LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lorraine Johnson speaks about MyLymeData to help find a cure for Lyme disease

ByLorraine

In February, the publishers of Science magazine, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), held its annual conference– one of the most mainstream prestigious events of the year for all types of scientists and science reporters.  It was a pivotal moment for Lyme disease, which took the spotlight on a panel discussing the potential of big data as a game changer for Lyme disease.

I was delighted to be on the panel with DJ Patil, Chief Data Scientist from the White House Office of Science and Technology and Dr. John Aucott from Johns Hopkins Medicine. Because the AAAS did not record speeches, I am posting a powerpoint with audio of my talk, Big Data and Patient Powered Research here.

The only way we are going to increase our understanding of chronic Lyme disease and be able to answer the important questions that directly impact patients’ lives is through big data projects like MyLymeData. It is going to take individual patients coming together and sharing their information that will accelerate research to figure out this disease.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk.  If you have not signed up for our patient centered big data project, MyLymeData, please register now.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Voting Violations–Which Way IDSA, the Right Way or the Might Way?

    One of the problems with the IDSA reviewing its own guidelines is that it is not an independent process. The IDSA selected the panel, paid the ethicist, and sets the ground rules. And, now we have the IDSA manipulating the voting process to achieve a goal–protection of the IDSA professional reputation–that conflicts with the goal of providing quality patient care. Think about it. The vote on the lab test requirement for diagnosis was 4 to 4. 4 to 4 means there was NO consensus. Yet the IDSA chalked this up as a victory on its side by ignoring the two step vote requirement and flipping the supermajority vote in its favor. The IDSA is essentially saying 4 to 4 means the IDSA wins on this point. To the fox guarding the chicken coop, this makes perfect sense. Let me drill down into the detail so that what the IDSA did here is clear.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Dissing Lyme Advocates in the Lancet

    A recent article in Lancet written primarily by authors of the IDSA Lyme guidelines aims ”to blow apart the world of the Lyme disease advocates”–a goal that sounds more appropriate to warfare than medical journalism. Most of the authors of the article were under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for violation of antitrust laws in connection with the development process for the IDSA Lyme guidelines. The opinion piece is included in Lancet’s “personal view” section and reads like a personal vendetta from those named in the antitrust investigation, referring to patient advocacy groups as “antiscience” and making ad hominem attacks on physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Diane Blanchard’s Comments to IOM Committee

    I am posting the written speeches of those who commented during the public comment period of the IOM. The speech below is that of Diane Blanchard, Co-President of Time for Lyme, who addressed the issue of scientific bias and the importance of separating fact from opinion. She also emphasized that it was important to listen to patients drawing the parallel to the discovery of Lyme by Polly Murphy, a mother in a local community. Her testimony is available as a downloadable pdf by clicking the link at the bottom of this blog post.

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme Vaccinations: Safety First

    Dr. Stricker and I published a letter to the editor on Lyme vaccines in Lancet. The letter responds to an article by employees of Baxter, which has a vaccine in development. The article by Baxter employees in support of a new vaccine was published with an editorial by Dr. Lantos, the new Lyme spokesman for the IDSA. Both the Baxter article and the Lantos editorial make short shrift of patient vaccine safety concerns, which Lantos describes as “largely unsubstantiated”. Dr. Stricker and I note that the first vaccines sparked a class action lawsuit from patients harmed by the vaccines. In the end, of course, the vaccine was pulled by the manufacturer. We note that “by withdrawing LYMErix when it did, the manufacturer avoided releasing phase 4 post-marketing data that probably would have shown increased side-effects related to the vaccine. The data have never been disclosed.” We conclude that given this sketchy past, any new vaccine will need to be forthright about safety issues. The dismissive attitude toward patient safety reflected in the Baxter article and the Lantos editorial serve only to increase patient distrust. Because vaccinations are given to a healthy population, our first priority is to make sure they are safe. Our letter to the editor is available open access for readers.

  • 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?