Many of my fellow Lyme bloggers and writers have done such a wonderful job at knocking the POS research also known as the PLEASE Trial, so I haven’t really felt the need to write one of my own.
There are a few things I do want to point out; Things the mainstream media articles don’t even consider asking. You know, those done by “reporters” who took the bait the authors of the trial fed to them and acted like it was a vacation since they didn’t have to do any work, like even reading the trial study, because it was all wrapped up in a nice little bow by others. Idjits.
If these points were mentioned somewhere out there–I apologize. I haven’t had time to read them all.
The first point has more to do with the label of Lyme disease in general. They have a name for the disease you get when you catch it right away and get treated right away– Lyme disease. They have a name for the disease you (supposedly) get when you were treated but then have symptoms–PTLDS (Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome). But what is the name of what those patients have when they are infected by the Lyme bacteria but don’t get diagnosed or treated for years? Where is even the recognition that the name for this entity is missing (much less any sort of trials or research at all). Why are they getting lumped in to these other disease names? I suspect those patients with the most problems regarding treatment are those who have this unnamed entity. THERE IS NO RESEARCH I have seen regarding these patients, and so-called reporters need to start to understand how much they are missing if they don’t do even a little bit of research into the disease they are writing about. But instead, they just act as if the PLEASE trial ended any possible options in the antibiotic realm for these patients because these few antibiotics and doses “didn’t work” for this particular subset of patients.
Tell me this makes any sense at all.
Secondly: I have read quite a few articles about the PLEASE trial by those lazy, idjit reporters. They all say basically the same thing, that this trial shows long-term antibiotics do not help Lyme patients. Forgetting how incorrect that is for the moment, why has not one article pointed out that it may just be possible that this trial shows these particular antibiotics may not be the best treatment for Lyme. And if that is the case, why have they done yet another study about those antibiotics instead of trying others?
And maybe if they did make that connection or ask that question, they would find there actually is a study that does just that (though it is only about in vitro antibiotics) and one of the authors of that study is Paul Auwaerter (who is constantly quoted by those saying how crazy it is to treat Lyme with more antibiotics, pulse dosing, or combination therapy).
Wouldn’t a good reporter also wonder why it took over 30 years to even do research like that? Sort of makes one think there aren’t too many good reporters out there in the mainstream, eh?
I have said over and over too many people these days just take whatever websites, videos, articles, TV, radio, tell them, and they don’t do their own research. If this is you, you are not a reporter, you are just a parrot. A parrot being used by others to promote an agenda that is hurting patients.
For those mainstream “reporters”–PLEASE make an effort when researching your next article on Lyme.
Or don’t be surprised if people start throwing crackers at you.
— Loon Out