[vimy]

They are wrong and are severely mismanaging Lyme. For example, the blood test endorsed by the CDC shows a 53 % sensitivity yet they claim testing is adequate. In reality, it's not much better than flipping a coin. They also claim there is no persisent Lyme. Here are two recent studies that contradict what they are saying. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The Emerging Role of Microbial Biofilm in Lyme Neuroborreliosis[1]: "The early treatment with oral antimicrobials is effective in the majority of patients with LNB. Nevertheless, persistent forms of LNB are relatively common, despite targeted antibiotic therapy. It has been observed that the antibiotic resistance and the reoccurrence of Lyme disease are associated with biofilm-like aggregates in B. burgdorferi, B. afzelii, and B. garinii, both in vitro and in vivo, allowing Borrelia spp. to resist to adverse environmental conditions. Indeed, the increased tolerance to antibiotics described in the persisting forms of Borrelia spp., is strongly reminiscent of biofilm growing bacteria, suggesting a possible role of biofilm aggregates in the development of the different manifestations of Lyme disease including LNB."

Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease[2]: "Using multiple corroborative detection methods, we showed that patients with persistent Lyme disease symptoms may have ongoing spirochetal infection despite antibiotic treatment, similar to findings in non-human primates. The optimal treatment for persistent Borrelia infection remains to be determined."

If you want to know more, here's a thorough critique of the current Lyme policies.[3]

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6287027/ [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29662016 [3]https://waset.org/Publications/obstruction-to-treatments-mee...

[sjg007]

I don’t think your citations are sufficient evidence to discredit the CDC and NIH at this time.

[vimy]

The National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services responsible for providing the most up-to-date clinical guidelines to physicians. The NGC also removes clinical guidelines that are no longer relevant, that do not meet the Institute of Medicine’s standards for clinical practice guidelines, including a systematic review of the evidence, or that have not been revised in the past five years.

In January 2016, the NGC removed the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines on Lyme disease for these reasons. In a scathing report on the standard of clinical guidelines in North America, the Institute of Medicine specifically referenced the IDSA guidelines on Lyme disease as a prime example of what not to do. Now, the only evidence-based, peer-reviewed guidelines on Lyme disease that conform to (and exceed) the Institute of Medicine’s clinical guideline standards and are available on the NGC website, are the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society guidelines for Lyme disease (ILADS). ILADS guidelines recognize persistent Lyme and have cured thousands of patients.

Meanwhile, the CDC is still promoting the ISDA guidelines that deny the evidence of persistent Lyme Disease. The CDC claims that these 2006 guidelines represent the "best science" and "the best synthesis of the available evidence". They do not provide the reference or criteria to substantiate this claim. And they are ignoring over 700 peer-reviewed articles that support the persistent Lyme theory.[1]

[1]https://www.ilads.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CLDList-ILA...

[sjg007]

You should probably cite articles that you copy from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4938692/

Also, the reason the guidelines were removed from the NGC is that they hadn't been revised in 5 years.

https://lymediseaseassociation.org/news/official-word-on-ids...

And the new draft guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America doesn't appear to agree with your position either.

https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/Lyme-Disease-Gu...

[vimy]

The question is why has the CDC been pushing outdated guidelines? Why are they pushing guidelines that ignore a boatload of research? The answer is: Conflict of interest and dogma. See my third link in my earlier reply.

Regarding the new guidelines, there are significant admissions:

-The limitations of antibody testing (page 10, line 234), and that a patient can be seronegative

-Lyme arthritis only occurs in a minority of 30% (49:1147)

-Patients should be retreated if 28 days of doxy does not resolve arthritis (55:1280), ultimately with up to 1 month of Rocephin/ceftriaxone

-Animal studies may demonstrate persistence in avascular areas (56:1311)

-They infer that evidence of a persistent infection or treatment failure can be concluded through objective signs of arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy (62:1429)

-Studies of the chronic Lyme population are recommended, and they claim (without citation) that these patients often have no clinical or lab evidence of infection (64:1493)

-Babesia coinfects 2-40% of patients in endemic areas (67:1551)

When viable spirochetes were found after antibiotic treatment, one of the leading IDSA researchers response was "So what? You'd have to prove they are causing disease". Apparently germ theory is now in question when it comes to Lyme disease, and only Lyme disease. For every other infection, if the pathogen is found, you have the disease. Not with Lyme though. It's pure dogma at this point.

[sjg007]

What about what?