Well argued presentation of traditional, conservative, IDSA Approach,
November 1, 2011 link here
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Lyme Borreliosis in Europe and North America: Epidemiology and Clinical Practice (Hardcover)Frankly, I am stunned I am doing the first review of this textbook. It shows immense sweat, effort and presents its position very clearly. The authors want to offer hope for cure and to make one tick infection, Lyme disease, seem managable. They are concerned with over treatment, and express common but useful concerns.
I have read most of the references in this book for my own new 7TH tick and flea infection text, and for others on TBD coming. While I would appeal that EMERGING DISEASE and AUTHORITATIVE cannot be in the same chapter, and that in tick and flea infection medicine triumphalistic speech is not possible, it is good that liberty allows scientists, such as these with doctor of medicine degrees, to publish freeely on what they feel is the best approach and why. They are clear and readable. The "why" is clear.
Of course Kuhn and dozens of others have shown objectivity in medicine and science is an illusion, and we bring so much of our inner self, our presuppositions, to how WE handle over ten thousand references and over 50,000 diagnosed patients who are positive with a tick infection. This does not apply to any single position, but to every position related to these emerging infections.
I love difference, and feel fear of difference is sad and in dealing with fully trained doctors of medicine, it is not the place to report or threaten traditional physicians or ones that take soberly what we all see--some people are not better after a solid treatment of one or two infections. Meaning, some people are very sick, and fail every type of treatment model.
I appreciate any hypothesis of what we should do with patients still not better after 2, 4 or 8 weeks.
I will defend any doctorate of medicine to write and present a plan that makes sense to them and thier study and experience.
LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. I TREAT OR EXAMINE PEOPLE TREATED BY EVERY SCHOOL OF THOUGHT IN TICK AND FLEA INFECTION MEDICINE. WE ALWAYS FIND THINGS THAT SHOW MORE IS GOING ON THAN PREVIOUSLY REPRORTED.
I LEARN FROM ALL, AND AM IMMENSELY CAREFUL DUE TO CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY EVERY GROUP AND CAMP.
AND FEEL THIS IS EMERGING AND GROWING AND WE NEED TO ADMIT THAT "CO-INFECTIONS" ARE NOT CO--ANYTHING, BUT ROUTINE, AND ROUTINELY MISSED.
LYME ALONE WITH NO VIRUSES, OTHER BACTERIA AND PROTOZOA IS QUESTIONABLE AFTER A DEEP READING OF 4,000 ARTICLES AND THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PETRI DISH GUTS OF THE I. SCAP. TICK.
The doctor who says I am wrong on position 230 serves me, and makes me want to listen. The doctor that wants to remove someone's practice is niave, fascist, and has no understanding of power, contacts and influence of people to act against
They also do not see what they do not know. This is not science. It is gang warfare. We cannot do it another month to any MD.
We need to drop the raving and hate speech. It is not science. It is not medicine. It is not even a 200 level college class of the philosophy of knowing or modern philosophy of science.
I have seen every position of the dozen approaches used all over the world, help and harm people. This medicine covers at least fifteen specialties, and if that is new, your clinical knowledge of the domino effect in systems of the body needs a tune up.
IN CONCLUSION, I AM ALWAYS IMPRESSED BY THESE AUTHORS, AND WOULD FIGHT FOR THIER RIGHT TO HOLD THESE POSITIONS. I ONLY ASK THAT THEY APPRECIATE THAT current science IS OUTDATED IN SIX MONTHS EVEN IF THEY DO NOT KNOW--THE FLOOD OF PAPERS REQUIRES 50 HOURS OF READING A WEEK.
THANK YOU. YOU DO NOT NEED TO EMBRACE MY MODERATE POSITION. AND IT IS LIKELY WE ARE SEEING EACH OTHERS FAIURES, WHICH CAN CREATE A FALSE VIEW OF IDEAL TREATMENTS, AND THE MOTIVES OF TICK AND FLEA INFECTION INTERESTED DOCTORS OF MEDICINE.
Good job. I am sure it was not fun to write this position. IT WAS FUN TO READ AS A THINKER AND I COME TO MY OWN CONCLUSIONS. IN MEDICINE WE DO NOT HAVE POPES OR FLAWLESS SAGE MENTORS. Something most of use should recall?
Again, clear and fine writting.