In cancer science, many “discoveries” don’t hold up, by Sharon Begley, a disheartening story, published today. Without integrity, there can be no science. This is probably how we got sick in the first place, though in the early years, it was more likely scientists doing whatever popped into their heads willy nilly, like Victor Frankenstein, with no framework for evaluating the possible consequences. With statistics like the one presented in Ms. Begley’s report, it seems folly to expect “science” to save us now. The system is completely broken.

The same problem with integrity in reporting results extends to doctors. This problem is particularly rampant amongst LLMDs, who continue to make exorbitant amounts of money harming patients, extolling the virtues of “sophisticated” combinations of antibiotics for “seronegative Lyme”. Not that Lyme Disease isn’t real, but it can’t be eradicated in the way they are trying to do it. Problems with a generalized lack of scientific integrity aside, here is the first paper I’ve ever read that adds something to the clinical picture.

Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection by Embers et al.

They infected monkeys with Bb and found that treated or untreated, the monkeys demonstrated persistence of the organism and inflammatory changes. Therefore trying to eradicate Lyme with endless courses of antibiotics is not the most sensible course of action, acknowledging the exception of a small subset who do relatively well on old fashioned acne treatment. Antibiotics are a double edged sword at best, particularly in the setting of preexisting dysbiosis.

My hat is off to these researchers for their fine study, sensible discussion and clear attempt to give physicians in practice something to work with. A marker!

In some cases, patients who have been treated for Lyme disease experience persistent symptoms. The assertion that further antibiotic treatment is warranted in these cases is a matter of contention and considerable debate [33,34,35,36]. Our results indicate that disseminated spirochetes of two different B. burgdorferi strains can persist in the primate host following high dose, or long- lasting antibiotic therapy. In terms of disease, only objective signs of disease post-therapy may be measurable in an animal model. While we did not find gross signs of disease postmortem, in Experiment 1 we did identify heart sections with inflammatory infiltrates in three of the treated animals. In addition, several animals, both treated and untreated showed sections of heart and meninges that were positive by immunofluorescence for B. burgdorferi. At the molecular level, B. burgdorferi DNA would indicate the presence of organisms, live or dead. The detection of RNA, however, should indicate that those present are metabolically active and thus alive. In Experiment 1, spirochetal DNA and RNA were detected in the tissues of a few animals, independent of treatment. This may reflect a low spirochetal burden, lack of flaB transcription [37], and/or seclusion in untested tissues.

And this:

The most pressing question in terms of human disease is whether or not spirochetes remain pathogenic after antimicrobial therapy. Similarly, do spirochetes persist long-term, or are they eventually cleared by the host? Clearly, the phenotype of persistent organisms needs to be elucidated. These studies support the use of the C6 test for diagnosis and measurement post-treatment; however, the absolute quantification of antibody levels may be essential in determining treatment efficacy for PTLDS patients, as low levels (yet above baseline) may indicate presence of residual spirochetes or antigen. Finally, the use of variable and pulse-dosing regimens of antibiotics may improve efficacy [43] and this warrants testing in an appropriate model.

That pretty much says it all I think. My daughter and I were an inappropriate model for a doctor testing various pulse-dosing regimens by trial and error on sick people, instead of monkeys. Saving a few isn’t an excuse for worsening the tenuous condition of the others, while claiming cure of a huge percentage, with no data, especially since the “treatment” takes years to evaluate. Treatment worse than the disease. Russian roulette. From my email yesterday:

I  want to very much thank you for steering me away from ILADS doctors! As I said, I went ahead and did a trial of antibiotics to “provoke” Igenex testing, just to settle the question for myself, and I ended up with acute pancreatitis (I do not drink alcohol; it was the antibiotics), and then an immune fatigued body so sick I was hospitalized twice with pneumonia after catching a flu (my husband says he was worried I was near death — I had pneumonia for six weeks).

After all this (and what would have been thousands of dollars in testing if I weren’t billed at the Medicare rate by Igenex and if the testing hadn’t been covered for me  by insurance), my labs for Lyme AND coinfections were flat negative (except for band 41 and mycoplasma). The ILADS doctor nonetheless encouraged me, based on this, to travel to another specialist and get a port, so we could provoke and continue treatment with even stronger drugs — and said I mostly certainly had “seronegative lyme” no matter what because of my symptoms of ME and tourette’s syndrome. I am glad my insurance and Medicare covered most of this. I am also lucky to not have died or had permanent effects (other than a collection of snake oil). Your words of warning were what kept me from damaging my body and taking the seductive and expensive hope.

The 5000 year old mummified corpse recently unthawed and autopsied had Lyme Disease. Iceman Autopsy. Although he was old enough to be developing atherosclerosis, he died of trauma. He had significant health problems, but at least he wasn’t infected with something created in a lab. They’ve sequenced the entire genome of a person dead 5000 years, not that that doesn’t have value, but when are they going to get around to us?

And hot off the presses from MedScape:

March 29, 2012 — The prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) has increased by 78% since 2002, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows. However, the exact reason for this increase is unclear.

Overall, the report’s data, derived from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) surveillance network, show that in 2008, 1 in 88 children aged 8 years — 1 in 54 boys and 1 in 252 girls — had an ASD diagnosis by age 8, a significant jump from the current estimate of 1 in 110.

Their conclusion? It must be because of better diagnosis, reporting and access to services! Oh that’s a relief. We can all relax now. In the meantime, our little team continues to make slow progress, with no paid help to complete an IRB approved Family Study. I don’t think Dr. Snyderman and I ever thanked everyone publicly for taking the time and energy to participate in the Informal Family Study last year. We learned a lot. The problem was the extremely labor intensive data entry, incomplete data sets, and no controls, but it made it clear that there is much to be learned. We are working slowly to bring it to reality. We are all in different parts of the country, with different primary responsibilities, but we will get it done. Stay tuned.

Much aloha.