From: odp@ldgo.columbia.edu (carl brenner)
Subject: Re: CFIDS and Lyme
Organization: Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:06:31 GMT

In article <16335@pitt.UUCP>, km@speedy.cs.pitt.edu (Ken Mitchum) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.053319.580@equator.com> jod@equator.com (John Setel O'Donnell) writes:

> >
> >So on what are you basing your differentiation of Lyme and CFIDS?
> >
> 
> The fact that one has a definite etiology and the other is an
> unknown. The fact that two diseases are both difficult to diagnose
> or share some symptoms does not make them similar in any way.

	Disclaimer: I am *not* arguing that all CFS is Lyme. (I do believe
that some of it is.) 
	But your statement exhibits completely circular logic. CFS is not
a "diagnosis," it's a description. A diagnosis of CFS means you have a set of
symptoms that has no known etiology, and there's no other pigeonhole in which
to stick you.
	Now there's this disease called Lyme that has *extremely* similar
symptoms, and which is almost impossible to diagnose definitively (except
perhaps through culture, which is very difficult if you don't have an EM rash
to work with). We all know that seronegative Lyme exists, but determining the
number of people who actually have it is also very difficult. 
	Question: what is the overlap between seronegative Lyme and CFS? 
	Answer: We can't determine it. But you better believe it's a
legitimate question. This business of one having a definite etiology is
completely bogus if you can't make the diagnosis with any accuracy. No matter
what you may like to think, your differentiation between the two is based on
a diagnostic house of cards. It may make you feel righteous to pretend that
there's a verifiable difference between the two, but there isn't. All we have
(for now) are these pointless antibody tests to make this differentiation. 

 
> >You know, Gordon, I find offensive your willingness to call quack
> >someone who you don't know, of whose work you're totally ignorant.  It
> >makes it hard for me to pay attention to other things you say, because
> >I don't know what's your bigotry and what's your wisdom.
> 
> It's not bigotry at all, and you don't have to know someone
> personally to know that they are a quack. People who prey
> on the fears of people who think they have Lyme and diagnose
> it in everyone, while financially benefitting fromo repeatedly
> giving IV antibiotics without justification are not just
> quacks and frauds, and should go to prison.
>

	Of course. But I resent your (and Gordon's) attempts to link my and John's
scientific arguments to these doctors. Neither of us endorses such a practice,
but you behave as if we do. If you can't make the distinction between what we're
saying and what you allege these guys are doing, you're not nearly as smart as I 
give you credit for. All I can conclude is that you're making a conscious effort to 
distort our views.
	It's not really clear what point you're making with these statements.
Are you saying that anyone who treats a suspected Lyme patient that has a
negative serological antibody test is a quack? (I don't want to put words
in your mouth, please correct me if this is not your belief.) I would disagree.
	But every time we point out that things are not as cut and dried as
you would like, you raise the issue of these unnamed "quacks" who have nothing
to do with the issues we're discussing. Stick to the issues at hand, please, and
knock it off with the McCarthyite smears.

> Gordon is a mainstream doctor. You don't have to pay attention
> to anything he says, just as you don't have to pay attention
> to anything I say. If we offend you, sorry.

	There's nothing "mainstream" about ignoring reality. There's a difference
between "skepticism" and "denial." There's also a difference between "science"
and "dogma." You use "mainstream" as if we're into homeopathy or talking about
space aliens or something. Another pathetic smear tactic.

> 
>  -km

Carl Brenner

Newsgroups: sci.med