Lyme disease: Reader not aMUSed with MUS category –Call for acronyms

Byldoadmin

Perhaps it is time to create acronyms that more accurately reflect what a number of researchers say is happening in terms of the disease process:  How about IT-LD for “Insufficiently Treated Lyme Disease” or “NST-LD” for “Not Sufficiently Treated Lyme Disease.”  In other words, like a sinus infection that has not responded to a particular antibiotic regimen, some cases of Lyme do not respond to 10 days or a few weeks worth of antibiotics.  It isn’t  “post sinus infection” syndrome, it is simply a sinus infection that has not responded to treatment. As for Drs. Weinstein, Shapiro and Wormser, they appear to suffer from chronic dismissive syndrome.  For that, I’m afraid, there really is no treatment or cure.

 

 

Similar Posts

  • Opinion based medicine

    For those who haven’t read, the recent New York Times article, "Plenty of Guidelines, but Where's the Evidence?" by D. Sanghavi, M.D., I suggest you check it out. Sanghavi discusses the problems caused by centralized guidelines in medicine particularly when there is an evidence gap—when guidelines are based on opinion rather than a careful review of all of the evidence. And, this issue of centralization of medicine through guidelines is becoming more important as the push for national health care heats up.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: 67 Groups Submit IDSA Lyme Guidelines Process Comments

    LymeDisease.org and the national Lyme Disease Association filed comments on behalf of 67 patient groups across the nation. LymeDisease.org also launched a patient survey on March 28 to solicit patient views. It drew more than 5,500 responses. We included findings from the survey in the formal comments we filed with the IDSA.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme Patients and Insurance Appeals

    Lyme disease patients have trouble with insurance coverage. They have trouble getting health insurance if they have ever had Lyme disease, on the one hand. On the other hand, they have trouble getting the disease treated because insurers rely on the IDSA guidelines to take a "free pass" on treatment reimbursements. This is an area that is clearly governed by something other than providing quality health care to patients. Have you ever wondered what happens–really happens–when Lyme patient appeal an insurance denial? What happens is we succeed 9% of the time, while other diseases succeed 40% of the time. What is going on here? How can that be?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Who Died and Made You King? Eminence Based Medicine in Lyme Disease Breaks All the Rules

    In the movie “The King’s Speech”, the Duke of York tells his unorthodox speech therapist Logue that he has “been t-t-treated f-or this by the f-f-finest ph-ph-physicians.” Logue responds: They are idiots. When the Duke protests that “Th-they h-h-have knighthoods”, Logue responds “Well, that makes it official that they are idiots.” He is talking about hubris and arrogance interfering with medicine and science. So it is with “eminence based medicine”–guidelines that hinge upon the opinion, bias and arrogance of physicians that hold a particular viewpoint rather than science. The IDSA has been called to task in research by its own members that find that the IDSA’s guidelines are based mostly on opinion—not evidence.

  • Publication Alert: IDSA Review Hearing Report–Lipstick on a Pig

    On April 22nd, the IDSA guidelines review hearing panel rubber-stamped its Lyme disease guidelines in its final report of the hearing. Those of us who presented and attended the hearing were appalled. Sure we had our reservations about the ability of a panel stacked with IDSA members to impartially review the guidelines, but there were 1,600 pages of peer reviewed evidence that had been presented to the panel and independent scientists had attested to the persistence of the Lyme bacteria and the low quality of the tests. How could they ignore the weight of such evidence? How could they decide to leave the guidelines completely unchanged even though a panel of their own choosing was divided on the testing? To make matters worse, the IDSA then trumpeted the results of a stacked panel as "independent" in their report. Dr. Stricker and I were given the opportunity to respond to the IDSA "spin" and our letter to the editor was just published. An excerpt follows:

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: The CDC Definition of HIV: Does History Repeat Itself?

    Does history repeat itself? Did you know that the initial CDC definition of AIDS did not include women? And, because it did not include them, women were not included in research and they were denied disability payments. So much for disease definitions just being about “surveillance”. It took them 4 years to change the definition and there were a lot of government hearings. Turns out the hearings were just for “show and tell”. Not real hearings intended to accomplish real things. Kind of reminds me of the IOM hearings going on right now. Here’s an interview from Maxine Wolfe in 2004 at ACT UP describing the scene. Let me know if you see any parallels here. I sure hope I don’t.