|Lymdisease.org diagram, full size below|
Please take a moment to read the article I’m leading into here, and if your time is perhaps too short to read until we get there, please scroll directly down to the article link. At the very least, you need to save this one for later. (And/or share it with your representatives if you are contacting them about H.R. 4701).
Yet the CDC and IDSA continue to speak as if a purely scientific approach to Lyme diagnosis is a) adequate, and b) what they are advocating. Their guidelines are not supported by logic or science and are causing significant harm to patients.
There are significant flaws in the tests they advocate, the way they are administered and interpreted, and the diagnostic context in which they have conditioned doctors to use them (causing doctors to lose sight of the fact that Lyme disease is a CLINICAL diagnosis).
I’ll try to update this paragraph with more background resources on two tiered testing and the general problems it poses. In the mean time, it is worth searching through resources on websites such Lymedisease.org and Lyme Disease Association for more on this topic. And skimming through the various Under Our Skin excerpts provided on their Youtube page would lead to some useful references to this problem as well (I’m pretty sure).
There is background enough in this article, however, to give a clear context for the discrepancies they so competently discuss. Among the important points are:
- Appropriate context for CDC surveillance case definition (not intended, even by CDC, to be a substitute for sound judgement or to be used for diagnosis)
- Even the surveillance definition acknowledges certain stand alone test results
- The new statements from Dr. Mead are quite disjointed from his earlier positions
“Dr. Paul Mead of the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) recently stated in the Wall Street Journal that the CDC’s recommended two-step process (which requires a positive ELISA test before a Western blot can be given) is accurate and was developed specifically to aid diagnosis of Lyme disease. A stunning assertion given that it directly conflicts with Dr. Mead’s previous testimony…” – See more at: http://lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/lymepolicywonk-lyme-disease-testing%E2%80%94the-cdc-labcorp-and-stories-that-don%E2%80%99t-add-up.html#sthash.dF9RAwOz.dpuf
|See more at: http://lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/lymepolicywonk-lyme-disease-testing%E2%80%94the-cdc-labcorp-and-stories-that-don%E2%80%99t-add-up.html#sthash.dF9RAwOz.dpuf|