LYMEPOLICYWONK: LymeDisease.org responds to Slate’s “Lyme-Illiterate” article

ByLori
Slate goes after NY legislation

LDo Letter to the Editor of Slate 

December 12, 2014

Julia Turner
Editor in Chief
juliaturneratslate@gmail.com

Re: Lyme Illiterate by Brian Palmer

LymeDisease.org is appalled at the recent Slate article, which viciously attacks both those who suffer from Lyme disease and the physicians who treat them.  It is malicious, untrue, and inhumane. Reporter Brian Palmer misrepresents the evidence in every possible way. We remember similar hateful attacks on people with HIV/AIDS in the early days.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, which Palmer regards as the sole guardians of expertise in this arena, was 10 years late to the party in recognizing the need to treat HIV/AIDS. Another medical society, AAHIVM, led the charge in its absence and with the support of the pharmaceutical industry, embraced the broad range of clinicians who provided HIV care and fought for better access to care for HIV patients. That’s why today two HIV medical organizations (AAHIVMI and the HIV Medicine Association, a branch of IDSA) exist. http://tinyurl.com/q49ua5z

In a similar fashion, it was the lack of IDSA responsiveness to the needs of Lyme disease patients that gave rise to ILADS.  Studies show unacceptable lack of sensitivity in IDSA’s recommended testing procedure (50%) and an unacceptably high failure rate of the IDSA Lyme treatment protocols (25-36%). http://tinyurl.com/l3cjfjd   IDSA’s own researchers have noted that IDSA guidelines in general are based primarily on opinion, not evidence. http://tinyurl.com/m24bkya   Even worse, IDSA Lyme guidelines have not been updated since 2006 and do not reflect current science. IDSA employed no rigorous evidence review and its guidelines do not conform to the standards of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for trustworthy guidelines.

In contrast, the ILADS guidelines were revised this year, using the rigorous evidence assessment scheme (called GRADE) recommended by the IOM. ILADS included the patient voice in the guideline development process. http://tinyurl.com/k7hhssh   Contrary to Palmer’s libelous allegations, ILADS doctors—not IDSA doctors—are the ones applying the latest research to patient care.

LymeDisease.org is no stranger to evidence-based medicine. I have been involved with the Cochrane Collaboration for 6 years and co-chair the national Consumers United for Evidence Based Healthcare. I am also a patient representative of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was founded by Congress under the Affordable Care Act.  I also serve on both the Steering and Executive Committees of its $100 million dollar big data project, PCORnet.

The IDSA exists to promote the interests of its members, who are largely researchers. Patients are not even on the agenda. The group spends enormous amounts of money every year to lobby for research funding. IDSA’s interests in Lyme disease are aligned with promoting the interests of insurers, controlling research grant funding, and controlling the research paradigm.   Its researchers involved with Lyme disease have strong industry ties with vaccine developers and diagnostic test kits. http://tinyurl.com/l4x6mnq  These commercial interests are not trivial. IDSA has engaged in an all-out war on its competitors—viz. ILADS doctors—whom it drags before medical boards with impunity.  As the chart below reveals, IDSA lobbying expenses spiked significantly in 2006 and 2009 in connection with its Lyme war advocacy. http://tinyurl.com/q8w52gd

 

Palmer got many facts wrong. LymeDisease.org not only funds research, we conduct it. Our large-scale surveys of over 5,000 patients are one of the few resources researching this population. Patients with chronic Lyme disease suffer on-going symptoms affecting their ability to function and engage in the activities of daily living. A full 43% report that they have had to stop working, while 25% report that they have been on disability at some point in their illness. Patients with chronic Lyme disease report significantly more “poor physical-health days” (using the CDC HRQoL) than those with chronic low back pain, asthma, diabetes, cancer, depression and cardiovascular disease. Chronic Lyme patients are five times more likely to visit physicians and are twice as likely to be seen in an emergency room department or have an overnight stay in the hospital than other patients. Twenty-two percent report requiring special needs equipment, such as a cane or wheelchair. https://peerj.com/articles/322/

Contrary to the author’s assertion that those with chronic Lyme are usually treated with IV antibiotics, we find that the majority (51%) are not taking antibiotics and, 92% of those on antibiotics are on oral antibiotics. https://peerj.com/articles/322/  Asserting that treating physicians are prescribing “dangerous and ineffective therapies” and “are exactly the doctors the government should be investigating” is a fear-mongering tactic without support. The FDA has approved the safety of these antibiotics. The efficacy of antibiotics was confirmed in two of the four NIH-funded trials and many observational trials. http://tinyurl.com/qdm3dfa

Physicians, unlike IDSA researchers, are charged with using the best evidence available and working to restore the health of patients who are severely ill. As Dr. Deborah Zarin, director of clinicaltrials.gov puts it http://tinyurl.com/oj65x4c :

Clinical decisions are driven by the current reality. You can’t say to someone who has a medical need right then and there, “Hold on we’ll do more clinical trials and get back to you in two years.“ You have to make decisions based on the best information available.

The author gets just about every fact in the article wrong in a highly biased fashion. We believe this article will cause incalculable harm to already suffering patients.  Although the article mentions LymeDisease.org, the author  did not bother to contact us.  Slate should set the record straight and provide a patient-centered article in response.

Sincerely,

 

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA
Executive Director
LymeDisease.org

Click here to read the Slate article.|

A pdf of LDo’s letter to Slate is here.

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. Follow her on Twitter: @lymepolicywonk.

 

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: And, the Number Is? 5,200 Responses! IDSA Guidelines and Patient Preference Survey

    Let me thank everyone who responded to the Patient Preferences Survey! We have drawn over 5,200 responses, which is just simply fabulous. We will now start the process of reviewing the responses with an eye toward publication of the results. Our last survey was published in Health Policy, a widely respected peer reviewed journal. Those results now help inform the base of knowledge of the access to care problems that Lyme patients face. Our goal with these surveys is to open the space for conversations in the public health arena about what is really going on with Lyme patients from their perspective. We are trying to give voice to the patient community, which is all to often completely ignored in conversations about Lyme disease. Your willingness to participate in these surveys allows us to do that. So hats off to you for being so vocal and letting us know your views.

  • 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:

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Annual Lyme costs now top $3.1 billion—It’s time to wake up!

    The CDC is likely to officially update its cost estimates for Lyme disease based on the new case numbers, but in the meantime, I’ve pulled together some rough estimates. The annual cost of Lyme disease in the US in 2002 was estimated at $203 million by Dr. Zhang of the CDC. Today the annual cost is likely to exceed $3.1 Billion. The increased cost reflects the CDC revision of case numbers from 30,000 to 300,000 and adjustments for inflation. The average cost of Lyme disease in 2002 was $8,712, which would be $10,343 in today’s dollars. According to Zhang’s study, the later we intervene with the disease, the higher the costs. In today’s dollars the societal cost of Lyme when addressed at tick bite is $400. If we wait until early Lyme disease, the cost increases 4-fold to $1,658. By the time, we are dealing with late Lyme, the cost is through the roof– $20,502.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: MUS is DUMB—Doctors with Unexplained Medical Beliefs

    You’ve all heard that the latest drum-roll from the rheumatologists at the IDSA hearing was essentially to say that Lyme patients have persistent symptoms and they started off with infection, but now we don’t “believe” in persistence—so what do you call it? How about “medically unexplained symptoms” or MUS for short? All of this seems to regard the real problem with Lyme disease as being what you call it. But patients know the real problem with Lyme disease is how you treat it, how you cure it, how you restore patients to their lives. Disease definitions like MUS are for drug-makers who sell drugs to a market, physicians trying to claim professional turf, and insurers trying to deny treatment reimbursement. They are not for patients. Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? (Answer) Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” I’m not the only one who finds these acronyms aggravating and unhelpful. A post from the internet nails it:

  • 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.