Someone here in the last month or two (tincup?) posted a link to what I think was the introduction to a lyme book (rosner's?) that printed another author's coherent rendition of the lyme debate.
I've lost the specifics (obviously), and I've lost the post with the link.
Is that enough of a clue for anyone here? Thanks.
Posts: 204 | From ma | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
-
You might be able to go to Amazon. You can look through many of the books there -or it may be noted in a customer review.
This may be what you are thinking of. She had an excerpt printed in a recent issue of Psychology Today .
Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic (Hardcover) by Pamela Weintraub (Author)
-
In the meantime, this may be of help:
-------------------------------------------------
Co-infections (other tick-borne infections or TBD - tick-borne disease) are not discussed here due to space limits. Still, any LLMD you would see would know how to assess/treat if co-infections are present.
CONTROVERSY CONTINUES TO FUEL THE "LYME WAR" By Virginia Savely, RN, FNP-C
*****
As two medical societies battle over its diagnosis and treatment, Lyme disease remains a frequently missed illness. Here is how to spot and treat it.
Excerpts:
" . . .To treat Lyme disease for a comparable number of life cycles, treatment would need to last 30 weeks. . . ."
`` . . .Patients with Lyme disease almost always have negative results on standard blood screening tests and have no remarkable findings on physical exam, so they are frequently referred to mental-health professionals for evaluation.
"...If all cases were detected and treated in the early stages of Lyme disease, the debate over the diagnosis and treatment of late-stage disease would not be an issue, and devastating rheumatologic, neurologic, and cardiac complications could be avoided..."
. . . * Clinicians do not realize that the CDC has gone on record as saying the commercial Lyme tests are designed for epidemiologic rather than diagnostic purposes, and a diagnosis should be based on clinical presentation rather than serologic results.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today announced that his antitrust investigation has uncovered serious flaws in the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA) process for writing its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines and the IDSA has agreed to reassess them with the assistance of an outside arbiter.
By Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA Executive Director, CALDA -(California Lyme Disease Association) - Updated February, 2005
EXCERPTS:
The central difficulties in the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease stem from the lack of sufficiently sensitive and reliable biological markers of the disease.
Without such markers, it is difficult to determine who has the disease, the effectiveness of a course of treatment, and the end point of treatment.
The ideal antibiotics, route of administration, and duration of treatment for persistent Lyme disease are not established.
No single antibiotic or combination of antibiotics appears to be capable of completely eradicating the infection, and treatment failures or relapses are reported with all current regimens, although they are less common with early aggressive treatment.[1-3]
. . .
Respect for the basic autonomy of the patient is a fundamental principle of medical ethics. Without adequate information about treatment options, their probable outcomes, and the risks and benefits associated with each, patients cannot act autonomously.
Today, however, many patients are either denied treatment by their HMO physicians who follow actuarial treatment protocols generated to keep treatment costs down, or they must find an independent physician to treat them, with the all but forgone conclusion that coverage for this treatment will be denied by their insurer based on cherry-picked (economically favorable) guidelines.
Moreover, HMO physicians generally do not advise their patients that treatment alternatives exist.
Scientific uncertainty about Lyme disease has resulted in more than one treatment approach (like prostate cancer).
We agree with the AMA, ACP and other professional medical organizations interested in promoting informed patient consent and want to make sure that:
Physicians, insurers, patients and governmental agencies are educated that two treatment approaches exist;
Physicians give patients sufficient information about treatment options to enable patients to make a meaningfully informed choice and respect the autonomy of that choice;
Insurance reimbursement be provided for treatment rendered in accordance with either standard of care; and
Government agencies provide unbiased information and remain neutral regarding both standards of care and treatment approaches.
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,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic