Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
Star Democrat Easton, Maryland Thursday, May 22, 2008
Lyme disease scandal
Published: Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:05 AM CDT
Thank you for continuing to care about those who have been affected by Lyme and tick-borne diseases.
The recent article by Steve Nery, "Society to review Lyme disease guidelines," followed by the editorial, "Lyme disease bills need passage now," have both been praised by countless health care providers, as well as those who continue to suffer Lyme disease's long-term chronic effects.
As many know, volunteer advocates and health care professionals have been battling the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), health departments and Johns Hopkins for continuing to promote unreliable diagnostic and treatment protocols, among other things.
The Attorney General's office recently concluded the IDSA Lyme guidelines were "seriously flawed," biased and in need of review by an independent medical panel.
They found the majority of individuals involved in the IDSA guideline development process held commercial interests related to vaccines, patents, and/or Lyme disease tests.
Unfortunately, the IDSA and their powerful but dwindling number of supporters continue to promote these dreaded guidelines and oppose legislative bills designed to address the exploding epidemic, making these individuals, in my opinion, more dangerous to our health than the ticks.
Just wondering if anyone can answer a question for me. Made me think of this after reading this post. Who owns the medical/testing labs in each province/city in Canada? Are they owned by the government or are they contracted by the government?
Anybody in Canada know these answers? At the moment, I cannot post anything to Canlyme, need to talk to Jim Wilson about that.
Posts: 461 | From Abbotsford, BC, Canada | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't get how the IDSA can justify their opposition to this bill?? Does anyone know their argument? I'm really curious about the spin on this...
Posts: 364 | From California | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1436
The letter the IDSA wrote to Senator Kennedy against the passage of S1708 can be found HERE. Their opposition to the bill centers around the inclusion of people with non-IDSA points of view on the committee.
quote:Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed composition of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme disease to federal decision-makers.
The heart of their problem is with chronic Lyme disease, since they don't believe in persistence.
quote:A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described inaccurately as ``chronic Lyme disease''....
The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that support the existence of chronic Lyme disease.
The letter came out on March 21. Almost 3 weeks earlier, the UC-Davis study, proving persistence of Bb in mice after "adequate" treatment, was published online ahead of print. The corresponding author of that study is listed as a consultant on the 2006 IDSA guidelines, so you can be pretty sure they knew about this study well aheead of publication.
Here's that part that cracks me up...
quote:As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods, particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease.
They are going to get their review, but what is going to be reviewed is the ethics behind their own guidelines. Be careful what you wish for....
Hope that helps, Shaz
Posts: 1558 | From the Berkshires | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |