LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM Workshop—Where Do I Draw the Line on Fairness?

Byldoadmin

This combined with the fact that the IOM panel is excluding ILADS physicians entirely from speaking looks to me like suppression of opposing viewpoints.  Someone with a PsyD degree who characterizes Lyme as a psychiatric malady (Afton Hassett) and has published with Dr. Lenny Sigal (whose dogmatic views are known) was selected to speak on biomarkers of the disease over people far more qualified (take Dr. Ben Luft, for instance). 

Other physicians who you would expect to be more open-minded are relegated to 10 minute slots on panels.  When you get out of the “medicine” side of the equation, things look more balanced, but it is the medicine side that is going to harm patients and without balance there, I don’t see how this process has a shot at scientific truth.  The IOM says the conference is not about treatment, but Wormser will undoubtedly talk about the 4 treatment trials and Aguero-Rosenfeld, who worked with Wormser until recently, is slotted to speak on diagnosis. 

The “product” of the hearing is a report of the proceedings.  With Wormser and Aguero-Rosenfeld viewpoints unopposed, that is the only “record” that can go into the report for treatment and diagnosis.  I do not see how that result is either credible or objective.  Or how it serves the needs of patients.  Let me know your views.

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

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: CBS Lyme Story, A Tale of Conflicts of Interest & Bias

    A CBS news story on Lyme disease has patients concerned about the misinformation that it promotes. On top of that, the story does not have the level of journalistic integrity that serious topics should have. For one thing, there is the title: “Lies and Truths”. Lies are statements that are known to be false that are told to intentionally deceive another person. Lies are not issues that are matters of scientific debate. When a science article title uses the word “Lies”, it tells the reader that it is not about science. Second, the article is a single source article. This means unlike most journalism and particularly good science journalism, there is no attempt to present different sides of the issue. One side, in fact, one person’s opinion is put forth as uncontested “truth” with no counterpoint. Third, the piece is edited by the Orly Avitzur, M.D., M.B.A., Editor-in-Chief of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). You may recall that the AAN was part of the antitrust investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General into the Lyme guideline development process by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. The reason?

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient Viewpoints Survey Update. 2,000 Responses! We Are On Our Way.

    The Lyme disease Patient Preferences Survey initially posted on October 5 has drawn over 2,000 responses to date! We want to thank everyone who responded and encourage you to distribute the survey to others you know who have Lyme disease. We received many comments on the survey as well with suggestions for future surveys. The two competing guidelines for diagnosing and treating Lyme disease (those of the International Lyme Disease Association and those of the Infectious Diseases Society of America) are both over 5 years old. Because of this, we assume they are in the process of revision. We have contacted the IDSA and asked about their timetable for guideline revision and requested that patient viewpoints be included in any development process. We will keep you posted.

  • 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!

  • |

    LYMEPOLICYWONK: New York Times blew this Lyme story big time

    The New York Times article “New Infection, Not Relapse, Brings Back Lyme Symptoms, Study Says” published on November 14 sounds like it is about a study about the cause of chronic Lyme disease. But it’s not. None of the patients in this small sample (17) had chronic Lyme disease. Nor was this a study about the persistent cognitive impairment, pain, and fatigue symptoms of chronic Lyme that force 25% of chronic Lyme patients onto disability. The study looked at people diagnosed with an EM rash, promptly treated, and restored to health, who over a 10year period, developed another EM rash and required treatment. Hardly, surprising in an endemic area, like New York and certainly not “big news.” Also not disputed is that most (not all, but most) patients diagnosed on EM can be successfully treated. But a study of patients with EM or recurring EM is not a study of patients with chronic Lyme disease. And you cannot compare apples to oranges in a study like this. Patients were justifiably outraged when the NY Times said the study challenged the notion the Lyme disease can become a chronic illness.