Lyme disease: Losing your innocence in science

Byldoadmin

He was captured in the first blush that the problem was simply one of communication.  That if we explained clearly and simply the science in the peer-reviewed literature, well, that that should trump any other concerns.  And certainly that  those who placed patient interest above other concerns would stop, pause and reassess.  That is what men (and women) of science do, right?  Well, that is what altruistic science aspires to. 

Unfortunately, science is tethered to this earth by humans, with all of the faults and foibles that being human entails.   Sometimes these human failings are painfully obvious.  Like when researchers promote theories that favor their commercial interests with vaccine manufacturers, Lyme diagnostic test and insurance consultancy arrangements.  These are real dollars and all patients have to offer is real lives.  This is where capitalism utterly falls down on the job of protecting the democracy.

 Other times these influences are subtle.  What does it take to maintain an academic career?  Well, these days it is not so different from what it takes to be a partner in a law firm.  You need to support and add a profit to your “overhead”, which in research consists of your square footage of facilities, your research staff, the cost of your research, and, of course, you.  This means you need grant dollars, you need the relationships to throw grant dollars your way (government relationships are always a plus), and you need a theory and a course of science that intersects with commerce. 

In Lyme disease, commerce is always headed towards vaccines and diagnostic tests.  Vaccines are interested in a narrow disease definition because this increases vaccine efficacy and increases the odds that the vaccine will be approved by the FDA  and endorsed by the CDC.  There is no crime in this alone.  The crime is in pretending that vaccine interests align with patient care.  Patient care is all about early diagnosis, not missing a case, treating and preventing the progression to chronic Lyme disease.  This means the disease definition should reflect clinical reality, not a constricted definition that suits vaccine trials best.  This is directly in opposition to the needs of vaccines.  That is called a conflict of interest. 

So, let’s not pretend that what is good for vaccine manufacturers is good for patients.  Nor should we presume that the diagnostic tests for Lyme that  followed the vaccines and reflected the needs of the vaccines are good for patient care.  These are vested interests—pure and simple—vested interests that have nothing to do with patient care and should play no part in health care. 

Having Lyme means losing your innocence, utterly, in science.


Similar Posts

  • 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: 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: Senators Request Removal of IDSA Lyme Guidelines from National Guidelines Clearinghouse

    Today Senators Blumenthal and Gillibrand joined together to ask the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC) to remove the outdated 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines from their website.(Full text of letter below.) We applaud the Senators for speaking up loud and clear. Their letter voices concerns that the guidelines do not satisfy the currency requirement and asks that the NGC remove the guidelines until the IDSA conducts a review that ensures that the guidelines reflect current evidence-based medicine principles. The Senate letter comes on the heels of a letter from Congressman Smith, Wolf, and Gibson expressing similar concerns. New York Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, who chairs the Health Committee also requested that the NGC remove the guidelines pending a review for currency. Approximately 10,000 people have signed a petition launched by LymeDisease.org calling for the removal of the IDSA guidelines from the NGC.

  • Bias and patient autonomy—what’s the connection

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. So why do we care about bias in medical guidelines? Because opinion should not dictate patient care. Think of the prostate cancer patient who sees the surgeon who recommends surgery, the radiologist who recommends radiation treatment, and the internist who recommends watchful waiting. Everyone knows that one’s position depends on where one sits. The surgeon may genuinely prefer surgery and when he recommends it to his patient, the patient realizes that he is, after all, talking with a surgeon and that surgeons are likely to favor surgery. He also knows that he can walk down the street a bit and talk with the radiologist and get his perspective. The point is that even though the patient is given conflicting advice, at the end of the day the decision is his. He chooses among treatment options and the physicians respect his decision. This is called autonomy—a recognition that patients are entitled to make choices among health care options.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Recognizing the problem is the first step—Persistence.

    An important study by Dr. Stephen Barthold and Dr. Ben Luft was recently published. The title sounds a bit bleak, but don’t let the title fool you: “Ineffectiveness of Tigecycline against Persistent Borrelia burgdorferi”. This study is about how the little guy (Borrelia burgdorferi) always wins and survives despite antibiotic treatment—here tigecycline. To my mind, the findings on persistence are much more important than the finding that tigecycline doesn’t do the job. When one antibiotic doesn’t work, you try another, and if that one doesn’t work, well, you try another or you kick it up a notch and start trying combination antibiotics, like they do with tuberculosis. You don’t fold up the tent and go home because active infection requires antibiotic treatment. And, you won’t ever find out which antibiotic or combinations of antibiotic work, until you try them. So, roll up your sleeves, we have some work to do here.