Published studies do show that chronic Lyme improves with long term antibiotic therapy.
Donta, 1997, Boston University published a study of 277 patients with chronic Lyme disease.
He reported that patients frequently did not improve for several weeks. After 2 months 33% of patients had improved, after 5 months, 61% had improved. He claimed 20% of patients were cured, 10% did not improve, and 70% showed some improvement. The duration of the study was for 1 to 11 months. He concluded: CONTROLLED STUDIES NEED TO BE CONDUCTED TO VALIDATE THESE OBSERVATIONS.
In 2003, Donta published a study on the use of Biaxin, Biaxin with Plaquenil and Plaquenil alone.
The effective therapy was Biaxin and Plaquenil. Conclusion: THESE RESULTS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESISIS THAT lYME BORRELIA RESIDE IN AN ACID ENDOSOME.....
Cameron, 2008, published a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial.
He replaced the term chronic Lyme disease with Lyme disease with persistent symptoms (LDPS). He found a 46% improvement of subjective quality of life in treated patients and vs 18% in non treated patients. He concluded: WORTHY OF FURTHER STUDY.
Clarrisou et al, 2009, Med Mal Infect, published: Efficacy of long-term antibiotics in patients with a chronic Tick Associated Poly-organic Syndrome (TAPOS
Investigators keep inventing new terminology for the same disease. Why?
A cohort of 100 patients was followed. The study showed favorable results in subjective symptoms. The authors point out flaws and limitations of their study but recommend: RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE BLIND STUDY.
The number of patients studied in all of these studies was significantly higher than the number of patients studied in the 3 NIH sponsored studies. This has mostly to do with study design and patient selection limitations.
Hopkins-Harvard-Yale-IDSA-CDC: Where are you?
Those folks are sticking with the "Best science."
Problem: best science supports these conclusions (fatigue, qualitly of life) if you take another look at the Krupp and Fallon outcomes. A patient suffering with Lyme and chronic fatigue recently told me: " Hell, I would gladly go on 3 months of IV Rocephin if it only helped with fatigue."
I asked an esteemed professor(infectious disease) from Hopkins about his success with severe neruo-syphilis He told me with pride that he has treated it, (it is rare these days)--the penultimate expert. I asked him about patients with severe brain damage. "When the squash is gone there is no squash." Good answer. Even patients with persistent vegetative states have been shown to frequently have significant neurological and cognitive activity.
Patients with neuroborreliosis have recovered. SPECT scans, PET scans have improved. Patients with neuro-syphilis-dementia (general paresis) have been treated with only penicllin. These patients pathologically have blebs and cysts in their brains, similar to those seen in patients with neuroborrelosis. As stated, there are not many of these patients around anymore. There have been no studies since TUSKEGEE. How would neuro-syphilis patients do if they were treated with other therapies, including IV Flagyl? Not studied
How about this:
Why don't we let psychologists and psychiatrists evaluate cognitive functioning, radiologists evaluate objective, radigrophic signs of improvement and neurologist evaluate for evidence of neurological improvements. How about listening to our patients as well? I know--a novel concept.
Why does a professor of of infectious disease medicine, with little or no knowledge of these other fields, tell us about squash, a "fancy" designation for brain?-- what are his qualifications to tell us that chronic Lyme disease--including neuroborreliosis does not exist?
I went to medical school, internship and residency.
We made round, sometimes with esteemed attendings: we were intimidated: they knew everything, we were abysmally ignorant. We were ready to be chastised; we were swine waiting for pearls to be cast to our feet. I remember, Super-star attendings--Power, honor, prestige: with it comes a sense of infallibility--after all, you are the last word, the highest authority. You have to be self assured. Perfectly understandable. That is why I became a generalist, not a specialist. It is understandable. Nonetheless: sometimes you are wrong, dead wrong.