LYMEPOLICYWONK: Oh, Canada! Important New Lyme Study

Byldoadmin

Did you know that in Canada:

 

  • In Canada, accurate LB statistics have been difficult to obtain because the disease is not yet nationally notifiable?

 

  • B. burgdorferi has now been recognized in every province.

 

  • Recent passive surveillance from Manitoba eastward has shown that 12.5% of sampled specimens of the tick vector Ixodes scapularis

 

  • The risk of infection is unevenly distributed  (which means it is unpredictable across a range)

 

Meanwhile, across the pond, consider this: 

 

  • In Scotland the cost of treating a case of early LB is estimated to be one-third that of treating late LB and early and effective treatment is viewed as a cost-saving measure.  Isn’t that refreshing?

 

You can follow additional comments on Lyme policy at www.lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • IDSA Panel–Document submission changes

    In response to concerns raised by patient's organizations and physicians about the document submission process–which initially tried to limit submissions to five pages–the IDSA has changed its document submission process. The IDSA is now requesting that submissions be 10 pages or less with an acknowledgment that they will consider all submissions regardless of length. For a submission to be considered by the panel though it must specify what recommendation is being contested. This is because the scope of this panel is simply to consider and weigh the scientific evidence for contested recommendations.

  • IDSA Lyme Double Speak

    Have you ever noticed how the IDSA says one thing, but really means and does another? For instance, how they say that their guidelines are there to protect patients when in fact they amount to medical abandonment? They are so stringent that sick patients are left completely without treatment options? Or how they say they are all about scientific evidence when in fact their guidelines are based primarily on expert opinion–the expert opinion of researchers with commercial ties to vaccine manufacturers, Lyme tests, and insurers? Or how they say their guidelines are not mandatory, but their members enforce their guidelines by testifying at unprofessional conduct hearings and the IDSA opposes physician protection legislation that would essentially make compliance with their guidelines truly voluntary? Or how they say they are worried about doctors who treat chronic Lyme making money off of sick patients, but they are not concerned about conflict of interest on their guidelines panels? This is called double speak. Saying one thing, doing another. George Orwell described this type of practice "newspeak"–words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them." I'd say we could all use a little more plain talk.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient Centered Research and Lyme—An idea whose time has come?

    A friend forwarded to me the audio link (at the end of this blog) of an interview with Dr. Iain Chalmers of the Cochrane Collaboration—a leading voice in evidence based medicine. Dr. Chalmers, who is interested in the patient perspective in evidence-based medicine, made a number of points that I think you will find of interest. First, he said, research agendas should be driven by patient concerns rather than by researchers’ preferences. There’s an interesting idea. Then he said that physicians have to make a decision today and cannot wait for the research. That sounds right, too. He went on to say that when you are looking at outcomes, the clinical experiences of those who receive the intervention or treatment are the key—these experiences are not the soft data, they are, in fact, the “hard” evidence. Finally, he noted the difficulty of getting “disappointing” results published. Disappointing results can be trials that don’t turn out as planned or that contradict what the researcher expected. His last quote regarding academic researchers in particular stuck with me and should resonate with the Lyme community: “If you have a cherished hypothesis which your career has ridden on for the past 20 years and someone does a really killer experiment which actually shows that you have been wrong all that time, the natural reaction, the human reaction is to say “there must be something wrong with it”—“I can’t have been wrong all these years”. It all sort of takes me back to the Embers monkey study and the complaints of Dr. Baker’s (formerly of the NIH and now the head of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, which many patients believe is a front for the Infectious Diseases Society of America).