Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
171–180 of 186 posts
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#172Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#173Earlier 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…
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…
It's pretty fucking obvious that if you have Covid-19, and are expelling infected droplets into the air, almost any kind of mask will help reduce those droplets. I mean, wait for the double-blinded mask study (n=200) if you want. You may end up waiting for quite a while. Meanwhile, overall transmission rates in Asian mask-wearing countries are lower than Western transmission rates, despite taking many of the same precautions other than masks.
The point with masks, even rudimentary ones, is that they help prevent the wearer from transmitting respiratory disease.
And there's a point during a pandemic when you drop the Nature/Science level of evidence when you're talking about a relatively low-risk intervention like wearing a bandana.
In the words of the author of one the studies you disdain: "In normal times we'd say that if it wasn't shown statistically significant or the effective in real-world studies, we don't recommend it," he said. "But in the middle of a pandemic, we're desperate. The thinking is that even if it cuts down transmission a little bit, it's worth trying."
BTW, the author of the study I'm talking about here studied transmission of viral infections (influenza and coronaviruses) with an n of 111, not bacterial infections: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2 But there are multiple studies from the past decade that indicate that masks help prevent spread of respiratory viruses.
Finally, you harshly criticize my comment for lack of evidence, and yet you pull this one out: "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." We have no idea if that's true or not at this point.
And here's another statement you pulled out of nowhere: "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."
You seem to have started from a position of defending the CDC, and then from there gone on cherry pick evidence or pull statements out of thin air.
There are people I know working at the CDC that I respect a great deal. But this PR campaign to lie to the American people to preserve mask stocks was a bad, bad idea.
> We know that qualified registered healthcare professionals who know the consequences of not wearing PPE correctly still struggle to do it all correctly.
No significant difference between fitted and non-fitted N-95 masks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21477136
And no, I wasn't even talking about wearing hospital-level PPE. I was talking about masks, and even mentioned bandanas, for crying out loud. But keep on spearing that red herring.
And here yet again, obviously N95 masks can help prevent transmission of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-19. We know this to be true.
> This is not the CDC / WHO / etc lying, this is them talking about the science as they understand it.
You linked to some random ICU nurse, who makes some great points but has nothing to do with the CDC or WHO. But I agree that frontline health workers should absolutely have precedence to N-95 masks and other PPE.
> 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".
Finally, you have no idea what I'm basing this on. Actually, it's common sense here that if you're infected, even as an asymptomatic carrier, wearing a bandana can reduce spread of droplets.
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#174Earlier 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…
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…
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I think you raise an excellent point, that many don't really think about. Detection is hard, and research on microbes is hard if you can't grow them in-vitro. There is research in this space. A few years ago, I had a lecture from Slava Epstein, a professor who has made some major inroads in this space[0]. [0] https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1038/npro...
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#176This 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
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't Crohn's and IBS nigh disappear when using CBD heavy Cannabis? Pointing towards a combination of inflammation and stress.
Ibuprofen doesn't make the flu go away, but it protects you from having a seizure from high fever.
Disease modifiers like methotrexate or stelara will suppress aspects of the immune system, which protects the body from further damage. Ibuprofen on the other hand will mask pain but not modify the underlying issue.
If CBD was effective (for me it doesn't seem to be), then the challenge is in understanding if it is modifying the disease, or just hiding symptoms like ibuprofen would for pain.
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 di…
The quote you're referring to, regarding 95% CIs, in context specifically applies to comparing surgical masks vs. N95 respirators, not mask vs. no-mask. In other words, surgical masks are not shown to be worse than N95 respirators.
That's in complete agreement with the point 2 that you're apparently trying to refute.
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
To be clear, I'm just saying the CDC never lied. You can disagree with its recommendation to try and save the masks supplies for Health Workers and people showing symptoms, but it never said that masks are ineffective. If anything, it might have said that it's still unclear how effective they are, but even then, it clearly took the cautionary approach.
If you read to the contrary, that was probably just a poor news source spewing misinformation. Or at least, I cannot find where on the official CDC channels they would have lied.
Re: Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests
#180Note 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…