LYMEPOLICYWONK: You can observe a lot by watching: Breast Cancer & Lyme Disease

Byldoadmin

Breast cancer used to be so shrouded in social stigma and silence that no one would talk about it.  In 1974, when first lady Betty Ford was diagnosed with breast cancer it was rarely mentioned publicly.  And, her decision to make her diagnosis and treatment a public issue was groundbreaking.   How many of us know public figures who choose to keep mum about their Lyme disease or that of their children?  At the time the medical establishment focus was all about “prevention”, not “cure” and all of the focus was on “research”, not patients.  It took women activists to press for a new emphasis on the patient and the cure.  Their slogan was  Breast Cancer, Say it, fight it, cure it, damn it!

So, let’s review the list of similarities:

Two treatment options

One treatment option controversial

Entrenched medical establishment suppresses one treatment option

Physicians afraid to treat

Social stigma

More concern about prevention than cure

 More concern about research than patients

Legislation necessary to secure right to treatment

Today patients with breast cancer have a voice and a choice.  They sit on a number of government panels.  They have secured substantial funding.  They did it and so can we.  As Yogi Berra says: You can observe a lot by watching.

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

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM LIVE BLOG PART III Public Comment

    I have summarized the public comments made at the IOM hearing today. I intend to post the statements made by those speaking to the panel that are provided to me. Those who spoke included Pat Smith of the national Lyme Disease Assn., Diane Blanchard and Ann Lyons of Time for Lyme, Gregg Skall of National Capital, Helene Jargensen, author of Sick and Tired, Candy Brassard of the EPA, Rick Smith, Bob Smith, and Julia Rice, a former nurse. Others listed to speak who did not attend were Arthur Weinstein, Phil Baker, and Lynn Shepler.

  • |

    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: When is Mandatory, Mandatory? When Medco says so!

    I have gotten a lot of reports from patients that Medco is refusing to dispense antibiotics because of the IDSA guidelines. At $51 Billion, let me repeat that $51 BILLION, dollar in revenue, Medco is the nation’s largest drug dispensing company. And, just for the record, they are over-riding the treatment recommendation of the treating physician and replacing it with, oh yeah, the IDSA “expert opinions” on treatment. This isn’t evidence based medicine, this is “eminence based medicine.” Their mission is to help “clients control the cost and enhance the quality” of prescription benefits. Looks like the IDSA is their friend. Complaints about Medco using these tactics have been becoming more frequent suggesting that this is not an isolated case and may be an across the board policy? If so, its reliance on IDSA guidelines to deny treatment across the board will have a serious adverse impact on patient lives.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: NIH Tick Feeding Study Safety Risk Update

    We recently received a response from the NIH regarding our concerns about the NIH tick feeding study and the risk of tickborne infections from the larval ticks that researchers intend to place on patients to feed. We have written the NIH about this several times. Our latest letter focused on the newly identified pathogen, Borrelia miyamotoi, which can be transmitted to larval ticks through the mother's eggs. We asked the NIH to tell us what bacteria they test for in the larval ticks to ensure that patients in the study are not at risk. According to the NIH, the following pathogens are screened for: Borrelia burgdorferi, Babesia microti, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia miyamotoi, Bartonella spp, Rickettsia sp., deer tick viruses and orbiviruses. We are glad to see that these pathogens are being screened for but remain concerned that unidentified pathogens nevertheless place patients at risk in the study.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: TO TELL THE TRUTH. . . Reports of Antibiotic Lyme Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated.

    Dr. David Resnik at the University of Wyoming is a plainspoken public health care policy ethicist. When he describes the obligation that governments and others with positions of authority in health care have when communicating with the public, he may sound a bit like your mother. It is "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". The obligation is to tell the public the information that they need to be able to make individual choices. This includes not exaggerating or preying upon fear to manipulate people-even if you do so with good intention. A recent case study, anecdote if you will, violates each of these tenets, one by one. . . More after the jump.

  • Weintraub to IDSA: Listen to the steady heart beat of true science, leave the past behind, and move toward the future

    If you have not read Pam Weintraub's Disappearing a disease: when guidelines are biased, patients suffer I suggest you take a breath and head over to her blog on Psychology Today. Pam Weintraub is the author of "Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic", the seminal book on the politics and science underlying Lyme disease. I recall telling a friend and attorney who simply did not understand why there should be a controversy when so many people were ill–why would any physician, those men in the white coats, deliberately leave patients ill, untreated, and without hope. Since when did medicine become a science of closed doors, double locked against the needs of patients?