Live data from Hacker News

A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

outsideonline.com

221–230 of 428 posts

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#221

As a US new england-er, this is game changer for walking through woods. For those un-informed, on a walk through any woods, you should always wear high socks, and do a full body check for ticks after. Deer ticks can be as small as a few grains of sand, and near undetectable if they latch on unless you have sharp eyes. Obviously they can transmit lymes. I had a close encounter a few years ago, but very luckily giant r…

Tall socks and trousers sure, but of course they'll get wherever. The only time I had one of them little suckers I only found out the next day... under my wristwatch!

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look: https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/628045/fneur-12-6... These are spirochetes in the brain/spine of a dead patient who had proven lyme diagnosis, has been given the standard treatment in the past, never recovered, developed dementia, died. Full study: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.6280... The wikipedia article you are quoting is outdated misinformation, please stop sprea…

I'd encourage anyone interested to do their own research. The scientific consensus today is what is stated in the linked wikipedia article. There are lot of myths around Lyme disease. https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/sponsor-story/nemours/20... Myth #5: Lyme disease can have debilitating, lifelong effects. Fact: When treated with antibiotics, Lyme disease, at any stage of presentation, is curable. Myth #6: My chil…

I know where you're coming from. I believe it is the appropriate attitude in discussing misinformation with, for example, covid.

BUT I really did do my own research with respect to Lyme, reading deeply into the peer-reviewed literature, and I came to the conclusion that the "scientific consensus" was formed by people too lazy or misguided to read it themselves.

For example, the consensus was that Lyme couldn't persist in humans after antibiotic treatment. But it DOES persist in other animals including primates. They could easily discover that because they could euthanize those other animals to see if it was there in their tissues, and it was. They couldn't do that with humans. The conclusion is OBVIOUSLY not that it can't happen in humans, but rather that we haven't proved it could. The "scientific consensus" got those outcomes confused, and assumed it couldn't.

But consider this quote from the OP article: "In May, her research team published their strongest evidence to date of persistent Lyme symptoms. In a unique finding, they discovered Lyme bacteria in the tissues of a deceased 69-year-old woman who contracted the disease, was treated multiple times with antibiotics, and still couldn’t clear the infection from her body.”

I was impressed by related evidence a couple years ago, such as an examination of the brains of people who had died of Alzheimer's. I don't remember the exact number, but something like 25% of those brains contained Lyme spirochetes. Note that there is a theory gaining traction recently that Alzheimer's is caused by the brain's attempts to manage active infections.

There is much, much more to say, and a LOT of research that goes in the opposite direction of what you're assuming in your post.

An anecdote: researchers tested hundreds of FDA-approved drugs in test tubes to see which ones worked best at killing Lyme spirochetes. Disulfiram won. My wife, who had lost her career as a retinal surgeon and researcher due to a chronic illness we thought might be chronic Lyme, took disulfiram under the care of her doctor who had treated Lyme patients for decades, and who was one of the first to try disulfiram in patients.

After the treatment, her illness disappeared. Our older son also had the same illness, which led to him taking a year off from school because he just couldn't function. He had been taking antibiotics for a couple years. At one point we stopped the antibiotics, and he felt great for a week, worse the next week, and in week 3 he was all the way back to being pretty nonfunctional with the symptoms attributed to "chronic Lyme". He, too, took disulfiram and was cured.

Note that we had long spent summers on Little Deer Isle, Maine, known for its deer and deer ticks.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#223
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That only happens in 30% of cases though. According to the CDC, its 70-80%[0]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/signs_symptoms/index.html

I think the “on the ground” answer varies depending on you, where you are and what insects are around. 70% of deer tick bites may carry Lyme, but the percentage of insect bites with red rings that are Lyme is probably different. If you’re walking through northeast pine forest or low density suburban woods, assume Lyme! Red rings from bites are not uncommon in general. I know I get a reaction from horse flies that loo…

Those of us who just went through the "Brood X" cicada emergence are now going through a glut of something called "oak mites", which apparently feed on the cicada eggs, but also just get everywhere. They are kind of like chiggers, burrowing under the skin, and are too small to see with the naked eye. The "bites" are particularly itchy and can also cause red splotching that may appear ring-like sometimes. I had a minor freak-out the first time I saw a splotch on my 3-yr-old's back, but it didn't spread and the blotchiness actually went away rather quickly. Luckily, these welts don't seem to last as long as mosquito bites.

Also, a tick-bite splotch doesn't always have to be ring-shaped.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#224

I think a good test for Lyme disease would be more important than a vaccine (which is welcome too if it works well). The problem with Lyme disease is that it's symptoms are very wide and generic, and the commonly used tests are not very reliable. This means that many people live with the disease not aware of it, while others self-diagnose Lyme disease and cure it even if they didn't have it (because they had symptoms…

The problem is that the treatments we currently have for Lyme disease only provide temporary relief for a sizeable minority of sufferers.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#225
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume the low likelyhood of the attack was the reason, that means 90% of those physicians could be lying. The stated reason for refusal was concerns about side effects. It's in the quote. What you stated as a fact, 96% vaccination rate, is actually a self-reported survey. Why do a survey when public health CDC records could simply be matched with the physician licensing registrars? Seems an automatic search l…

It's always cost-benefit. Relative risk of side effect directly relates to likelihood. Risk of side effects vs benefit of vaccine. I am not likely to take an HIV vaccine, since my personal chance of contracting HIV is incredibly low. So any side effect isn't "worth it" -- even a sore arm. But that doesn't mean I'm anti-vaccine. I also don't wear a bullet proof vest around because it's too heavy ("side effect"). Does…

did you read my comment?

covid 96% status is from an anonymous survey.

Why not just get CDC to provide actual hard data? Surely they keep vaccination records?

Should vaccination status of physician, as verified by the CDC, be public data?

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#226
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That only happens in 30% of cases though. According to the CDC, its 70-80%[0]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/signs_symptoms/index.html

Not the first time CDC would be wrong. EDIT: why downvote facts? Recent example on a hot topic: "CDC reverses itself and says guidelines it posted on coronavirus airborne transmission were wrong" https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/21/cdc-covid-a...

You should provide evidence, and when you go back and edit your response to do so, that evidence should be relevant to the discussion at hand.

There's a huge difference between data on a disease that's been studied for over 40 years, vs one that's only been around for a few months.

If you think the CDC got it's facts wrong on Lyme disease, it's as simple as saying "This source disagrees", and provide the source. Jumping to the conclusion that your unnamed source is more accurate than any other is another problem itself.

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#227
post #48

Lyme is just one of the horrible diseases ticks carry. Would be nice to cull most of the deer in the North East. A few decades ago they were rare, now they're everywhere.

Ticks are on all small mammals - field mice [1], rabbits, etc. Culling the deer won't be enough.

[1] Check out these tick tubes: https://blogs.cornell.edu/nysipm/2019/06/28/dont-make-your-o...

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume the low likelyhood of the attack was the reason, that means 90% of those physicians could be lying. The stated reason for refusal was concerns about side effects. It's in the quote. What you stated as a fact, 96% vaccination rate, is actually a self-reported survey. Why do a survey when public health CDC records could simply be matched with the physician licensing registrars? Seems an automatic search l…

The stated reason for refusal was concerns about side effects. As another comment already mentioned, smallpox vaccines (at least historically) tended to have undesirable side effects, like permanent scars. Smallpox vaccination is probably not a good proxy for vaccination overall. It's not worth getting vaccinated for smallpox unless you expect a decent risk of exposure. What do they have to hide? Privacy should be th…

they have a monopoly license, these things come with strings.

Do you want to go to anti-vaxx doctor?

Re: A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

#230
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always cost-benefit. Relative risk of side effect directly relates to likelihood. Risk of side effects vs benefit of vaccine. I am not likely to take an HIV vaccine, since my personal chance of contracting HIV is incredibly low. So any side effect isn't "worth it" -- even a sore arm. But that doesn't mean I'm anti-vaccine. I also don't wear a bullet proof vest around because it's too heavy ("side effect"). Does…

did you read my comment? covid 96% status is from an anonymous survey. Why not just get CDC to provide actual hard data? Surely they keep vaccination records? Should vaccination status of physician, as verified by the CDC, be public data?

Because even if I did point to official stats, you would say they are just lying?

A few months prior to the AMA survey, Long Term Care Facilities reported a 75% vaccination rate amongst physicians at their facilities. So presumably higher now.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7030a2.htm

Post reply on HN