| The question is why has the CDC been pushing outdated guidelines?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. |