8 ms·

Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease. >RESULTS: Motile spirochetes identified histopathologically as Borrelia were d

by vimy 7y ago

Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease. >RESULTS: Motile spirochetes identified histopathologically as Borrelia were detected in culture specimens, and these spirochetes were genetically identified as Borreliaburgdorferi by three distinct polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based approaches. Spirochetes identified as Borrelia burgdorferi were cultured from the blood of seven subjects, from the genital secretions of ten subjects, and from a skin lesion of one subject. Cultures from control subjects without Lyme disease were negative for Borrelia using these methods https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662016 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662016 The CDC is wrong and negligent about persistent Lyme. Just like they are about the masks for covid-19. This is just one study demonstrating spirochetes surviving. I'm not gonna bother digging up the others, honestly not worth my time to try and convince one random person. Look up disulfiram and it's effects on Lyme patients. It's another drug discovered in the same way as this one. Miraculous.

torgoguys 7y ago
The linked study's lead author is Middelveen. Isn't she the one who tried to say Lyme is an STD a few years back? I know nothing about the linked study, haven't read it, but her sloppiness with scientific rigor makes me nervous about taking the abstract at face value...
djsumdog 7y ago
> Just like they are about the masks for covid-19 What is the CDC saying about masks for covid-19? Are you saying they're not effective or the CDC is downplaying their effectiveness?
- voldacar 7y ago
  Weeks ago the CDC lied, saying that masks aren't effective and that the general public shouldn't wear them. They did this ostensibly to keep the existing mask supply available only to medical workers. Needless to say, if they're ineffective for the general public, they're ineffective for doctors and nurses. And so people saw through the bullshit
  - didibus 7y ago
    I remember reading the CDC website, and I don't remember them saying that. Their Jan 8 publication says: > CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to symptomatic patients with a history of travel to Wuhan City. Such patients should be asked to wear a surgical mask as soon as they are identified and be evaluated in a private room with the door closed. Personnel entering the room to evaluate the patient should use contact precautions and wear an N95 disposable facepiece respirator - https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/HAN00424.asp https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/HAN00424.asp And on Feb 21 their FAQ said: > Q: Does CDC recommend the use of facemask in the community to prevent COVID-19? > A: CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected. The use of facemasks also is crucial for health workers and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings (at home or in a health care facility). - https://wayback.archive-it.org/13529/20200221195555/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html https://wayback.archive-it.org/13529/20200221195555/https://... So I'm not seeing where they ever said they were not effective. It says that if you are sick or showing symptoms you should wear a mask, but that they don't advise the general public to wear a mask because they are crucial to health care workers. To me this sounds like very good advice.
    - djmips 7y ago
      Right but if you can't tell if you're infected then you should always wear a mask. I mean how much more additional trouble is that then making everyone stay home.
      - didibus 7y ago
        That there wasn't enough masks? To be clear, I'm just saying the CDC never lied. You can disagree with its recommendation to try and save the masks supplies for Health Workers and people showing symptoms, but it never said that masks are ineffective. If anything, it might have said that it's still unclear how effective they are, but even then, it clearly took the cautionary approach. If you read to the contrary, that was probably just a poor news source spewing misinformation. Or at least, I cannot find where on the official CDC channels they would have lied.
- wetpaws 7y ago
  CDC plain saying they are not effective and not recommending them
  - octodog 7y ago
    Wrong. It's much more nuanced than that. Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection. New data on asymptomatic spreaders means than public health authorities are considering changing their advice. The default assumption would then be that everyone has it, and should therefore wear a mask to prevent spreading it.
    - wetpaws 7y ago
      >Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection. This is a common misconception, for which CDC is also partially the one to be blamed. Laboratory tests find that improvised cloth masks block 60 – 80% of virus particles Most experts in the early 2000s agreed that these masks were probably better than nothing. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/S1935789313000438a.pdf/testing_the_efficacy_of_homemade_masks_would_they_protect_in_an_influenza_pandemic.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c... http://akkie.mods.jp/2019-nCoV/images/c/c0/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AB%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AF%E5%8C%BB%E7%99%82vs%E5%B8%82%E4%B8%AD%E6%84%9F%E6%9F%93%E4%BA%88%E9%98%B2%EF%BC%9A%E7%B7%8F%E8%AA%AC_%282015%2C_MacIntyre%29.pdf http://akkie.mods.jp/2019-nCoV/images/c/c0/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B...
      - bregma 7y ago
        > Laboratory tests find that improvised cloth masks block 60 – 80% of virus particles How many virus particles do you need to become infected? Is 20% of the load in a typical aerosol droplet from an asymptomatic infected person above or below that critical number?
        7y ago
lone_post 7y ago
Did you ever consider that the CDC guidelines for masks were intended to prevent hoarding so that those treating patients on the front lines could access them?
- PHGamer 7y ago
  right but everyone is out and about. while people in asian wore masks when they went grocery shppping. i get what they did but they screwed civilians for sure in the name of saving doctors. they actively lied about them being needed so one group would have a better chance. the truth is if you were going to have any contact with someone you needed a mask.
  - loeg 7y ago
    > i get what they did but they screwed civilians for sure in the name of saving doctors. they actively lied about them being needed so one group would have a better chance. Think a moment. The sick people need the doctors and nurses alive. Stripping the supply of PPE for medical professionals is lose-lose for everyone. Even if only all of the high-risk non-medical-workers bought effective masks, it would obliterate the supply available to nurses and doctors.
    - bbarnett 7y ago
      Think indeed. Lie once, lie always. Honesty is imperative for a public trust. Now, what do you think the crazy anti-vaxxers will say, next time they're told to trust the CDC, and other public bodies, and that vaccination is safe, and makes sense? When a vaccine is created, perhaps, for this virus? Now it is easier to convince others that the truth is concealed. That lies abound. Any medical official should lose their license, for spreading quackery.
- wetpaws 7y ago
  Front line personel and hospitals should've been prepared months if not years in advance.
- rendall 7y ago
lymeeducator 7y ago
Lyme has three known forms of existence in mammals: 1) spirochete reproductive form and susceptible to a number of antibiotics (vitro/vivo) 2) round body "starvation forms" which are resistant to most antibiotics (vitro/vivo) 3) biofilm colonies which harbor many pathogens, metals and mycotoxins are resistant to antibiotics (think immunosuppression here) I've gone through a shit ton of tests in the last few years going over much of this. I have relatives that experienced it as well. There is growing scientific evidence a ton of clinical improvement, yet "anecdotal" patient evidence that many of these pathogens can persist beyond initial treatment. Buhner does an excellent job of explaining some of this in "Healing Lyme" and backs it up with studies from around the world. His protocols certainly help people (myself included). Immune expression and context is a tough nut to crack and we need billions of more data points capturing cytokine signaling in conjunction with T-cell, Nk cells, mast cells, antibodies, etc to get a better understanding of HOW UNIQUE EACH IMMUNE RESPONSE IS TO A PATHOGEN. Life on our planet is biological and tightly coupled with bacterial/parasitic/viral pathogens and would not exist without them. Things quickly change through reproduction or in the case of Borellia by shifting its outer protein to better evade compromised immune systems. Or has there just been one flu/corona/etc viral strain in the last hundred years? (<- No). These things have remained in existence for a long time, it is foolish to think they cannot adapt. Mind the 'gap' with disulfiram. It seems side effects vary, but also the quick elimination of Lyme, Babesia (not sure about Bartonella, which is mainly endothelial), and the cytokines cascades they trigger, but removing them all it once vs reducing them from severe to immune manageable levels might cause its own set of issues. I won't bring up the CDC as they've failed millions of Lymies at this point with poor test protocols and failure to push for more research data. Test skipping 31, 34 antibody proteins when they are primary Borellia proteins (if the body is able to produce them, immunocomprimised or the load from multiple infections). The single dose doxy is absolute bullshit (1 data point from me). The denial that ticks can transmit Borellia (Lyme) and Bartonella in the same bite (bullshit, many tick samples on both costs show something like 2.6 pathogen average). In my personal experience, Bartonella is an absolute bitch to get rid of. We need to better educate ourselves by owning all of our data in a way that enables us to submit it to research projects that are publically funded and not driven by patent revenue which pushes economies of scale. (off soapbox now :-)
- 7y ago
PragmaticPulp 7y ago
> Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease. This paper is from Marianne J Middelveen, who is well known for embracing quackery and producing questionable papers. Her earlier claims that Lyme is a sexually transmitted disease were quickly dismissed, though not before generating a lot of noise in the media: https://www.aldf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lyme-Borreliosisis-is-not-Sexually-Transmitted-12.30.16.pdf https://www.aldf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lyme-Borreli... She also writes papers about "Morgellons Disease", a delusional disorder in which patients believe threads and fibers from their clothing and other fabric are actually sprouting from within their skin. The condition is universally acknowledged as a delusional disorder, but MJ Middelveen treats it as a real disease with no real evidence. > I'm not gonna bother digging up the others, honestly not worth my time to try and convince one random person. This is my least favorite part of discussing Lyme online. So many people are deeply convinced of their chosen narrative that they unquestioningly accept any papers that support their claims, while refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. This has created quite the market for pseudoscientific researchers to peddle narratives and pseudo-research that meets the demand for what people want to hear. In the end, it only sets the field back. I would love to see a magic combination of antibiotics that reverse PTLDS symptoms, but decades of high-dose, extended duration antibiotic trials have provided zero benefit to patients, despite the demand.
- hhas01 7y ago
  “This is my least favorite part of discussing Lyme online. So many people are deeply convinced of their chosen narrative that they unquestioningly accept any papers that support their claims, while refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. This has created quite the market for pseudoscientific researchers to peddle narratives and pseudo-research that meets the demand for what people want to hear.” SCAM SOP. Because it’s all about Them. Peddlers reap wealth and adulation; victims are miserable AF but “vindicated”. Talk about mutual parasitosis.
- FranciscusG 7y ago
  You're right about the quacks and the delusions. I have auto-immune issues after a Bb infection and after three years of high-dosed Doxycycline I still tested positive for IgM (active infection). Tested by a German state-accredited reference lab. I'm self employed and never asked for disability money, never kept going to doctors to try to solve the issue. I now have CFS and Rheumatoid Arthritis and when I stop taking Doxycycline (I try that all the time, I hate taking pills), I get severe neurological problems, such as incontinence and my breathing stops all the time and many other symptoms such as extreme tachycardia in rest, aggression etc. Something is wrong. Does Doxycycline manage my CNS inflammation or are there still spirochetes?
stinos 7y ago
I'm not gonna bother digging up the others You probably should though: this is HN, there are typcially quite some people with a background in academics here. Or just criticially thinking people in general who understand how science works on this planet. tldr; one single paper on a controversial subject isn't going to cut it as proof I'm afraid.
araara 7y ago
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on the Internet. You might think you're convincing just one person, but you're educating hundreds more.

by vimy 7y ago

torgoguys 7y ago

The linked study's lead author is Middelveen. Isn't she the one who tried to say Lyme is an STD a few years back? I know nothing about the linked study, haven't read it, but her sloppiness with scientific rigor makes me nervous about taking the abstract at face value...

djsumdog 7y ago

> Just like they are about the masks for covid-19 What is the CDC saying about masks for covid-19? Are you saying they're not effective or the CDC is downplaying their effectiveness?

voldacar 7y ago
Weeks ago the CDC lied, saying that masks aren't effective and that the general public shouldn't wear them. They did this ostensibly to keep the existing mask supply available only to medical workers. Needless to say, if they're ineffective for the general public, they're ineffective for doctors and nurses. And so people saw through the bullshit
- didibus 7y ago
  I remember reading the CDC website, and I don't remember them saying that. Their Jan 8 publication says: > CDC currently recommends a cautious approach to symptomatic patients with a history of travel to Wuhan City. Such patients should be asked to wear a surgical mask as soon as they are identified and be evaluated in a private room with the door closed. Personnel entering the room to evaluate the patient should use contact precautions and wear an N95 disposable facepiece respirator - https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/HAN00424.asp https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/HAN00424.asp And on Feb 21 their FAQ said: > Q: Does CDC recommend the use of facemask in the community to prevent COVID-19? > A: CDC does not recommend that people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19. You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it. A facemask should be used by people who have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. This is to protect others from the risk of getting infected. The use of facemasks also is crucial for health workers and other people who are taking care of someone infected with COVID-19 in close settings (at home or in a health care facility). - https://wayback.archive-it.org/13529/20200221195555/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html https://wayback.archive-it.org/13529/20200221195555/https://... So I'm not seeing where they ever said they were not effective. It says that if you are sick or showing symptoms you should wear a mask, but that they don't advise the general public to wear a mask because they are crucial to health care workers. To me this sounds like very good advice.
  - djmips 7y ago
    Right but if you can't tell if you're infected then you should always wear a mask. I mean how much more additional trouble is that then making everyone stay home.
    - didibus 7y ago
      That there wasn't enough masks? To be clear, I'm just saying the CDC never lied. You can disagree with its recommendation to try and save the masks supplies for Health Workers and people showing symptoms, but it never said that masks are ineffective. If anything, it might have said that it's still unclear how effective they are, but even then, it clearly took the cautionary approach. If you read to the contrary, that was probably just a poor news source spewing misinformation. Or at least, I cannot find where on the official CDC channels they would have lied.
wetpaws 7y ago
CDC plain saying they are not effective and not recommending them
- octodog 7y ago
  Wrong. It's much more nuanced than that. Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection. New data on asymptomatic spreaders means than public health authorities are considering changing their advice. The default assumption would then be that everyone has it, and should therefore wear a mask to prevent spreading it.
  - wetpaws 7y ago
    >Surgical masks are not effective at preventing infection. They are effective at spreading infection. This is a common misconception, for which CDC is also partially the one to be blamed. Laboratory tests find that improvised cloth masks block 60 – 80% of virus particles Most experts in the early 2000s agreed that these masks were probably better than nothing. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/4/e006577.full.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0921A05A69A9419C862FA2F35F819D55/S1935789313000438a.pdf/testing_the_efficacy_of_homemade_masks_would_they_protect_in_an_influenza_pandemic.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c... http://akkie.mods.jp/2019-nCoV/images/c/c0/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AB%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B9%E3%82%AF%E5%8C%BB%E7%99%82vs%E5%B8%82%E4%B8%AD%E6%84%9F%E6%9F%93%E4%BA%88%E9%98%B2%EF%BC%9A%E7%B7%8F%E8%AA%AC_%282015%2C_MacIntyre%29.pdf http://akkie.mods.jp/2019-nCoV/images/c/c0/%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B...
    - bregma 7y ago
      > Laboratory tests find that improvised cloth masks block 60 – 80% of virus particles How many virus particles do you need to become infected? Is 20% of the load in a typical aerosol droplet from an asymptomatic infected person above or below that critical number?
      - 7y ago

lone_post 7y ago

Did you ever consider that the CDC guidelines for masks were intended to prevent hoarding so that those treating patients on the front lines could access them?

PHGamer 7y ago
right but everyone is out and about. while people in asian wore masks when they went grocery shppping. i get what they did but they screwed civilians for sure in the name of saving doctors. they actively lied about them being needed so one group would have a better chance. the truth is if you were going to have any contact with someone you needed a mask.
- loeg 7y ago
  > i get what they did but they screwed civilians for sure in the name of saving doctors. they actively lied about them being needed so one group would have a better chance. Think a moment. The sick people need the doctors and nurses alive. Stripping the supply of PPE for medical professionals is lose-lose for everyone. Even if only all of the high-risk non-medical-workers bought effective masks, it would obliterate the supply available to nurses and doctors.
  - bbarnett 7y ago
    Think indeed. Lie once, lie always. Honesty is imperative for a public trust. Now, what do you think the crazy anti-vaxxers will say, next time they're told to trust the CDC, and other public bodies, and that vaccination is safe, and makes sense? When a vaccine is created, perhaps, for this virus? Now it is easier to convince others that the truth is concealed. That lies abound. Any medical official should lose their license, for spreading quackery.
wetpaws 7y ago
Front line personel and hospitals should've been prepared months if not years in advance.
rendall 7y ago

lymeeducator 7y ago

Lyme has three known forms of existence in mammals: 1) spirochete reproductive form and susceptible to a number of antibiotics (vitro/vivo) 2) round body "starvation forms" which are resistant to most antibiotics (vitro/vivo) 3) biofilm colonies which harbor many pathogens, metals and mycotoxins are resistant to antibiotics (think immunosuppression here) I've gone through a shit ton of tests in the last few years going over much of this. I have relatives that experienced it as well. There is growing scientific evidence a ton of clinical improvement, yet "anecdotal" patient evidence that many of these pathogens can persist beyond initial treatment. Buhner does an excellent job of explaining some of this in "Healing Lyme" and backs it up with studies from around the world. His protocols certainly help people (myself included). Immune expression and context is a tough nut to crack and we need billions of more data points capturing cytokine signaling in conjunction with T-cell, Nk cells, mast cells, antibodies, etc to get a better understanding of HOW UNIQUE EACH IMMUNE RESPONSE IS TO A PATHOGEN. Life on our planet is biological and tightly coupled with bacterial/parasitic/viral pathogens and would not exist without them. Things quickly change through reproduction or in the case of Borellia by shifting its outer protein to better evade compromised immune systems. Or has there just been one flu/corona/etc viral strain in the last hundred years? (<- No). These things have remained in existence for a long time, it is foolish to think they cannot adapt. Mind the 'gap' with disulfiram. It seems side effects vary, but also the quick elimination of Lyme, Babesia (not sure about Bartonella, which is mainly endothelial), and the cytokines cascades they trigger, but removing them all it once vs reducing them from severe to immune manageable levels might cause its own set of issues. I won't bring up the CDC as they've failed millions of Lymies at this point with poor test protocols and failure to push for more research data. Test skipping 31, 34 antibody proteins when they are primary Borellia proteins (if the body is able to produce them, immunocomprimised or the load from multiple infections). The single dose doxy is absolute bullshit (1 data point from me). The denial that ticks can transmit Borellia (Lyme) and Bartonella in the same bite (bullshit, many tick samples on both costs show something like 2.6 pathogen average). In my personal experience, Bartonella is an absolute bitch to get rid of. We need to better educate ourselves by owning all of our data in a way that enables us to submit it to research projects that are publically funded and not driven by patent revenue which pushes economies of scale. (off soapbox now :-)

7y ago

PragmaticPulp 7y ago

> Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease. This paper is from Marianne J Middelveen, who is well known for embracing quackery and producing questionable papers. Her earlier claims that Lyme is a sexually transmitted disease were quickly dismissed, though not before generating a lot of noise in the media: https://www.aldf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lyme-Borreliosisis-is-not-Sexually-Transmitted-12.30.16.pdf https://www.aldf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Lyme-Borreli... She also writes papers about "Morgellons Disease", a delusional disorder in which patients believe threads and fibers from their clothing and other fabric are actually sprouting from within their skin. The condition is universally acknowledged as a delusional disorder, but MJ Middelveen treats it as a real disease with no real evidence. > I'm not gonna bother digging up the others, honestly not worth my time to try and convince one random person. This is my least favorite part of discussing Lyme online. So many people are deeply convinced of their chosen narrative that they unquestioningly accept any papers that support their claims, while refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. This has created quite the market for pseudoscientific researchers to peddle narratives and pseudo-research that meets the demand for what people want to hear. In the end, it only sets the field back. I would love to see a magic combination of antibiotics that reverse PTLDS symptoms, but decades of high-dose, extended duration antibiotic trials have provided zero benefit to patients, despite the demand.

hhas01 7y ago
“This is my least favorite part of discussing Lyme online. So many people are deeply convinced of their chosen narrative that they unquestioningly accept any papers that support their claims, while refusing to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. This has created quite the market for pseudoscientific researchers to peddle narratives and pseudo-research that meets the demand for what people want to hear.” SCAM SOP. Because it’s all about Them. Peddlers reap wealth and adulation; victims are miserable AF but “vindicated”. Talk about mutual parasitosis.
FranciscusG 7y ago
You're right about the quacks and the delusions. I have auto-immune issues after a Bb infection and after three years of high-dosed Doxycycline I still tested positive for IgM (active infection). Tested by a German state-accredited reference lab. I'm self employed and never asked for disability money, never kept going to doctors to try to solve the issue. I now have CFS and Rheumatoid Arthritis and when I stop taking Doxycycline (I try that all the time, I hate taking pills), I get severe neurological problems, such as incontinence and my breathing stops all the time and many other symptoms such as extreme tachycardia in rest, aggression etc. Something is wrong. Does Doxycycline manage my CNS inflammation or are there still spirochetes?

stinos 7y ago

I'm not gonna bother digging up the others You probably should though: this is HN, there are typcially quite some people with a background in academics here. Or just criticially thinking people in general who understand how science works on this planet. tldr; one single paper on a controversial subject isn't going to cut it as proof I'm afraid.

araara 7y ago

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge on the Internet. You might think you're convincing just one person, but you're educating hundreds more.