Talk:Chronic Lyme disease

Claim of no evidence of persistent infection

This article cites reference #3 to say "Despite numerous studies, there is no evidence that symptoms associated with CLD are caused by any persistent infection." ... however, this is a July 2010 reference and there have been studies since then to support the notion of persistent infection in some. For example,

Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease [1] (2018) "Motile spirochetes identified histopathologically as Borrelia were detected in culture specimens, and these spirochetes were genetically identified as Borrelia burgdorferi by three distinct polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based approaches"

Variable manifestations, diverse seroreactivity and post-treatment persistence in non-human primates exposed to Borrelia burgdorferi by tick feeding [2] (2017)

"In addition, we observed evidence of persistent, intact, metabolically-active B. burgdorferi after antibiotic treatment of disseminated infection"

I don't usually edit WikiPedia but thought this should be brought to attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniese82 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Junk Middelveen sources, as discussed here ad nauseam over the years. Alexbrn (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Those are actual, proper studies. What exactly makes them "junk sources" and what makes you more konwledgeable than all the scientists involved in those studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Review WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and read the article (focusing on occurrences of the word group). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

Requesting to change the end of the sentence in the first paragraph "...or with post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, a set of lingering symptoms which may persist after successful treatment of infection with Lyme bacteria."

to reflect the most current CDC definition of Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome.

"...or with post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, a set of lingering symptoms the CDC defines as "pain, fatigue, or difficulty thinking that lasts for more than 6 months" after treatment of infection with Lyme bacteria. The cause of PTLDS is "not known" according to the CDC. DubiousPuffery (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: that is too much detail for the lead of an unrelated article. PTLDS is already discussed at Lyme disease, a hatnote to which exists on this article. Madeline (part of me) 18:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Media Section Sources

Hola User:ScienceFlyer. Let's hash this out. What's the problem with my addition? I cited the same reviewer for Under Our Skin. If his authority is sufficient for one movie, then why is it not for another? I'm all for qualified medical professionals giving medical advice but this is a review in the media section. Perhaps we can focus on the review's non-medical aspect? (WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC))

Both of the films in the Media section have their own articles. The content is UNDUE here, and it's doubtful that all of that content even belongs in the film articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to get rid of the media section? WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the reasoning ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

NEJM Source

@User:ScienceFlyer, @User:SandyGeorgia I want to draw your attention to the citation below. It is being used to describe Chronic Lyme Disease as a fraud. However the article does not bear out such an accusation.

Feder, HM; Johnson, BJB; O'Connell, S; et al. (October 2007). "A Critical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme Disease"". NEJM. 357 (14): 1422–30. doi:10.1056/NEJMra072023. PMID 17914043.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTryHardDieHard (talk • contribs) 20:58, June 5, 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be reading an entirely different article. The one you linked concludes "Chronic Lyme disease is the latest in a series of syndromes that have been postulated in an attempt to attribute medically unexplained symptoms to particular infections. Other examples that have now lost credibility are “chronic candida syndrome” and “chronic Epstein–Barr virus infection.” The assumption that chronic, subjective symptoms are caused by persistent infection with B. burgdorferi is not supported by carefully conducted laboratory studies or by controlled treatment trials. Chronic Lyme disease, which is equated with chronic B. burgdorferi infection, is a misnomer, and the use of prolonged, dangerous, and expensive antibiotic treatments for it is not warranted." Other quotes include "Although proponents of the chronic Lyme disease diagnosis believe that patients are persistently infected with B. burgdorferi, they do not require objective clinical or laboratory evidence of infection as a diagnostic criterion.", "Other investigators have been unable to reproduce these findings in patients with well-documented post–Lyme disease syndrome.", and "Such laboratories may perform unvalidated in-house tests that are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, or they may perform standard serologic tests interpreted with the use of criteria that are not evidence-based." That is as close to calling it a fraud as you are ever going to see in an academic paper. Or are you looking for the actual word "fraud" to appear in the text? Regardless, this paper thoroughly condemns the diagnosis, and its practitioners, as something that is demonstrably not science. What other word would you suggest to describe something that purports to be medicine but does not adhere to any of the basic requirements? Dyanega (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

WikiTryHardDieHard please remember to sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. Also, please take care to accurately represent what is in the article. The places where I see the word fraud in the article are either double-cited, or not cited to the NEJM at all.

• Both the label and the belief that these people's symptoms are caused by this particular infection are generally rejected by medical professionals, and the promotion of chronic Lyme disease is an example of health fraud.[2][3
• In contrast to these recognized medical conditions, the promotion of chronic lyme disease is a quintessential example of health fraud.[3]

I don't believe the second statement should be stated as fact in Wikivoice, considering the sourcing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Sure, thanks for the reminder about the tildes. I was specifically talking about the first example. The other reference: "Treating ‘chronic Lyme disease:’ Is it medical fraud?" Does not seem to be much better than the NEJM article. The author first asks if it's fraud, posits that yes, it is fraud, then in conclusion says "Is this not deception and misrepresentation for profit? Is this not medical fraud which endangers the patient and the community?" How can we possibly hold up these two articles as our sole citations for the apparently unanimous conclusion that Chronic Lyme Disease is fraud? WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Good question. Yeah at the very least I would like to change it from "fraud" as that denotes a crime. If we can find evidence of a doctor convicted of fraud for this offense, then I would consider leaving it. Maybe we can pull words used in the article. Eg. unexplained, not supported, unvalidated.WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)