0 Mitt Romney, Lyme Disease, And The Media

Well, I guess I had to come out of the woodwork to comment on this recent turn of events... If life wasn't so hectic lately, I could have blogged sooner, and written about David Suzuki's observations on how changes in the environment have led to increased incidence of Lyme disease, or Senator Blumenthal's request for personal stories of patients who have been affected by Lyme disease, or the discovery of a new, serious  tickborne phlebovirus in Missouri.

But no, that didn't happen...

The first opportunity I really have to sit down and write here, the news that is crossing my desk and getting a lot of airtime is about Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the media's commentary on how his support for greater awareness of chronic Lyme disease has been used to ignite interest in Virginia voters who have been struggling with the disease.

And the media has not stopped there, with its opinion pieces focused on how any candidate for office can and will try to influence the vote of certain subgroups of people affected by issue x or issue y... No, after initial criticism was volleyed at Romney, a number of journalists posted articles on chronic Lyme disease and how it is not a real medical condition.

Well, here we go again. It is the same story told by some newspapers and writers, over and over again, about how chronic Lyme disease doesn't exist and how doctors who treat it are taking unfair advantage of patients who are suffering and how patients are naive dupes for a disease based on pseudoscience.

I honestly think at this point that many of you who are writing these pieces for publication have a template for about five boilerplate articles on chronic Lyme disease that you have slight variations on, and publish each article just far apart from each other that the busy, overworked, and exhausted public won't notice that you essentially wrote the same damn thing again - but perhaps with a little twist.

When I first began this blog, it was because of an article written in the Chicago Tribune which was supposed to be about how chronic Lyme disease is a dubious diagnosis - when the content of the article itself had no relationship to the title, and did not examine the issue of whether or not Borrelia burgdorferi - the bacteria which causes Lyme disease - could potentially cause a persistent infection in some people.

What the article in the Chicago Tribune did was look at two doctors who were said to have treated chronic Lyme disease who were reported for disciplinary action to their medical boards for various reasons unrelated to Lyme disease and one charlatan who - like many who promise to offer a cure for cancer - has no cure and no credentials whatsoever.

What a brave and insightful piece of literature it was, to move beyond the carefully crafted soundbites of a puffed-up opinion piece, by closely examining all the issues behind why some doctors, researchers, and patients may think that Lyme disease could persist - and why and why that isn't supported by existing evidence.

Not.

The article did not in any way, shape, or form discuss the scientific complexity involved in Borrelia infections, and the difficulty that doctors can have in properly diagnosing it as its symptoms mimic other conditions. It did not look at the state of the science on Borrelia burgdorferi sensu latu, and how a broad range of strains have different effects and disseminate at different rates.

Anyone reading it would have walked away not with the message that Lyme disease and other tickborne infections can produce a complex symptom presentation. Anyone reading it would not have learned how to prevent such illnesses or to even learn if there are differential diagnoses which one should look at which may be confused with chronic Lyme disease. It wasn't a helpful article that way. What they would have walked away with is the message that there are some doctors out there who have been disciplined for various reasons who happen to treat people with persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease, and some misinformation online about what Lyme disease is and is not.

The recent spate of articles which spend time criticizing Mitt Romney's move to spread awareness of Lyme disease as part of his future goals if elected have also had pretty much the same kind of content, and as opinion pieces are intended to persuade the audience and win them over to the writer's view. However, it should be noted that in no way should these opinion pieces be taken as the final word or even current word in science on what Lyme disease is all about - because as opinion pieces, they are neglecting mention of the scientific evidence needed to support their assertions.

The New Yorker's  recent article, "Mitt Romney Versus Lyme Disease And Science", states that:

"...If left untreated, Lyme disease can be crippling, yet it is a difficult illness to contract: a tick needs to attach itself to your body for at least twenty-four hours. Even then, two weeks worth of commonly prescribed antibiotics will kill the bacterium."

Yes, indeed, if left untreated Lyme disease can be crippling. This much is true: late stage, untreated Lyme disease can lead to cardiac, neurological, and arthritic complications. However, there is more to the rest of the story when it comes to the remainder of this passage: If a tick is on your body for fewer than twenty-four hours, there are circumstances under which transmission of Lyme disease (as well as other tickborne infections) may occur - including if the tick is improperly removed. Also, even the most conservative reading of the IDSA's 2006 guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease would state that given certain objective and clinical signs, some patients may need retreatment or more than two weeks' worth of antibiotics - particularly if there are certain cardiac, neurological, and arthritic symptoms present.

The New Yorker article simplifies the nature of Lyme disease and makes sweeping statements here. What it could have said - and still be true to mainstream infectious disease canon - could have been this:

"...If left untreated, Lyme disease can be crippling. In American scientific research to date, it has been shown that in most cases, an Ixodes scapularis or pacificus tick needs to attach itself to your body for at least twenty-four hours before Lyme disease can be contracted. Improper tick removal and other factors may, however, contribute to earlier contraction of disease. One might note that there is some evidence that in Europe, Ixodes ricinus ticks have a shorter transmission time for passing on Lyme disease bacteria than American ticks. But even then, in acute cases, the immediate treatment of two weeks' worth of commonly prescribed antibiotics will kill the bacterium in most cases. If symptoms continue, further evaluation for more severe infection and tickborne coinfections is needed."

I think some more qualifiers are needed there. And I know - this is, perhaps, a less targeted passage in that it steps outside of American research and points at what's happening in Europe. But the point is, Lyme disease is a global issue and a global problem, due to global warming and climate change. It's not just Virginia's. Or even the eastern seaboard's problem.

People travel. People get sick overseas. Lyme disease is overseas. And perhaps it helps to raise the question of how much scientific research on Borrelia may be applicable in different locations the more that is learned about the bacteria as a whole... More research here is really the key to better understanding this bug.

I will, however, give The New Yorker's Michael Specter credit for this mention:

"In fact, there is a clear scientific issue that can only make Lyme disease worse—but it is a problem that Romney and the Republicans have ignored. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted that increasing temperature helps keep ticks alive. More ticks means more Lyme disease. This is a connection, as Mother Jones first noted, that Romney has failed to consider. Instead, he has said that spending huge sums trying to reduce CO2 emissions is “not the right course for us."

Climate change is a huge player in the tickborne illness game, and I don't need Al Gore or the IPCC or even David Suzuki to point this out for me. Look outside every year, and tell me what I don't see with my own eyes: The ticks are out there earlier, and out there for longer periods of time than they've been in the past. Ask the epidemiologists and entomologists, too, if you need confirmation... Sure populations will wax and wane to a degree - but what's the trend over time?

The Business Insider's article, "Why Romney's Statements About Chronic Lyme Disease Are Dangerous", does tend to give the topic a somewhat more balanced approach by acknowledging that there is a debate within the medical and scientific community by stating, "Many doctors and researchers don't believe in this syndrome, which lasts much longer than your run-of-the-mill Lyme disease infection. The CDC, NIAID, and leading medical professionals agree that the syndrome doesn't exist. There are others within the scientific community, and especially outside of it, that debate these experts."

This, at least, is an opening gambit which sets the tone for the rest of the article by acknowledging there is a debate - with the primary focus being that politicians such as Mitt Romney should steer clear of medical debates and leave such debates to science, where they belong. Politicians are not qualified to participate in such debates.

One notable passage for me was this one:

"The symptoms of chronic Lyme disease could also be caused by an auto-immune reaction to the infection, or lasting damage from the bacterial invasion. Either way, these symptoms aren't helped by additional long-term antibiotic treatment, which has side effects and dangers of its own."

This is perhaps the first and only statement in the entire article which focuses on what some potential causes are of chronic Lyme disease, giving it some acknowledgement that yes, in fact, this condition does exist - even if its cause has been greatly debated. But there are no citations and there is no supporting evidence given to back this passage - nor a good percentage of other statements made in the article. There is no mention, either, of Dr. Monica Embers' "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques" study or other research which present the possibility that Borrelia burgdorferi might persist after antibiotic treatment.

In Slate magazine, Laura Helmuth reports this personal story:

"A friend of one of my brothers had been suffering for years from headaches, fatigue, a sense of despair, a belief that she wasn’t worthy of her job or her boyfriend. She was diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease and was treated with antibiotics, which were ineffective. What she wasn’t treated for, and could have been, was severe depression. She killed herself."

While I am very saddened to hear of this woman's death, there isn't enough information here to know exactly what happened. She may have had severe depression, she may have had Lyme disease, and/or she may have had a completely different medical issue. I simply don't know - there's no way to verify this story - it is also possible the woman in question had both Lyme disease and depression, because it happens to a number of people. It happened to me, too... I was in so much pain in the past, I was begging for God to take me.

If you are depressed, I hope you will seek treatment for it, and see a qualified licensed therapist for help. But it has been said by many in the medical profession to seek alternative causes for depression and fatigue, as hypothyroidism and other conditions may give rise to these symptoms. There can be underlying medical reasons for one's depression, and it may be that antidepressants are not the primary tool for healing.

In any piece of writing, it is important to consider the following questions:

• What is the expertise and education of the person writing?
• What is the agenda of the writer? Are they trying to promote an idea, sell a product, evoke a strong emotional response to gain readership, present different sides of a contested issue, or educate the public on an important matter?
• What is the outcome that can be achieved by publishing this specific piece in this particular publication?
• What references and citations has the writer given to support their assertions and statements?
• Does a thorough survey of the information provided and research completed from different sources provide evidence which support the writer's position? 
• Is there information and research which supports an alternative position? What is the strength of the evidence supporting these positions?

I encourage anyone reading these articles about Mitt Romney and chronic Lyme disease to ask themselves the same questions above, and to do your own research on whether or not Lyme disease can lead to persisting symptoms after initial (especially delayed) treatment with antibiotics.

The entire Internet is out there at your disposal to use, and scientific journals, books, PubMed, and other reliable sources from which to get your information on Lyme disease - all free of spin.

Of course, you yourself will end up walking away from all the research required to even begin to understand Borrelia burgdorferi with your own personal spin - but at least you will know more than you can learn from reading a random article which gets published in an online newspaper or magazine.

And write to researchers if you want to better understand their research. It's the honest way to understand what their position is on their own work, rather than assume their position based on others' interpretations of their work. They will likely be touched that you made the effort to ask questions than assume someone else's interpretation (which may or may not be correct), and be pleased that you took the attitude that no question is a stupid question.

As for your vote: vote with your conscience. I can't tell anyone how to vote and it's not my job to tell you how to vote. I can only tell you that after seeing George W. Bush in office and how little attention and assistance he gave the Lyme disease patient community after his own battle with the disease that I have little faith in any politician delivering the much needed funds for translational medicine and treatment research that will help me and my fellow patients.

I feel pretty much the same about anyone else running for office, and anyone trying to stay in office: Show me you can make my life better, either directly or indirectly through concrete and substantial action - or hire someone working for you who will.

I don't want someone to discuss synergy (some vague assertion with no concrete plan), creating another task force or Lyme disease committee, or official state day in observance of Lyme disease. No. What I want to see is money going directly towards treatment and testing research - towards something tangible that has clear actionable goals and benchmarks to be met. What I want to see is concerted effort towards directly supporting those who are ill, with access to a wider range of treatment options, home health care aides, transportation, and supportive services (therapy to help patients physically and emotionally) during the darkest times of our lives.

I also am not a "single issue voter", either. If you are running for office and you make campaign promises that are about promoting awareness of Lyme disease - but slash support for medicare and disability, and make it harder for those of us who are ill and dysfunctional to get the help we need on a broad scale - I can't in my good conscience vote for you. I have to vote for someone who supports all of us who are dealing with disabilities - my fellow humans who are suffering - and those who are currently well who, unfortunately, may one day join our ranks.

In closing, I leave you with one passage from The Business Insider:

"Romney should pledge to funnel money into research organizations that could find the actual cause of this disease, and he could help stop its spread by addressing the causes of global climate change, the main reason the disease has reached so far and wide and continues to spread."

I wouldn't stop there. EVERYONE should pledge to funnel money into research organizations that could find the actual cause of this disease - and more importantly, effective treatment and testing for it.


Image Credit: Former Governor Mitt Romney giving an interview at a supporters rally in Paradise Valley, Arizona. December 6, 2011. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6468744615/. Taken by Gage Skidmore. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

0 Abstract: Dynamic Longitudinal Antibody Responses during Borrelia burgdorferi Infection and Antibiotic Treatment of Rhesus Macaques

Dynamic Longitudinal Antibody Responses during Borrelia burgdorferi Infection and Antibiotic Treatment of Rhesus Macaques

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22718128

Embers ME, Hasenkampf NR, Jacobs MB, Philipp MT.

Abstract

Infection with B. burgdorferi elicits robust, yet disparate antibody responses in infected individuals. A longitudinal assessment of antibody responses to multiple diagnostic antigens following experimental infection and treatment has not previously been reported.

Our goal was to identify a combination of antigens that could indicate infection at all phases of disease and response to antibiotic treatment. Because the rhesus macaque recapitulates the hallmark signs and disease course of human Lyme disease, we examined the specific antibody responses to multiple antigens of B. burgdorferi following infection of macaques.

Five macaques infected with strain B31 and 12 macaques infected with strain JD1 were included in the analysis. Approximately half of these animals were treated with antibiotics at 4-6 months post-inoculation.

Antibody responses to several B. burgdorferi recombinant antigens, including OspC, DbpA, BBK32, OspA and OppA-2 were measured at multiple points throughout infection. We have previously shown a decline in the response to the C6 peptide following antibiotic treatment.

Responses to OspA and OspC, however, were variable over time among individuals, irrespective of antibiotic treatment. Not every individual responded to BBK32, but anti-DbpA IgG levels were uniformly high and remained elevated for all animals. All responded to OppA-2, with a decline post-treatment that was slow and incomplete. This is the first demonstration of B. burgdorferi OppA-2 antigenicity in nonhuman primates. The combination of DbpA, OspC, OspA, and OppA-2 with the C6 diagnostic peptide has potential to detect infection throughout all disease phases.

Comments:

Coming soon...

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

2 Wormser et al Criticism Launched at Embers' Rhesus Macaque Study

Wormser et al have recently published a critique of Embers' study, "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection".

Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print]

Critical Analysis of Treatment Trials of Rhesus Macaques Infected with Borrelia burgdorferi Reveals Important Flaws in Experimental Design.
Wormser GP, Baker PJ, O'Connell S, Pachner AR, Schwartz I, Shapiro ED.

Abstract

A critical analysis of two treatment trials of Chinese rhesus macaques infected with Borrelia burgdorferi indicates that insufficient attention was placed on documenting the blood levels, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic parameters of the antibiotics used in this host. Consequently, it is impossible to conclude that the findings have validity in judging the efficacy of doxycycline or ceftriaxone for the treatment of Borrelia burgdorferi in this animal model.

PMID: 22620495 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Full text of this critique is available here:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vbz.2012.1012

The full text of the original study which is the focus of this critique is here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029914


Related material on Camp Other blog:

• Paper: Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection
• Debate About Embers Non-Human Primate Chronic Lyme Disease Study Continues
• Embers et al Rhesus Macaque Study Correction Issued
• Embers et al Issues Statement On PLoSONE
• Why Aren't Persisting Spirochetes Enough Evidence Of Infection?

Comments:

For now I am sharing the news that the free full text this critique is available online. Further comments to be made at another time. Comments by readers are welcome.

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

3 Commentary: Critical Mass In The Media On Lyme Disease

It's April, and it's already that time of year again for Lyme disease: The media has been stepping up its coverage of Lyme disease related news items in preparation for May, which is Lyme disease awareness month.

For example:
Health Department Issues Warning About Ticks (Ohio)
10 Tips To Beat The Ticks (msnbc)
Lyme Disease Is On The Rise In New Jersey And Pennsylvania
Arkansas On Track For More Tickborne Illnesses This Summer
Scientist Says Lack Of Acorns May Mean More Lyme Disease In Maine
Minnesota: State's tick season crawling to an early start
Tick bites on the rise in Central Florida, county says
Tick season gets an early start (Iowa)
It's tick season in Lake, Mendocino counties (California)

Canada has been getting in on the action:
How to prevent disease infection after research finds Lyme-carrying ticks are on the rise in Canada
Toronto: Climate change causes Mississauga infestation
Tick season is here (Kamloops)

And also the BBC in the UK:
Great outdoors? Ticks, pets and the risk of Lyme disease
Seeking to solve the Lyme disease puzzle

All these links are to articles I just grabbed off Google News in a matter of seconds. There are so many news items listed that I could not mention them all and just selected links representative of the fact that  Lyme disease is getting more attention across the United States and the northern hemisphere in general.  If I search further afield, I'm sure I could include links from France, the Netherlands, Germany, and other countries.

This year, I noticed that the news cycle has been slightly different. The media has been discussing that tick season was going to be earlier than usual and worse than usual when it was just barely into the new year. And with this has come more stern warnings to the public to protect themselves from tick bites and prevent infection.

The media has been on top of things, it seems. How about me? As someone who has suffered from Lyme disease and coinfection, I've been thinking about my own role in how to participate activities related to this year's Lyme disease awareness month.

Last May, I wrote a series of articles for The Daily Kos for Lyme disease awareness month. Time is obviously running out to decide whether or not to write again this May, and I am leaving the decision to the last minute just as I did the previous year.

I think traditionally calling attention to Lyme disease prevention in May has made sense. But I can't help but think that being aware of all tickborne infection throughout the entire year is a better approach.

One reason why is because the world is changing. Global warming and fluctuations in the ecosystem can lead to different tick breeding times and infection patterns. Local microclimates and winters which are milder on average can lead to peak cases of Lyme disease being reported in autumn and early winter - as they have been reported in California and parts of Oregon. And if Australia turns out to have its own increase in Lyme disease cases which run according to their seasons, then timing for prevention and education would differ from North America by six months.

Another reason why is that it doesn't hurt to put the message out there all year round is because more people are likely to hear it and be aware about the potential problems tick bites can bring before they are in circumstances where they are more likely to get bitten...Hopefully they won't get bitten at all.

Any month where people are going to be going outdoors and placing themselves in environments where they are likely to encounter ticks is a month where one should take the steps necessary to protect themselves from tick bites.

My own basic online version of tickborne disease prevention education
has been this page: http://campother.blogspot.com/2011/06/video-tick-removal.html

It has two videos - one an animation about preventing oneself from being bitten by a tick and another about how to create your own tick removal kit.

Overall, I think there is a fair amount of information available about prevention and avoidance of Lyme disease and other tickborne infections. And it's good to repeat this information and give people reminders.

The Fear of Taking It Too Far?

From my own personal perspective - after years of reading articles about the prevention and avoidance of ticks - I'm in a position where I'm trying to figure out what seems to be the opposite problem: how not to go overboard in preventing and avoiding tickborne infection.

And it is a good question: What exactly is going overboard when one has had their life changed entirely (and not in a good way) by having contracted a tickborne infection? Some people might argue there is no such thing as going overboard.

I know it's possible that some day I could be hiking and get bitten by a tick again. That concern is real. The fear behind getting another infected tick bite is real. And I have asked myself, "Do I really want to hike again?"

Hard question. But it's still difficult to say no. In terms of risk reduction, I would rather give up living with a pet than give up spending time outdoors.

I love the great outdoors, and I miss hiking and camping - two activities which put me at the most risk for tick bites. I'm not doing either these days due to fatigue, pain, and lack of stamina. But if I were to suddenly become completely well again, I would have to think twice about how I could return to these activities and remain unscathed by ticks.

There has been a sense of loss that comes from not engaging in activities I once used to do all the time.  Hiking was a walking meditation for me that worked better than sitting in a crowded room full of people doing yoga poses. And cheaper, too.

Out in the woods, I could be alone with my thoughts and close to the earth. I could get in tune with my body and push its limits without anyone watching. I could stretch my muscles, climb rocks, and see how far I could go.

Today I feel weak and broken. I miss feeling stronger. I miss being out in nature, in the elements, encountering wildlife.

I also miss sitting near a campfire, eating and drinking with friends while telling tall tales and bad jokes... It's amazing how much I took for granted that I now miss.

I've figured out that there are things I could do to ease back into the activities I love to do while lowering my risk. I could focus on cycling, swimming, sailing, canoeing, scuba, urban walks, and hiking and camping in rocky mountainous and desert areas where ticks are far less likely to be encountered. It might take more advance planning to do some of these things - but time outdoors wouldn't have to stop. Activities may just need to be modified to alleviate my concerns.

But all this is only going to happen once I am well enough and have energy enough to do these things at all.

Shifting From A Narrow Focus On Fear Of Ticks To Action On Chronic Lyme

From where I sit, I think the awareness message has to be broader than "ticks are out there, they carry nasty infections, protect yourself from their bite"... I think the message has been getting out there, little by little, that if one does get bitten that early diagnosis and treatment is crucial.

But the bigger message which has to get out is that more research on preventing and treating late stage chronic Lyme disease is needed because this is the one aspect of Lyme disease which is the most damaging (and controversial) of all.

The science needs to be brought to public light from those who are up to their ears in it. I'd like to see more researchers being interviewed and not just patients. I'd like to see doctors discussing how much - and how long - these infections can affect one's quality of life. I'd like to see various people discuss the Embers' study on national TV. I'd like to see someone have the balls to actually discuss whether or not there can be a persistent infection in Lyme disease and mention all the studies which have been done to date on both - or rather, all - sides of the fence. I'd like to see a genuine open scientific debate.

I see it as I call it, and how I see it right now is that the dialog about Lyme disease needs to be taken past the human interest story and past the public health department's annual warnings about increasing cases of tickborne infections. A good move in this direction has been discussing the impact of global warming on the spread of ticks. An even better move would be to discuss what we can do to stop the most serious impact that Lyme disease has on us, our families, and our pets in the form of chronic and persisting symptoms.

A call for more research is needed. A call for more young people to study microbiology and immunology to better understand tickborne infections is needed. A call for more surveillance in new latitudes is needed. A call for more detailed public education on Lyme disease is needed. And a call for more serious candid discussions from the media - and not just daytime TV sensationalism - is needed.

How do we get from here to there? If I have any role in this, then it's going to have to be directed towards answering this question - whether it's May or not.

Image credit: © Jarek Tuszynski / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA-3.0 & GDFL

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

0 Commentary: Antibiotics Are Only One Tool - I Want Others.

A few weeks ago, I commented on a Wall Street Journal blog post about chronic Lyme disease. Since then, I have been reflecting on this response to my comments there:

"Camp Other – The cure for chronic Lyme is known. If you want a sustainable, long term cure, you can gamble on long term antibiotics, or can you take an alternative approach, which consists of doing between 20 and 50 different things, including Low Dose Naltrexone. Yes, they get you to a cure, at which point a good alkaline diet, oxygenation, vitamin D, etc etc etc should maintain health.

 Easier said than done though. Even when you cure your Lyme, you need to maintain the healthy diet, and some of the supplements that got you there. You also want to do genetic testing for things like methylation, as part of treament and post-cure maintenance. I’m certainly not banking on the Viral Genetics research. It could be many years before that turns into a drug we could take. I already know people who are fully cured and back to their old lives, so it is curable with current knowledge."

And I also sadly know people who are not fully cured with current knowledge.

Reflecting on this, it's not an easy statement for me to make - but I don't think the cure for chronic Lyme disease is entirely known.

If it were known, then all the patients I know would have had the treatment they needed and would be better now. But some of them are not. And I don't think it's some personal failing that they aren't or that they haven't done the right things - it's that their individual condition is different and may require different treatment - including treatments which haven't even been developed yet.

I can see that long term antibiotics, some alternative medicine, or some combination of the two have helped a number of people improve their condition and alleviate symptoms. Many have gotten their old life back. But it's never been guaranteed that any of these treatments will work for everyone.

 Even the Lyme disease patient support groups have often repeated the statement, "Every patient is different," and Polly Murray herself stated in her book, The Widening Circle:

"I am struck by how Lyme disease never seems to act exactly the way it is supposed to, how each individual seems to respond differently to the spirochete."

I'm a fairly pragmatic person, so my basic position on using antibiotics to treat persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease has been that if they might offer relief and improve your quality of life, if nothing else has helped, and a doctor has agreed to this treatment - then try them. Use them, while being aware that there are risks in taking them longer term - and note that perhaps there are even unforeseen consequences of which scientists are not yet aware.

But while I've been an advocate for the use of longer than standard courses of antibiotics in the subset of patients with Lyme disease who have persisting symptoms and I feel they saved my life, I have never wanted that to be the end of the story. Because it seems to me that even if they do help, if they don't cure everyone then more research is needed for effective treatment which helps all patients.

If there is evidence that comes out of Embers' Rhesus Macaque study - along with others - that Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. does have a persister cell phenotype as part of its pathogenesis, then more antibiotics may only be a maintenance treatment at best. What would really be needed is a treatment which reactivates the dormant persisters and kills them - something which antibiotics alone cannot do.

Persister cells are tolerant to antibiotics. So in theory, it may be that antibiotics of some kind plus a metabolite would be needed to eradicate any remaining spirochetes.

In the long run, I'd like to see more effective, less expensive treatments of shorter duration for my condition.

I'd like to avoid taking antibiotics out of concern for my poor digestive system and my palate, which is disgusted with bitter tasting substances rolled into barely swallowable pills in general.

I'd like to avoid the strange side effects which I have experienced which, thankfully, in most cases abated after the first week or two of treatment - yet they inexplicably seemed to be those which are less common to experience and more difficult to cope with.

Antibiotics are great tool and have helped a great number of people - and they have helped me, too. But I think it's time to look past long term antibiotics alone and push for research on other avenues of treatment.

Researching them doesn't mean abandoning antibiotic use entirely - they are scientifically proven effective against Lyme disease and its coinfections. Researching other avenues means investigating what else can be done to help patients improve their quality of life and to find something that could cure them in less time. It means exploring more options, not fewer. It means more patient freedom, not less.

 If at one point I seemed to strongly advocate Viral Genetics' VGV-L candidate for the treatment of chronic Lyme disease, it isn't because I am certain it will work. I don't know for sure that it will. I am hoping, though, that it will help at least some portion of those of us suffering and will not have serious side effects.

And I'm hoping it marks the beginning of more research into different ways to treat patients who are suffering with persistent symptoms. The antibiotics will still be there if you need them - and after how much of them I've already consumed, I'd rather not need them. I'd like to try something else if I can. A round of Buhner's herbs, perhaps - or perhaps something entirely new.

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

11 Why Aren't Persisting Spirochetes Enough Evidence Of Infection?

On the heels of Embers et al having published their statement on PLoSONE, a number of patients are already questioning its content.

Some are claiming that Embers et al statement about how their findings should not be used to oppose current IDSA treatment guidelines for Lyme disease is something they were asked to write - rather than something the authors included on their own.

I don't know. For this claim - whether it's true or not - I have no evidence. However, one thing I do know is that there are solid scientific reasons which back the need for more research on spirochetes which survive after prolonged antibiotic treatment.

The question, of course, which weighs heavily on every patient's mind has been this one:

Why aren't persisting spirochetes enough evidence of infection?

It's become a political hot button question, and it's a scientific question. But most people think that as long as the spirochetes Embers found are alive and metabolically active, that is enough evidence to state that yes, Lyme disease is a chronic infection - let's stop all this nonsense right now and change the treatment guidelines!

Given my own experience and how longer than standard treatment helped me improve, I totally get this. I've been there, done that - and I think that a standard course of antibiotic treatment does not work for everyone. Particularly if there is a delay in proper diagnosis and treatment. Particularly if a coinfection is present. Particularly if there is some abnormality in one's immune system.

But if you are a scientist and you are researching this phenomenon of persistence - whether you as a scientist suspect these spirochetes can cause persisting infection or not; whether the above claim by other patients is true or not - you will be called upon by other scientists to support your findings.

It isn't just going to be the IDSA or the ALDF or other organizations which deny the possibility of persistent infection as a cause of chronic Lyme disease which are going to want to know the outcome of your study.

It's going to be the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) that wants to know the outcome. It's going to be researchers in Europe like the Brorsons who study the "cyst" form of Borrelia burgdorferi and want confirmation of their own findings about persistence.

It's also going to be universities and health departments and many different organizations which may not have any particular position on whether or not Lyme disease can be chronic who will want to know the outcome of your study.

They're all going to want to know the outcome of a study such as Embers et al, so these researchers must be certain about what they found and its significance, and conduct additional research related to their findings in order to confirm them.

They must find evidence that no one can argue against - even the most skeptical - if they are to support their own hypotheses. And it may be that at this stage they genuinely do not know what to make of these persistent spirochetes and not only their ability to cause disease - but how they cause it.

I can easily imagine that Embers et al is being very cautious about the interpretation of their results and wanting further studies as easily as it is for other people to imagine that Embers at al were somehow instructed to downplay the significance of their spirochetes surviving antibiotic treatment.

Why do I say this? I say this because I have learned a few things about these stealthy bacteria and think there is good reason for Embers et al to be cautious about the interpretation and approaching their results either way.

Borrelia burgdorferi spirochetes, plasmids, and infectivity

After doing some research on this issue, the issue of whether or not these spirochetes were infectious and pathogenic or not is a more complex issue than it at first appears.

First, here's a refresher of some basic microbiological definitions. (Bear with me, I'll try to get through this part quickly.)

Infection = the replication of organisms in the tissue of a host; when defined in terms of infection, disease is overt clinical manifestation. In an inapparent or subclinical infection, an immune response can occur without overt clinical disease.

Colonization = A carrier (colonized individual) is a person in whom organisms are present and may be multiplying, but who shows no clinical response to their presence.

Pathogenicity = The pathogenicity of an agent is its ability to cause disease; pathogenicity is further characterized by describing the organism's virulence and invasiveness.

Virulence = refers to the severity of infection, which can be expressed by describing the morbidity (incidence of disease) and mortality (death rate) of the infection.

Invasiveness = invasiveness of an organism refers to its ability to invade tissue.

Now that we're past these definitions, I'll cut to the chase and say there are two important things to know upfront:

1) During in vitro passage or certain stressors, Borrelia burgdorferi can lose some of their plasmids. How soon this happens varies depending on the strain and particular isolates of Borrelia. 

2) When Borrelia burgdorferi loses specific plasmids with specific genes on them, it can lose infectivity and pathogenicity. It should be noted that specific genes for specific purposes can show up on different plasmids on different strains. (For example: Bb strain N40's VlsE locus is different from the one found on commonly studied B31, and it shows up on a different plasmid than on B31.) 

The essential bit of information here is that the loss of a particular gene or set of genes can affect spirochetes' ability to cause infection - and even if these genes are lost, spirochetes may still survive for a while. They can become attentuated or less infectious.

Numerous studies on Borrelia burgdorferi's plasmids have shown that lp28-1 is a linear plasmid which makes Borrelia burgdorferi infectious. VlsE genes found on lp28-1 are thought to be essential for mammalian infection with Borrelia burgdorferi.

When the lp28-1 and yet a different plasmid, lp25, are missing from spirochetes, they are unable to infect mice. The lack of lp25 completely abolishes infectivity since this plasmid encodes a gene (bbe22) which is essential for Borrelia burgdoferi's survival in mice.

Spirochetes which lose lp28-1 plasmids will still live for a while - but the immune system tends to mop them up in a few weeks without antibiotic usage.

Specific research on mutant spirochetes with a lack of the lp28-1 plasmid has shown the following:

"While the wild-type B. burgdorferi persisted in tissues for the duration of the study, the lp28-1− mutant began clearing at day 8, with no detectable bacteria present by day 18. As expected, the wild-type strain persisted in C3H/HeN mice despite a strong humoral response; however, the lp28-1− mutant was cleared coincidently with the development of a modest immunoglobulin M response. The lp28-1− mutant was able to disseminate and persist in C3H-scid mice at a level indistinguishable from that of wild-type cells, confirming that acquired immunity was required for clearance in C3H/HeN mice. Thus, within an immunocompetent host, lp28-1-encoded proteins are not required for dissemination but are essential for persistence associated with Lyme borreliosis."

To translate the above:

Normal Bb spirochetes infected C3H/HeN (mice which are specifically bred for the ability to demonstrate joint swelling and arthritic symptoms similar to those found in the average person who gets Lyme disease) mice and these spirochetes could not be cleared by the immune system despite the fact that these mice had a strong humoral response.

However, mutant Bb spirochetes which did not contain linear plasmid 28-1 were completely cleared by these C3H/HeN mice.

What's fascinating about this study is even though the mutant Bb spirochetes lacked lp28-1, these spirochetes could still disseminate. Only in severely compromised immune deficient mice (scid mice) could the spirochetes both disseminate and persist - acquired immunity must be functional in animals infected with such mutants in order to clear the spirochetes.

So, here is one example of how you can have spirochetes which are alive and metabolically active and  can even disseminate - yet they are no longer causing disease. In this instance, they were cleared by the immunocompetent mice without the use of any antibiotics within a mere 18 days. (I wish I were that lucky!)

More recently, other plasmids have been found to contribute to infectivity in mammalian hosts - such as lp36. lp36 is viewed as being another major contributor to persistent infection in mice, and spirochetes become attenuated when lp36 is removed.

Linear plasmid 28-1 and lp25 have a much longer history of their role in infectivity and pathogenicity, and they are two of the most studied linear plasmids thus far - lp28-1 the most because of its VlsE genes in strain B31.

So, keep this in mind when you think of the Embers et al study, and realize why this part of their paper on Rhesus macaques caught my attention:

"A few spirochetes grew in cultures of organ tissues collected post-mortem from each animal after  > 9 weeks, but we were unable to subculture any spirochetes from either treated or untreated animals due to their slow growth. We therefore pelleted these cultures to confirm their identity and test their viability by DNA/RNA analysis. Transcription was detected in culture pellets and the tissues of treated animals, indicating that the bacteria were metabolically active (Figure 6C, D). Figure 6D shows ospA transcription detected directly in tissues harvested from treated and untreated animals. We also hypothesized that persistent spirochetes may lose linear plasmid 28-1 (lp28-1), which encodes the VlsE antigen bound by the anti-C6 antibody. Transcription of a lp28-1 gene (bbf26) was verified in organ tissue from both untreated animals and one treated animal (Figure 6D).

In the case of Embers et al study on Rhesus macaques, one antibiotic treated animal was found to have evidence of transcription of a lp28-1 gene (bbf26 - protein; purpose unknown) from a sample taken from heart tissue (Fig. 6D) and that transcription should only be able to occur if the lp28-1 plasmid is intact and functional. lp28-1 is a linear plasmid which is very specific to infection both in vitro and in vivo, whether a tick or needle inoculation is used.

In Embers study, in addition to transcription of a gene from lp28-1, OspA transcription from lp54 was found in three treated animals. OspA transcription was detected in two tissue samples taken from the bladder and one tissue sample taken from the spleen. Additional OspA transcription was found in different organs in two out of three of the same animals using organ tissue culture pellets.

Overall, this sounds interesting and points to the possibility of chronic infection after antibiotic treatment.

 But if I have seemed cautiously optimistic about this study, it's because of a few factors*:

1) Only one treated animal had evidence of a infection where lp28-1 transcription was taking place - had more treated animals shown evidence of transcription on this plasmid, I would have been more excited. How long could spirochetes maintain these plasmids while being treated? What about lp25?

2) It is unknown to me if the genetic background and/or immune system of the treated Rhesus macaques somehow played a role in their inability to clear the spirochetes which remain after antibiotic treatment. (Refer to this post on HLA-DR types, read what's before and after the "=" signs, and you'll see what I mean.)

3) it is unknown to me how different the results would be if the Rhesus macaques had been infected using ticks instead of needle inoculations. It seems to make sense to me to do this study again using ticks because that mimics what happens in nature.

On the other hand, I find it very interesting that three animals showed evidence of transcription of OspA. Given how much inflammation people experience during Lyme disease - plus evidence of later stage antibody reactivity to OspA - it at least gives me pause to think about how often OspA has been a culprit for my own symptoms, directly or indirectly.

The only kind of spirochete
you don't mind getting close to.

So it's a mixed bag how I look at the results of the Embers Rhesus macaque study. I think it's a positive step in the right direction establishing what happens with spirochetes in their host after antibiotic treatment. And yet the unanswered questions for me seem related to the same unanswered questions the researchers themselves wrote in their paper.


Is There Anything Positive To Glean From Dr. Baker?


Of Dr. Baker's two major stated issues with the Embers study, the only one now left is whether or not the spirochetes which were transmitted by ticks to new hosts (xenodiagnosis) were in fact infectious. His other concern was over the use of ceftiofur in the study rather than ceftriaxone - however, the authors of the study have since posted a correction to PLoSONE stating that ceftriaxone - not ceftiofur - was used throughout the entire study.

If there are any remaining minor issues he has with the study, he has yet to share them on the Lyme Policy Wonk blog. Mostly, he seemed to reiterate his concern about these two issues and focused on the single mention of ceftiofur in the paper repeatedly.

About the most positive response I heard from Dr. Baker on that blog thus far was about his view of how Lyme disease research should be conducted:

"...I favor a multi-disciplinary approach that moves the field in a different direction, rather than solutions based on the assumed yet to be proved existence of a persistent infection that can only be cured by antibiotics. I don’t really discount such a view; rather, I feel we are neglecting other possibilities that may provide the answers we all are looking for. A case in point, would be the recent work of good friend, Armin Alaedini — who I helped support when I was at the NIH– using specimens collected by Mark Klempner as part of his clinical trial. These valuable specimens are being maintained by Mark in a specimen repository for use in just such cutting-edge research. They are available free of charge on request."

Like Pamela Weintraub, I agree that a multi-disciplinary approach to research on Lyme disease is important. And while Dr. Baker also supports a multi-disciplinary approach to research on Lyme disease and he states he doesn't discount the view of persistent infection in the above paragraph - his direct responses to patients suffering with CLD/PTLDS state that most patients are suffering from some other non-Lyme disease related condition - something I find particularly unhelpful to my situation. That and a lack of sufficient research on other treatment approaches has been an issue for ages.

In my opinion, Dr. Baker's response to the Embers Rhesus macaque study was more negative than it warranted. I wouldn't have viewed it negatively at all - I see it as a stepping stone in getting a better understanding about Lyme disease.  And just because it leaves unanswered questions does not mean it was inherently flawed - which was what Dr. Baker seemed to suggest.

To quote someone else on that blog:

"My question to Dr. Baker is why don’t you and your colleagues offer some expert advice, according to your best opinions and hunches if science really has proven inadequate for your epistemic standards of validity, without having to officially disclose any sensitive data that might get you in trouble with your career, that could actually HELP these affected people lessen their pain and disability? Just disparaging some controversial or technically flawed research as being invalid does not seem helpful enough to me."

Yes. This.

Regardless of anyone's opinion - Dr. Baker, or LLMDs, or my friends and family - researchers will be expected to provide evidence to the world that these remaining spirochetes are pathogenic. They will need to provide evidence that that they can cause infection and reproduce - even if they are already proven to be alive.

Researchers who are trying to work without bias will want to cover all the bases and check their postulates twice to be 100% certain that Borrelia burgdorferi either causes a chronic infection or it does not after standard antibiotic treatment.

This may be so - but I'm impatient about it.


References:

The Absence of Linear Plasmid 25 or 28-1 of Borrelia burgdorferi Dramatically Alters the Kinetics of Experimental Infection via Distinct Mechanisms. Maria Labandeira-Rey, J. Seshu, and Jonathan T. Skare. Infect Immun. 2003 August; 71(8): 4608–4613. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC166013/

Correlation between plasmid content and infectivity in Borrelia burgdorferi. Purser JE, Norris SJ. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Dec 5;97(25):13865-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11106398

High- and low-infectivity phenotypes of clonal populations of in vitro-cultured Borrelia burgdorferi. Norris, SJ, Howell, JK, Garza, SA, Ferdows, MS, and Barbour, AG. Infect. Immun. 63:2206-2212.

Plasmid Stability during In Vitro Propagation of Borrelia burgdorferi Assessed at a Clonal Level. Dorothee Grimm, Abdallah F. Elias, Kit Tilly and Patricia A. Rosa. Infect. Immun. June 2003 vol. 71 no. 6 3138-3145 http://iai.asm.org/content/71/6/3138.full

Experimental assessment of the roles of linear plasmids lp25 and lp28-1 of Borrelia burgdorferi throughout the infectious cycle. Grimm D, Eggers CH, Caimano MJ, Tilly K, Stewart PE, Elias AF, Radolf JD, Rosa PA. Infect Immun. 2004 Oct;72(10):5938-46. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15385497

The critical role of the linear plasmid lp36 in the infectious cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi. Mollie W Jewett, Kevin Lawrence, Aaron C Bestor, Kit Tilly, Dorothee Grimm, Pamela Shaw, Mark VanRaden, Frank Gherardini, and Patricia A Rosa. Mol Microbiol. 2007 June 1; 64(5): 1358–1374. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1974800/?tool=pubmed

Basic Epidemiology. Beaglehole R, Bonita R, Kjellstrom T. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1993

* Factors which concern others but I did not originally think of are included in comments below.

[Edited March 9, 2012 - Removed item above about brain tissue after reviewing Embers paper again - multiple brain samples were taken; one treated animal was positive for B. burgdorferi RNA in both heart and brain.]

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

64 Embers et al Issues Statement On PLoSONE

Embers et al has issued the following author statement on PLoSONE:

Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques Following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection

Author statement
Posted by membersla on 02 Mar 2012 at 15:19 GMT

We recently published this article entitled “Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques Following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection.” The subject and content of this work may be viewed very divergently, given the controversy surrounding Lyme disease treatment. Specifically, the phenomenon of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome and its cause (s) have been viewed with much contention.

Our work, which was funded by several grants from the National Institutes of Health, is composed of two major experiments. Experiment 1 entailed a very comprehensive and time-consuming study that indicated the possibility that spirochetes could persist after antibiotic treatment, but only nucleic acid or antigen of these bacteria were detected, leaving open the question of persistence by intact organisms. Experiment 2 was intended to answer that question. The authors elected to publish these 2 studies together, as they mutually enhance the validity and scientific merit of the work.

In our study, we provide evidence demonstrating the post-treatment persistence of the B. burgdorferi spirochete that has been reported previously in a mouse model. We further demonstrate through multiple detection methods that intact spirochetes can survive antibiotic treatment in a nonhuman primate host. It is not our intent to present data in opposition of current antibiotic treatment regimens for humans, but rather to report what we believe to be objective, well-performed experiments on antibiotic efficacy in a nonhuman primate model.

These data are by no means a referendum on long-term antibiotic therapy, nor should they serve to oppose current IDSA guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease. From the medical standpoint, these results may or may not warrant testing of additional treatments or regimens. This depends heavily on the results of further inquiry as to the duration of persistence, the viability and phenotype of persistent organisms, and the answer to the key question of whether persisters are pathogenic. Current practices could only be challenged by solid proof of better treatment options; these are currently not available.

For several decades, basic scientists and medical doctors have collaborated to understand and improve Lyme disease treatment, diagnosis and prevention. As we proceed with further inquiry into the phenomenon of PTLDS, these collaborations are essential. The continued discussion, commentary and debate will additionally be of benefit when conducted without bias.

Source Link: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2Fbe820481-edcb-457e-8d20-c0a904b91607&root=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2Fbe820481-edcb-457e-8d20-c0a904b91607

Bolded emphasis mine.

My comments? I could have predicted that such a statement would be issued. The researchers in question are making a string of inquiries where they must be certain of the outcome and not make a statement about the nature of Lyme disease prematurely - even if the chronic infection model of Lyme disease makes sense to many people and is the experience which a number of patients report having.

It comes as a disappointment to many patients that there is a specific statement here against long term antibiotic treatment, with the explicit statement that the results of this study are not intended to oppose current IDSA treatment guidelines. However, it is also stated that "these results may or may not warrant testing of additional treatments or regimens". The future regarding changes in antibiotic usage is uncertain.

Statements above and within the original study reflect a certain amount of uncertainty.

And in order for this team to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, they must be willing to look at all the possible causes for persisting symptoms. They must be willing to challenge themselves and question the strength of their suspicions and poke holes at their assumptions. This must be done not only to assure them they are on the right track - but to be prepared to answer questions coming from any critics.

They may repeat their experiments to confirm their findings and conduct another study where tick inoculation is used and not needle inoculation. A study is needed that examines what would happen in an actual case of infection under conditions found in nature - not in a lab. This experiment would not only involve the use of ceftriaxone and doxcycline - but use infected ticks on hosts and involve the complex immune interactions that take place after a tick infection which do not occur the same way as they would after injection with a bacteria-laiden needle.

I'm looking forward to more research from Embers et al. That they close their statement with the phrase, "The continued discussion, commentary and debate will additionally be of benefit when conducted without bias," means a lot to me. It indicates to me that they are seeking the truth - which is something I can get behind. I only hope they find it soon.

Image credit: Morphology of Borrelia burgdorferi by Jeffrey Nelson, Microbe Library. Use under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

0 Embers et al Rhesus Macaque Study Correction Issued

This is a quick but important update on the Embers et al Rhesus Macaque study, "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection", and mention of the controversial use of ceftiofur rather than ceftriaxone:

The authors have issued a correction on PLoSONE. They had used ceftriaxone throughout the study and did not use ceftiofur at all.

Much debate arose on the Lyme Policy Wonk blog about something which was probably an honest mistake.

MicrobeFan of Spirochetes Unwound thought that might have been the case, having pointed out that "ceftiofur" was only mentioned once in the paper - whereas "ceftriaxone" was mentioned several times.

"Damn you, auto correct!" Except most of us, I suspect, do not have ceftiofur in our dictionaries by default...

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More

5 Debate About Embers Non-Human Primate Chronic Lyme Disease Study Continues

UPDATE - Feb. 27:  I did receive a response from Dr. Baker. See comments below this post.

There is some heated discussion going on at CALDA's web site regarding Embers et al study, "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection (2012)".

I wrote about this study last month and commented on some of the findings and the need for further research and confirmation of the findings in this study. (I recommend reviewing that post and comments made on it.)

CALDA's Lorraine Johnson has questioned Dr. Phillip Baker, who was Program Officer for the NIH's Lyme disease research division at the time the Embers study began (then known as Mario Phillip's study; Baker retired from NIH in 2007 and is now in charge at the ALDF), over the 12 year delay of Embers et al publishing the results of this study.

Dr. Baker himself decided to respond to Lorraine's questions and respond to a number of the comments and questions patients and advocates shared on CALDA's Lyme Policy Wonk blog.

Interestingly, a number of people have discussed this study on Lymenet Europe - with one member, Henry, questioning the use of ceftiofur when Embers study was supposed to emulate Klempner's chronic Lyme study. This issue happens to be one of of main issues Dr. Baker also raises on the Wonk blog about the Embers study. (Warning: There are seven pages of spirited discussion on this topic at LNE thus far - some of which may raise blood pressure in readers.)

To follow the discussion and see an example of different points of view over the issue of chronic Lyme disease, read here: http://lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/lymepolicywonk-was-this-important-lyme-study-hidden-for-12-years.html

In the meantime, I have submitted my own questions and comments to CALDA's web site for Dr. Baker. As of this writing, my post has just cleared moderation and I await a response from Dr. Baker.

I want some answers. Not just about oversight for how the study was designed but about the lack of treatment studies for chronic Lyme disease patients.

Even if your position is that chronic Lyme disease is not caused by a persisting Borrelia infection, there is no reason why more research cannot be completed to provide evidence that this is or is not the case in some circumstances. And even if your position is that chronic Lyme disease's persisting symptoms may be caused by other factors, there is no reason why more treatment research cannot be completed to provide evidence either for or against these factors playing a role...

---

Dr. Baker,

First of all, I want to thank you for being here and presenting your view in the presence of Lyme disease patients who have different points of view than your own and who are at a minimum questioning your opinion about Lyme disease and at a maximum - quite angry.

This isn't an easy thing to do. I recognize that. But this is a necessary thing to do, and I wish that more dialog occurred between people with differing views even at the risk of it becoming contentious. It is often the only way opinions get aired and heard and questions get answered - even if we don't like the answers we hear.

I have a few questions for you, and hope I did not miss the boat on getting a response from you at this late hour:

1) Just so the storyline is clear: Who determined that ceftiofur should have been used in Embers et al study on NHP and is this decision something that NIH would have had to give approval - or is this a decision that would have been made at the individual level of the PI/researcher and not require any approval from the NIH? Would any independent governing scientific board outside the NIH been expected to approve of the study design including methods and materials? It seems that in order to emulate the Klempner study, the antibiotic chosen should either be the same as used in the original study or have, as you've stated, PK and PD that are pretty much indistinguishable from ceftriaxone.

2) In your opinion - and in the opinion of others at the ALDF - would you have to see studies separately completed on ceftiofur that provide you with evidence that its PK and PD in NHP are functionally equivalent to the use of ceftriaxone in humans? If these studies are conducted and they are found to be equivalent, then would you say that the results of the Embers et al study are valid? (Even if - according to your position - they don't yet prove a persistent infection/persister cells are the cause of patients' symptoms.)

3) The central point on which a lot of this debate hinges is whether or not spirochetes which remain after antibiotic treatment are viable and infectious. I've never gotten the impression that the majority of researchers out there have debated the existence of spirochetes after abx treatment - the impression I've had is that they either didn't think they were the cause of persisting symptoms in patients or did not know one way or the other if they were the case of persisting symptoms.

Parallel to demonstrated survival of some spirochetes after abx treatment, some research has indicated that a combination of Borrelial strain, host genetics, immune system response, and in some cases, molecular mimicry - may be causative factors for persisting symptoms. I myself think that based on evidence I've read to date, both persisting spirochetes and immune system changes can lead to persisting symptoms. I am particularly intrigued by HLA-DRs and variable immune response in this regard (see "HLA-DR alleles determine responsiveness to Borrelia burgdoferi antigens" by Bettina Panagiota Iliopoulou, Mireia Guerau-de-Arellano, and Brigitte T. Huber. Arthritis Rheum. 2009 December; 60(12): 3831–3840.).

My questions are:

When is the NIH-NIAID going to conduct more studies aimed towards this end? And also, if you and others are convinced that chronic Lyme disease patients are not suffering from persisting infections - why hasn't more treatment research been conducted that supports your point of view of what is or what are the causative factors for such symptoms?

Why are patients, advocates, and Lyme disease advocacy organizations having to donate money to Dr. Karen Newell Rogers and Viral Genetics to find alternative treatments to long-term antibiotics - why isn't the NIH-NIAID pursuing these alternative approaches now, if the argument is that long term antibiotics do not work and you consider them unsafe (Which in my opinion debatable in my eyes - I have personally benefited from more than the guidelines recommend - and I do not think the use for or against more abx is applicable to everyone because this is a heterogenous patient population. The patients need to be characterized into subgroups first rather than boxed into meeting CDC specific requirements before designing new trials.)?

I have been offended with the letter to the Lancet about Lyme disease patients and advocates supporting pseudoscience when so many of us have wanted to fund more research and get answers. When a number of our friends and families have donated their money to research even when they have already paid so much for treatment.

Some of the answers are already there. If more than one hypothesis is solid enough for testing, I'm for it. Test different combinations of antibiotics. Create drugs which have the anti-inflammatory properties of these antibiotics and use them as a control against combinations of antibiotics. Use higher doses of orals, if the fear of line sepsis freaks you out (it does me, and I have not had a PICC line by choice). Try testing thymus peptides and altering the distribution of B cells to see if that helps patients.

What I see as an observer is that Lyme disease treatment research has been shut down unless it's for acute Lyme disease. We need more late stage untreated Lyme disease research, and I'm with Fallon on this one - more specific neuroborreliosis research. His suggestions for those trials seem worthwhile.

But for God's sake, something has to be done. Some people are seriously impaired. I am doing somewhat better now and have my mind back to a large degree and don't need a wheelchair. But I am not yet well enough to work due to pain and fatigue with normal amounts of exertion. Something is broken there.

---

Dr. Baker's response to me:

Hi Campother,

Even though I feel that some have their minds made up and will not believe anything that I have to say, I will try to answer your questions:

1. Dr. Philipp received a small grant (AI042352) to conduct an experiment in NHPs to replicate the Klempner clinical trial, except of course for the manner in which the NHPs were infected. Because the grant was a small one (about $250K as I recall), Dr. Klempner was able — with support from the drug company– to provide him with the ceftriaxone and doxycycline to be used; these antibiotics were from the same lots used in the human study. Fair enough? That made working on a small grant a bit easier. 

Since NHPs are rather expensive to use and maintain, not too many could be used in the Philipp study because of limited funding. Furthermore, NHPs were in short supply at that time because of increase competition for use in studies on AIDS. The grant was funded for a 4 year period of time, during which time Dr. Philipp reported to me that he was having technical problems, especially with the strain of Borrelia that he had been using in past experiments; it appeared to have “lost its punch” and was no longer eliciting an infection of the same magnitude and character as noted in previous studies. This meant that he would have to re-drive the strain and test it in other NHPs to confirm that it was suitable for use in the definitive studies planned for the grant; that of course would take a great deal of time — and additional NHPs–to do. 

Although situations like this are unfortunate, they do happen and are part and parcel of the realities of doing scientific research — if you want to do it right. 

So, as far as Dr. Philipp’s original grant is concerned, it expired — after the 4 year period– with no data that he felt was was ready and complete for publication at that time. Obviously he continued with his NHP studies and apparently received funding from other sources; note that research Resources grants like RR00164 are designed for the purchase materials, equipment, and supplies, in this case, more NHPs I assume. But, I was “out of the picture” at that point — as far as Dr. Philipp’s research on NHPs was concerned. Keep in mind that as Program Officer, I was not the czar of NIH’s entire research program on Lyme disease, even though so people have the mistaken notion that I had such “power”.

So, you ask who made the decision to use ceftiofur instead of ceftriaxone? I honestly don’t know. 

You will have to ask Dr. Philipp, whose e-mail address is provided in the Embers paper. During the time that Dr. Philipp was doing his work under AI042352, it was being done in accordance with the terms of that grant indicated above. Whatever else he did — or may have done– must have been accomplished afterwards and with other support that did not involve me or NIAID. I must say that I find it strange that the term ceftriaxone is used throughout the Embers et al. paper, and it is only in the first paragraph on page 9 that it is first mentioned that ceftiofur was actually used. I find that very strange indeed.

As stated before and in other postings on this site, I have two major — and legitimate– concerns with the work reported by Embers et al. . First, since so little is known about the PK, PD, and MIC of ceftriofur, was the treatment adequate to eliminate the massive infection induced by needle inoculation? Since the author did not provide such assurances, that is a major and significant unknown. Second, if the therapy was adequate, there is no evidence to indicate that the “persistors” are able to infect other animals and produce disease. They might just be sitting there, for all we know, doing nothing harmful to the host. In view of these considerations, the PCR, RT-PCR, and xenodiagnosis data are not informative. In fact, there are no real differences between the antibiotic treated and sham-treated groups in terms of the objective signs of infection (pathology) noted ; that makes me wonder if the therapeutic regimen was truly effective. So, if I were reviewing this paper for publication in a journal, I would have to reject it publication for these and other deficiencies that I will not elaborate on at this time.

2. Since ceftiofur and cetriaxone differ significantly in chemical structure, I would not be at all surprised if they had different PD/PK properties; those who do drug design research find that the addition of a single chloride atom is enough to alter the properties of some drugs. What is certain is that ceftiofur is not approved for use in humans and there is no published evidence on its efficacy for treating borreliosis in animal models. Obviously, the use of ceftiofur is a big unknown. My best advice, if someone wanted to replicate the Klempner studies in an animal model would be to use ceftriaxone and doxycycline in the same manner that he did and not introduce another variable like ceftiofur– unless you plan to get the FDA to approve the use of ceftiofur in human studies. That may take a long time to do….

3. Since I have retired from the NIH, I don’t know what their plans are for future research on Lyme disease. But, I can tell you that about 90% of the research that NIH supports is driven by proposals submitted as investigator initiated grant applications — the RO1 grants. 

So, if anyone has any good ideas, they are always welcome to submit a grant application, although competition for grants is very keen and only about 25% of all applications submitted are funded. One has to be persistent as most of my colleagues are to make it in science. 

Although I am not opposed to conducting another clinical trial, the odds for such a proposal getting funded are rather slim, especially since NIH has already supported 4 trials indicating that extended antibiotic therapy is not beneficial. 

Obviously, I would like to see more work done on whether the “persistors” Bockenstedt and Barthold noted in mice are infective and can cause disease, as well as whether they can stimulate a local inflammatory response. But, I think we would be making a big mistake by not considering other possibilities as I’ve mentioned in a recent article (http://www.fasebj.org/content/26/1/11.long). 

There are MANY people who believe that they have “chronic Lyme disease” with no evidence that they ever had Lyme disease in the first place. Some have been misdiagnosed and are being subjected to all sort of unproven therapy. Also, there are individuals who go from one doctor to another seeking a “cure” and who often are victims of “quack” remedies. 

One reason we had so much difficulty enrolling patients into the Klempner study was that only about 5-8% of those who presented themselves for enrollment had unequivocal evidence in their medical record of having been diagnosed correctly for Lyme disease in the first place. Obviously, one can not have a chronic infection without first having an active and correctly diagnosed infection in the first place. That was made a criterion for enrollment to ensure that we would have a cohort of patients with a reasonably high — though still not absolutely certain– probability of having a persistent infection — if one were present. I assure you, and you can ask Brian Fallon and Lauren Krupp, such people are NOT easy to find.

But, I have said enough. The biggest obstacle to making any progress is the lack of trust and the tendency to condemn anyone in the scientific community who disagrees with the unproven concept of others. Some simply have no understanding of evidence-based research and how it works, let alone things like the placebo effect. There is just too much misinformation being spread on the internet — and too many people gobbling it up as though it were fact. It’s an ideal environment for all the “quacks” to thrive — and they surely do. And that is what disturbs me the most………

---

So, there you have it - that's his response, and while I posted a response to the Wonk blog, because my response was too lengthy it has not been posted there. So I posted it to comments below, after an explanation of why my response was not posted there.

The moderator emailed me personally and said that I could post another 150 word comment of my choosing, but I have declined for now because I don't think what I can say in response to Dr. Baker is adequately summed up in 150 words.

There was a second comment with other content which I submitted that I later decided needed a serious rewrite before posting - I won't be posting that here now and am okay with the moderators not publishing it (good job, mods - thanks).

I just want to take a moment here to acknowledge those who left intelligent and insightful questions and comments on the Wonk blog - even when addressing someone with whom they vehemently disagree. I would like to see more dialog such as this, but even more so I would like to see more thorough education and outreach going on which deconstructs all the hypotheses behind why chronic Lyme disease patients have persisting symptoms and what research is required to resolve the debate over cause.

This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Read More