Lyme disease.

[Crunchy Frog]

My mom just got it. She got her first symptoms about 2 1/2 weeks ago, and discovered the characteristic rash on the back of her knee a few days later. The rash was diagnosed by her doctor as "cellulitis", but she and I both thought it was much more like an EM rash, both in appearance and other characteristics. Already suspecting Lyme, she was able to get a grudgingly short course of Doxycycline out of him. We then both hit the internet and researched the living shit out of Lyme disease. She went back to him the following week reporting that a second "bullseye" type rash had appeared higher up on her leg (though it faded soon after) and her virtual certainty that it was Lyme. He gave her another small scrip for Doxycycline, and did go ahead and order a blood test.

Well, the test results came back and were positive. She definitely has Lyme. She's one of the lucky ones, we learned. She had really severe acute symptoms and she found the rash. She was pushy enough with her doctor to actually get tested, and she was fortunate enough to actually test positive.

Among the things that we learned; there is a huge and vicious medical controversy over the nature of Lyme disease, how easy or difficult it is to diagnose and treat, whether or not it can relapse or become chronic after "adequate" treatment and just what does constitute adequate treatment.

We also learned just how destructive this disease can be if left untreated or undertreated. My mom is an incredibly active, fit and energetic person, and I think she frankly got the shit scared out of her.

She and I ended up driving several hours out of town today to see an "alternative" doctor who is willing to treat Lyme with a more aggressive antibiotic regimen than any doctor here will. It's not like she's going nuts on the stuff. In fact, she has a nurse friend who is on a longer course of the same drug just to treat rosacea. She just would prefer to err on the side of overtreatment rather than undertreatment.

Anyway, just because you preempt your doctor with a diagnosis based on your own research, it doesn't necessarily mean that your diagnosis is wrong. Also, especially with Lyme, it seems like the larger controversy surrounding it inhibits many doctors from even thinking of it as a possibility, or treating it even in patients presenting with very obvious symptoms.

The author Amy Tan has written a terrifying account of what can happen when Lyme goes untreated. I can't seem to pull up her site right now, but I found an excerpt from her account here. http://www.prohealth.com/lyme/blog/boardDetail.cfm?id=2363

[midnight]

1. I wonder why doc's don't want to treat this..

"As a patient, I have joined a club of people with a stigmatized disease that many doctors do not want to treat. While I have been lucky enough to find a doctor who is willing to provide open-ended treatment -and I have the means to pay for it- many of my fellow Lyme patients have gone without appropriate care. As a consequence, they have lost their health, their jobs, their homes, their marriages, and even their lives. "

[trotsky]

7. Here's one answer.

http://www.columbia-lyme.org/patients/controversies.html

Both sets of doctors are practicing medicine in a reasonable fashion based on the application of certain diagnostic principles, although the therapeutic approaches differ considerably stemming from the narrow vs broad criteria for diagnosis. This is the essence of the medical controversy surrounding chronic Lyme disease. Until medical doctors have a test that definitively identifies the presence or absence of infection (and such a test does not yet exist), the controversy about the diagnosis and treatment of chronic Lyme Disease will continue.

[enough]

10. Interesting information, trotsky. A clear and concise explanation. (nt)

[Crunchy Frog]

13. It's also about one set of doctors and "experts" actively trying to suppress

the other set.

And patients who don't fit into the "official" model are often SOL, and may go for years without treatment.

[trotsky]

14. Why?

Are people who have studied the issue not allowed to disagree? Do they earn quotation marks to question their education simply because they have a different opinion? What's in it for them to "suppress" the others? I mean, this is a pretty tough conspiracy to justify - you have one set of experts who think long-term, perhaps lifetime antibiotics and medication are needed ($$$) versus another set that isn't convinced. And you are alleging it's the latter group - the group that DOESN'T think money should be given to BIG PHARMA for drugs that may be unnecessary and could be harmful themselves - that is the conspiracy?

Color me confused.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Why are you asking me the first question, when I never suggested otherwise?

There's a difference between disagreeing and actively working to supress those with whom you disagree.

None of the experts that I'm aware of seems to think that long term or lifetime ABX use is needed in the vast majority of cases where the disease is caught and treated early. The "alternative" view is that early ABX treatment should be a bit longer and more aggressive in early Lyme, but that means a few more weeks of cheap generic Doxycycline or Amoxicillin from which BIG PHARMA makes almost nothing. In fact, our local pharmacy gives those drugs away for free if you have a prescription.

The problem is that people aren't being diagnosed early, and when they are, they often are not getting an adaquate course of cheap, generic ABX and when they relapse, they're treated as medical pariahs or sent to psychiatrists.

The diagnostic tests currently in use are crappy, and some arbitrary decisions have been made that make them even crappier than they need to be, and there is no research going on to try to come up with better tests (except in veterinary medicine, dogs get better diagnoses and treatment than people do).

You're the one calling it a conspiracy, not me. For me, it's simply a phenomenon that I am mystified by.

I will post more later.

[trotsky]

16. I, too, am mystified by the claims that there is a group of doctors...

who are "actively working to suppress" others. I'm sure you know, there's a risk to being on antibiotics long-term. Not just to the individual but to society in general with the evolution of superbugs like MRSA. If the data is not yet there to justify long-term use, what is wrong with trying to prevent those risks? You are making it sound like an evil conspiracy and I'm just not seeing the reasoning.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. I'm mystified by the phenomenon. The claims are real.

An example is the case of Dr. Burrascano who testified at a 1993 Senate committee hearing on Lyme research, noting in particular,

"many serious improprieties" among NIH and CDC Lyme disease grant recipients, including funding that was being redirected to rheumatologic and arthritic problems rather than Lyme. Additionally, some of those grant recipients had serious conflicts of interest because they worked as paid medical consultants for insurance companies. Burrascano also implicated a major group of university-based researchers in working with government agencies to inappropriately influence the agendas of Lyme disease meetings.

Two months after the testimony he was notified that he was being "investigated" over an anonymous complaint.

The original decision handed down by the hearing panel in November of 2001 not only exonerated Dr. Burrascano from the charges, but also criticized the OPMC for attempting to prosecute a medical debate rather than actual medical misconduct. An excerpt from their decision remarked, "The Hearing Committee recognizes the existence of the current debate within the medical community over issues concerning management of patients with recurrent or long term Lyme disease. This appears to be a highly polarized and politicized conflict, as was demonstrated to this committee by expert testimony from both sides, each supported by numerous medical journal articles, and each emphatic that the opposite position was clearly incorrect. What clearly did emerge however, was that the Respondent's approach, while certainly a minority viewpoint, is one that is shared by many other physicians. We recognize that the practice of medicine may not always be an exact science, 'issued guidelines' are not regulatory, and patient care is frequently individualized."


The OPMC attempted to file an appeal and, in April of 2002, that appeal was refused by the Administrative Review Board who agreed with all of the findings of the original hearing panel.

http://www.publichealthalert.org/Articles/susanwilliams/world%20renowned%20doctor%20retires.html



Here is another description of the phenomenon.

Physicians who have cared for persons with chronic Lyme disease have faced harassment at a minimum and for some, their careers have been ruined. Researchers who have seriously dedicated themselves to the scientific study of chronic Lyme disease in humans and/or animals have often found themselves attacked or marginalized. To persist in their researches would have resulted in virtual career suicide and some have been forced, by exigencies of survival, to leave the field. Laboratories that test extensively for Lyme disease, including use of direct detection methods such as PCR, have found themselves subjected to concerted smear campaigns and harassed. Whereas PCR is a well-accepted method in virtually all other infectious diseases, its clinical use for Lyme disease has also been marginalized. Direct detection methods developed more than a decade ago by some of this country’s finest physician-researchers and biomedical research scientists (Dorward DW, Schwan TG, Garon CF. Immmune Capture and Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi Antigens in Urine, Blood, or Tissues from Infected Ticks, Mice, Dogs, and Humans. J Clin Microbiol 1991;29:1162-1170 & Coyle PK, Deng Z, Schutzer SE, Belman AL, Benach J, Krupp L, Luft B. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi antigens in cerebrospinal fluid. Neurology 1993;43:1093-1097 & Coyle PK, Schutzer SE, Deng Z, Krupp LB, Belman AL, Benach JL, Luft BJ. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi-specific antigen in antibody-negative cerebrospinal fluid in neurologic Lyme disease. Neurology 1995;45:2010-5) have been moth-balled, I believe, for political and medical socioeconomic reasons.

Seronegativity, a well-recognized feature of spirochetal disease (e.g. in syphilis) is held to not need consideration despite early recognition of this phenomenon in Lyme disease, ironically, by a signer of the 2000 and 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines (Dattwyler RJ, Volkman DJ, Luft BJ, Halperin JJ, Thomas J, Golightly MG. Seronegative Lyme Disease. Dissociation of T- and B-Lymphocyte Responses to Borrelia burgdorferi. N Engl. J Med 1988;319:1441-6).

~

State legislators have begun taking matters into their own hands and the states of Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota have passed laws or promulgated policies protecting physicians who treat persons with chronic Lyme disease. Are these legislators stupid? Are they dupes of Lyme activists? Or can they see what is so obvious to the patients and to any good clinician, that Lyme disease can be a chronic infection that often requires a long-term treatment approach? Furthermore, as the disease spreads and more and more individuals are affected, legislator’s staffers, their wives, their children and they themselves are experiencing the effects of chronic Lyme disease.

http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/554.html

Did you get that last paragraph? States are actually having to pass laws to protect doctors on one side of the controversy from treating patients in a manner that doctors on the other side disagree with.

From what I have read, there are some areas of the country where the atmosphere of intimidation is so pervasive that doctors won't even treat text book cases of early Lyme. (And btw, my mom was practically a textbook case of early acute Lyme disease, and her doctor misdiagnosed her as having cellulitis, apparently a very common phenomenon.

That entire letter, from which the above paragraphs were excerpted, is very worthwhile and interesting reading.


As for your worries that long term ABX treatment contributes to the breeding of superbugs, that's valid, but before you go after people being treated for serious bacterial infections, you may want to go after the livestock feed industry. And after you're finished with them, you can go after all the rosacea and acne sufferers who are on long term ABX treatment.

[trotsky]

18. Your red herrings and random website claims are fascinating.

But you still have yet to prove your conspiracy theory. As my first response in this thread that quoted the CDC indicated:

Until medical doctors have a test that definitively identifies the presence or absence of infection (and such a test does not yet exist), the controversy about the diagnosis and treatment of chronic Lyme Disease will continue.

Your "suppressed" doctors are taking risks with their patients. Unknown risks. Could be they're right in doing so, could be they're wrong. Until it can be shown they're right, I don't think the experts who disagree with them are automatically wrong like you do.

[Crunchy Frog]

19. Hey guess what. Your non-suppressed doctors are taking big risks

with their patients too. They're taking the risk of letting people who are sick with a severe and dangerous bacterial infection go untreated. Why don't you take a look at the link at Amy Tan's site to see what happened to her while various doctors dicked around for years failing to diagnose her condition and testing for everything under the sun except Lyme. If you don't find letting something like that go untreated risky, then you've got a different definition of risk than I do.

I don't think, and I never said, that the experts who disagree with them are automatically wrong. I definitely would not turn to them to deal with a suspected case of Lyme in myself or my family members, but that's personal preference and I wouldn't try to keep someone else from persuing whichever approach makes the most sense to them.

And I have no conspiracy theory to try to prove. Just a phenomenon that I have become aware of. And the websites may be random, but the claims are well documented.

I don't even know what "red herring" means in the context you are using it in.

In any event, I don't intend to get bogged down in a pointless arguement with you over semantics. I did want to get this information out on this thread, and your posts have provided me with that opportunity, and for that I thank you.

I want to get this information out because Lyme is a serious and growing health threat, and most people who haven't been through it don't know that there is a serious risk of missed diagnosis and undertreatment of the sort that can lead to the horrors described by Amy Tan.

[trotsky]

20. *sigh*

"the risk of letting people who are sick with a severe and dangerous bacterial infection go untreated"

A risk which has not been demonstrated vs. one that has. I give up. You continue on your crusade.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. I don't know whether you're the scientifically curious sort or not

but if you are, I thought you might find this new study interesting.

http://www.rxpgnews.com/research/Tufts-CTSI-and-Tufts-University-receive-4-NIH-supplemental-grant-awards_198656.shtml

Given that there's currently no way to test and validate the presence of an active Borrelia infection, this could be a promising new research avenue. Because apparently larval ticks can do what the most sophisticated laboratory technology can't do; namely pick up Lyme spirochetes from an infected organism. If they could get them to do that with humans under controlled conditions, then they would finally have a tool for the direct detection of an active Lyme infection. Of course it's kind gross to think about, but it's not as bad, IMHO, as the maggots and leeches in current medicinal use.


Here is an interesting article from the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, nearly 20 years old. It's amazing how the paramaters of the debate have not changed in all that time, simply become more acrimonious and polarized, and really the amount of scientific understanding of this particular disease has remained pretty static. It's unfortunate that there hasn't been the funding for basic research into this disease. (I was amazed to read that this country spends 10X as much money on West Nile research as it does on Lyme research.)

If they could just make a breakthrough in actually being able to establish the presence of an active Borrelia infection in a given patient, it would make all of these issues so much more well defined. It would certainly take the element of uncertainty out of the question of who needs ABX and who doesn't.

In any event, I appreciate the stimulating discourse I've been able to have with you on this subject. :hi:

[trotsky]

26. Thank you for finally coming around...

and agreeing with what I posted in the first place.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. And thank you very much for the same.

:hi:

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I just wanted to quote you something from the first link that you posted.

http://www.columbia-lyme.org/patients/controversies.html

Hence, physicians who rely on the narrow surveillance case criteria of the CDC for clinical diagnosis will fail to diagnose some patients who in fact do have Lyme disease; in these cases, the patient's treatment will either not occur or be delayed. Such delay in treatment may result in an acute treatable illness becoming a chronic less responsive one.

Other physicians who use a broader more inclusive set of clinical criteria for the diagnosis of Lyme disease will make the diagnosis of Lyme Disease and initiate treatment. The latter group of doctors, by treating some patients for "probable Lyme Disease", will make use of antibiotic responsiveness to confirm their diagnostic impression. These physicians, by erring on the side of not letting a patient with probable Lyme Disease go untreated, will help many patients who otherwise would not get treatment; undoubtedly, however, because of the inclusiveness of their diagnostic approach, these physicians will also treat some patients with antibiotics who do not have Lyme Disease. These physicians would argue that the serious consequences for physical, cognitive, and functional disability associated with chronic Lyme Disease outweigh the risks of antibiotic therapy.

Both sets of doctors are practicing medicine in a reasonable fashion based on the application of certain diagnostic principles, although the therapeutic approaches differ considerably stemming from the narrow vs broad criteria for diagnosis. This is the essence of the medical controversy surrounding chronic Lyme disease. Until medical doctors have a test that definitively identifies the presence or absence of infection (and such a test does not yet exist), the controversy about the diagnosis and treatment of chronic Lyme Disease will continue.

In other words, they appear to be saying exactly the same thing that I said in my post, which you just blithely dismissed. So what is it? Was what I said in my previous post legitimate, or was the link that you originally posted illegitimate?

[trotsky]

29. Yup - thanks for reinforcing my first post.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to continue when you've now admitted there was nothing wrong with my first post anyway.

"These physicians would argue that the serious consequences for physical, cognitive, and functional disability associated with chronic Lyme Disease outweigh the risks of antibiotic therapy."

Absolutely. And other physicians would argue the reverse. If two groups of educated, intelligent professionals can't settle the debate yet, what on earth makes you think you can? Hopefully you're ready to stop attacking me now.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. It's hard to admit when you've been hoist by your own petard.

I can't settle the debate, and neither can you, and as your link pointed out, both points of view are valid. You pointed out that one approach has risks, I pointed out that the other approach has risks as well, which you dismissed. I pointed out that your own link said the exact same thing, which you had so strenuously dismissed.

[trotsky]

31. I never claimed to settle it.

I pointed out why there was a controversy. You jumped in to insist that one group of experts was trying to "suppress" the other. You never provided ANY proof of this, and instead finally came to admit that yes, there is room for debate, and issues are unsettled.

A petard hoisted someone, indeed, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't me.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. Here's an interesting article about the controversy.

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/info/why-the-controversy-over-diagnosing-and-treating-lyme-disease

The controversy that exists within the medical community about Lyme disease is over what constitutes a proper diagnosis of Lyme disease and if the infection persist even after treatment. Lois Anderson of Virginia, Minnesota, explains, "After I was treated in the hospital for Lyme disease with intraveneous Rocephin, I was told by my neurologist that, despite lingering symptoms, there was no possibility I could still have Lyme disease. Three months later, all of my symptoms had returned. then I was told I needed to see a psychiatrist! Anderson continues, "After I was treated that first time for Lyme disease, it was extremely difficult to ge a doctor interested in my recurring symptoms. You know, insurance companies rarely complain about reimbursing your first treatment, but just dare to have a relapse and see how you're treated!"

Armed with dozens of reprints from medical journals, Sandy Karppinen of the Cloquet (Minnesota) Lyme Disease Support group explained, "It isn't uncommon for Lyme patients whose symptoms don't resolve quickly to be referred to a psychiatrist. Insupport group, we frequently encounter patients who are sent to psychiatrists." (90-93). Doctors who refuse to treat you with antibiotics beyond a few weeks argue that you don't have a persistent or active infection, but rather that you have some unknown lingering immune dysfunction. That argument is pretty weak when you see the patients improve when they are on antibiotics and worsen when therapy is withdrawn."

According to Sharon Smith, president of the national patient advocacy group, Lyme Alliance, Inc., "Most media stories focus on prevention and symptoms, but the story that few people ever hear about is the controversy concerning the medical community's general lack of accepting the concept that active Lyme disease can persist even after treatment." Smith concludes, "The real problem for Lyme patients isn't getting diagnosed or treated the first time. It's where do you go when the symptoms return and doctors refuse to continue treatment. Most people have no idea about the politics and controversies of Lyme disease until a family member has experienced a relapse. When the disease hits them the second time and they're left without access to therapy, that's when most patients seek out information on their own and find out that Lyme disease is alot more than they bargained for."

For a look at the viciousness of the conflict, see this from the American Lyme Disease Foundation.

Dr. Phillip Baker, Ph.D. has recently been named as Executive Director of the ALDF by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors. "We are thrilled to have Dr. Baker bring his vast expertise and leadership to our organization," says Jeffery Black, acting Chair. Dr. Baker has more than 30 years experience as a research scientist for the National Institutes of Health and 10 years as the Program Officer for the Lyme disease research grants awarded to academic and medical research institutions by NIH. Dr. Baker is truly a scientific expert and knowledgeable of the facts about Lyme disease.

"At a time when misinformation is rampant, I am proud to continue to serve the interest of public health by heading the American Lyme Disease Foundation," states Dr. Baker. In his first official role as Executive Director, Dr. Baker has published a paper in the July issue of The American Journal of Medicine, rebutting the unsubstantiated claims of "chronic Lyme" among a small but vocal group of activists who challenge the results of mainstream medical research.

This is more or less representative of the "official" view, which is why many Lyme sufferers go outside of official medical channels.

[enough]

2. I wonder if there are geographical differences in this. Where I live in SE PA, people

get Lyme Disease frequently and it is very easy to get treatment through any regular mainstream MD in the area. There isn't any controversy around it. If anything, I tend to think they may treat too aggressively. But in any case there is no stigma or reluctance to treat.

[NOLALady]

9. Could be geographical.

Sometime ago my husband was hospitalized for at least a week with an "unknown" illness. One day, I picked up one of his science magazine which featured an article on Lyme disease. He had most of the symptoms. I asked his Doctor to check for Lyme. She responded that Lyme disease is not common in this area, but she would test anyway. He tested positive and they began treating him right away.

[NV Whino]

3. You might want to check out this documentary

It is instant play on Netflix.

Under Our Skin
2008 NR 87 minutes
In the 1970s, a mysterious and deadly illness began infecting children in a small town in Connecticut. Today it's a global epidemic. A real-life thriller, this shocking festival hit exposes the controversy surrounding chronic Lyme disease. Following the stories of individuals fighting for their lives, director Andy Abrahams Wilson reveals with beauty and horror a natural world out of balance and a human nature all too willing to put profits before patients.

Cast:Mandy Hughes, Jordan Fisher Smith, Dana Walsh, Alan Macdonald, Elise Brady-Moe Director:Andy Abrahams Wilson Genres:Documentaries, Science & Nature Documentaries This movie is:Controversial Availability:Streaming (DVD availability date unknown)

[JDPriestly]

4. Interesting information. Thanks.

[pansypoo53219]

5. my aunt has hidden lyme's

it's been a bitch.

[kickysnana]

6. Great news for your intrepid Aunt.

I was infected and became ill before the birth of my children with no diagnosis for 15 years. Finally an MS doctor caught it. I have the permanent damage and have worked so hard to keep treatment available so no family has to go through what we did.

Early aggressive treatment is key. Ask her to find out about Herx reactions so she knows what to keep an eye out for and make sure she uses pro-biotics to keep from adding overgrowth of yeast to the mix as her immune system is in for a real battle.

A relative young male hockey player was infected at Quantico and treated early and well but he told me he did not regain his total health until about 1 year later.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Doctors and lawyers.

What can I say.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Amy Tan's site is back up.

A few excerpts, but the whole thing is worth reading.
http://www.amytan.net/ Click on the link that says "Slyme Disease".

How a speck changed my life forever

Like many chronic Lyme disease patients, I was launched into a medical maze, searching for answers as things worsened. I told my husband that something in m body had broken. It was falling apart. I went to specialist after specialist, and each one found some possible cause within his or her specialty. The weirdest symptom was plunging blood sugar, going down to the 20s and 30s, before bouncing back up to normal. That so alarmed my doctors they hospitalized me. An MRI revealed 14 lesions in my frontal and parietal lobes, but my doctors felt that was normal for a person my age; I was 49 at the time.


Now I had hallucinations, what I later learned from a neurologist were simple partial seizures. I saw people walking into the room, two girls jumping rope, numbers spinning on a lit-up odometer, a fat poodle hanging from the ceiling. They disappeared after a minute or so. After the first hallucination, I did not take the others for anything but a weird brain quirk. Most were fairly entertaining. The ones with sudden putrid rat smells were not. But then there were other, more serious seizures, complex partials with an absence of consciousness. My husband said I acted at times as if I were in a trance, eyes wide open as if scared and unresponsive to people around me. I had no memory whatsoever of those episodes, and in fact, at times, my memory of things that happened just before and just after the seizure had been erased.


Let me hasten to add that not all chronic Lyme patients test positive on the Western Blot, at least not at the levels set by doctors who follow CDC surveillance criteria as diagnostic. There is much more to be done before the tests can be considered reliable in every lab across the country. Unfortunately, most doctors still go by the old and unreliable standard: that Lyme is rare and exists only on the East Coast, that a bull’s eye rash and fever must be present, that you are tested first with an ELISA, which is considered a false positive if you had no bull’s eye. If you did have the bull’s eye, you must then get a positive Western Blot. That will get you about two weeks of antibiotics. Further insurance coverage of treatment and medications is denied. That is the standard recipe that has destroyed many lives.


I must now take seizure medication for life, as well as medication to keep me awake. Those cost about $2000 a month, most of which is covered by insurance. Insurance will not cover my antibiotics, which I still take. When I've gone off antibiotics, the problems come marching back, one by one, the flu-like symptoms, the headaches, the arthritis. I think about four and a half years of lost time, of pain and panic. I think about our health care crisis. I think how a Lyme-literate physician and about $50 worth of antibiotics early on would have taken care of my disease. None of those other tests--the multiple MRIs, the CAT scans, the 5 hour surgery, the 10 specialists, the lifetime of meds, the required yearly visits to my neurologist--none of those costs would have been necessary. Because of ignorance, I am a burden on the medical care system.

[uppityperson]

22. I was very sad to read her book last yr and read about this. I hope that Lyme

will get more attention since a famous person had this problem with it. And I am very sorry for Ms Tan, have really liked her writings.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. I actually found a copy of the book a few years back

in one of the cheap little local groceries where you would usually only find crappy romance and Christian novels. Since she's one of my favorite authors, I went ahead and picked it up.

He account of her experience with Lyme disease was part of what made me as aware as I was when my mom started getting symptoms. After she found the EM rash (misdiagnosed by her doc as "cellulitis"), I had her read it and it had a big effect on her.

So I think Amy Tan gets some credit for how proactive we have been about my mom's case.

From what I've read on her site, it sounds like she's doing pretty well now. She has some "souvenirs" left from the experience, but is pretty much able to function and do the things she wants to do. I think she feels very badly about the people who don't have the financial means that she does to be able to get the kind of treatment that they need.

I would guess that if she hadn't gotten appropriate treatment, she would probably be in a nursing home by now.

[Odin2005]

21. The woo is strong in this thread

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Yes, it certainly is.

;)