LYMEPOLICYWONK: NIH Tick Feeding Study Safety Risk Update

Yesterday, I was honored to speak at the US Department of Health and Human Services’…

Have you ever heard the saying “what goes around, comes around”? How about “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. The revolving door between government and industry is cause for concern. The revolving door between the CDC and the vaccine industry is even greater cause for concern. The most recent revolving door has Dr. Julie Gerberding, the first woman to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, being named president of Merck’s vaccine division. Do you think she knows a thing or two about vaccines and how to get them through the process? Do you think she has connections? Dr. Gerberding comes from an infectious disease background.

Finally, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) came out with its agenda for their “State of the Science Hearing”after much hemming and hawing. Patient groups (including CALDA) who asked for transparency in the study process received a mere “no comment” response. Well, we never got transparency, and we only got the agenda after it was finalized and released to the public. So, here’s the score: its 3 for 3 in the ‘Final Inning’ in favor of the IDSA.

Four of the 6 IOM panel members are IDSA members.

10 of the 14 physician speakers were authors on the IDSA guidelines or the copycat guidelines issued by members of the IDSA panel or members of the IDSA.

Zero ILADS physicians have been chosen to speak. Let me repeat: ZERO, zip, nada, not a single ILADS physician was chosen to speak!

Dr. Gary Wormser, poster boy of the Connecticut IDSA antitrust investigation, is kicking off the game.

Oh, there’s window dressing to be sure. A personalized tour of the Agenda after the great leap forward. . .

On Monday, February 1, 2010, the Connecticut Attorney General sent a letter to the IDSA expressing “concern” over “improper voting procedures” used by the IDSA in the Lyme guidelines review voting process. The IDSA may soon approve hearing determinations based on this improper voting procedure. The Attorney General requested that the IDSA redo the vote to comply with the Settlement Agreement. The four-page Attorney General letter was released in response to a Freedom of Information Request made on behalf of patient groups for information regarding the IDSA’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

Those who attended the IDSA guidelines hearing were struck by the even-handed tone of the proceedings established by the Chair, Dr. Carol Baker. It was both unexpected and disarming, and not a small accomplishment given the polarity of the debate. At the same time, there was a feeling of cognitive dissonance—this was not the public face presented by IDSA President, Dr. Ann Gershon—who, in the face of the ILADS submission of over 1,600 pages of scientific evidence contradicting the guideline recommendations, steadfastly maintains there is no evidence of persistence. So what gives? Is this a case of “good cop/bad cop”? Are perceptions deceiving? Is this all a matter of managing public perception? Putting on a public face?