https://academic.oup.com/acn/advanc...arclin/acy051/5045218?redirectedFrom=fulltext
The link above connects to an abstract of a study headed by John Aucott. The topic is Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome.
Many within the Lyme community believe this is a CDC-contrived condition, and it masks the real culprit behind persistent symptoms: Late Stage Lyme.
One of the things I find curious about this particular effort is its use of conventional cognitive testing as a metric to demonstrate cognitive decline. Many withing the ME/CFS community are familiar with potential drawbacks of this approach. It is in many individuals' minds a blunt instrument, ill-suited to the task it is assigned to.
One of those drawback is estimating premorbid cognitive levels. This can be a crap shoot. It is made worse sometimes by confidence levels stated at levels (e.g, 90%) shunned by most industries. I do not know if that is the case for this effort since I do not have access to all the study's specifics. I know this from personal experience, however, having had access to compare my actual premorbid IQ with the neurospych's estimated one. Their's was off by almost 20 IQ points.
That is unacceptable.
So, assuming I am not unique, how do you compare cognitive performance accurately? How do you also compensate for the clumsy cognitive measuring tools employed by the rank and file of researchers?
The link above connects to an abstract of a study headed by John Aucott. The topic is Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome.
Many within the Lyme community believe this is a CDC-contrived condition, and it masks the real culprit behind persistent symptoms: Late Stage Lyme.
One of the things I find curious about this particular effort is its use of conventional cognitive testing as a metric to demonstrate cognitive decline. Many withing the ME/CFS community are familiar with potential drawbacks of this approach. It is in many individuals' minds a blunt instrument, ill-suited to the task it is assigned to.
One of those drawback is estimating premorbid cognitive levels. This can be a crap shoot. It is made worse sometimes by confidence levels stated at levels (e.g, 90%) shunned by most industries. I do not know if that is the case for this effort since I do not have access to all the study's specifics. I know this from personal experience, however, having had access to compare my actual premorbid IQ with the neurospych's estimated one. Their's was off by almost 20 IQ points.
That is unacceptable.
So, assuming I am not unique, how do you compare cognitive performance accurately? How do you also compensate for the clumsy cognitive measuring tools employed by the rank and file of researchers?
Last edited: