-------------------- sixgoofykids.blogspot.com Posts: 13449 | From Ohio | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Greatcod
Unregistered
posted
" In 2000, a single member of the panel voluntarily stopped participating. He was not removed from the panel, as the Attorney General has alleged."
posted
I voted too.....not that it will do any good
-------------------- This is NOT medical advice - and should NOT be used to replace your MD's advice. Info is only the opinion of those who publish the site.
The shortest way to do many things is to do only one thing at a time.
cb Posts: 669 | From somewherebetweentherocks | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
i broke up release elsewhere and here it is:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Allie:
Not to rain on the parade, but just got this from a colleague who is an IDSA member.
This is the link:
Dear IDSA Member:
As you may know, in November 2006 the Attorney General of Connecticut launched an antitrust investigation of the Society's clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease.
The investigation reflects the controversy surrounding long-term antibiotic therapy, which IDSA does not recommend for this condition.
We are pleased to inform you that IDSA has reached an agreement with the Connecticut Attorney General that ends the investigation of the Society and its volunteer panel members and reaffirms the ability of IDSA to develop practice guidelines based on the best available evidence and widely accepted standards of care.
Our guidelines remain in place and continue to represent the best that science currently has to offer patients.
By reaching this agreement with the Attorney General, IDSA keeps issues related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease in a medical forum where they belong, and out of a courtroom.
The agreement calls for a special review of the guidelines, detailed below, which we hope will quell the unfortunate controversy around the treatment of Lyme disease and ensure that patients receive advice and treatment based on the best available medical evidence.
There may be some negative press coverage in the short term, but we are working to make sure it is as fair as possible. *********************
We firmly believe it is in the best interests of the Society, its volunteer panel members, and our patients to have this protracted, distracting, and expensive investigation behind us-particularly because the agreement itself is very favorable to IDSA.
Under the terms of the agreement, IDSA will convene a special review panel to conduct a comprehensive and up-to-date evaluation of the scientific literature, in order to determine whether the 2006 guidelines should be revised or updated.
As part of the review process, interested individuals will be invited to submit relevant information, and a public hearing will be held to receive additional information.
The review panel will consider all the evidence and make recommendations regarding whether the Lyme disease guidelines should be revised.
If the panel recommends revisions, they will be carried out in accordance with our normal procedures overseen by the IDSA Standards and Practice Guidelines Committee.
The agreement does not set a precedent for future guidelines.
From a medical perspective, we are confident that the 2006 guidelines are sound.
The Connecticut Attorney General's investigation of our guidelines questioned our process but never questioned the medical evidence.
Like many medical associations, IDSA is continuously working to improve the process by which we develop guidelines.
The panel members had no relevant conflicts of interest.
Recognizing the controversy surrounding Lyme disease, the panel carefully considered all information provided by other organizations and individuals.
Furthermore, the guidelines (like all IDSA guidelines) were subjected to a rigorous, multi-level review and approval process.
We stand by our 2006 guidelines panel, and we believe they reached the right conclusions. *****************************************
While we were prepared to defend in court any claim that the Connecticut Attorney General might bring and were confident that we ultimately would have prevailed, we concluded that ending the investigation at this stage is in the best interests of IDSA, our members, and our patients.
The agreement recognizes that there was no legal wrongdoing.
It protects the Society and the volunteer members of the guidelines panel from the burdens of a protracted legal proceeding.
It avoids the uncertainty and expense of a continued investigation, which would likely cost IDSA hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the considerable resources already expended.
The Connecticut Attorney General is not imposing any fines or penalties and does not have a role in IDSA guidelines panels, on Lyme disease or any other topic.
Moreover, those who seek to undermine the credibility of our guidelines will no longer be able to use the stigmatizing phrase, "under investigation."
It is important to note that IDSA's current guidelines remain in place and our advice to physicians and patients remains the same.
We are confident that this special review will serve as a further endorsement of our evidence-based process to determine the best treatment for those who suffer from Lyme disease.
We sincerely hope it will bring a degree of closure to this controversy for our patients as well as for the Society, although we will be prepared to continue our education and advocacy efforts in this area.
We will weather whatever media storm may break over the announcement of the agreement.
In the end, our mission is to make patients well and help them avoid ineffective and potentially harmful treatments.
IDSA's guidelines on Lyme disease represent the best advice that medicine currently has to offer. **********************************************
Please feel free to contact IDSA with any questions or concerns at [email protected].
Sincerely yours,
Donald Poretz, MD, FIDSA President, Infectious Diseases Society of America --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
boy, talk about a HOG WASH STINKY REPORT! P U !! betty
we're going to have a field day with REBUTTALS to their letter and press release; let's go for it.
SEND THANK YOU EMAILS TO BLUMENTHAL!!! **************************************
contact your local tv news seeing if they will have coverage and provide Blumenthal's report to them.
i agree; fax blumenthal's report to:
PALLONE, KENNEDY, AND DINGLE, etc.
HALLELEUH!! this was a LONG time coming, but glorious news!!! yippee!
IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
i was voter 83; keep those ONEs coming vs. the 9's idsa is voting themselves!!
IP: Logged |
kelmo
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 8797
posted
Yeah, Betty, I was confused by that. I was wondering if maybe I wasn't thinking correctly.
I haven't voted yet. I thought people were voting "9" to say that they were happy with the decision to re-evaluate the decision.
But, they said in the statement that a small group of physicians are using antibiotics long term which is expensive and ineffective.
They are so wrong.
Posts: 2903 | From AZ | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI I voted a BIG FAT "1" !!!
Posts: 983 | From The sky | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
TerryK
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 8552
posted
It's clear that if they have their way, there will be no unbiased review of the scientific literature.
I hope the ombudsmen does a very careful check before approving anyone to the panel and I hope they have more than a narrow definition of conflict for this purpose.
After seeing them and their buddies publish guidelines from different societies for the purpose of verifying the IDSA guidelines, I wouldn't put anything past them.
If they can get away with putting shills in, they will.
Terry
Posts: 6286 | From Oregon | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just voted also. Only time will tell..do not hold your breath!!
Hugs,
Perplexed Posts: 324 | From Lexington, KY, USA | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
tdtid
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 10276
posted
Another number 1 vote from me too along with plenty of comments. I doubt they will pay attention, but it did make me feel good to be able to do that. Thanks.
Cathy
-------------------- "To Dream The Impossible Dream" Man of La Mancha Posts: 2638 | From New Hampshire | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
jamescase20
Unregistered
posted
voted 1 here too, as I 'guess you say' thats the worst rating.
I also say they lied and I had to self treat due to the lies they spread. And that I do have a pos western blot and saw the kets in my blood )live blood micro) What jerks.
Can ya imagine how many people will die from secondary diseases (IE alcoholism, drug addiction , suicide, etc) as a result of lyme disease thats not treated. This truely is criminal. And only something that one would get to the dreaded gate over....
IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
yes, i added comments too, but i restrained myself for today. i was just enjoying the moment of LYME VICTORY FOR CHRONIC LYME PATIENTS!
when you add your no., tell us what number we are up to on PEOPLE VOTING; thanks!
IP: Logged |
posted
I voted a one and left a nasty comment. It all depends on the review. They say they will make it public, so hopefully it will be fair.
Posts: 615 | From maryland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gave them a "1" and a comment. I hope they get the message that people are not fooled by their "spin-doctoring."
Posts: 23 | From San Francisco, CA | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
jamescase20
Unregistered
posted
Yes, and the verdict is not out yet, for all we know, another group of 'fakers' could just redo the same garbage all over again. Let us pray to our higher power that dont happen again, and let us take action to make d** sure it dont happen again.
IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
I responded to their rebuttal and left a comment. Here is my comment:
My response to the IDSA:
"You're liars, and you've been exposed. ``Lie to a liar, for lies are his coin; Steal from a thief, for that is easy; lay a trap for a trickster and catch him at first attempt, but beware of an honest man''
You've had 45 years, 45 skies, 45 failures, and 45 tries, yet -- in your 45 years, and your 8,000 failures, you've spent 31 of them harming patients with Lyme Disease in order to further your agenda, your fiancial interests, and -- to deceive yourselves into believing it was in your best interest. You could have made a killing, without actually killing anyone, unfortunate really. "
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
posted
I'm trying to picture all these Ph.D.s and M.D.s who think they are above the law, beyond any control from society, sitting at their computers voting themselves with a 9. If it weren't so serious in its consequences, it would be funny.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gave em a 1 and posted that they should make the ombudsman an ilads doctor to make sure us lymies get proper representation. otherwise they will continue to stack the deck against us-pj.
Posts: 294 | From sw chicago suburbs | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
email attorney general blumenthal at the bottom of this web page is an email address maybe if we all send a mass of emails asking for him to make the ombudsman an ilads doctor we may get a better shake out of this so they cant sweep it under the carpet.
tdtid
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 10276
posted
Wow...yes, the 1's are definitely blowing out the other side now, aren't they. I do know someone that said they gave it a 2 since they said they thought spelling should account for something so they gave them the 2 for spelling and then a piece of their mind. Hahahahaha
As I thought about it, I thought theirs may be looked at since the 1's will be all negative that they proably will have a closed mind to. Still though, it is so much a ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, Betty, you are right....they only let you vote once, so make it good the first time around, but I have my husband doing it now so he is going to be vote number 322 when he finishes writing his bit.
Cathy
-------------------- "To Dream The Impossible Dream" Man of La Mancha Posts: 2638 | From New Hampshire | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dave6002
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9064
posted
quote: they only let you vote once,
No, you can vote as many as you want. Just clear browser history in your browser.
For Firefox, go to Tools>Clear private data>Check all options then click Clear Private Data Now button, enter the link and vote again:
For Internet explorer , go to Tools>Internet option>General> Click Delete >Click Delete All.
Posts: 1078 | From Fairland | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to have the life that is waiting for us" - e.m. forster Posts: 921 | From PA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Voted my one and sent the attorney general a thanks.What was uncovered is criminal,do not pass go,go directly to jail.
Posts: 308 | From new bedford,Ma. | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[group hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[bow]](graemlins/bow.gif)
![[hi]](graemlins/hi.gif)
![[woohoo]](graemlins/woohoo.gif)
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
3.79!!! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic