Page 1 of 1
Posted on May 25 at 1:19 p.m.
"This (long-term antibiotics) doesn't benefit patients" says the IDSA. This is completely incorrect and more importantly--a very harmful statement. It seems the IDSA doctors did not take the Hippocratic oath to do no harm?
IDSA doctors want to leave Lyme under-treated, with people left to suffer needlessly, and to end up completely debilitated; losing jobs, then potentially their lives--for fear of a super-bug? This is absolutely, completely and utterly ridiculous.
I was treated with long-term antibiotics. I took a really good pro-biotic; my kidney and liver blood work was monitored each month. I never had yeast problems nor any other complication and am feeling much, much better (if I hadn't been given long-term treatment I'd still be bed-ridden or possibly no longer alive).
If left up to the IDSA, the fastest growing infectious disease in the country will be left under-treated forever, with people dropping like flies. It is inevitable that the IDSA's policy of under-treating Lyme Disease will end up negatively affecting our already depressed economy because of a substantial drop in our country's healthy, productive workforce. The governor of Massachusetts addressed this very issue. It's time the whole country did.
On Lyme Disease