Attorney General findings–IDSA wrong doing

Byldoadmin

In May 2008, after an extensive investigation, the Attorney General announced a settlement of the antitrust investigation into the IDSA guidelines development process.  The settlement requires that the IDSA put together a new panel free from conflicts of interest, permit the introduction of evidence opposing its viewpoints, and hold a public hearing (aired live on the Internet) on controversial recommendations of the guidelines panel. 

The Attorney General found that:

  • Dr. Wormser, the panel chair was selected inappropriately, and “held a bias regarding the existence of chronic Lyme” and “handpick[ed] a likeminded panel without scrutiny by or formal approval of the IDSA’s oversight committee”
  • The IDSA panel members had financial interests – “in drug companies, Lyme disease diagnostic tests, patents and consulting arrangements with insurance companies” The IDSA failed to conduct a conflicts of interest review for any of the panelists, several of whom had conflicts of interests.
  • The IDSA’s 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease panels refused to accept or meaningfully consider information regarding the existence of chronic Lyme disease
  • The IDSA blocked appointment of scientists and physicians with divergent views on chronic Lyme who sought to serve on the 2006 guidelines panel by informing them that the panel was fully staffed, even though it was later expanded
  • The IDSA portrayed the American Association of Neurology copycat guidelines as corroborating its own when it knew that the two panels shared several authors, including the chairmen of both groups, and were working on guidelines at the same time.

The settlement requires IDSA to reconvene a new Lyme treatment guidelines panel made up of conflict-free panelists under the auspices of an ethicist, to hold a public hearing, and to review all recommendations of the guidelines. Panelists from the original guidelines panel are precluded from sitting on this new panel.  All panelists will be screened for potential conflicts of interest by Dr. Howard Brody, a medical ethicist specializing in such conflicts.

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK.ORG: When it’s a matter of opinion, whose opinion counts?

    Doing a guideline review process correctly and vigilantly is important. It is also a difficult goal to pull off. The 2006 IDSA guideline development process was flawed, as Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal found in the antitrust investigation. That panel was hand-picked to represent a particular viewpoint on treating Lyme disease and it cherry- picked the evidence or interpreting the evidence in a manner that supported a preconceived viewpoint. When science is unclear or unfolding rather than acknowledging that fact, guidelines sometimes rely on 'expert opinion' to fill the evidence gaps. This is a big problem because evidence based guidelines are presumed to be based on evidence, not opinion. Substituting the 'expert opinion' of someone on a guideline panel is no better, (actually, it is worse) than leaving the matter open and allowing the treating physician to use their own expert opinion.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Embers Monkey Trials Part 2: Chronic Lyme Disease Treatment and Persistence

    This is Part 2 of a series on the Embers study of Lyme disease in non-human primates. As described in Part 1 of the series, the Embers monkey research study posed three questions: one regarding treatment of early disseminated Lyme disease, one regarding treatment of late disseminated Lyme disease, and one regarding the ability of the C6 to accurately detect infection. This part of my blog series on the Embers study focuses on the second question–the ability of 90 days of antibiotics to eradicate infection in late disseminated Lyme disease. The researchers defined late disseminated Lyme disease as 27 weeks after inoculation. Rhesus macaques were chosen as the animal model because they experience many of the key signs of human Lyme disease, including neuroborreliosis ( an infection of the brain or nervous system.)

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: CBS Lyme Story, A Tale of Conflicts of Interest & Bias

    A CBS news story on Lyme disease has patients concerned about the misinformation that it promotes. On top of that, the story does not have the level of journalistic integrity that serious topics should have. For one thing, there is the title: “Lies and Truths”. Lies are statements that are known to be false that are told to intentionally deceive another person. Lies are not issues that are matters of scientific debate. When a science article title uses the word “Lies”, it tells the reader that it is not about science. Second, the article is a single source article. This means unlike most journalism and particularly good science journalism, there is no attempt to present different sides of the issue. One side, in fact, one person’s opinion is put forth as uncontested “truth” with no counterpoint. Third, the piece is edited by the Orly Avitzur, M.D., M.B.A., Editor-in-Chief of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). You may recall that the AAN was part of the antitrust investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General into the Lyme guideline development process by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. The reason?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: CALDA CALLS ON NIH TO STOP TICK FEEDING STUDY ON ETHICAL GROUNDS

    CALDA has just sent a letter to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) asking them to pull the plug on an experiment that threatens to harm Lyme patients. The study involves allowing live tick larvae to feed on patients. It is impossible to ensure that ticks are truly sterile and do not carry unidentified pathogens. In addition, tick saliva as well as Borrelia burgdorferi suppress the immune system of patients. Both factors place patients who enroll in the study at risk. Because of this, we feel the study is unethical and could harm patients. Keep reading for details. . .

  • IDSA: Caution when opening–contents under pressure

    When is an open hearing not an open hearing? How do you give the appearance of being open without, well, actually being open? How do you deal with the issue of public accountability in Lyme disease guidelines when you would rather not? I'd say the IDSA open hearing, which excludes the public from participating, but allows them to "view" the proceeds from a safe distance probably fits the bill. And that, my friends, is what the IDSA intends to do. Hold a public hearing that fits the "form" but not the "substance" of a public hearing. In this way–the IDSA does not have to face the patients whose lives it is destroying. This is a one sided communication device–something the patients are quite used to, but something the IDSA should set aside in favor of accountable transparency. If you are going to talk the talk , you ought to walk the walk. Let's call this hearing what it is– one more way to "silence the sick".