Lyme disease bacteria eradicated by new drug in early tests • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Apr 05, 2020, 10:04 AM UTC

jonathanjaeger wrote: post #4

When I got Lyme as a teenager I was very lucky to notice a bulls-eye pattern (which not everyone gets) and quickly get treatment, with no complications after. I wonder if this new drug, or any future drugs, that work for the 20% of the people that doxycycline doesn't help, will also help people who figured out they had Lyme very late after being infected.

I got rashes like those, in New York, and saw a dermatologist who seemed to have great difficulty recognizing them.

I got the regular treatment and it all cleared up, but it was an odd experience.

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

#182

Post by HeadsUpHigh » Sun, Apr 05, 2020, 10:09 AM UTC

darkerside wrote: post #132

HeadsUpHigh wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart talking aside it's possible and relatively easy to identify microbes without growing them. When an immuno-suppresive is effective at reducing symptoms you know it's an autoimmune disorder. You can even find specific anti-bodies in some cases. >You could really ask the same question about Crohn's or IBS. No you couldn't. They are clearly auto-immune disorders. Out of curiosity, do you have any formal training on…

> When an immuno-suppresive is effective at reducing symptoms you know it's an autoimmune disorder. Aren't there diseases where someone are caused not by the microbe directly but by the body's immune reaction to it? > Out of curiosity, do you have any formal training on medicine/physiology or is your knowledge base self-aquired? Argument from authority (or lack thereof) is pretty contrary to the HN ethos, imo. You're…

>Aren't there diseases where someone are caused not by the microbe directly but by the body's immune reaction to it?

There are symptoms that can be caused by that. The characteristic of an autoimmune disorder is that the response never ends( either chronic or with flare ups) or takes way longer than a normal one would.

> Argument from authority (or lack thereof) is pretty contrary to the HN ethos, imo. You're not right because your degree says so, but because the facts do.

What facts did you state then? I'm asking where does your thinking process stems from?

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

#183

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Apr 05, 2020, 10:13 AM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #172

Of course if we had a vaccine for Lyme, which already exists for dogs, this wouldn’t even be necessary, but hey, cures are more profitable than prevention...

The story of how the Lyme disease vaccine trials were successfully sabotaged is among the most shameful episodes in modern medicine.

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

#184

Post by modmans2nd » Sun, Apr 05, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #36

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…

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 thought the understanding is CFS is a physical manifestation of depression.

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

#185

Post by Beltiras » Tue, Apr 07, 2020, 12:37 PM UTC

aaronscott wrote: post #177

hinkley wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ibuprofen doesn't make the flu go away, but it protects you from having a seizure from high fever.

I have Crohns, and want to expand on what Hinkley is alluding to. Some drugs modify the expression of a disease which prevents further damage, and others just mask the issue. 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…

Thank you for your perspective. I did understand the point made by Hinkley. May I ask, did you use CBD only or THC with CBD? I've only known it to be effective with both.

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

#186

Post by rendall » Thu, Apr 09, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

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…

> I think the same people who were inclined to distrust health organizations probably continue to do so, and the folks who were inclined to trust health organizations probably continue to do so as well.

This implies that trusting public health organizations is some kind of personal preference? Or that health organizations are inherent liars? Not sure what you're getting at.

Let's adjust the statement a bit to parse out its meaning, and make it not about health organizations, but about lying organizations.

"I think the same people who were inclined to distrust [lying] organizations probably continue to do so, and the folks who were inclined to trust [lying] organizations probably continue to do so as well."

That's a true statement that I can get behind.