LYMEPOLICYWONK: Thanks to Everyone Who Helped With the IDSA Petition!

Byldoadmin

Whether or not AG Blumenthal elects to pursue the case further, the findings from his investigation have given us valuable info to communicate in any contacts with the media regarding the extensive conflicts of interests of the panel members and their exclusionary tactics.  We no longer need to be on the defensive having to prove that the “experts” of the IDSA may have motivations other than pure science. The AG Blumenthal’s investigation has proven that they have industry ties that could taint their scientific findings, and the behavior of the IDSA in the review process has further demonstrated their strong arm tactics. These are discussed at length in a recent peer reviewed article (http://www.peh-med.com/content/5/1/9 ).

One thing is clear, we have come from not even being part of the dialog to being the center of a debate that is far from over.  When we work together, we make things happen.

So keep up the good work.  Keep getting our story out as much as you can. Thank you again!

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

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: ILADS Weighs in on IOM Process

    Today, ILADS sent a letter to the IOM expressing its concerns about the lack of balance in the panel and the speaker list for the Lyme State of the Science conference. Not surprisingly, it was concerned primarily about the exclusion of ILADS physicians from presenting at the conference and with the large roles handed to Dr. Wormer, chair of the IDSA Lyme guidelines panel, and Dr. Aguera-Rosenfeld, who until recently worked at NYMC with him, are both known to have biased views regarding the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Exclusionary conduct on the part of the IDSA has prevented the type of scientific debate that is essential to understanding where the science in Lyme disease rests. ILADS took issue with the large roles handed to the IDSA in the diagnosis and treatment issues at the conference, stating: “There is a significant disconnect between IDSA and the community of physicians who treat Lyme disease. There is also an urgent need for transparency in recognizing the limitations of the existing Lyme research. The bulk of the research on Lyme treatment has been controlled by IDSA researchers. Their research is based on sample populations that do not reflect those seen in clinical practice.” Lyme treatment research has been plagued by sample sizes that are too small to measure clinically relevant treatment effects and that do not reflect the types of patients seen in clinical practice. The link to the ILADS letter follows the jump. . .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM Hearings—Same Old, Same Old?

    Labor HHS 2010 appropriations language directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to“sponsor a scientific conference on Lyme and tick-borne diseases” and mandated that the conference represent the broad spectrum of scientific views…and provide a forum for public participation and input from individuals with Lyme disease.” Rather than conducting this review themselves as an NIH State of the Science conference as anticipated, the NIH subcontracted the work out to the Institute of Medicine. Looked at in the most kindly light, perhaps they regarded the Lyme controversy as “too hot to handle” or “not in my backyard”. A less charitable viewpoint would characterize the shunt to the IOM as “forum shopping”—a way of selecting a process that is most likely to favor a desired outcome.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Dr. Fallon Sets the Record Straight—Part 2. Differences Matter.

    When studies fail to take heterogeneity into account, researchers can leap to the wrong conclusion. In a recent open-access article, Dr. Fallon and colleagues describe the four NIH trials, the Krupp Stop-LD study, the Klempner seronegative study, the Klempner seropositive study, and Fallon neurologic study and make a key point. There are considerable differences between chronic Lyme patients (so-called patient heterogeneity) that need to be addressed in study design to improve what he calls the signal to noise ratio. If a study does not address heterogeneity, the results may simply reflect “garbage in, garbage out.”

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: WHEN MEDICAL BOARDS ABUSE THEIR POWER

    Although most people believe that a "good" physician licensure board is a "tough" one that protects people from bad doctors, medical boards that abuse their tremendous power, can persecutes or even destroy good doctors. Those in the Lyme community are aware of the relentless prosecution of Dr. Charles Ray Jones in Connecticut. The case which has dragged on for years and cost an enormous amount of money seems specifically designed to accomplish only one purpose–to put Dr. Jones out of business. The case is particularly disturbing because the Connecticut Department of Public Health had previously said that it recognized two standards of care in the treatment of Lyme disease and would not prosecute physicians solely because they followed a standard of care that provided for longer term treatment of Lyme disease. This is abuse of power by a medical board, pure and simple.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Part 1–New Study Shows Lyme Persists in Monkeys

    This is Part 1 of a series of posts I will do on this study. A new study by Drs. Monica Embers, Stephen Barthold and colleagues has found that the bacteria that cause Lyme disease, Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) persist in monkeys after antibiotic treatment. It is the latest in a number of studies that have demonstrated persistent infection in animal models despite treatment. The issue of persistent infection in Lyme disease is a highly controversial issue. Probably the most controversial issue actually. The authors conclude that their studies “offer proof of the principle that intact spirochetes can persist in an incidental host comparable to humans, following antibiotic therapy.” The study also found that the C6 antibody test gave false negative results in all of those treated with antibiotics and in more than ½ of those untreated. The presence of the bacteria was confirmed by other means. Both the lab tests and evidence of persistence are very important for Lyme patients because they show that Bb may persist after treatment even when antibody tests are negative.