LymeNet Home LymeNet Home Page LymeNet Flash Discussion LymeNet Support Group Database LymeNet Literature Library LymeNet Legal Resources LymeNet Medical & Scientific Abstract Database LymeNet Newsletter Home Page LymeNet Recommended Books LymeNet Tick Pictures Search The LymeNet Site LymeNet Links LymeNet Frequently Asked Questions About The Lyme Disease Network LymeNet Menu

LymeNet on Facebook

LymeNet on Twitter




The Lyme Disease Network receives a commission from Amazon.com for each purchase originating from this site.

When purchasing from Amazon.com, please
click here first.

Thank you.

LymeNet Flash Discussion
Dedicated to the Bachmann Family

LymeNet needs your help:
LymeNet 2020 fund drive


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations.

LymeNet Flash Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» LymeNet Flash » Questions and Discussion » Medical Questions » The buffoons are at it again!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: The buffoons are at it again!
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552

Icon 1 posted      Profile for TerryK     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They sound hysterical and ridiculous. They continue to spout this nonsense despite the huge body of science that they choose to completly ignore.

Apparently if they are not involved in the study it isn't scientific enough. Funny considering the flawed methods that Delong found in the studies that they were involved in and for which they base thier flawed opinions on.

I'm amazed that other doctors continue to support their view. I can only think that most of them never bother to look at the evidence.

The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages 713 - 719, September 2011

Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with advocacy of Lyme disease

Dr Paul G Auwaerter MD a , Johan S Bakken MD, PhD c, Prof Raymond J Dattwyler MD d, Prof J Stephen Dumler MD b, Prof John J Halperin MD f g, Edward McSweegan PhD h, Prof Robert B Nadelman MD e, Susan O'Connell MD i, Prof Eugene D Shapiro MD j, Prof Sunil K Sood MD k, Prof Allen C Steere MD l, Prof Arthur Weinstein MD m, Prof Gary P Wormser MD e

Advocacy for Lyme disease has become an increasingly important part of an antiscience movement that denies both the viral cause of AIDS and the benefits of vaccines and that supports unproven (sometimes dangerous) alternative medical treatments.

Some activists portray Lyme disease, a geographically limited tick-borne infection, as a disease that is insidious, ubiquitous, difficult to diagnose, and almost incurable; they also propose that the disease causes mainly non-specific symptoms that can be treated only with long-term antibiotics and other unorthodox and unvalidated treatments.

Similar to other antiscience groups, these advocates have created a pseudoscientific and alternative selection of practitioners, research, and publications and have coordinated public protests, accused opponents of both corruption and conspiracy, and spurred legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science.

The relations and actions of some activists, medical practitioners, and commercial bodies involved in Lyme disease advocacy pose a threat to public health.

Posts: 6282 | From Oregon | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lymeboy
Unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh boy there go those names again. Those names make my blood boil. These guys are turning into my "Niagra Falls"
WORMSER??? - Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch.....

!!!!!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ticksickfamily
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 22786

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ticksickfamily     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Shame on the Lancet for publishing such nonsense.
Smacks of desperation by the IDSA cabal authors to me.They know the genie is out of the bottle and they are desperate to hang on to their power/ position.A couple of them were even at the IOM meeting last year and heard all the presentations and still choose to ignore their colleagues and their evidence that a lot is not known about Lyme, that testing is unreliable etc etc.

Posts: 174 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rks
LymeNet Contributor
Member # 24316

Icon 1 posted      Profile for rks     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm . . . maybe it's due to the Volkman article?
Posts: 217 | From Earth | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Abxnomore
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 18936

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Abxnomore     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Volkman article is old. That post is from 2009, recently sent up so that's probably not the case.
Posts: 5187 | From Lyme Zone | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jackie51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 14233

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jackie51     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Character assassination at it's finest.

Anti-science groups? What are they? This is amazing.

A threat to public health?

In the olden days, I would liken this to a challenge of a duel.

Whoever wrote this cr*p is obviously very narrow minded, stubborn and possibly feeling trapped in a corner.

There wasn't this much stigmatism with AIDS. Harumph...

Posts: 1374 | From Crazy Town | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James1979
Unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rks:
Hmm . . . maybe it's due to the Volkman article?

If you look at this wonderful analysis here of the Lancet article:
http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/799.html
the following is the reason why they felt pressured to defend themselves:
quote:
You might remember that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently highlighted the IDSA Lyme guidelines to illustrate the necessity for standardization and transparency in guideline development processes. On top of this, two research studies by members of the IDSA conclude that IDSA guidelines in general are largely based on opinion, not science. Thats a lot of public pressure placed on the IDSA regarding its guidelines. Unfortunately, this article seems intended to deflect attention, rather than remedy, the real crises the IDSA faces as an organizationthe substitution of opinion for science in guidelines and its shoddy guideline development processes.
There was already a thread on this:
http://flash.lymenet.org/scripts/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=028599;p=0

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James1979
Unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anybody know where we can get quotes from the above-mentioned IOM meeting where they spoke against the IDSA guidelines?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James1979
Unregistered


Icon 1 posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Someone should ask the Lancet why they have published contradictory information in the past.

Examples:
From a 1995 publication by Ferris J, Lopez-Andreu JA, et al.
quote:
In this study over a two-year period, one patient received seven short-term antibiotic treatements with temporary improvements. Following this, the patient's condition deteriorated tremendously. After retreatment with ceftriaxone, the patient took oral minocycline with a greatly improved quality of life. The authors felt that long-term antibiotics should be utilized until a cure or delay of disease progression is established.
From a 1995 article in the Lancet called "Living with Lyme":
quote:
What should be done when a patient has the typical Lyme disease history but negative serology? This is still a hot question especially in the USA. My strong opinion is that oral antibiotics should be given in such cases. Ordinary laboratory test cannot be relied upon and the PCR is too expensive for routine use. When the whole picture leans towards Lyme borreliosis it is both ethically and medically right to treat."
The above quote was written by a physician who caught Lyme, and treated himself with long-term antibiotics. After 6 years of abx, they determined that the spirochetes were "still alive".

I wonder what the Lancet thinks about themselves publishing "anti-science" articles...

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
map1131
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2022

Icon 1 posted      Profile for map1131     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Off with their heads...they are empty anyway. [shake] [shake]

Isn't that what was said in ancient times?

Pam

--------------------
"Never, never, never, never, never give up" Winston Churchill

Posts: 6408 | From Louisville, Ky | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | LymeNet home page | Privacy Statement

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3


The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:

The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey
907 Pebble Creek Court, Pennington, NJ 08534 USA


| Flash Discussion | Support Groups | On-Line Library
Legal Resources | Medical Abstracts | Newsletter | Books
Pictures | Site Search | Links | Help/Questions
About LymeNet | Contact Us

© 1993-2020 The Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Use of the LymeNet Site is subject to Terms and Conditions.