Re: Does our Geography matter?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Does anyone have any strong feelings as to whether one's geographic location

is significant in Lyme disease and treatment outcome?

>

> I wonder if Lyme disease is less prevalent in dryer climates not just due to

fewer ticks, but perhaps due to a lower mold/fungi load on the human immune

system?

>

> Have people observed that Lyme patients tend to do better and recover better

in certain geographic climates? I have heard of people doing much better in New

Mexico, Arizona, and Southern California.

very good question

Probably the US is a good country to check this out, because people move

relatively easy between different climates while most other variables remain the

same.

I agree that part of the problem with Lyme is probably the high load on the

immune system (including pollution, radiation, other stress factors); I think

this is the major factor that explains why Lyme patient numbers have increased

so strongly over the last 40 years or so.

There are definitely more ticks in temperate, more humid areas and often

infection load is higher there as well. Coaster areas often have many birds that

spread lyme species and coinfections. So in dry climates the risk of infection

should be much lower.

There are many different Borrelia strains, some of them more aggressive than

others; vectors and other ecological factors can vary as well, and influence

infection risk. Probably they vary with location (climate) as well.

It is interesting that lately Lyme-like diseases (including EM etc., but not

detected with the standard serologic tests) are appearing in other climates,

e.g. in Brazil and some Caribbean locations. This could be the result of more

attention with doctors in these areas, or something else that is changing and

that we don't yet understand.