Maine reports 300% increase in new Lyme cases in the first two months of 2010
(April 4th, 2010) The state of Maine, directly below Canada's Maritime provinces, is reporting over a three fold increase in the number of new confirmed Lyme disease cases in just the first two months of 2010. There have been 50 confirmed cases in those two months.
This will no doubt translate into more cases in Canada's Maritimes as well. Maritimers are advised to take precautions to avoid contracting Lyme disease. Prevention is the best medicine and methods to avoid this disease can be seen at www.canlyme.com/prevention.html.
For every one case caught by the medical system another 6 to 12 go unreported according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control. That translates to possibly 500 cases in Maine so far this year if this holds true. People who are lucky enough to have caught it early will likely do quite well with antibiotic treatment. It is those who do not catch it early who are of the most concern. Symptoms may not show up right away which can leave people and their doctors baffled down the road. Only 9% of people will get the classic over-reported "bull's eye" rash that is so commonly associated with early Lyme disease.
Once Lyme disease has a chance to settle into the deep tissue, organs, and joints it can be very difficult to treat often requiring long bouts of antibiotic therapy.
Can you imagine the torrent of media coverage as well as federal and provincal tax dollars spent that would result if this were West Nile Virus, Swine flu, or SARS occurring directly across our border, yet Lyme disease can be a life altering disease capable of causing permanent disability or death?
Tests used in Canada to detect Lyme disease are poor. Science has shown our testing is bad. Strain variation and inherent problems with cut-off values all affect results. No two people are going to have an identical immune response which is what the tests are detecting. The criteria used to determine what a positive blood test is was never developed to be used for diagnosing the disease. The criteria used was only devised for surveillance purposes (in 1994) where missed cases are not all that important because the tests will pick up enough cases to show a trend. False negative results, the most harmful to the victim, occur frequently.
The U.S and Canadian governments state clearly that Lyme disease is a "clinical" diagnosis to be made in the doctors office. All too often in Canada the diagnosis is being made in laboratories, not in doctor's offices, and in fact, doctors are not provided the actual results of the tests. Doctors are simply told yes or no. Lyme disease is complex and is not that simple. The Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network (CPHLN) decided for Canadian's that doctors are not smart enough to be given the actual test results. The CPHLN is on record stating that doctors may mis-interpret the results all the while knowing that their tests are not definitive. You would never hear a doctor state you are just a little bit pregnant yet that is how Lyme test results are interpreted in our laboratories using cut-off values never intended for diagnosis. As for myself, I would much rather my doctor erred on the side of a positive result rather than a negative as I would at least then be treated.
Many factors depend upon whether you will ever develop enough antibodies in your system to get that all important early diagnosis in the laboratory. Lyme testing is so poor that it is not recommended in the first 4 weeks of the illness. After 4 weeks the disease will have disseminated deep into the body.
For information on symptoms of Lyme disease go to www.canlyme.com/patsymptoms.html and to find information on fully certified and accredited laboratories that specialize in the detection of tick borne disease go to www.canlyme.com/links.html#test
see http://wbztv.com/wireapnewsme/Warm.weather.blamed.2.1610432.html
Jim Wilson
