Rejects! NY Times Rejects Another Letter from Johnson/Stricker

Byldoadmin

Over the years in the trenches, Dr. Stricker and I have written a number of letters jointly or individual to the New York Times.  Not a one has been published.  And, we are not the only ones–leading some patients to question what it is the NY Times has against Lyme patients.   It’s enough to make one wonder about fair and impartial journalism. A number of patients groups have written the NY Times Ombudsman to protest its uniformly one sided view of Lyme disease. Clearly, the topic of Lyme is timely, controversial and newsworthy.  Yet only one side seems to merit the cost of ink by the NY Times.

I have posted below, our most recent rejection from the New York Times. (By the way, the original article is highly recommended “Plenty of Guidelines, but Where’s the Evidence?”)

 

 

Dr. Sanghavi notes that centralization of medicine through guidelines is becoming a quagmire.  The notion that “expert opinion” from guidelines rather than solid studies can be used to limit the clinical judgment of physicians is of great concern because this “expert opinion” displaces or replaces the standard of care and stifles innovation, future research and ultimately patient care.

 

The situation is even worse when guidelines panels have significant conflicts of interest. Your readers should be aware that the Connecticut Attorney General launched an investigation into the Lyme disease guidelines panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).  The AG found extensive panel conflicts of interests and required the IDSA to reconstitute the panel without conflicts.  Interestingly, the majority of the panel recommendations (38 of 71) were based on “expert opinion” This is the worst of both worlds: conflicted opinion-based medicine that interferes with patient care.

Dr. Raphael Stricker, MD

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA


 

Similar Posts

  • Stimulating distrust?

    On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law a stimulus program that includes $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness research. The Partnership to Improve Patient Care, a coalition of patient groups, physicians and pharmaceuticals, warned that the research might be inappropriately used to “limit treatment options for patients.” A health care e-list that I’m on has become an active war zone on this issue. (Full disclosure—I am a combatant.)

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA Hearings—Weinstein’s Pet Theory Shouldn’t Trump Patient Care

    I have been reviewing the IDSA transcripts and reread Dr. Arthur Weinstein’s testimony. Weinstein testified in support of the IDSA Lyme guidelines at the IDSA hearing on July 30th. He argued that chronic Lyme disease is a ‘somatic’ disorder involving a “serious amplification of symptoms” and states that he “doesn’t pretend to know the etiology (cause) of the pathophysiology”. He does though assert that the serious amplification of symptoms is associated with patients who have more psychiatric morbidity and is fostered by the labeling the disease “chronic Lyme” by advocacy groups and others that believe in a traditional medical cause for symptoms. This post is part of a twofer. Today, I ask if Weinstein is right that post treatment Lyme disease is a somatic disorder or if this is simply his pet theory. Tomorrow, I ask if the somatic disorder diagnosis provides patients with good patient care.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Spin, spun and hung out to dry. Lyme, science and the truth barrier

    We know spin when we hear it. Politicians like Bush (but not him alone) and talking points taken to the extreme. This is politics, right? So, why is Reuters calling research conclusions “spin” and why am I not surprised? Politicks as usual. At the IDSA hearing, one of the things that I asked the panel to do was to determine whether the conclusions of the key studies were supported by their findings or, instead, reflected the politics of this disease. A new study reported in Reuters talks about how conclusions and titles of studies become “spun” to support non-science agendas. Perhaps the bottom line is that you can take the science out of the man, but you cannot take the man out of the science. We regard science as sacrosanct, but inevitably it goes through the filter of a person, with all the human failings that entails, including observer bias, and, in our more jaded world, "spin". The Reuters article, tongue in cheek, says: “Scientists are no strangers to spinning their research, a new study — presumably not spun — shows.” Bottom line: ”In this representative sample of RCTs published in 2006 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.”

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM Conference calls: A Phone to Nowhere?

    I have to say, I have not heard encouraging things about the IOM process. Most folks think the IDSA simply plucked a friendly forum to reaffirm its beleaguered Lyme guidelines and the tainted Lyme review panel process. The big question is: Does this process have any substance or is it just a matter of going through the motions? Is anybody listening on these "listening" phone calls? Is the IOM offering to listen to anyone who cares?

  • Taming the beast: No MUS, No Fuss!

    Patients with Lyme disease know how important the definition of an illness can be. We know that the difference between chronic Lyme and Post Lyme Disease Syndrome is the difference between receiving treatment and being medically abandoned. So what’s with all the “new” language at the IDSA hearing about medically unexplained symptoms? MUS for short. No fewer than 3 IDSA speakers use this expression: Drs. Weinstein, Shapiro, and Wormser. It was like they synchronized talking points. First, let me tell you what MUS and PLDS have in common—no antibiotic treatment. Because—guess why? Because the term MUS applies to diseases of unknown etiology— diseases with no identified cause. But wait, you say. Doesn’t Lyme disease have a cause? You might assume that given that the bacteria has been identified, Lyme disease has a cause and isn’t really “unexplained”?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA PETITION –CT RESIDENTS URGED TO SIGN, DISTRIBUTE AND DELIVER!

    Connecticut residents are urged to sign the petition to hold the IDSA legally accountable for violating the antitrust Settlement Agreement with the CT AG. Patients in the Lyme community are alarmed by the IDSA’s flagrant violation of the antitrust Settlement Agreement. Those in Connecticut are urged to sign the petition (link below in full story) electronically and to download a print version of the petition and take it door-to-door, at shopping centers, post offices and other public venues to gather signatures. We need to make our voices heard and we need to make them heard now. Paper petitions may be downloaded from the link below this blog post and should be mailed back no later than May 31st to Time for Lyme, 30 Myano Lane, Ste. 20, Stamford, CT 06902. If you are a Connecticut resident or you know anyone in Connecticut, please get this petition distributed and signed. The health and well-being of Lyme patients depends on it!