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

Byldoadmin

A recent article written by members of the Minnesota Health Dept., “Death due to community-associated Clostridium difficile in a woman receiving prolonged antibiotic therapy for suspected Lyme disease”, is written to prey upon fears rather than inform.  It focuses on a single death caused by C. difficile (a bacterium associated with the use of antibiotics).  Deaths caused by antibiotics in Lyme disease, while tragic, are very rare.  Yet the article paints the death as though it were commonplace. 

Equally important are the things the article leaves out.  It does not say that any disease treated with antibiotics runs the risk of C. difficile superinfection.  (And, of course, it does not suggest avoiding treatment for chronic infections like tuberculosis and leprosy because of this risk.)  It also does not talk about the risk of death from Lyme disease itself.  While not common, there are 23 peer-reviewed articles documenting death from Lyme disease.  It also does not point out the risk of failing to treat a serious disease that causes disability equal to that of congestive heart failure.

This selective attention is a form of manipulation. It fails to tell the whole truth.  It distorts an element of truth to manipulate the public and to create unnecessary fear and anxiety.   The funny thing, of course, is that it is an anecdote, a single case.  Well then, are anecdotes useful only when they support a particular view point?  Is what’s good for the goose, good for the gander?  Do public health officials have an obligation to tell the whole truth and inform rather than manipulate the public?  What do you think?

You can follow additional comments on Lyme policy at www.lymepolicywonk.org.  You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.

Similar Posts

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: IOM Report: ’Tis neither here nor there. Or?

    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has released its long awaited report on Lyme disease. So should we celebrate or despair? I think there is room for a little of both. We should certainly celebrate the tone of the report, which characterizes the session as “a walk in the woods” to start dialogue and we should celebrate the contributions made by those who attended and participated, whether as patients, advocacy groups, researchers or physicians. I think these people did their very best to represent a side of Lyme disease that is not often given public voice. We should also recognize the contribution to a better process that was achieved by the three groups who pulled out of the hearing (CALDA, LDA, and Time for Lyme). This action resulted in Dr. Benjamin Luft of Stony Brook University being added to the agenda and may have also added to the “tone” of the report. What we should not lose sight of though, is that a civil tone and the inclusion of some patients’ testimony are not enough. This is a debate about science. Debates are about equal time, opportunities to rebut, and not excluding opposing viewpoints. That did not happen here. And, what the IOM left out or left unchallenged harms patients. Our biggest hits were in diagnosis, the exclusion of the topics chronic Lyme and treatment, and the complete exclusion of any physicians from ILADS. Let me drill down into the details.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Helene Jorgensen’s Comments to IOM Committee

    I am posting the written speeches of those who commented during the public comment period of the IOM. The speech below is that of Helene Jorgensen, the author of “Sick and Tired: How America’s Health Care System Fails Its Patients”. Helene Jorgensen presented her own encounter with Lyme disease and addressed the flaws in the clinical treatment flaws to date. Her testimony is available as a downloadable pdf by clicking the link at the bottom of this blog post.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme disease abandoned by Pharma

    When I first became involved with Lyme disease, I remember wondering where the pharmaceutical interest was in the disease. Most of your double blind controlled trials are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This means that if your disease is not on their radar, you’re going to have a long hard slog getting funding for studies on the efficacy of different treatments. Diseases that are on the agenda of big Pharma have a distinct advantage in evidence based medicine because studies, typically large scale studies, have been funded by someone with a dog in the hunt. In other diseases, the dog in the hunt may be overzealous, promoting treatments and selling drugs with little proof of effectively. But when a disease is neglected by big Pharma, the opposite occurs. Research simply isn’t done. And, that becomes a social justice issue when insurers and specialty societies deny patients access to care because research studies haven’t been funded and aren’t likely to be funded. Drugs are expensive to develop and research is expensive to conduct. Recently, GlobalDate releases a report that explains why Lyme disease is neglected and is likely to remain neglected by big Pharma.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Two Standards of Care Revisited: Should Lyme Patients Have A Choice?

    Lyme disease is a controversial illness—as anyone with the disease knows. The controversy arises because there is medical uncertainty about the best way to diagnose and treat the disease, poor quality diagnostic tests, and very little treatment research. Out of this uncertainty, two approaches to treating the disease have emerged: one advanced by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the other advanced by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). But both of the approaches are not equal in the eyes of patients. One leaves patients without treatment options when short term therapy fails, as it does all too often. The other provides patients with the option of receiving additional care.

  • Is evidence-based medicine bankrupt?

    Merrill Goozner at Gooznews cites a recent JAMA article by Tricoci showing that nearly half of the recommendations in treatment guidelines are not based on clinical trials, but rather, are based on no more than the expert opinion of those on the panel. This leads to the rather obvious conclusion that evidence based medicine is largely bankrupt. Only 11% of recommendations for heart disease were based on multiple randomized trials.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Intellectual Conflicts of Interest–A New Way to Smell a Rat?

    Here’s an interesting approach to conflicts of interests offered by one of the fathers of evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon Guyatt. The topic was guideline development and the interests of those serving on a guideline panel in having their pet theories and research promoted in the guidelines. Why is this important to researchers? It helps further the academic careers of researchers when their work is cited, referred to and used as the foundation for creating treatment guidelines. There is a dynamic tension between the use of expertise and the potential bias expertise may bring to the table. Those of us in the Lyme community are only too familiar with the fact that the IDSA guidelines were developed by academic researchers and that references to their own research dominate the guidelines. Being tied to a theory that your research has advanced creates a bias towards reinforcing that theory in the selection of evidence cited, the evaluation of that evidence, and the development of guideline recommendations that confirm that bias. Guyatt’s perspective is novel and interesting. In his mind the way to manage this bias is not to exclude the researchers from sitting on the guideline panel but to limit their ability to misuse their power to further their own ends. Hence, those with what he called a primary conflict of interest are precluded from chairing a guideline panel, drafting recommendations and voting on them and even the ranking of evidence. Read how he defines an intellectual conflict of interest and how he would restrict participation in guideline development by those with intellectual bias.