Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A shot to prevent Lyme disease could be on its way

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 428 posts

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

#311

Post by majormajor »

im3w1l wrote: post #277
wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

> 76-92 percent after three injections That's not a lot. Like sure if herd immunity was on the table it might have been, but lyme has an animal reservoir. Like if I had 76% immunity I would still panic every time I saw a tick, so then what is the point?

"Not panicking" is not the goal of the vaccine. The instinctive reaction of the human brain around panicking the same amount over an X chance versus a 4X chance of something happening is a brain bug, not a reason to avoid a vaccine.

That 76% (or more) reduction in risk of your panic turning into serious disease is the reason to get the vaccine even if you're still panicky.

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

#312

Post by notabee »

shockeychap wrote: post #295
notabee wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shingles is caused by varicella (chickenpox) virus that's already latent in your nerves. Really unlikely that it was a "co-infection", it just reactivated because your body was busy fighting Lyme.

I'm not sure what you think "co-infection" means, but you just described precisely that. The reactivation of shingles meant that he was simultaneously infected with two different agents. "Co-infection" (for me at least) implies nothing about how or where the secondary infection came from.

That's fair. It's a really commonly implied thing among the quackier side of Lyme treatment that every tick is going to unload a clown car full of pathogens (used to justify even more unvalidated tests). But, by the definition, it's just co-occurring infections regardless of vector.

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

#313

Post by dkarl »

kortex wrote: post #193
emerongi wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of it is just science catching up to what is observed in the real world. I agree that many practicing doctors are operating on out-of-date knowledge, so if you happen on one of those and start talking about CFS, you might not get a positive reaction. Isn't it the same as unknowingly hiring a bad contractor, though? Doesn't mean that the engineering community is not trying to find more efficient and better ways…

> CFS is a recognized disorder by the medical community, although the causes are unkown. My point was, it wasn't even a recognized disorder until fairly recently. As I understand it, part of the problem is a cottage industry of quackish medicine sprung up around the unfalsifiability of chronic Lyme and CFS. But instead of the medical community taking an agnostic stance "we see you are suffering but we can't explain i…

> there was a strong push in the opposite direction, asserting that it's psychosomatic / "only in your head" / "here's some antidepressants."

As a counterpoint to this, my first exposure to chronic fatigue syndrome came while I was dealing with depression and getting psychotherapy for the first time. CFS popped up in the news, and a friend guided me to a web forum where I'd get the "unfiltered" version from people who suffered from it. What jumped out to me about that community, given my struggle with depression at the time, was that it was a cesspool of stigma against mental illness. The experiences people reported varied over a wide spectrum, but there was a significant contingent of people with classic symptoms of depression along with the vague physical complaints that most people have, outraged that doctors would be so insulting as to suggest depression or other psychological explanations. If there was one belief that united the community, one shared credo, it was that they deserved a physical diagnosis because their dignity required it, and they would not accept a psychological diagnosis because it would render them unworthy of sympathy. One person summed up the consensus succinctly by saying it was an outrage for doctors to suggest that they were "just too lazy and too stupid to get their lives together." That was unwelcome, but valuable, confirmation of how some people saw depression, and it made me more guarded about when and how I talked about it.

So it cuts both ways. I'm sure there are doctors who arrogantly label any patient they can't figure out as "crazy," but I'm just as sure there are patients who overreact, angrily, to any mention of psychological causes or treatments.

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

#314

Post by spicybright »

sva_ wrote: post #45
spicybright wrote: post #23

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…

> 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

Huh, didn't know. Just quoting my dermatologist with that.

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

#315

Post by tdeck »

pwenzel wrote: post #254
wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

I live in Minnesota and am being treated for Lyme disease for the second time in 15 months. It's no joke. The first time I got Lyme, it came with a painful shingles co-infection on top of the usual symptoms. Now the second time, I am again worried about getting sick with something else while in an immunocompromised state. The fatigue, fever, and back pain that came along this second time was worse than the first. I n…

I had Lyme twice as a kid too (in suburban Pennsylvania). It's not fun and it's a bit crazy that you can get it more than once. People are usually shocked when I tell them. I knew someone who was temporarily paralyzed on one side because of Lyme that they diagnosed late - it's scary.

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

#316

Post by capitainenemo »

computer23 wrote: post #237
bobo_legos wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kris Kirstofferson was told by doctors that his memory loss was either Alzheimer's or Dementia. Another doctor finally decided to test him for lyme. Turns out he he probably got bitten by a tick shooting a movie 10 years prior to the positive test. https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/kris-kristofferson-an-o...

It wasn't Lyme. Kris Kirstofferson is a victim of quackery: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2016/07/08/kris-kristofferso...

Hm. That blog post claims "chronic lyme disease does not exist"

https://news.tulane.edu/pr/study-finds-evidence-persistent-l...

I'm reading up on all this just now due to the HN front page articles, but these 2 seem to be in contradiction.

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

#317

Post by nate_meurer »

spicymaki wrote: post #27
mschuster91 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in the US legal system that uses laypeople as judges ("juries"), lawsuits tend to be won by those who put on the best play for the juries, not by those who have the better arguments on their side like in Continental Europe. And to make matters worse, sometimes juries go for obscenely excessive damages against companies to "make a point" - just look at the McDonald's coffee case.

The McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was not frivolous[1][2]. The company served coffee at extremely dangerous temperatures. The claimant had severe third degree burns and only wanted McDonald’s to pay for her medical expenses. McDonald’s had a least 700 complaints about the problem before the lawsuit and did nothing until after the lawsuit. Please stop repeating corporate propaganda. [1] https://youtu.be/s_jaU5V9FUg [2] ht…

No, what happened to Stella Liebeck was terrible, and it's right that she had the public's sympathy, however her coffee was not excessively hot by modern standards.

Stella's coffee was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like SCAA and NCA [1]. The NCA recommends that coffee be held and served at around 180-185 deg F (~80-85 deg C), which is likely near the temperature at which Stella was burned. This is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by coffee shops, restaurants, and home brewing machines to this day.

Stella Liebeck took her cup of coffee and squeezed it between her legs in order to fiddle with the lid. The result was tragic, but completely expected. If I spill a fresh cup of Starbucks coffee on my crotch today, I fully expect to sustain third-degree burns. So I take a little extra care with it until it has cooled to drinking temperature, which happens pretty quickly.

Tea is generally even hotter. Any good tea shop will serve a pot of freshly boiled water, at least twenty degrees hotter than hot coffee. Spilling that on yourself is guaranteed to melt your skin. Great care is warranted.

Again, what happened to Stella was terrible. She didn't deserve it, and she didn't deserve the hate she got afterward. But she did something really stupid. I sympathize, because I do stupid stuff all the time, and I have the scars to remind me.

We're surrounded by extremely dangerous things that require great care to use properly. It's useful for coffee to be held and served hot, just as it's useful for knives to be sharp and cars to be able to reach highway speeds. There will inevitably be accidents, but making the world completely safe for people who use these things carelessly would mean depriving everyone of their proper use.

1 - https://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

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

#318

Post by _huayra_ »

wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

Don't worry pal I gotcha here:

1. Form The High Church of Vaccination

2. Claim vaccination as a sacrament

3. Watch the craven fascist majority of the US supreme court (i.e. all of the ones that fashion themselves as lil Scalias, but have terrible writing that reeks of double standards, if any at all, and dog whistles to their base) try to somehow toss the case for not having standing while trying to not undo any of the religious exemptions that they've blown open in the last decade or so (e.g. from Hobby Lobby to the recent shadow docket thing in NYC against Cuomo)

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

#319

Post by NortySpock »

retzkek wrote: post #219
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was hard to diagnose and a few of the doctors I worked with along the years still don’t believe its true. Did they offer alternative explanations or did they simply stonewall you and deny your reported symptoms? One of the lessons I learned far too late in life was to not waste time with doctors who don’t believe your reported symptoms. On some level I understand how it happens — Doctors inevitably see a number…

I've generally had better experiences with DOs than MDs when it comes to listening and working with me to understand how and what I feel. On the other hand some people may prefer the more "clinical" (not sure if that's the best word) approach of MDs. So just something to keep in mind if you're unhappy with your current doctor. edit: For those not aware, a DO is fully licensed to practice medicine (in the US at least)…

DO: Doctor of Osteopathy , an osteopathic physician

Thought I'd de-acronym-it for you; and yes, my MD father tells me a DO is just as good as an MD.

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

#320

Post by irq-1 »

wildmanx wrote: post #236

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I…

> Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook.

If a for-profit corporation includes a warning in a EULA they're off the hook?? That's definitely not the principle we should use to evaluate new drugs.

If the company decided to take it off the market, when there are always lawsuits about new drugs, what should we do? Should we liberate the drug from the company and let others sell it? The system we have now lets Medical Doctors decide when a drug should be approved, and when it should be on the market.

Post reply on HN