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

91–100 of 186 posts

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

#91

Post by caycep »

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…

In my (brief) experience with PTLDS sufferers, there have been a couple of disturbing realizations/experiences:

1) it seems that "chronic lyme specialists" are physicians who realized that each patient they diagnose with "chronic lyme" is potentially a cash cow. In that they can be persuaded to pay out of pocket for regimens of IV infusions of antibiotics costing up to tens of thousands of dollars (and which make no antimicrobial sense). For years, because the "spirochete is hiding, round bodies, etc etc". The agents used also make no antimicrobial sense - when we show the med history to ID specialists and PharmD's, they just roll their eyes...

2) As a resident, we had a couple of cases roll through the door of a) temporal lobe epilepsy with mesial temporal sclerosis, b) Parkinson's disease, both pretty clear diagnoses, told by various "chronic lyme specialists" that their symptoms were due to Lyme,taken off their meds and put on strange regimens of IV ceftriaxone (at out of pocket expense) and ending up hospitalized as a result. With such severity that efforts were made to have the state board revoke the medical licenses of these practitioners.

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

#92

Post by loeg »

PHGamer wrote: post #50
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?

right but everyone is out and about. while people in asian wore masks when they went grocery shppping. i get what they did but they screwed civilians for sure in the name of saving doctors. they actively lied about them being needed so one group would have a better chance. the truth is if you were going to have any contact with someone you needed a mask.

> i get what they did but they screwed civilians for sure in the name of saving doctors. they actively lied about them being needed so one group would have a better chance.

Think a moment. The sick people need the doctors and nurses alive. Stripping the supply of PPE for medical professionals is lose-lose for everyone. Even if only all of the high-risk non-medical-workers bought effective masks, it would obliterate the supply available to nurses and doctors.

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

#93

Post by loeg »

wolco wrote: post #35
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll review the citations in this study once again, but the evidence for lingering spirochetes in humans is always thin. Much of it relies on indirect testing that is difficult to replicate or prone to laboratory errors. I'd love to be completely wrong and for this to be a game-changing solution, but after years of following this research I'm suspicious of the idea that persistent yet mysteriously undetectable (in hu…

The idea of lingering unwanted resistant bacteria not being killed by antibiotics have been shown true with other spore type bacteria. I don't have the background in this specific bacteria, why do you believe it would be so different?

It seems like their opinion is informed on the basis of the existing scientific evidence, which is eminently reasonable, IMO.

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

#95

Post by fiter »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #71
octodog wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 point…

From your study on point 2: "Results of our systematic review and meta-analysis show that there was no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks when used by health care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infections from patients. However, wide 95% CIs from our meta-analysis must be interpreted as insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a clinically significant difference."

What the study says is that we don't have enough information. As an example, one of the studies referenced in that study gives odds of 0.58 for getting infected with surgical and 0.42 with N95.

Bonus quote: "Furthermore, we do not have an adequate understanding of the number, size and dispersion of the droplets that contain live, infectious particles produced by infected patients.56 A laboratory-based study reported data that humans infected with influenza rarely produce aerosols that contain infectious viral particles.57 In 2 other laboratory studies, participants infected with influenza produced droplets containing viral RNA, but viral RNA could not be detected on manikin headforms or on filters of breathing manikins at distances as close as 0.1 m following participants breathing, counting, coughing or laughing.7"

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

#96

Post by Larrikin »

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.

When you know touching your face is the worst thing you can do this has personally been a proven lie. I assume if there is science behind a study that tracks people through out the day and shows people touch their face more often, that they were not told to avoid touching their face. I think to touch an eye brow or my hair and my face subtly moves and I feel the mask on my face and realize that I should not come anywhere close to my face. People are not stupid, they just need to be educated.

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

#97

Post by chidg »

loeg wrote: post #88
jnbiche wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not classic trolley problem, because there are no second order effects modeled in the trolley problem. In this case, there is a secondary effect which is that the public realises they've been lied to and loses trust in public health authorities, which is exactly what has happened. You can only do that a couple of times before the authority has no authority.

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

#98

Post by MaulingMonkey »

loeg wrote: post #88
jnbiche wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is not even remotely a given that throwing the switch is the correct answer. The Czech Republic made masks mandatory, met that requirement by churning out a bunch of homemade masks, and have supposedly been quite successful in flattening their infection curve in doing so.

Going forward, misinformation gives every anti-vaxxer, skeptic, conspiracy theorist, and snake oil peddling bullshitter more ammunition with which to displace effective medical treatment going forward. Even the well meaning general populace becomes skeptical. You know what this results in?

Dead kids. Covid parties.

Trust in government is already so fucking slow people are throwing covid parties. And now you're suggesting that undermining that trust even more is the obvious answer?

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

#99

Post by newsbinator »

loeg wrote: post #88
jnbiche wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is different. A public health organization can only lie at large scale once before it loses the credibility that allows it to function in the first place.

... probably.

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

#100

Post by MaulingMonkey »

loeg wrote: post #90
rendall wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>> CDC conducts critical science and provides health information

Lies undermine all of this. Lies undermine the means by which they accomplish their mission.

> the folks who were inclined to trust health organizations probably continue to do so as well

One point of ancedata: not all of us.

Post reply on HN