At the Gala

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.

Most patients know that they should be told the risks and benefits of different treatment…

I have gotten some thoughtful comments on my blog posts about the Institute of Medicine’s upcoming Lyme “state of the science” workshop. I want to share my thoughts about why CALDA pulled out of the process and why we will stay out unless there is dramatic change in the program. Whether it is best for groups to participate in a process even though it is biased is always a judgment call that depends on how biased the process is—in short whether you do more harm than good by staying in. CALDA pulled out because we represent Lyme patients and do not believe that we should legitimize a highly biased process by participating in it. We do not believe this is in the best interests of patients. Let me break this down a bit in terms of what is happening at the IOM workshop to explain why I believe it is highly biased.

I have to say, I have not heard encouraging things about the IOM process. Most folks think the IDSA simply plucked a friendly forum to reaffirm its beleaguered Lyme guidelines and the tainted Lyme review panel process. The big question is: Does this process have any substance or is it just a matter of going through the motions? Is anybody listening on these "listening" phone calls? Is the IOM offering to listen to anyone who cares?

50% of the 272 speakers at the October 2009 IDSA annual meeting who disclosed conflicts, had ties to one or more of the five leading vaccine companies: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth, and Novartis. Vaccine related financial ties with key members of the IDSA Lyme panel prompted the Connecticut Attorney General antitrust investigation into the development of the IDSA Lyme guidelines. Patients remain concerned about these interests because the IDSA guidelines placed commercial interests of vaccine manufacturers above patient care.