LYMEPOLICYWONK: The CDC Definition of HIV: Does History Repeat Itself?

Byldoadmin

Maxine Wolfe: 

Originally, they wanted us to be part of the planning, and Linda was part of the planning, but we made it clear that we would not rubber-stamp what they did. And so, at the beginning, it was really interesting because there were all these women, who were from all over the country, who had been waiting for this day, because all of this stuff had been suppressed.

 So, they [women and researchers] were all willing to do the best conference there was, but the government wasn’t. And, what they used to do and they still do is they run their own conferences, and they put the researchers there that they want to be there, who are going to say what they want those people to say.. .. And so, we, basically — Linda, eventually dropped out of the planning because she said she wouldn’t have her name associated with a conference that had been — after the whole schedule had been set, the government people took it and totally decimated it, and put only their people there.”

 Well, they worked a long time and finally got women included in the definition.  How about all of the chronic Lyme patients that are not included in the surveillance definition now?  Think that will change?  Happened before, will it happen again? Or do only the bad parts repeat?  

You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Who Died and Made You King? Eminence Based Medicine in Lyme Disease Breaks All the Rules

    In the movie “The King’s Speech”, the Duke of York tells his unorthodox speech therapist Logue that he has “been t-t-treated f-or this by the f-f-finest ph-ph-physicians.” Logue responds: They are idiots. When the Duke protests that “Th-they h-h-have knighthoods”, Logue responds “Well, that makes it official that they are idiots.” He is talking about hubris and arrogance interfering with medicine and science. So it is with “eminence based medicine”–guidelines that hinge upon the opinion, bias and arrogance of physicians that hold a particular viewpoint rather than science. The IDSA has been called to task in research by its own members that find that the IDSA’s guidelines are based mostly on opinion—not evidence.

  • IDSA Hearing: Putting on a Good Face?

    Those who attended the IDSA guidelines hearing were struck by the even-handed tone of the proceedings established by the Chair, Dr. Carol Baker. It was both unexpected and disarming, and not a small accomplishment given the polarity of the debate. At the same time, there was a feeling of cognitive dissonance—this was not the public face presented by IDSA President, Dr. Ann Gershon—who, in the face of the ILADS submission of over 1,600 pages of scientific evidence contradicting the guideline recommendations, steadfastly maintains there is no evidence of persistence. So what gives? Is this a case of “good cop/bad cop”? Are perceptions deceiving? Is this all a matter of managing public perception? Putting on a public face?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Speaking Truth to Power: Dr. Liegner Lays it Out for the IOM

    Dr. Liegner has been in the trenches a long time treating Lyme disease. He was working side by side in the early days with government scientists when they were curious and truly interested in learning something about this disease, before dogma took the place of science. Yesterday, he told the IOM how it is for Lyme patients, treating physicians, and researchers in this environment of fear, suppression, intimidation, indifference, and silence: "Physicians who have cared for persons with chronic Lyme disease have faced harassment at a minimum and for some, their careers have been ruined. Researchers who have seriously dedicated themselves to the scientific study of chronic Lyme disease in humans and/or animals have often found themselves attacked or marginalized. To persist in their researches would have resulted in virtual career suicide and some have been forced, by exigencies of survival, to leave the field." He also points out how the IOM feeds into this by allowing Dr. Wormser to speak unopposed and not permitting ILADS physicians an opportunity to speak: “The process of planning the meeting has been, as far as I can tell, quite opaque and it is notable that clinicians who actually treat persons with chronic Lyme disease have been nowhere to be found on either the planning committee or the panel. Neither is any clinician afforded adequate time to present, in a formal way, an opposing position to what must be viewed as the “keynote” speech by Dr. Wormser. Dr. Wormser’s extreme view on the existence of the entity of chronic Lyme disease needs no repeating but does need rebuttal.” His full letter follows the leap. . .

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: ILADS Calls on IDSA to Remove Barriers to Lyme Guideline Change

    Responding to patient concerns, the President of ILADS, Dr. Robert Bransfield today delivered a letter to the IDSA calling upon the organization to remove barriers to guidelines change. The letter follows patient complaints to ILADS about the IDSA voting process, which were uncovered by the Connecticut Attorney General in the oversight of the IDSA Lyme guidelines review process. According to the Attorney General, the voting process used by the IDSA was in violation of the terms of the antitrust Settlement Agreement. The Attorney General has called upon the IDSA to redo the vote using the proper voting procedures. Text of the ILADS letter follows the jump.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA PETITION –CT RESIDENTS URGED TO SIGN, DISTRIBUTE AND DELIVER!

    Connecticut residents are urged to sign the petition to hold the IDSA legally accountable for violating the antitrust Settlement Agreement with the CT AG. Patients in the Lyme community are alarmed by the IDSA’s flagrant violation of the antitrust Settlement Agreement. Those in Connecticut are urged to sign the petition (link below in full story) electronically and to download a print version of the petition and take it door-to-door, at shopping centers, post offices and other public venues to gather signatures. We need to make our voices heard and we need to make them heard now. Paper petitions may be downloaded from the link below this blog post and should be mailed back no later than May 31st to Time for Lyme, 30 Myano Lane, Ste. 20, Stamford, CT 06902. If you are a Connecticut resident or you know anyone in Connecticut, please get this petition distributed and signed. The health and well-being of Lyme patients depends on it!