Talk:Lyme disease

Either works in context but the meanings are opposite: should it be prescribe or proscribe in the legislation section? Him (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should've been prescribe. ThunderkatzHo! 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased view of Chronic Lyme Disease
There is currently a lot of evidence to suggest that Chronic Lyme Disease does exist. Even the NHS acknolwedges that:

The 2010 Lyme disease healthguide pathway on the NHS Map of Medicine (online link here ) acknowledges there is doubt in which position is correct: “there is current evidence to support both IDSA and ILADS schools of thought and it may be some time until one set of guidelines becomes generally more accepted than the other.”

It also states: “In the absence of current consensus between IDSA and ILADS: longer course (more than 21 days) of antibiotics may be beneficial in some sub-groups of patients, eg Lyme encephalopathy, post-Lyme disease, after consultation with Lyme experts.”

Your article is very biased and does not adequately represent the doctors and medical professionals that believe that chronic Lyme exists.

For more information, I'd recommend the book Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic by science writer Pamela Weintraub. I'd also recommend the new book Treatment of Chronic Lyme Disease: Fifty-One Case Reports and Essays in Their Regard by MD, FACP, FIDSA Burton A. Waisbren Sr.

There are also many studies which show evidence of persistence of Borrelia species post antibiotic exposure in vivo and in vitro
 * You realize asking people to buy a book is kinda unreasonable due to the concepts called "expensive" and "poor" existing, right? In vitro and in vivo studies are weak evidence. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-hierarchy-of-scientific-evidence-keys-to-skepticism/ I can't access any of your other links. Chronic Lyme disease is not medically recognized. The term for that disease is actually: post-lyme disease syndrome. http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/postlds/ You realize pdf actually goes against your point? Good try but you lose. ClickerClock (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

48 hours
The into says: I'm not sure of the point being made or exactly what the sentence is telling us. Ticks live on blood and - unless we're talking about it's first meal - it must have had a blood meal previously or it would be dead. And what is the particular significance of the maximum length a meal can take - (apparently 48 hours)? There is a link but there is nothing on the page linked to which mentions this.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For a tick to transmit the bacteria, it must have taken a blood meal, which can take more than 48 hours.
 * On the linked page there's a link to a section called "causes" (I didn't link to the individual page because I used different sections from the same general article). That page says "To contract Lyme disease, you must be bitten by an infected deer tick. The bacteria enter your skin through the bite and eventually make their way into your bloodstream. Before bacteria can be transmitted, a deer tick must take a blood meal, which can take more than 48 hours of feeding. Only ticks that are attached to your skin and are feeding can transmit the bacteria."  Basically, if the tick is on you for a short amount of time, your chance of getting Lyme disease is low to the point of nonexistent. I think one of the things I read says diagnosis requires the tick being attached for over 36 hours, but I'm not completely sure.  ThunderkatzHo! 08:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the "48 hours" refers to the time necessary to transfer the bacteria - not the time necessary for a meal? Might I suggest a re-word for clarity and a link to the the actual page which says this?--BobSpring is sprung! 08:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I mean. But I think it means transmission doesn't happen until after a blood meal, and a blood meal lasts 24-48+ hours.  On the other hand, most other sites don't mention transmission in relation to blood meals, and just say the tick has to be on for over 24 hours. So I don't know.  Maybe just remove that line completely.ThunderkatzHo! 12:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed it.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good article
Actually this is a very good article. I must admit that I had been taken in by all the hype surrounding this and, as I walk through fields a lot, it was something which concerned me. It's good to know that it's not quite the risk it's made out to be. Thanks. --BobSpring is sprung! 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though that doesn't mean you shouldn't still protect yourself when in fields: wear pants instead of shorts, check for ticks, etc. ThunderkatzHo! 21:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. You will note that I did not write "no risk".  :-) --BobSpring is sprung! 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rating requested
Yeah, I'm pimping my own article. Anyone have a rating for this? ThunderkatzHo! 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm a long-ago disappeared user, but I'm having a bit of a Lyme scare myself, and the internet wasn't helping. Much of it is clearly nonsense, but even to a seasoned woo-watcher it is a bit hard to figure out what's real outside of some of the basic pages from the CDC, Mayo, etc. But then I thought to check RW, found a nice article, and relaxed a bit. --MarkGall (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The actual cause of chronic lyme disease?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11953087/New-illness-spread-by-ticks-found-similar-to-Lyme-disease.html Hey guys, this can completely debunk the chronic lyme disease thing by convincing so-called sufferers the real possible cause of the so-called chronic lyme disease! ClickerClock (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)