Hey, there! Log in / Register
Ticked off over Lyme Disease
By adamg on Fri, 08/25/2017 - 9:50am
CommonHealth introduces us to a Spaulding Hospital clinic for people who problems caused by tick bites - and the bitter war between doctors who believe chronic Lyme Disease is a thing and doctors who think that's nuts.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Prevention
I've been aware of the growing number of people claiming "chronic Lyme", indeed I know one or two of them. They DO seem to have a real medical issue based on the physical changes I've seen in them.
That said, I'm always skeptical of doctors that buck the established, peer-reviewed treatment plans and prescribe very long courses of antibiotics. We are going to have a reckoning in the near future with more and more antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, and this isn't helping that.
I'm glad to see doctors focusing on non-AB therapies and prevention. In the meantime, wear DEET, pants tucked into socks, and check your body after going into the woods. Ticks really are everywhere (one dropped onto my arm from a tree while biking home from work just the other day!)
Agreed. The science still
Agreed. The science still says that while symptoms may persist, long courses of antibiotics do not make a difference in preventing or stopping them. Yet people still demand antibiotics.
This is a bigger problem, though. People with the flu demand antibiotics AND GET THEM! The flu is a virus! Antibiotics don't treat viruses.
The treatment they are prescribing sounds more appropriate - treat the symptoms because whatever damage that the lyme did, the disease itself is gone. More antibiotics won't do anything because the lyme is gone.
Also, lyme disease tests are notoriously inaccurate or slow to respond negative/positive. Many times patients diagnosed correctly with lyme will have negative tests, and often times after the lyme is treated the test will read positive. It's not a great test, adding to the problem of the idea of "chronic lyme", which most ID doctors think is ridiculous.
DEET can kill people too.
DEET can cause worse problems than Lyme disease in some people. Never use it on children and be cautious using it on adults. Never spray near other people.
Also, whatever you do, do not
Also, whatever you do, do not make pesto out of DEET and then spread it on a cereal bowl full of antibiotics pills and eat it while watching reruns of Friends.
Now...
Now you tell me!!!!
CDC and EPA say
Source
Looks like I am not ...
...up to date on the latest about DEET.
However, having twice had severe reactions to DEET and reading about other incidents, I am not convinced it's safe for everyone and would never apply it to an infant or child without first applying a small amount and watching for a reaction.
It also looks like there just is not enough evidence and research done to make a determination either way so the EPA is going with safe for now.
Classic example
...of the somewhat modern phenomenon of assuming research is based on researchers like opinions man, instead of being based in, you know, research.
"It also looks like there just is not enough evidence and research done to make a determination either way so the EPA is going with safe for now."
You seem to be saying the EPA doesn't have enough evidence to determine if DEET is safe so they are ... claiming it is safe? I'm pretty sure the EPA is claiming it is safe because they believe in the validity of the research done showing DEET to actually be safe, no?
https://www.epa.gov/insect-repellents/deet
"In 2014, we completed an interim review of DEET under the Registration Review Program to ensure that it continues to meet safety standards based on current scientific knowledge. The Agency has not identified any risks of concern to human health, non-target species or the environment."
Further on that page...
"DEET is approved for use on children with no age restriction. There is no restriction on the percentage of DEET in the product for use on children, since data do not show any difference in effects between young animals and adult animals in tests done for product registration. There also are no data showing incidents that would lead EPA to believe there is a need to restrict the use of DEET."
Please clarify 'just not enough evidence' - for who, Goop readers? People who think vaccines cause chemtrails? If you have a specific scientific critique of the work the EPA Is specifically basing their recommendation on, please share.
You know what has definitively been proven to be super bad for children? West Nile, Lyme, EEE, Powassan, etc...
Are you a shill for the DEET industry?
So despite experiencing 2 episodes of toxic reaction to DEET I should consider it safe to use?
https://www.consumerreports.org/insect-repellent/how-safe-is-deet-insect...
Drown yourself in DEET all you like, just keep it away from me.
Not a schill
but I'm 100% done with the new culture (on both the left and the right) that assumes anecdote trumps science. From the article you linked to:
"The balance of evidence indicates that yes, deet is safe, when used as directed."
Why did Consumer Reports even publish this report? Exactly because people like you who seem to be sure that the EPA is in the control of the DEET industry and can't be trusted. So you have a sensitivity to DEET, that is unfortunate. But your response is to repeatedly post that DEET is terrible and toxic which isn't supported by the research done on the topic which is what I have a problem with.
DEET can kill people too.
DEET can cause worse problems than Lyme disease in some people. Never use it on children and be cautious using it on adults. Never spray near other people.
Why. Please state your
Why. Please state your reasons.
FUD. What's your source?
FUD. What's your source?
In case that other post was too long
TMRozzie's post said it all, but if you just want the bottom line...
I'd rather use DEET than risk West Nile disease, Lyme disease,
or any other severe insect-borne illness. It's okay to be cautious when using it on children, or when you're around other people. The best thing to get are these insect repellant wipes, where one just wipes it onto exposed skin, rather than spraying it and risking getting in one's eyes.
I know people with chronic
I know people with chronic lyme disease. It is real, and both have benefited from long term ABX treatment. The anti ABX treatment BS is coming from insurance companies who do not want to pay for said treatment. As usual, it all comes down to the money. Those docs on the insurance company payroll are the medical societies equivalent of the anti climate change idiots.
One of the issues here,
One of the issues here, though, is there aren't a lot of studies on the topic. Are the long term antibiotics actually helping, or would the symptoms improve over time with or without them? There's no consensus due to a lack of information.
This is false. Read the
This is false. Read the article, they quoted double blind research that proved there is no statistical difference between those with and without long term antibiotic care. Because you may have had 1 or 2 friends get better while simultaneously taking long term antibiotics is called anecdotal. Aka a coincidence.
No it's not false, it's real
No it's not false, it's real life data. It happened. Coincidence? Doubtful. Do you have Lyme disease? I don't give a fuck what some study says. Or some jackass on the internet who says he read a study.
"It's real life data"
What is called anecdata. And "I don't give a fuck what some study says" is what we call willful ignorance. Scientific studies are designed to eliminate coincidence. "Real life data" doesn't do that, at all. When the study in question is presented to you, and you refuse to even look at it, it isn't that other guy who's being a jackass on the Internet.
"Studies" can be skewed to
"Studies" can be skewed to achieve whatever answer you're looking for. Ask any anti climate change scientist for his studies, will you believe him then? It's the same thing here with the insurance company\medical industry overlap. Studies don't mean shit if they're skewed. Jackass.
Surprise!
Anon is a climate denier. Who would have guessed?
There are other tick-borne diseases
Sometimes people are infected with Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
Entirely possible that people who improved (in the anecdotal situation) did not have Lyme or just Lyme, but also babsiosis - which may require a longer-term course of antibiotic. It isn't unheard of for people to be reinfected, too, as opposed to relapse.
Yup.
I have a long-time good friend who lives out in a wooded area, and has had Lyme disease four times. Yup...you read right...four times. Part of it is also that she's got a feral outdoor cat, so she's come in contact with a lot of the deer ticks.
One also has to bear in mind, however, that Lyme Disease isn't caused by the common dog tick, but by the deer tick, which is much much tinier, looks more like a tiny speck, and can be much more difficult to spot if one isn't aware of them.
I also know there are other tick-borne illnesses. Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever is also one.
Cats & dogs
Frontline is very effective at killing ticks that try and ride on cats and dogs. Also kills fleas.
No, I am not a shill for Frontline.
Other affective insect repellants:
OFF is a pretty affective insect repellent, and so is Woodsmans, although the latter insect repellent also drives away people just as affectively.
I wouldn't put those on my pets
I don't think they've been tested for safety on cats or dogs. Also, they wear off after a few hours. Frontline is not a repellent; it KILLS fleas and ticks, and you only have to put a few drops on one place on the animal, once a month.
Apples and oranges.
I'd never put it on my pet either,
if my pet was a cat or dog. From what I understand, there are flea/tick collars that one can obtain for dogs or cats, however.
There are times when I've thought about wheeling Aziza's cage (with her in it, of course), down to our court-yard, and having her get at least a half hour of exposure to natural sunlight, providing it's not a hot, humid and sultry day out, but I worry about the possibility of her getting bitten by insects, so I haven't done it.
(Aziza is my 7 1/2 year old pet Congo African parrot, btw.)
Serial non-sequiturs
My comment about Frontline was in response to your friend being exposed to ticks that her cat brought home. You responded with a recommendation for insect repellents that are not safe for cats and dogs. I said I wouldn't put those on a pet. You came back to say you wouldn't either, if your pet was a cat or dog. This implies that you would put DEET on your parrot. That would be a bad idea, in case you didn't know. Frontline might also be bad for your parrot, but since you don't take it outside, it's moot.
Insurance companies?
Insurance companies? Antibiotics are not very expensive.
So where does the greed end
So where does the greed end then? At what amount? Fool.
Be Nice to your Possums
Possums can eat thousands of ticks a year! They groom them off when they jump on to bite. Even when they bite possums, possums don't get Lyme, so they can't transmit it.
As for prevention, here's the official advice: http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/id/epidemiology/t...
If you have a large woodland lawn, tick tubes are getting some press. You can make them or buy them, but they provide insecticidal bedding to the mice that carry and transmit Lyme and other diseases to the ticks.
Too bad there isn't a vaccine for Lyme
Oh wait, there is, but somehow it became "not profitable" for the manufacturer to test and market it. Sigh.
As some people say:
The only affective defense is a good offense when it comes to a lot of deadly but preventable illnesses. Vaccines may turn out to be the best protection against Lyme Disease and many other ailments that stand a chance of becoming anti-biotic resistant.
Because of my own experience
Because of my own experience I sympathize entirely with the people suffering from chronic lyme and have zero respect for those who are too quick with the eye roll. I had lyme twice within two years and had to fire doctors both times who refused to treat me for lyme and instead wanted to refer me to social workers. Not chronic lyme, just plain lyme. For reasons I can't begin to comprehend, lyme (stressing, again, not even chronic lyme, just ordinary typical lyme) is met with more scepticism from health care providers and the general public than any condition I have ever heard of. Lyme is life changingly bad. It's ingeniously sinister in its ability to shatter your preconceived notions about how well protected or cared for you are. I got my infections walking on suburban sidewalks; can any of you here touting preventive measures say that that is an activity for which you would have taken precautions yourself ? I wouldn't - I still don't. It's simply not reasonable to expect people to slather on insect repellent, walk around with their socks up over their trouser legs, and do full body cavity searches every time they leave the house, especially considering that doing all of those things STILL won't give you guaranteed protection from lyme. And experimental technology such as the genetic modification program being tested in Nantucket is a ways off. Better be careful science textbook thumpers, lyme is here, the potential for chronic lyme is here with it, and it could be coming for you. Instead of victim blaming we should be demanding better treatment for lyme patients like Spaulding is providing.
Agreed. There isn't enough
Agreed. There isn't enough data on Lyme or chronic Lyme to just roll your eyes whenever some says either. And one treatment may work for some while others need a completely different treatment for the same infection. Lyme disease is brutal and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
Could anyone provide insight
Could anyone provide insight as to why this article was removed from the main page ?
Don't worry, there's no conspiracy here
In general, stories appear on the home page in the order they were posted. There are 20 stories on the home page at a time. So when I posted 20 things more recently than this post, it aged off the home page. If you scroll to the bottom of the home page, you'll notice a "next" link that will take you to the next 20 items (and so on).
Now, that's here on Universal Hub. If you're asking about WBUR, which, after all, actually wrote the story I merely linked to, you'll have to ask them, but I suspect that if that did happen, it's a similar issue.