Lyme Disease An Evidence-based Approach
Spirochaetal infections somehow seem to take on larger-than-life roles. ‘The French disease’, a.k.a. syphilis, assumed almost mythic proportions. Initially brought back from the New World to the Old, perhaps as divine retribution for measles, smallpox and myriad other curses visited on North A...
Đã lưu trong:
| Tác giả chính: | |
|---|---|
| Định dạng: | Sách |
| Ngôn ngữ: | English |
| Được phát hành: |
CABI
2014
|
| Những chủ đề: | |
| Truy cập trực tuyến: | https://scholar.dlu.edu.vn/thuvienso/handle/DLU123456789/37056 |
| Các nhãn: |
Thêm thẻ
Không có thẻ, Là người đầu tiên thẻ bản ghi này!
|
| Thư viện lưu trữ: | Thư viện Trường Đại học Đà Lạt |
|---|
| Tóm tắt: | Spirochaetal infections somehow seem to take on larger-than-life roles. ‘The French disease’,
a.k.a. syphilis, assumed almost mythic proportions. Initially brought back from the New
World to the Old, perhaps as divine retribution for measles, smallpox and myriad other curses
visited on North America’s aboriginal populations by European conquerors, neurosyphilis
aff ected so many historic personalities as to give it a legitimate claim as a molder of history.
Even early in the 20th century, a lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of many other
diseases led to the at ribution of all manner of disorders to this infection, ot en by default,
because nobody could come up with a bet er explanation.
Early in the history of Lyme disease, many latched on to the syphilis parallel, asserting that
this new spirochaetosis, like its cousin, could masquerade as innumerable other ailments.
However, the greatest similarity between the two has been the tendency to inappropriately
at ribute unrelated, but otherwise not readily explained, disorders to the unjustly accused
spirochaete.
The past decade or two has seen medicine move broadly and strongly towards the
requirement for evidence-based support for its conclusions and actions. For those of us over a
certain age, although this is certainly intellectually satisfying, it produces a distinct cognitive
dissonance. When I was a resident, the truth was what the professors said and wrote in
textbooks. The evidence basis at best consisted of case series and anecdotal observations.
Unfortunately, even the most brilliant minds, individuals who led medicine for decades, were
ot en proved wrong as new technologies – imaging, biochemical assays, DNA analysis or
whatever – provided more powerful tools to answer questions. |
|---|