Category Archives: Poor Research

Recent in: Poor Research

Chronic Lyme European PLEASE Trial—You know it’s spin when treatment “success” is called “failure”?

March 30th, 2016 Today a widely anticipated clinical trial on chronic Lyme disease from Europe called PLEASE was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).  The press has given the trial a twenty trumpet salute with a MedPage headline reading “Long-Term Antibiotics Fail Again in Lyme Disease–Focus on Lyme and antibiotics for persistent symptoms called unhelpful.”  Here’s the Continues →

Cardiac Tropism of Borrelia burgdorferi: An Autopsy Study of Sudden Cardiac Death Associated with Lyme Carditis.

[ CanLyme note: “Although rare”, yet they state in the same breath that “sudden cardiac death caused by Lyme disease might be an under-recognized entity”.  In other words, they have no idea because in the past decades they have not been looking and nor was Lyme disease considered in similar sudden cardiac deaths. The standard Borrelia burgdorferi serology is a Continues →

Return on Investment Slipping in Biomedical Research

[CanLyme note: Medical research should be of the highest standard of all research, but in many cases the opposite is true. A good example is the Infectious Disease Society of America and their published material. Much of it is no more than opinion, not reproducible, and certainly not worthy of publication yet they get broad coverage in medical journals that had Continues →

Montreal Gazette newspaper trashes Lyme Disease victims and then refuses to allow evidence based rebuttal – they prefer scientific “opinion” over scientific fact..

Recently, the Montreal Gazette newspaper published this article …  According to the Montreal Gazette we are scaring people by telling them we have a serious and growing problem, a problem echoed by the Public Health Agency of Canada. We asked for equal print space to write a rebuttal.  We were refused because the editor says the weight of the Continues →

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Lyme Disease: How the Way of Reporting a Clinical Trial Can Alter the Perception of Effectiveness

Urba`Gonza´ lez, MD, PhD; Department of Dermatology, Clinica Plato´ , Barcelona, Spain “Comment I recommend the complementary reading of other commentaries about the applicability of this study. Shapiro, in an accompanying editorial,1 pointed out the difficulty in clinical practice to know the species, stage, degree of engorgement of the tick, and even the difficulty to determine if the “tick” is Continues →

Lyme Misdiagnosis Can Divert Patients From Correct Treatment

[CanLyme Note: We agree totally that a thorough diagnostic work-up should preclude any diagnosis.  Not everything is Lyme borreliosis.  What is so dismaying, however, is the focus of the US CDC MD’s on the few cases such as those listed in this article, while they ignore the tens of thousands of legitimate chronic Lyme disease cases. We in Canada are already Continues →

Why is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease Test?

Posted on January 16, 2014 By Bob Goodwin, an investor and medical device entrepreneur who lives in Mercer Island, Washington A recent article in Medscape is titled New Lyme Culture Test Failed CDC Analysis. At first I took the article and paper at face value, and tried to dig into the errors of a chronic-Lyme disease researcher. The only errors Continues →

More on Who’s Who and What’s What – NIH Dr. Phil Baker Responds to Blog on American Lyme Disease Foundation

LYMEPOLICYWONK:  Last week, I posted a blog regarding the IDSA stealth front organization, the American Lyme Disease Foundation (ALDF).  I pointed out that the organization masquerades as a patient organization or an independent source of information, but is really just the members of the IDSA Lyme guidelines panel and a couple of businessmen. I highlighted the fact that Dr. Phil Continues →

The Klempner Article

The recent article in the NEJM, “Two Controlled Trials of Antibiotic Treatment in Patients with Persistent Symptoms and a History of Lyme Disease,” by Klempner, et. al., provides some interesting data, but the proper interpretation of this data is of little relevance to both clinical practice and guidelines related to chronic Lyme disease.