LYMEPOLICYWONK: CDC Tells Poughkeepsie Journal Long Term Antibiotics Not Warranted; I Respond

Byldoadmin

Response to Dr. Petersen:

Let me try to reframe the issue for Dr. Petersen and the CDC, which seems to have lost its way in patient care.  We have a growing health crises. More patients are becoming ill every year. These patients are very sick—and suffer a quality of life equal to that of patients with congestive heart failure.  Our survey of over 4,000, published in Health Policy, found 65% had had to cut back on or quit work or school at some point; 28% for more than one year.

I am not sure what Dr. Petersen means when he says patients only have anecdotal evidence.  Does he mean that the studies by Oksi, Donta, Cameron, Fallon and Krupp showing patient improvement do not exist when he is the one picking and interpreting the evidence?  Yes, those last two are NIH funded trials that the CDC has chosen to interpret in a manner that harms patients and denies them care. 

No one doubts that we have not yet determined the optimal treatment for Lyme patients.  The fact is that those charged with our public health are not even trying.  Our large scale patient surveys show that short term treatment fails for over 90% of patients with chronic Lyme. I must think that Dr. Peterson’s jests when he says treatment must be based on the best research—what he is saying is that there should be no treatment and no research for treatment. This “do nothing” response denies patients access to the only treatment option available to them that has any efficacy and that has given many patients back their lives. For seriously ill patients, “waiting” is not an option.

 It’s no wonder then that more than 85% of patients with chronic Lyme have little to no trust in the IDSA guidelines.  It’s no wonder that the CDC is suffering a crisis of credibility with patients.    Decision making by those who aren’t impacted, and who are not accountable to patients is what has got us into this crises.  The only road back must involve public policy making that includes representation of all stakeholders—not simply those of a single special interest group with a vested interest in maintaining its lock on research grants.  Patients and treating physicians need to have a voice in public policy decisions that impact their lives so profoundly.

At a recent meeting between the CDC and Lyme advocates, Dr. Ben Beard stressed that no one wins “in the Lyme war”.  We agree. But we do not believe the solution is for sick patients to simply lie down and be quiet.  In the same meeting, Dr. Petersen reportedly said the CDC was there “to listen”.  But patients need for the CDC to do more than merely listen; we need for them to actually hear.  We need for them to lend us more than an ear, we need for them to lend us a hand.

The Poughkeepsie Journal has posted the CDC letter.  Although I welcome your comments, please be sure to post on the Poughkeepsie Journal website where the bulk of this conversation is occurring.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org, formerly CALDA. Contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: The More the Merrier—The Power of Small

    I was reading a book today about the power of small groups. The book is called Microtrends. It is by Mark Penn. One of the things he said stuck with me: “It only takes 1% of the people making a dedicated choice—contrary to the mainstream—to create a movement that can change the world.” What he is talking about is the increasing fragmentation of America (the world, in fact) brought about by the internet and the collapse of normal distribution channels. Very small groups of people can now connect and be effective through the internet. And, the normal channels of distribution used to control information flow have collapsed. You see this in television where there are no longer three networks to choose from but over 200 channels. That’s fragmentation.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Spotlight on an IOM Speaker: Does the IOM Know the Difference Between Dogma and Science? Rumor Hassett They Don’t!

    The IOM has slotted Afton Hassett to speak about “Potential Bio-Marker Applications for Lyme Disease: Aligning Multiple Symptoms with Biological Measures”. You might think he was a microbiologist or, or, or ? Well, it turns out that she is a Psy.D. What is a Psy.D.? It is a newish graduate degree in psychology. It does not focus on research or statistics, it focuses on the “soft” side of psychology, generally therapy (which is not a bad thing, but why should it weigh in on biology?) What does a therapist have to say about biomarkers specifically and why was she chosen over say, someone who actually knows about biomarkers, like Dr. Ben Luft? I shudder to think that this is about the psycholigization of an illness—namely turning an illness caused by a bacteria into a psychiatric illness, as in “don’t worry, it’s all in your head”. Afton Hassett, Psy.D., hails from the Chronic Pain & Fatigue Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Michigan Medical School. Her view in a nutshell? Is that patients are nuts. How refreshing. She publishes with Dr. Lenny Sigal, a highly vocal anti-chronic Lyme light seeker. How reassuring. Some of her quotes follow after the jump. . .

  • Publication Alert: IDSA Review Hearing Report–Lipstick on a Pig

    On April 22nd, the IDSA guidelines review hearing panel rubber-stamped its Lyme disease guidelines in its final report of the hearing. Those of us who presented and attended the hearing were appalled. Sure we had our reservations about the ability of a panel stacked with IDSA members to impartially review the guidelines, but there were 1,600 pages of peer reviewed evidence that had been presented to the panel and independent scientists had attested to the persistence of the Lyme bacteria and the low quality of the tests. How could they ignore the weight of such evidence? How could they decide to leave the guidelines completely unchanged even though a panel of their own choosing was divided on the testing? To make matters worse, the IDSA then trumpeted the results of a stacked panel as "independent" in their report. Dr. Stricker and I were given the opportunity to respond to the IDSA "spin" and our letter to the editor was just published. An excerpt follows:

  • GIVING THANKS

    Last Thursday, the historic review of the IDSA 2006 Lyme guidelines was held in Washington, D.C. Eighteen people presented arguments for and against the guidelines. We don’t know how the IDSA panel will act in the face of this deluge of previously suppressed information, but we do know that we have grown enormously as a community and that the skill-sets we developed on this project will continue to have a positive effect in the future.

    I want to share with you a little of the background of the action and acknowledge people who have joined in this massive undertaking over this period. Many others have contributed, and I apologize if I have overlooked anyone’s contribution to this effort.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient-Centered Medicine and Lyme disease.

    We are in the midst of a sea of change in healthcare—driven largely by healthcare reform and evidence based medicine. Public trust is critical to the success of healthcare reform. But many patients believe that EBM is vulnerable to corruption by stakeholders—like insurers seeking to control costs and panel members who have industry conflicts of interest. Patient distrust in IDSA Lyme guidelines is high because Lyme patients believe that the guidelines panel was corrupted by industry conflicts (diagnostic tests, vaccines, and insurance) and researcher self-interest. Today, a shift from old models of medicine toward patient-centered medicine is emerging. It seeks to focus medical attention on the individual patient needs and concerns rather than those of physicians, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and researchers. At LymeDisease.org we have been up to our eye-balls in EBM and patient-centered care since 2004, when we launched the two standards of care campaign.