Now I have more prayers to say,,
Posted by Greatcod (Member # 7002) on :
The IDSA is on the attack, big time. They really want to make their guidelines the law. And they are very astute in using the media. This is not reporting, it is turning a press release into "news".
Posted by SouthernCO (Member # 11167) on :
The article said: "They also concluded that long-term use of antibiotics does not benefit Lyme disease patients who continue to have symptoms after receiving standard antibiotic treatment."
I wonder about those of us who received no "standard antibiotic treatment"?
Posted by BOEJR (Member # 1734) on :
Hi folks,
I wrote to them under comments. I want to know what was the basis or the science that this doc used to make this statement.
I really don't think it will make an impact though. They do seem to have an agenda
Sadly,
Julia
Posted by cantgiveupyet (Member # 8165) on :
i clicked on the link and up popped an add for my former employer ...arghhh, then i read the article ...double arggh.
what i would like to see is for them to come up with a treatment plan for those that continue to have long term symptoms. Not just managing them either, but real treatment.
I barely ever was able to tolerate one month of abx.
does this mean they also admit that some can have long term damage from LD?
Posted by Areneli (Member # 6740) on :
I though that LDA made the decision to hire PR company.
Anybody knows what is going on?
Posted by Areneli (Member # 6740) on :
Please note that you can comment the article at Forbes site.
Press "comment" just above the title of the article.
Your comment can have up to 500 words.
Posted by Greatcod (Member # 7002) on :
Areneli wrote: I though that LDA made the decision to hire PR company. Anybody knows what is going on?
I hope they have gotten some PR help. The IDSA has a lot of resources and a lot of connections, as well as the big favor they've done to the insurance industry. The playing field is in no way level.
Posted by Soleilpie (Member # 8481) on :
I posted a comment too.
It just angers me when they make blanket statements like that.
I know they're basing it off of studies they've looked at but what about the countless people who contradict those studies?
I mean somethings wrong here!
I don't know if any of you are aware of this but the AAN guidelines include three of the authors from the IDSA guidelines.
Posted by surg (Member # 6937) on :
I told them to go f**k themselves. I'm sick of being lied to and manipulated by the government and the insurance companies. It's time to fight back!
Posted by Soleilpie (Member # 8481) on :
Hmmm....the article has disappeared! Posted by Soleilpie (Member # 8481) on :
Ok, the article is back! They must've been doing some updating. My bad! Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
I posted a comment asking Forbes magazine what exactly is their agenda in regards to Lyme disease.
I likened their presentation of chronic Lyme as a type of witch hunt with the sick and suffering being their targets.
Told them to contact ILADs and really get educated.
I also mentioned that it was easy to present one side of an argument,
but suggested they speak to someone who has chronic Lyme disease and see what long term antibiotics have done for them.
Ended my comment with the following,
If I had acne, I could get two years of antibiotics prescribed to me with no questions asked.
Yet here I sit with a disease that is in my brain, affecting my CNS
And continuously read one-sided articles of how long term antibiotics are not recommended for me or my situation.
I have made significant progress on antibiotics past the 28 day mark and continue to do so.
Do you see the injustice of it all?
I guess the IDSA doesn't have a personal agenda against acne sufferers.
Hope they at least read it.
They definitely have a personal agenda promoting the IDSA's position on Chronic Lyme.
Hugs,
Geneal
Posted by northstar (Member # 7911) on :
In my opinion, Forbes is not a news magazine.
It is a public front, i.e. trade magazine, for advocating business interests, including Big Pharma and insurance. IDSA lyme guideline authors are just their pawn. I ran across an older article, where they (Forbes) felt that pharms paying/bribing/enticing, etc MD's to use their rx's, was just fine.
They are trying to sell their point of view, not report the news.
So it really is understandable from their bloodless point of view, that human suffering, health, and lives, and scientific truth, are irrelevant to end of year profits, stock value, and shareholders.
It is called social irresponsibility.
However, they try to use science to justify their views, which is their weak spot. As long as they continue to print misleading science and health lyme articles, I will continue to point out their lack of scientific truth. I try to shelve the anger, and use it ,instead, to pick apart every statement they make, and communicate it to them.
That is all I know how to do.
Northstar
Posted by FightFireWithWater (Member # 5781) on :
The question of "Forbes" Magazine's journalistic integrity was also raised on Bill Moyer's Journal last night on PBS. The segment was entitled "Stents and Sensibility." The video can be viewed at www.pbs.org Posted by grace1 (Member # 10347) on :
Geneal, that is a good response.
Also, why is the IDSA spending so much time, effort, and money just on fighting long-term antibiotics. That's fighting to go nowhere or backwards. Yes, it's possible that not all chronic Lyme patients actually have chronic Borellia infection. But they have something. The point of medicine is to try to help sick people.
If they believe the research shows that long-term antibiotics does not help, then MAKE AN EFFORT TO FIND OTHER TREATMENTS THAT DO HELP, instead of spending all the effort fighting other doctors and going nowhere. If people are turning to long-term antibiotics, that is because their recommendations of NSAIDS, etc. does not help as much or enough.
If Lyme disease triggers a non-infectious chronically ill state, then the IDSA job is not done after treating with standard antibiotic therapy. It is their job to help figure out why and how it happens. Ie. is the treatment of AIDS patients all done after giving them some antivirals?
Lastly, if indeed they were to do such research and find an alternative treatment to antibiotics that does work, that will be the best way to counter long-term antibiotic treatment. Duh.
Find a better treatment. Don't just tell people they are wrong and do nothing else.
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
enough said![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)