borreliosis culture

[Guest guest]

<egroups1bp@y...> wrote:

> What are you guys hinting at here?

> I'm not following.....

Like, Steere and those guys pull rank on the LLMDs as far as the

former being " academic " (as if Donta wasnt) and the latter

being " community-based. " And they put on that they are more

methodical and just smarter, and indeed smart they are. So I think

its important for our " side " to be absolutely meticulous. I dont

think people should be saying (in refereed lit) that the cyst is

definitely responsible for X phenomenon in chronic lyme, because we

dont know that. That sort of overreaching gives Pavia the opening to

conversely spout the phrase " dubious cyst form " which is directly

contrary to observation, he should well know. As far as, say,

criticizing FDA in print, I think it should be done very dryly and

carefully or the other side can brand you a hysterical nut. It has to

be done dispassionately, absolutely standing on just the facts. And

as for imputing motives to the other side and that sort of

speculation, IMO it just doesnt belong in refereed literature. The

Steere camp may or may not have been the first to print a " typology "

of the mindset of the other side, I dont remember; I do know they

have at some point printed a very lengthy and offensive one, which I

read... but that kind of crap should just not be engaged, not

dignified with a response, IMO, as it has been. I say just go with

the observations - correct the things those guys have said about

bacteria that are just wrong, and dont even acknowledge the so-

called " controversy " , just do the science. Anyway I'm not the one who

has to deal with countering those, um, " characters, " and being

slandered by them, so maybe I'd see things differently if I was.

I do get frustrated with the pace of research too, tho I also havent

experienced whatever constraints those people have to deal with. But

its frustrating that with all the one zillion researchers that are

interested in this, no ones replicating Hulinska in situ IEM

borreliosis studies which are IMO the " smoking gun " ... I dont see

many people even really refer to those papers. No ones replicating

the Brorsons MS investigation... lets party here! This work needs to

be repeated again and again, because of the fact that some other work

(Mattman & Hulinskas chronic lyme culture study, Mattmans sarc

mycobacteria culture study, Miklossys Alzheimers study) has been

disconfirmed. And someone needs to figure out *why* those studies

were disconfirmed. After all its been a dozen years since Miklossys

disconfirmed Alzheimers study and theres been no forward progress as

far as basic in situ work. How about the Bowen assay, why not have a

publication on the findings it can show? If bacteria cause sarc MS

CFS alzheimers etc etc etc, there is a billion dollars worth of

investigational wrath ready to bear down on the organisms, just like

EVENTUALLY happened with HIV. And that means a *many* fold increased

chance of antimicrobial advances. Thats what all s post calls to

mind for me. Its not as tho shutting down the persecution of ILADS

doctors is the whole war; we need new treatments to be invented,

which requires the utter canonization of the illness thru

indisputable, repletely-replicated evidence, which IMO should start

and basically end with antibody-labelled in situ microscopy. Being

sick and all, I can be forgiven if I'd like to see this done a week

ago tuesday, not in 2011... and I think the mindset describes is

what we need.

[Guest guest]

ERic:

" If bacteria cause sarc MS

CFS alzheimers etc etc etc, there is a billion dollars worth of

investigational wrath ready to bear down on the organisms, just like

EVENTUALLY happened with HIV. "

No, I disagree, it requires such a paradigm shift, sorry to use the

cliche.

It requires academic medicine to stop being turfed, which means to

stop getting grants....

It requires people to give up their specialties, pinnacles of power,

it requires neurology to go bye bye...rheumatology bye bye...maybe

some of cardiology bye bye...

It requires pharmas to lose TONS OF TONS OF TONS OF TONS OF

blockbuster profit drugs.

It means simple enough answers, to combatting bacteria, with new

antibiotics but also nano antibiotics (I'm going to talk to the

researcher who is making those...he agreed to...), antibiotics

combined with monoclonal antibodies, stuff to target specific

bacteria. Yeah maybe they'll develop resistance but we'll keep

evolving new approaches too....

Except it ain't gonna happen. HIV is ONE disease, okay? It's one

retrovirus. IT's not a whole new understanding of the causes of

chronic illness.

And the problem is, if you DO understand margulis, microbes do not

caus chronic illness in all of us. Some on the bellcurve suffer.

Others adapt, and others still, utilize the pathogen so well they are

BETTER adapted. That's called evolution....in a macro sense if ya

know what i mean.