LYMEPOLICYWONK: NIH Tick Feeding Study Safety Risk Update

Buddha once said “a dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker.” I would take it a step further and say “a doctor is not considered a good doctor because he is a key opinion leader.” No. The essence of a good dog is loyalty. The essence of a good man is his moral character. And, the essence of a good doctor is his ability to heal the sick and restore health. This can’t be done without holding the patient’s interest paramount. Patients and the concerns of patients are the core element around which medicine is organized. Without patients, there is nothing for medicine to address. Without treatment approaches that restore health, or failing that, improve patient health, medicine becomes a meaningless exercise in capitalism. How do we ensure that patient’s interests come first in treatment guidelines?

Having Lyme means losing your innocence, utterly, in science. It's true. I am remembering the night I explained evidence-based medicine to a friend whose daughter had Lyme. I explained that in Lyme evidence-based medicine was a “tool” for persuasion in a polemic argument. He was stunned. His daughter had Lyme. He believed in science. He had trouble, real trouble, getting his daughter diagnosed and treated. He knew the problems of Lyme from the inside out. But it hadn’t occurred to him that science wasn’t “pure” science. That researchers followed their bias, their pet theories, their commercial interests in designing and interpreting studies. It was an interesting moment with this sharp and concerned father while he tried to understand the depth of the problem in Lyme. It was a moment when innocence is utterly lost for the first time to those who know how the system of science “ought” to work.

I want to thank Mimi MacLean for featuring me on Lyme 360’s Heal podcast. Mimi…

Biased reporting harms the credibility of journalism, harms patients, and misleads the public. The recent Tribune piece, which is now being republished in other Tribune outlets (including the Los Angeles Times) distorts and manipulates reality and makes a ‘good story’ at the expense of professional journalism. It does this by ignoring science, and by characterizing patients as hapless victims and their physicians as frauds. It was called to task for its profound lack of professionalism by Knight Science Journalism Tracker. Articles on science that do not present both sides of a legitimate controversy in science do a serious injustice and may violate the canons of journalist ethics established by the Society of Professional Journalism. Today, I look at some of those canons and point out how the Tribune article fell short. More after the jump. . .

There is a big debate going on now about how to control health care costs. (Surprised?) Obama has been relying on the Dartmouth Atlas project by John Wennberg to support his assertion that there is enormous waste in the medical system that varies by geographical region that needs to be curtailed. Gardiner Harris, a reporter for the New York Times, has taken issue with this assertion and lobbed criticism at some of the underlying assumptions in the Dartmouth Atlas project. Congress has started looking to control costs by enforcing reductions in higher costs areas like New York. Not so fast says the NY Times. Increased cost may also reflect higher quality care and before we act on data, we need to make sure we have it right. Merrill Goozner, has a good post on Gooznews dissecting the debate. I have followed Wennburg’s work for years and offered my 2 cents on his work and its implications for patients who need to have treatment options available. This debate is at the core of quality healthcare and individualized patient needs. My comments posted on the Goozner site as well as links for all follow the jump.