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

81–90 of 186 posts

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

#81

Post by dempedempe »

oblib wrote: post #62

This has no bearing on the tests of this new drug, but it's worth noting that the best prevention is getting ticks off of you quickly. I know this because I live in a very tick infested area (Ozark Mountains) and very few people who've grown up here in families that have lived here for generations get lyme disease. I don't personally know anyone who has. Since I was kid in the `60s, and long before that, parents here…

I also live in the Ozarks. Pretty sure that the ticks that bear Lyme disease bacteria are practically non-existent in the Ozarks. They're more relegated to the North East.

Not to downplay the importance of tick checks and other prevention techniques.

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

#82

Post by dd36 »

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.

Yes, those are the ones that most desperately need treatment.

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

#83

Post by hannob »

James_Henry wrote: post #79
wetpaws wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as I'm aware there has been only one small RCT overall on hydroxychlroquine from china and there it failed. All the other things that were cited in HCQs favor were essentially garbage.

That's not to say it doesn't work. It was a small trial with issues. But right now it's the best evidence there is.

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

#84

Post by wetpaws »

James_Henry wrote: post #79
wetpaws wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zheijang study does not show any detectable effectiveness

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04261517

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

#85

Post by stinos »

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…

I'm not gonna bother digging up the others

You probably should though: this is HN, there are typcially quite some people with a background in academics here. Or just criticially thinking people in general who understand how science works on this planet. tldr; one single paper on a controversial subject isn't going to cut it as proof I'm afraid.

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

#86

Post by matsemann »

oblib wrote: post #62

This has no bearing on the tests of this new drug, but it's worth noting that the best prevention is getting ticks off of you quickly. I know this because I live in a very tick infested area (Ozark Mountains) and very few people who've grown up here in families that have lived here for generations get lyme disease. I don't personally know anyone who has. Since I was kid in the `60s, and long before that, parents here…

Not all ticks carry diseases, though. It depends on the area.

Traditionally areas with lots of deers (at least in my country), but they are now revisiting the idea it being directly linked with the amount of deers.

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

#87

Post by araara »

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…

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on the Internet. You might think you're convincing just one person, but you're educating hundreds more.

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

#88

Post by loeg »

jnbiche wrote: post #67
lone_post wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever consider that the CDC guidelines for masks were intended to prevent hoarding so that those treating patients on the front lines could access them?

No, I think most of us realized that. It's still not OK for the CDC to lie to the public, regardless of motive. For a public health organization, the end doesn't justify the means. Even more concerning are the number of doctors I've seen blatantly lying about the effectiveness of masks. Most people aren't idiots - if the masks help protect medical professionals from Covid-19, they can also help non-medical profession…

> For a public health organization, the end doesn't justify the means.

Why not? This is a classic trolley problem and throwing the switch is absolutely the correct answer.

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

#89

Post by fludlight »

cryptogoth wrote: post #57

To me, this is an interesting result for three reasons: 1) it appears to be effective against three main forms of the Borrelia spirochete: the normal corkscrew shape, the round-body cyst, and biofilm (they don't call it by that name, but say "drug-tolerant persisters" whose meaning I'm inferring from rest of the literature). 2) it was approved to be tested in mice, which is a step on the way to human clinical trials.…

Re: #1

I think you missed the caption on the black and green picture:

> This image shows how the Lyme bacteria, Borrelia burgdorferi, form protective round body "persisters" when threatened by defensive immune system biochemicals in blood serum.

Re: #2

You don't need approvals to test in mice.

Re: #3

Antibiotics kill/greatly-diminish gut flora. Azlocillin is an antibiotic related to penicillin.

The other promising drug mentioned, disulfiram, is nothing to be trifled with, either:

https://www.drugs.com/mtm/disulfiram.html

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/disulfiram-side-effects.html

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

#90

Post by loeg »

rendall wrote: post #59
lone_post wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever consider that the CDC guidelines for masks were intended to prevent hoarding so that those treating patients on the front lines could access them?

A public entity, whose stated mission is to provide timely and accurate information to the public, actually lies to the public in order to influence some third-hand outcome, such as less hoarding: a net positive? I would argue no, not a net positive at all. To start, nearly everyone now distrusts the CDC (and WHO) to deliver accurate information.

That is not their mission, stated or otherwise. The repeated emphasis is on health and saving lives.

> CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

> CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

I think the same people who were inclined to distrust health organizations probably continue to do so, and the folks who were inclined to trust health organizations probably continue to do so as well.

Post reply on HN