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 Koch's Postulates

Just an FYI... for tales of xenodiagnosis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch's_postulates

Koch's postulates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Koch's postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causal relationship between a causative microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884 and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to establish the etiology of anthrax and tuberculosis, but they have been generalized to other diseases.

The postulates

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

However, Koch abandoned the universalist requirement of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera^[1] and, later, of typhoid fever. Asymptomatic or subclinical infection carriers are now known to be a common feature of many infectious diseases, especially viruses such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.

The third postulate specifies "should", not "must", because as Koch himself proved in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera,^[2] not all organisms exposed to an infectious agent will acquire the infection. Noninfection may be due to such factors as general health and proper immune functioning; acquired immunity from previous exposure or vaccination; or genetic immunity, as with the resistance to malaria conferred by possessing at least one sickle cell allele.

The second postulate may also be suspended for certain microorganisms or entities that cannot (at the present time) be grown in pure culture, such as prions responsible for Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.^[3] In summary, a body of evidence that satisfies Koch's postulates is sufficient but not necessary to establish causation.

History

Koch's postulates were developed in the 19th century as general guidelines to identify pathogens that could be isolated with the techniques of the day.^[4] Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates.^[2][5] Attempts to rigidly apply Koch's postulates to the diagnosis of viral diseases in the late 19th century, at a time when viruses could not be seen or isolated in culture, may have impeded the early development of the field of virology.^[6][7]Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.^[8] Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.

Koch's postulates have also influenced scientists who examine microbial pathogenesis from a molecular point of view. In the 1980s, a molecular version of Koch's postulates was developed to guide the identification of microbial genes encoding virulence factors.^[9]

See also

• Willoughby D. Miller
• Molecular Koch's postulates

References

1. ^ Koch Robert (1893). "Über den augenblicklichen Stand der bakteriologischen Choleradiagnose" (in German). Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infectionskrankheiten 14: 319–333.doi:10.1007/BF02284324.
2. ^ ^a b Koch Robert (1884). "2 Die Aetiologie der Tuberkulose". Mitt Kaiser Gesundh. pp. 1–88.
3. ^ Inglis TJ (November 2007). "Principia aetiologica: taking causality beyond Koch's postulates". J. Med. Microbiol. 56 (Pt 11): 1419–22. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.47179-0. PMID 17965339.
4. ^ Walker L, Levine H, Jucker M (2006). "Koch's postulates and infectious proteins.". Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 112 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1007/s00401-006-0072-x. PMID 16703338.
5. ^ Koch R (1893). "Ueber den augenblicklichen Stand der bakteriologischen Choleradiagnose". J. Hyg. Inf. 14: 319–33. doi:10.1007/BF02284324.
6. ^ Brock TD (1999). Robert Koch: a life in medicine and bacteriology. Washington DC: American Society of Microbiology Press. ISBN 1555811434.
7. ^ Evans AS (May 1976). "Causation and disease: the Henle-Koch postulates revisited". Yale J Biol Med 49 (2): 175–95. PMID 782050.
8. ^ Jacomo V, Kelly P, Raoult D (2002). "Natural history of Bartonella infections (an exception to Koch's postulate)". Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 9 (1): 8–18. doi:10.1128/CDLI.9.1.8-18.2002.PMID 11777823.
9. ^ Falkow S (1988). "Molecular Koch's postulates applied to microbial pathogenicity". Rev. Infect. Dis. 10 (Suppl 2): S274–6. PMID 3055197.

Further reading

• http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/koch.html

Read More