immune-regulation drug. Not really an antiviral. I guess the theory is that it’d regulate an immune over-response. But I don’t think the science is m showing that to be true in this case.

Yes, it is an antimalarial. It also seems to be an antiviral, too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8546725

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10434...

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#79

Post by James_Henry »

wetpaws wrote: post #55
James_Henry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is an antiviral.

It also failed clinical trials for covid

Which trials has it failed? I've really only read through the French one and the one from Wuhan. There are plenty that are still ongoing, of course.

Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

#80

Post by evanpw »

greenburger wrote: post #64
jseliger wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not "current practice" or "737 MAX," which is a false binary; the main issue is whether the FDA is optimally hitting the space between "safety" and "getting new drugs and treatments fast," and it appears that the FDA is overly conservative. See for example Launching the Innovation Renaissance https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/12/la...

Not sure that I understand the argument. The FAA is also clearly not hitting optimal space between "safety" and "getting new planes flying fast". Sometimes it appears the FDA hasn't been conservative enough, see Vioxx and labelling/guidance around opioids.

The difference is that preventing new planes from entering the market doesn't kill people.
Post reply on HN