Lyme Policy Wonk: Fresh back from the conferences!

Byldoadmin

The Columbia/LDA conference had some terrific speakers.  Ben Beard of the CDC was the moderator–talk about building bridges.  Watching Ben and listening to the speakers was terrific.  Congressman Smith came and spoke at the conference about the federal legislation (soooo important)—now this was truly inspirational.  Here is a man who understands precisely what the problem is—the gap between the men who control the science and vaccine oriented research dollars and patients.  What a travesty when scientific and commercial interests do not align with patient interests. 

 

Similar Posts

  • Volkman submission to IDSA–Smells like courage to me

    David Volkman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at SUNY, Stony Brook, and previously Senior Investigator with the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, has submitted the attached letter to the IDSA pursuant to its document submission process. He has performed both clinical and bench research in Lyme disease since 1985. Given his impeccable credentials, outlined in the first paragraph of his letter, his submission should carry considerable weight with the panel. Among other things, he points to the suppression of research and stifling of the types of investigative inquiry necessary to begin to address pressing issues for Lyme patients—the need for better testing, the need to acknowledge persistence and start looking for treatment protocols that help patients get better, the need to keep surveillance definitions outside the arena of patient diagnosis, the need to acknowledge the usefulness of PCR testing, and the need to avoid prophylaxis regimens that may promote chronic Lyme. His letter smells a little bit like “courage” to me—a pretty rare commodity these days.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: MA insurance bill hearing–how insurers cut costs at the expense of patients

    Yesterday, patient advocates testified before the Joint Committee on Financial Services for a bill (H. 989) that would require insurance companies to cover antibiotic treatment for Lyme as prescribed by a physician. LymeDisease.org submitted a chart book as testimony. Drawing on our survey results and a key cost of illness study by Dr. Zhang of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, our submission tells the story of how medical costs by insurers have been cut 75% while costs borne by patients, their families, society, and public governments for loss of productivity have increased 200%.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Chronic Lyme disease patients suffer high unemployment and disability

    LymeDisease.org’s recently published survey found that patients with chronic Lyme disease reported low quality of life. They had more days that were bad physically than the general population and than most other diseases. They suffer high rates of unemployment and disability. Even those who are able to work, often must stay home ill or reduce their hours. At work, many say they were unable to concentrate. The survey paints a graphic picture of lost productivity among those with chronic Lyme disease.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: MUS is DUMB—Doctors with Unexplained Medical Beliefs

    You’ve all heard that the latest drum-roll from the rheumatologists at the IDSA hearing was essentially to say that Lyme patients have persistent symptoms and they started off with infection, but now we don’t “believe” in persistence—so what do you call it? How about “medically unexplained symptoms” or MUS for short? All of this seems to regard the real problem with Lyme disease as being what you call it. But patients know the real problem with Lyme disease is how you treat it, how you cure it, how you restore patients to their lives. Disease definitions like MUS are for drug-makers who sell drugs to a market, physicians trying to claim professional turf, and insurers trying to deny treatment reimbursement. They are not for patients. Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? (Answer) Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” I’m not the only one who finds these acronyms aggravating and unhelpful. A post from the internet nails it:

  • IDSA Hearing–Reflections

    The IDSA Lyme disease guidelines review hearing on Thursday was an historic event both in medicine and in the Lyme community. It is the first time an organization has been required to hold hearings and review treatment guidelines that were created by a panel with conflicts of interest. It is also the first time that a broad debate of both sides of the Lyme controversy over diagnosis and treatment with physicians and researchers has been held.

  • Weintraub to IDSA: Listen to the steady heart beat of true science, leave the past behind, and move toward the future

    If you have not read Pam Weintraub's Disappearing a disease: when guidelines are biased, patients suffer I suggest you take a breath and head over to her blog on Psychology Today. Pam Weintraub is the author of "Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic", the seminal book on the politics and science underlying Lyme disease. I recall telling a friend and attorney who simply did not understand why there should be a controversy when so many people were ill–why would any physician, those men in the white coats, deliberately leave patients ill, untreated, and without hope. Since when did medicine become a science of closed doors, double locked against the needs of patients?