Translate in layman's terms?

[kathloj]

I've been following Reader's Comments on this article in The Washington Post. It has garnered a lot of interesting comments, esp by reader KMDickson 1. I've seen many of her posts in other articles and on her website. I really don't understand all of her biology jargon and would appreciate if someone could "translate" what the gist of her comments are. It's in regards to OspA-like or fungal antigens.
Look forward to comments/input/translation/explanation. :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-big-dispute-behind-a-tiny-tick-bite-what-to-call-the-lingering-effects-of-lyme-disease/2014/09/15/d63c37b0-e832-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

[JackieCalifornia]

It doesn't work for me to read just that poster's comments, because they are entwined with the other comments.  I did a quick read of part of the site just now and its 150+ comments.  There appear to be a lot of politics and high dudgeon flying around on that site, which may be of interest regarding the politics of Lyme.

Though while it's interesting, like watching a boxing match, the politics of Lyme are (for me) of use only in knowing what the political levers and barriers are so that we, the ailing, can work around and through them to find able diagnosis and treatment.  Other than that, I find all the angles and arguments not particularly useful.  It's just the way I'm wired.  Sorry.

[kathloj]

Thanks Jackie. LOL, I don't expect you to read them all but I mentioned one reader in particular (in my original comment) whose comments are over-my-head scientifically. Most of them are the more recent comments. So if anyone on here can translate what this reader is trying to say in her comments, that'd be great. :)

[JackieCalifornia]

Ah, I see!  I looked at the comments briefly, but don't have time to wade through all 100+ of them today.  Maybe over the weekend.  Will get back to you.  Take care.

[kathloj]

Thanks Jackie for your response however, I had no trouble comprehending the news article and the fact that they basically left ILADs views out of it, unfortunately. What I was asking in my original comment was about the  comments at the bottom of the story - reader's comments! Please reread my original comment and if you're able to translate the specific reader's comment that I mentioned (readers comments are after the news article, at the bottom where they can log in and make comments on the article) I'd greatly appreciate, thanks!

[JackieCalifornia]

I don't have time at the moment to comment on this article line by line, but the point of view presented is that Lyme is rare, hard to get and easy to cure -- which is exactly the view of the IDSA and CDC (Infectious Disease Society of America and the US Centers for Disease Control).  It's the same old garbage from the entrenched positions of the medical community.

(The opposite view is that of ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Disease Society), which is the voluntary association that understands Lyme and treats it appropriately in my opinion and in my personal experience.  ILADS is what Lyme docs usually belong to.)

Gary Wormser (mentioned in the article above) is a doc who has staked his career on the IDSA/CDC view of Lyme (hard to get, easy to cure!), and this article takes his point of view and quotes him extensively.  I personally would not send my dog to a doc who follows the IDSA/CDC view, because that would be animal cruelty.

The last sentence of the article is:  "For now, the best strategy is prevention. If you are in the woods or tall grass, wear long pants and sleeves. Check for ticks. Wear light clothes so that ticks are easier to spot, and use insect repellent. If you find a tick on your body, use tweezers to pull it slowly out, and save it in a jar. Watch for symptoms of Lyme and, if they occur, take the tick and see a doctor. Early treatment is very effective — and long delays may cost you for years."

That is a sensible statement, but the rest of the article, imo, misses the whole point that the IDSA policy and view (1) does not understand Lyme disease and (2) leaves many people damaged and ill, because they were not properly treated.  If the initial IDSA treatment fails, see an ILADS doc -- or better yet, see an ILADS doc to start with.

Did you notice that the article just shrugs its shoulders about continuing symptoms?  That is the whole problem with the IDSA view:  it believes that a short course of antibiotics is all that is needed, and any lingering problems is not because Lyme was not cured, but because your immune system is just all confused and just thinks you are still sick.  

ILADS goes the other way:  if you still have symptoms, it is because Lyme was not cured because the medications given by the IDSA cannot reach into the hidden places in the body (cartilage and 'biofilms') where the bacteria hide.  ILADS docs understand this, and give longer and more appropriate medications to overcome the particular abilities of Lyme bacteria to hide and resist the usual antibiotics.

I hope the reporter did a follow up article to present the ILADS view, because imo this is pretty poor reporting otherwise.