This is a good story on the subject. (Also, obviously, the vast majority of patients don’t even *think* about threats.) https://slate.com/technology/2018/06/the-science-isnt-settled-on-chronic-lyme.html …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @StephanEducTech @welovegv and
Yes I'm not sure what qualifies as a good story but there are quite a few odd inaccuracies in that piece that make it quite problematic
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Such as?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pxwhittle @GidMK and
I’m willing to consider that I’m wrong about this story, and that it isn’t as good as I thought, but so far four people have told me “it’s bad” and none of them have provided a reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This statement is inaccurate. The tests look for immune response, which means they are not always accurate for current infection, but they are excellent at identifying previous infectionspic.twitter.com/QQxyR0tLbj
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @pxwhittle and
This passage is very misleading. Despite more than a decade of research, there's still no reproducible biological pathway that can be used to identify people suffering from either chronic Lyme or PTLDSpic.twitter.com/NlIcM4Jmt6
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @pxwhittle and
Here they imply that there are no cures for "devastating systemic infections". This is wrong. Virtually every bacterial infection can be both devastating and systemic, and almost all of them can be cured with antibiotics. Syphilis is a good examplepic.twitter.com/CFjM3SsaJx
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This statement is true, but trivial. Antibiotics never kill all bacteria - they work by killing enough that the immune system can get on top of the infectionpic.twitter.com/61liuic1MV
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.