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

211–220 of 428 posts

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

#211

Post by gilbetron »

inter_netuser wrote: post #182
gilbetron wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We, as patients, pass around these apocryphal stories around, but don't look at the opposite experience of doctors. Doctors constantly, and I mean multiple times per day, get patients in that tell them their symptoms are due to disease or condition or complex X. Time and again, the patient is completely wrong. No, you don't have cancer, your lymph node hurts because it is fighting off an infection, and besides if it…

Hilarious you brought this up: "No, you don't have an ulcer, you're just eating too much ice cream before going to bed." Reflux is a very common food allergy symptom and milk is one of the most common allergen, if not THE most common. I've had 3 or 4 scopes that showed some mild inflammation, and GIs were simply lost. I've managed to locate a 90 year old allergist who probably began practicing before there was benadr…

I agree with the systemic problem that our healthcare system doesn't want to get to the bottom of symptoms. It drives me crazy, especially the "most cancer is treatable if caught early, but no we won't give you a diagnostic test to actually catch cancer early". I have direct experience with this, pushing through multiple doctors that ended with my thyroid cancer diagnosis.

My doctor at the time was actually really good, not because he was good at diagnosing, but he had enough experience to recognize his inability to do so and would always send me to an expert. He literally was 100% wrong about all of my major diagnoses (my hurt knee actually was a torn ACL, my abdominal pain actually was a hernia, my throat nodule actually was cancer), but he always sent me to a specialist to be sure. And he knew really good specialists. "I don't think it is X, but lets have a specialist verify" was his common refrain.

But, yeah, the system sucks now.

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

#212

Post by arn »

inter_netuser wrote: post #195
arn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean distrust of vaccination in general - at least by doctors. It was for a potential bioterrorist attack. It perhaps more reflects the low likelihood or belief that there would be a small pox attack. Meanwhile, 96% of physicians are vaccinated against COVID - https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sur...

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 that mean I'm anti-bullet proof vest? No. But I would wear a bullet proof vest in a war zone -- even if it's heavy.

If there was a widespread small pox outbreak in the U.S., I'm certain more than 10% of physicians would take the vaccine. Does that mean they were lying before? No.

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

#213

Post by loceng »

istjohn wrote: post #180
loceng wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I wonder if my executive dysfunction in part could be Lyme disease. I was bitten 10+ years ago - had to pull it off, though it hadn't been there long as it hadn't latched on deeply yet - it did cause a small ring; I did get and take short course of antibiotics immediately after as far as I remember. I've heard common bloodwork done is very poor at detecting it but is there a better or sure way of detecting it?

The article states that Lyme disease is only transmitted if the tic latches on for over 36 hours. The bacteria is latent in the tic's gut until blood is ingested, at which point it takes 36 hours for the bacteria to multiply and migrate to the tic's salivary glands.

Ah thanks - well, perhaps the mark was just my body reacting to its beginning attempt to attach.

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

#214

Post by istjohn »

cushychicken wrote: post #204

There was a shot to prevent Lyme disease developed in the late 90s, but antivax threw a fit about it, and it was discontinued. https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/prev/vaccine.html

As the article describes, the story is more complicated than that:

> Despite its shortcomings, Lymerix was initially popular. By July 2000, more than one million doses had been distributed. But safety concerns eventually sank the vaccine. While the FDA panel that approved Lymerix did so unanimously, several members wondered whether the vaccine might cause an autoimmune reaction leading to arthritis. A section of OspA resembles a human protein that modulates the immune response, and the concern of some on the FDA panel was that, after vaccination, the immune system would overcorrect and fight off not only the OspA protein that covered the bacteria, but also that human protein. Nothing like this occurred in Lymerix’s clinical trials.

> Shortly after Lymerix hit the market, those worries emerged nonetheless. Some recipients reported joint pain and arthritis, symptoms they blamed on the vaccine itself. The FDA found only 59 such adverse events out of 1.4 million doses administered, and did not find direct scientific evidence that the Lyme vaccine had caused them. Still, the questions over possible unintended effects were enough to dampen enthusiasm, especially after 121 Lymerix recipients filed a class-action lawsuit against the vaccine’s manufacturer. SmithKline Beecham, projecting sales of only 10,000 doses in 2002, decided to withdraw Lymerix from the market in February of that year. (The lawsuit was settled one year later, with more than $1 million paid out by the pharmaceutical company to cover the prosecuting lawyers’ fees, but no financial compensation was awarded to the plaintiffs.)

The new treatment in development avoids the problem by directly injecting antibodies instead of stimulating the immune system to create the antibodies as Lymerix did.

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

#215

Post by davnn »

Ticks are incredibly common where I live (Austria) and so is hiking. In our local "shark tank" show someone pitched a freezing/electroporation tool (modified lighter) to remove ticks; I guess [1] is the final product, which sounds pretty interesting IMHO.

[1] https://help-pen.com

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

#216

Post by nitrogen »

inter_netuser wrote: post #195
arn wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean distrust of vaccination in general - at least by doctors. It was for a potential bioterrorist attack. It perhaps more reflects the low likelihood or belief that there would be a small pox attack. Meanwhile, 96% of physicians are vaccinated against COVID - https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-sur...

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 the default.

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

#217

Post by emerongi »

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…

Right, I understand your point better now and agree. I'm not sure what medical training consists of today, but improvement on this issue should start there.

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

#218

Post by abruzzi »

justinpombrio wrote: post #209
abruzzi wrote: post #205

This is fascuinating. Fortunately I live in a state with very low numbers, both absolute and per-100k, but I was curious about how infections had spread across the country, so I found this data at the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/tables.html The really strange thing is Massachusetts. In 2010 they had 36.3 confirmed cases per 100k residents--one of the higher rates in the country at that time, but in 2019 they…

Well spotted. It's a reporting artifact: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZpyQMEthstNKhKNJQ/massachuse...

thanks for that link. Thats what I expected.

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

#219

Post by retzkek »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #150
jemurray wrote: post #75

I know this is about Lyme disease, but let me add another word of caution while we are discussing ticks. Two years ago I was bit by the Lone Star tick. Since that time I developed an allergy to all red meat. It was hard to diagnose and a few of the doctors I worked with along the years still don’t believe its true. If your interested in learning more search for Alpha Gal. There is an excellent Radio Lab podcast about…

> 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), no different from an MD. Don't confuse them with chiropractors (DC) or similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_Un...

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

#220

Post by istjohn »

Grazester wrote: post #146

Wasn't there already a shot being made a long time ago but was shut down due to a whole lot of hot air from critics and anti-vaxxers? https://time.com/6073576/lyme-disease-vaccine/

I think you're shortselling the critics. See the quote from the article in my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210290
Post reply on HN