Silencing the sick– IDSA wages calendar warfare

Byldoadmin

A public guidelines review is not so different from an annual conference – or is it?

Maybe it’s a matter of intent… whether you intend to put together a well run successful event or simply go through the motions to rubberstamp guidelines you never intended to review in good faith.  Not giving the other side enough time to prepare is a hardball tactic designed to ensure a competitive advantage at the expense of truth and transparency.  Speakers are not given enough time to set aside the date, make travel arrangements, let alone prepare. 

A process that has the potential to heal and to reduce or eliminate the suffering of patients is hijacked to protect the IDSA’s professional turf, preserve its medical tyranny and silence the sick.

Imagine what would happen if the IDSA instead made a commitment to relieving suffering, healing the sick, and preventing illness when possible, rather than patenting tests and playing patsy to the insurance industry. The image of a doctor without compassion is the image of a nightmare.   Imagine if the IDSA took a stand for health and transparency.  Imagine if the IDSA stopped being the enemy of those who most need its help.  Imagine.

Similar Posts

  • IDSA Lyme Hearing: Wormser– Talk About Exaggeration!

    Talk about exaggeration. No really–at the hearing. Dr. Carol Baker asked Dr. Wormser the $200 question: Why exaggerate if the truth will do? She was talking about the use in the guidelines of words like "vast majority" when the real percentage was 65%. And her question was why not let percentages speak for themselves? If the truth is 65%–why not simply say 65%. Is it just me, or does Wormser sound irritated at the question? His response after a drill down is that he would not use the expression "vast majority" to refer to anything less than say–90%. Excuse me? Did I hear that right? 90%. Really? Ok, let's break it down for him.

  • 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.

  • CALDA, LDA and TFL Press Release on IDSA Hearing

    CALDA, the national Lyme Disease Association and Time for Lyme have issued a joint press release regarding the IDSA Lyme review hearing, which is schedule for July 30th in Washington D.C. The release highlights the growing opposition to the IDSA guidelines, the importance of acknowledging the full spectrum of science in Lyme disease, and the importance of permitting clinical judgment and treatment options for patients. Concerns are also raised about the current process, which Attorney Lorraine Johnson points out is not impartial because IDSA controls the process and has selected both the panel members and those who may present before the panel. Of critical importance is that fact that no physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease were selected to sit on the panel. The testimony will be aired live over the internet on July 30th.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Patient-Powered Research and Lyme Disease

    Many of you know that I am a patient representative for the Patient Centered Research Institute (PCORI), a government funding organization that seeks to put patients at the center of research. Last week, I was fortunate to be a co-author of an article in Health Affairs—together with the lead team at PCORI. The article describes the importance of patient powered research. But what is patient powered research and why is it important to the Lyme community?