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

The IDSA is expected to extend the time period for document submissions to the 24th of April. Jennifer Padberg expects to post a new calendar of events early next week, at which time she also expects the application process for presenters to be opened. The presentation date will likely be pushed until summer. Presenters will be selected by the IDSA, the ombudsman, and the Connecticut Attorney General. ILADS-affiliated speakers will be permitted an equal amount of time for presentations. I will post more news as it becomes available.

The IDSA recently reaffirmed its beleaguered Lyme guidelines with a panel it selected of IDSA members. (Aren’t we all surprised?) Turns out the CDC can’t be quick enough to endorse the IDSA after the IDSA vindicated itself. Overly clubby, don’t you think? The IDSA’s cavalier dismissal of 1600 pages of peer reviewed evidence rebutting its guidelines recommendations actually took my breath away. Now, it seems that the NIH is handing the “hot potato” of a “state of the science” review of Lyme disease that it is mandated to do by law to an “independent” government group, the Institute of Medicine— which, also, surprise-surprise, is composed mostly of IDSA members (according to my sources 4 of 6 members), in what seems like a saga of deniable accountability. (I would so love to be wrong on this.)

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.

Recently, a group that writes guidelines asked for my input about the role of patients in the development of Evidence Based Medicine guidelines. With universal healthcare now ‘the law of the land’, treatment guidelines have become even more important. Preserving the integrity of the guideline development- process is what matters most. It is essential that patients play a role in the process that can so affect their lives. The question posed to me was why should those developing guidelines involve patients? My response follows.