Dear Dr. Lionetti: I can't find anything in your "View my complete profile."
Do you subscribe to the (abominable) tenets of IDSA, or to the more realistic tenets of ILADS, or do you follow your own treatment protocols?
I use the word abominable because I have never reviewed a document that is as unscientific as the IDSA Guidelines (ditto for the experimental trials IDSA gives as justification).
I would love to learn about the treatment protocols you have found most reliable (% success and failures, and total number of patients in each category
I just noticed that my cv isn't there! If you go to www.Haverfordwellness.com site it is htere.
I agree with you about the IDSA guidelines. In 1998 I presented data on the first 200 patients whom I treated for late stage Lyme disease with intravenous ceftriaxone. They were confirmed as having active infection with Borrelia burgdorferi by an OspA PCR which was confirmed to be a true positive and not a lab error.
Initially patients were treated with 28 days of IV ceftriaxone and then followed clinically and by serial PCR testing. 90% of patients had a clinical response of improvement or complete resolution of symptoms. 40% however had a positive PCR post therapy and were retreated with 56 days of IV ceftriaxone. This increased the cure rate ( as defined by complete resolution of signs and symptoms, and 20 negative serial PCRs post therapy).
Anyone who post therapy developed what has been purported to be "post Lyme syndrome" were found to be PCR positive. Patients who are cured of LYme disease almost invariably returned to the former state of health.
I'll be elaborating on the issues of diagnosis and treatment in future blogs.
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection and for most patients can be cured. The biology of this bacteria is quite interesting and cogent to special issues involved in the clinical confirmation of infection, and issues in treatment.
Lastly, I agree that both of these groups IDSA and ILADS seem to be promulgating science by concensus and not by following data. This is a problem not just in Lyme disease but throughout the frontiers of science. I would refer you to read this speech by the late and great Michael Crichton.http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Dear Dr. Lionetti:
ReplyDeleteI can't find anything in your "View my complete profile."
Do you subscribe to the (abominable) tenets of IDSA, or to the more realistic tenets of ILADS, or do you follow your own treatment protocols?
I use the word abominable because I have never reviewed a document that is as unscientific as the IDSA Guidelines (ditto for the experimental trials IDSA gives as justification).
I would love to learn about the treatment protocols you have found most reliable (% success and failures, and total number of patients in each category
Dear Ben:
ReplyDeleteI just noticed that my cv isn't there! If you go to www.Haverfordwellness.com site it is htere.
I agree with you about the IDSA guidelines. In 1998 I presented data on the first 200 patients whom I treated for late stage Lyme disease with intravenous ceftriaxone. They were confirmed as having active infection with Borrelia burgdorferi by an OspA PCR which was confirmed to be a true positive and not a lab error.
Initially patients were treated with 28 days of IV ceftriaxone and then followed clinically and by serial PCR testing. 90% of patients had a clinical response of improvement or complete resolution of symptoms. 40% however had a positive PCR post therapy and were retreated with 56 days of IV ceftriaxone. This increased the cure rate ( as defined by complete resolution of signs and symptoms, and 20 negative serial PCRs post therapy).
Anyone who post therapy developed what has been purported to be "post Lyme syndrome" were found to be PCR positive. Patients who are cured of LYme disease almost invariably returned to the former state of health.
I'll be elaborating on the issues of diagnosis and treatment in future blogs.
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection and for most patients can be cured. The biology of this bacteria is quite interesting and cogent to special issues involved in the clinical confirmation of infection, and issues in treatment.
Lastly, I agree that both of these groups IDSA and ILADS seem to be promulgating science by concensus and not by following data. This is a problem not just in Lyme disease but throughout the frontiers of science. I would refer you to read this speech by the late and great Michael Crichton.http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html