本帖最后由 pengxc 于 11-9-26 23:24 编辑
苏珊仍然还在寻找证据。她最近发表在2005年4月的“生物精神病学”的文章，介绍了一种新的预防性应用抗生素的研究，在其中药物的使用得到更加严格控制。在一年的实验过程中，其结果是：在那些使用抗生素预防的儿童中，看到“链球菌感染和神经精神症状恶化显著减少。 ''
反过来，罗杰也在进行自己的研究。他在全国范围内收集了80例患者，其中一半符合一般强迫症的病史，另外一半符合标准突发儿童强迫症的病史。两年来，他的研究人员一直在记录二组患者的链球菌感染率和强迫症的发作次数。如果链球菌引起儿童强迫症，在感染链球菌后，儿童强迫症的孩子的症状应加强和恶化，而在对照组的患者应该是在受到压力刺激因素以后引起症状的加重。
当这些研究数据公布发表以后，有可能证明苏珊是错误的。或者反过来，可能证明苏珊是正确的。当然，最大的可能是，这些新的研究只会导致更多更进一步的研究，因为科学总是不断积累证据，不断探索，不断向前。
Swedo is still looking for that evidence. Her most recent publication, in the April 2005 issue of Biological Psychiatry, describes a new study of prophylactic antibiotics, one in which administration of the medication was more closely controlled. The results: Those who received the antibiotics saw ''significant decreases'' in strep infections and in ''neuropsychiatric exacerbations'' over the course of a year.
Kurlan, in turn, is conducting research of his own, a nationwide study of 80 patients -- half with a history of O.C.D. that meets the Pandas criteria and half with O.C.D. that does not. For two years, researchers have been logging the rates of strep and the episodes of O.C.D. in each group. If strep causes Pandas, then O.C.D. symptoms should be intensified in the Pandas group relative to their exposure to strep, while in the control group a variety of system-stressing triggers should cause a spike in symptoms.
When the data are compiled and made public later this year, the findings may prove that Swedo is wrong. Or they may instead prove that she is right. Most likely, this latest research will simply lead to more research, as science accumulates its evidence one bit of data at a time.
全文翻译完毕。谢谢观看！