Live data from Hacker News

Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests

scopeblog.stanford.edu

101–110 of 186 posts

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

#101
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lyme has three known forms of existence in mammals: 1) spirochete reproductive form and susceptible to a number of antibiotics (vitro/vivo) 2) round body "starvation forms" which are resistant to most antibiotics (vitro/vivo) 3) biofilm colonies which harbor many pathogens, metals and mycotoxins are resistant to antibiotics (think immunosuppression here) I've gone through a shit ton of tests in the last few years goi…

Buhner’s book is wonderful. Extremely well researched. Anecdotally, (n=3) his evidence-backed protocol worked to treat my family and I after antibiotics did not work.

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

#102
post #36

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…

Lyme disease talk just makes me think of Nicholas Zakas and then I get bummed out. I know there's a guy, or maybe he represents a group of researchers, who thinks that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is caused by inflammation in the brain, either due to some undetectable infection, or just a misfiring that is a lingering effect of some other insult (sounds to me like a histamine response aka allergy). If your body thought y…

Great writing.

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

#104
post #68

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…

Except they didn't specify surgical masks as opposed to N95.

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

#105
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.

The midwest is pretty infested too. Especially parts of WI and MN

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

#106
post #67

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…

A load of people in this thread are saying the CDC (and others) are lying about masks.

For members of the public walking around a mask provides at best marginal benefit, and that's only if the wearer complies with a strict regime of donning and doffing protocols, and if it's combined with a full set of other PPE (disposable gowns, gloves, eye shields) and frequent handwashing.

As soon as you drop any of those you're not just making the mask a bit less effective, you're probably increasing the risk over not wearing a mask at all.

There are a few routes of transmission -

fecal oral; fomites to hand and then to eyes, nose, or mouth; and droplets landing on your eyes or being breathed in.

It's likely that in members of the public the main route is touching an infected surface and then touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Masks only help with breathing in droplets, and they only help if they're worn correctly. Incorrect mask wearing increases risk because masks feel weird and cause people to touch their face more often, and because masks give permission to people to go outside and mingle in crowds.

There's not much research around whether members of the public can wear PPE correctly, but there's plenty of research around PPE and healthcare professionals. We know that qualified registered healthcare professionals who know the consequences of not wearing PPE correctly still struggle to do it all correctly.

> Most people aren't idiots - if the masks help protect medical professionals from Covid-19, they can also help non-medical professionals.

The difference is that healthcare professionals spend all day in close contact with symptomatic people and are more likely to come into contact with blood or fecal matter or sputum, and are more likely to be doing aerosol-generating procedures, so the baseline risk is much higher, so that marginal benefit turns into an actual benefit. But importantly they're not just wearing masks. They're wearing gowns and gloves and eye protection and they have access to water and soap and alcohol hand gels and infection control teams to train them on how to wear it correctly.

Here's what HCPs are wearing. Are you honestly suggesting this for members of the public? https://twitter.com/QEGateshead/status/1244208756600307712

Here's a simple graphic for donning: https://twitter.com/agtruesdell/status/1245470479059767297?s...

Here's a thread talking about donning, wearing, and doffing PPE. https://twitter.com/halletjulie/status/1245409318775767042?s...

This is not the CDC / WHO / etc lying, this is them talking about the science as they understand it. https://twitter.com/shinybluedress/status/124277978004452147...

> even a bandana can likely help prevent disease transmission

You're basing this on a small study carried out in a lab using research bacteria (not viruses) carried in a calibrated spray, that didn't include "people breathing through the mask". You've massively overstated those results.

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

#107
post #65

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

I remember reading the CDC website, and I don't remember them saying that. Their Jan 8 publication says: > CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to symptomatic patients with a history of travel to Wuhan City. Such patients should be asked to wear a surgical mask as soon as they are identified and be evaluated in a private room with the door closed. Personnel entering the room to evaluate the patient should use…

Right but if you can't tell if you're infected then you should always wear a mask. I mean how much more additional trouble is that then making everyone stay home.

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

#108
Coming from a farming background I spent a lot of time in close contact with grass etc. No one I know of ever came down with something like this but now it's becoming increasingly common though not among farmers. I have a suspicion that a lot of the people who would have formerly complained of Fibromyalgia, or mercury allergy, or ME are now getting this.

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

#109
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.

As a FYI, Slovenia is also a lyme disease hotspot. Do tick checks, wear long sleeve shirts and tuck trousers into your boots and your shirt into your trousers. Don't give the ticks any opportunity to crawl onto your skin.

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

#110

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…

“As far as I know, no one has ever demonstrated that Lyme spirochetes survive a course of standard antibiotics”

QFT.

While PTLDS is a real thing (being long-term sequelae to the original Lyme infection), be very wary of anything labeled “chronic lyme”, which is a common code-word concoction of “Lyme-literate” MDs/DOs, naturopaths, and other quacks for peddling their nostrums (including permanent courses of antibiotics; a great way to make anyone sick as a dog).

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=lyme

--

Bonus irony: GSK actually created a successful vaccine against Lyme 30 years ago:

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/7/17314716/lym...

No prizes for guessing who destroyed that.

Post reply on HN