7 ms·

Hmmm; Is the Scientific American's "Observations" section equivalent to newspapers' "Opinions" or "Editorial"? Because while I agree with overall message ("Let

Hmmm; Is the Scientific American's "Observations" section equivalent to newspapers' "Opinions" or "Editorial"? Because while I agree with overall message ("Let's get serious about battling ticks and diseases they spread"), there is a strange mix of scientific/data-based; political/opinion-based; and just plain emotional imploring. It brings up the highly controversial Chronic Lyme topic right front and centre, but then attempts to steer itself ambiguously away from it (essentially, "Whatever the case, we need to fight it"). Can the author really be unaware of the immediate guard that will go up on every side of that thorny issue?

Jgrubb 7y ago
> The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Japhy_Ryder 7y ago
I agree. It wasn't a particularly well-written piece. The thesis? "Let's get serious!" Ok. How?
- tomxor 7y ago
  I agree too, even though I would like to see more focus on lyme... I wish they gave more convincing evidence of it being a serious yet comparably neglected disease - they compared to zika and west nile but still don't give a good picture of where it sits on the world stage of infectious diseases.
- eigenloss 7y ago
  For one thing, more funding would help. >In 2017, mosquito-borne West Nile virus, which currently infects about 2,000 people annually in the U.S. received $42 million in support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Lyme disease, with 20 times the number of reported cases, got half as much, a figure that has changed little in a decade. Doubling allocations for Lyme research and prevention to $50 million doesn't seem like an unreasonable or overcomplicated request. Congress allocated over a billion dollars for Zika [1] - a disease that something like 10 Americans ever had. How does it make sense that a disease actively affecting 400,000 Americans each year is allocated effectively $0 by the same Congress? [1] https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/senate-approves-zika-funding/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/senate-approves-zika-fun...
  - ajhurliman 7y ago
    Would more funding for attempting to link vaccinations to autism help?
    - eigenloss 7y ago
      No, and that's completely orthogonal to what I suggested! Congrats on breaking the HN guidelines... again.
      - ajhurliman 7y ago
        No, the two are analogous. The point is that more funding doesn't result in proving a point. You can spend all the money you want on this condition which doesn't exist, but more money won't suddenly turn this hallucination into reality. Also: Disagreeing with you does not constitute breaking guidelines.
        eigenloss 7y ago
        You think Lyme borreliosis in its entirety is a hallucination? I guess you wouldn't mind if I dumped a bunch of Lyme-carrying ticks in your home, then.
hycaria 7y ago
I'm stunned that so many people here endorse chronic lyme's existence and promote month/year long antibiotics use. It's scary.
- eigenloss 7y ago
  I'm stunned that you think people in this thread are promoting needless antibiotic use or "endorsing chronic lyme's existence." Please - do link the paper disproving the existence of chronic Lyme. Say you were diagnosed (via ELISA or Western blot) a few months/years ago with Lyme borreliosis. You take antibiotics for the recommended course, and your health has returned, but your tests are still quite positive. Your doctor(s) recommend continuing the antibiotic therapy. Would you rather that they terminate treatment despite (a) blood tests turning up positive and (b) symptoms continuing? Are doctors no longer permitted the last word in treating their own patients?
  - NikolaNovak 7y ago
    >> link the paper disproving the existence of chronic Lyme. I mean, regardless of the "side" or "stance", this is kind of the oldest, least honest logical fallacy in the book [1] - you're requiring somebody else to disprove existence of something? How, exactly? Typically, the burden of proof is on the entity making a claim. >>Are doctors no longer permitted the last word in treating their own patients? erm... no? I'm assuming there's a more profound intent behind this statement, but as it reads, no absolutely not. Doctors are not researchers, they are (to simplify, for purpose of this discussion) expert [and hopefully experienced] appliers of knowledge gained by others, over generations of hard work. "In case of discrepancy between sticker and system, the system price will be held correct": in case of discrepancy between some random doctor and accumulated body of knowledge, body of knowledge wins. For example, if my doctor tells me to ingest my own urine twice a day, and CDC & NIH tell me that is bollocks, the doctor empathically does not hold the last word. ---- As to the particulars of your claims when it comes to Lyme, observationally, people actively "shop" for a doctor that will prescribe them the treatment the patient desires. So the last word here is actually typically the patient's. :| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
dumbneurologist 7y ago
I'm a neurologist, which means I specialize in diseases of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves. The clinical entity of chronic lyme disease which is undiagnosable by conventional medicine and require months and months of antibiotics is pseudoscience. There is a large industry built to pedal treatments to purported sufferers. I don't want to be disrespectful of the people who report being helped by these treatments, but this is exactly the same situation as vaccinations causing autism: people being convinced by "obvious facts" that are ultimately supported by anecdotes but not science. The medical community can be wrong, for sure (h. pylori is a great example), but we notice treatments that help our patients, even when unconventional (the FDA approval of cannabis to treat epilepsy is the most recent example). This will eventually reach the same conclusion as the vaccination debate; hopefully with a lower price tag of dollars and lives.
- GiorgioG 7y ago
  I guess those of us who were bitten by ticks and have been sick ever since are just imagining our illnesses? Why is it that the medical establishment is fine with TB requiring 6 months of antibiotics, but because you can't believe that tick-borne diseases may take months to treat? It's time for the medical field to actually consider the possibility that prolonged tick-borne illnesses might be real. Is months of antibiotics the best treatment? I don't know, but it's the only treatment option I've been given. It sure beats an army of doctors (2 PCPs, 2 neurologists, rheumatologist, immunologist, and more) trying to convince me there's absolutely nothing wrong with me. Tell my wife, kids and friends that everything's fine - I'm exhausted from the time I get up to the time I go to bed, brain fog, working memory issues, etc. The only test that came back positive was rocky mountain spotted fever (4 months ago) and I've been feeling ill for almost 3 years. But you're right chronic tick-borne illnesses don't exist. For the record, I would likely believe it was quackery too if I wasn't living proof that it's real.
  - all_blue_chucks 7y ago
    > I guess those of us who were bitten by ticks and have been sick ever since are just imagining our illnesses? No, you're imagining the connection between the symptoms and the tick. Even if such a connection is real, the fact that things happened in this order is not evidence of anything.
ajhurliman 7y ago
Written by a woman who has contributed nothing but anti-scientific, pro-chronic Lyme misinformation to the journal (seriously, click on the author's name).
- eigenloss 7y ago
  > nothing but...misinformation Is this civil?

Jgrubb 7y ago

> The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Japhy_Ryder 7y ago

I agree. It wasn't a particularly well-written piece. The thesis? "Let's get serious!" Ok. How?

tomxor 7y ago
I agree too, even though I would like to see more focus on lyme... I wish they gave more convincing evidence of it being a serious yet comparably neglected disease - they compared to zika and west nile but still don't give a good picture of where it sits on the world stage of infectious diseases.
eigenloss 7y ago
For one thing, more funding would help. >In 2017, mosquito-borne West Nile virus, which currently infects about 2,000 people annually in the U.S. received $42 million in support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Lyme disease, with 20 times the number of reported cases, got half as much, a figure that has changed little in a decade. Doubling allocations for Lyme research and prevention to $50 million doesn't seem like an unreasonable or overcomplicated request. Congress allocated over a billion dollars for Zika [1] - a disease that something like 10 Americans ever had. How does it make sense that a disease actively affecting 400,000 Americans each year is allocated effectively $0 by the same Congress? [1] https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/senate-approves-zika-funding/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/28/senate-approves-zika-fun...
- ajhurliman 7y ago
  Would more funding for attempting to link vaccinations to autism help?
  - eigenloss 7y ago
    No, and that's completely orthogonal to what I suggested! Congrats on breaking the HN guidelines... again.
    - ajhurliman 7y ago
      No, the two are analogous. The point is that more funding doesn't result in proving a point. You can spend all the money you want on this condition which doesn't exist, but more money won't suddenly turn this hallucination into reality. Also: Disagreeing with you does not constitute breaking guidelines.
      - eigenloss 7y ago
        You think Lyme borreliosis in its entirety is a hallucination? I guess you wouldn't mind if I dumped a bunch of Lyme-carrying ticks in your home, then.

hycaria 7y ago

I'm stunned that so many people here endorse chronic lyme's existence and promote month/year long antibiotics use. It's scary.

eigenloss 7y ago
I'm stunned that you think people in this thread are promoting needless antibiotic use or "endorsing chronic lyme's existence." Please - do link the paper disproving the existence of chronic Lyme. Say you were diagnosed (via ELISA or Western blot) a few months/years ago with Lyme borreliosis. You take antibiotics for the recommended course, and your health has returned, but your tests are still quite positive. Your doctor(s) recommend continuing the antibiotic therapy. Would you rather that they terminate treatment despite (a) blood tests turning up positive and (b) symptoms continuing? Are doctors no longer permitted the last word in treating their own patients?
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  >> link the paper disproving the existence of chronic Lyme. I mean, regardless of the "side" or "stance", this is kind of the oldest, least honest logical fallacy in the book [1] - you're requiring somebody else to disprove existence of something? How, exactly? Typically, the burden of proof is on the entity making a claim. >>Are doctors no longer permitted the last word in treating their own patients? erm... no? I'm assuming there's a more profound intent behind this statement, but as it reads, no absolutely not. Doctors are not researchers, they are (to simplify, for purpose of this discussion) expert [and hopefully experienced] appliers of knowledge gained by others, over generations of hard work. "In case of discrepancy between sticker and system, the system price will be held correct": in case of discrepancy between some random doctor and accumulated body of knowledge, body of knowledge wins. For example, if my doctor tells me to ingest my own urine twice a day, and CDC & NIH tell me that is bollocks, the doctor empathically does not hold the last word. ---- As to the particulars of your claims when it comes to Lyme, observationally, people actively "shop" for a doctor that will prescribe them the treatment the patient desires. So the last word here is actually typically the patient's. :| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

dumbneurologist 7y ago

I'm a neurologist, which means I specialize in diseases of the brain, spinal cord, and nerves. The clinical entity of chronic lyme disease which is undiagnosable by conventional medicine and require months and months of antibiotics is pseudoscience. There is a large industry built to pedal treatments to purported sufferers. I don't want to be disrespectful of the people who report being helped by these treatments, but this is exactly the same situation as vaccinations causing autism: people being convinced by "obvious facts" that are ultimately supported by anecdotes but not science. The medical community can be wrong, for sure (h. pylori is a great example), but we notice treatments that help our patients, even when unconventional (the FDA approval of cannabis to treat epilepsy is the most recent example). This will eventually reach the same conclusion as the vaccination debate; hopefully with a lower price tag of dollars and lives.

GiorgioG 7y ago
I guess those of us who were bitten by ticks and have been sick ever since are just imagining our illnesses? Why is it that the medical establishment is fine with TB requiring 6 months of antibiotics, but because you can't believe that tick-borne diseases may take months to treat? It's time for the medical field to actually consider the possibility that prolonged tick-borne illnesses might be real. Is months of antibiotics the best treatment? I don't know, but it's the only treatment option I've been given. It sure beats an army of doctors (2 PCPs, 2 neurologists, rheumatologist, immunologist, and more) trying to convince me there's absolutely nothing wrong with me. Tell my wife, kids and friends that everything's fine - I'm exhausted from the time I get up to the time I go to bed, brain fog, working memory issues, etc. The only test that came back positive was rocky mountain spotted fever (4 months ago) and I've been feeling ill for almost 3 years. But you're right chronic tick-borne illnesses don't exist. For the record, I would likely believe it was quackery too if I wasn't living proof that it's real.
- all_blue_chucks 7y ago
  > I guess those of us who were bitten by ticks and have been sick ever since are just imagining our illnesses? No, you're imagining the connection between the symptoms and the tick. Even if such a connection is real, the fact that things happened in this order is not evidence of anything.

ajhurliman 7y ago

Written by a woman who has contributed nothing but anti-scientific, pro-chronic Lyme misinformation to the journal (seriously, click on the author's name).

eigenloss 7y ago
> nothing but...misinformation Is this civil?