This is topic Mainstream researcher publicly rebutts IDSA Committee in forum Medical Questions at LymeNet Flash.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/79261

---

Posted by nomoremuscles (Member # 9560) on :
 
Read the article, but then click on the letter from Dr. Volkman -- READ IT. It is EXACTLY what we have been waiting for.


http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/82.html

[ 04-02-2009, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: nomoremuscles ]
 

---

Posted by psano2 (Member # 11711) on :
 
That brought tears to y eyes. I' going to e ail it to y sister right now and feel like e ailing it to all the du b ducks I've seen in the past.

Of course so eone should send it to Oprah and Greta Van Susteren. So eone whose whole keyboard is working...

( y " " key stopped working today, if you haven't already noticed... what to do?)

Patti
 

---

Posted by psano2 (Member # 11711) on :
 
Be sure Richard Blu enthal gets a copy too, along w/all of our senators and representatives.
 

---

Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
 
I can't believe Volkman is stepping out into the spotlight saying these things. I've followed his work for years and he's always either toed the line or learned towards the IDSA slightly.

This is mind blowing, seriously.
 

---

Posted by Sojourner (Member # 9424) on :
 
OMG! Beautiful!!
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
copying calda's info and breaking it up; couldn't read the pdf since it's timesnewroman...


Volkman submission to IDSA--Smells like courage to me


David Volkman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at SUNY, Stony Brook, and previously Senior Investigator with the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases,

has submitted the attached letter to the IDSA pursuant to its document submission process.


He has performed both clinical and bench research in Lyme disease since 1985.

Given his impeccable credentials, outlined in the first paragraph of his letter, his submission should carry considerable weight with the panel.


Among other things, he points to the suppression of research and stifling of the types of investigative inquiry necessary to begin to address pressing issues for Lyme patients--

the need for better testing, the need to acknowledge persistence and start looking for treatment protocols that help patients get better, the need to keep surveillance definitions outside the arena of patient diagnosis, the need to acknowledge the usefulness of PCR testing, and the need to avoid prophylaxis regimens that may promote chronic Lyme.


His letter smells a little bit like ``courage'' to me--a pretty rare commodity these days.

The introduction of his letter hits the ball out of the park by framing how to play fair when scientists disagree.
**************************

Recommendations from Guidelines Committees ought to be evidenced based, unbiased, and valid, not consensus dictums based on the authoritative opinions of "experts" which should be objectively evaluated and often challenged.


Rather than avoid controversy and dissenting views to achieve unanimity the Guidelines should accurately reflect confirmed medical principals and both sides of unresolved questions.

Volkman then proceeds to dismantle the IDSA tightly controlled campaign to avoid scientific truth at all costs:

� Abundant evidence of persistence:

There is abundant evidence of persistent borrelia infection in both humans and mice (5-14).


Contrary to the claims of the IDSA guidelines and its Committee members, chronic borreliosis patients can be either seropositive or seronegative, i.e., individuals with persistent infection have or lack anti-borrelia antibodies (7,8,10-14). . . .


In the face of both animal (5,6,9) and human (7,8,10-14) evidence of persistent borreliosis following inadequately treated LD, it is disappointing that Guidelines members continue to dismiss the possibility of persistent borreliosis with unreferenced assertions that it has been ``discredited'' by ``current thinking.''


� IDSA ignores need for better diagnostic tools:

However instead of urging the development of better diagnostic tools to identify individuals with previous infections who may still be infected (36) with chronic symptoms, Guidelines members merely assert the unsupported dogma that chronically infected people are all seropositive.


This claim is simply untrue (7,8,10-14). Some of these committee members have testified as ``expert witnesses'' for insurance companies attempting to deny health benefits to chronically symptomatic individuals and written articles disputing its existence (17).


� IDSA stifles needed research:

Instead of fostering research on the optimal antibiotic regimen to eradicate persistent borreliosis in in vitro, animal, and human models, committee members have stifled investigation by their obdurate insistence that persistent borreliosis does not exist (15-19,22).


It remains unclear what combination of antibiotics and sustained treatment will eliminate a carrier state and minimize morbidity.


The IDSA's Committee should be a strong proponent of this sort of research rather than an obstacle.


� PCR testing is reliable and reproducible:

Committee members have assailed the PCR evidence from several labs that detected borrelia DNA in the CSF or joint effusions of seronegative patients (11,13,14).


Feder (17) cited problems with nested primers in disputing PCR evidence.

However, as shown below the PCR data was reliable and reproducible.


� IDSA suppresses science:

Despite Drs. Burgdorfer and Barbour having pioneered the isolation and growth of B. burgdorferi at the CDC, much of the current work on persistent borreliosis is being done in Europe as American work in humans may have been suppressed by prevailing dogma (21)


� CDC surveillance definition misused:

The CDC explicitly cautioned against using this restrictive case definition for clinical diagnosis and reiterated this proscription with every re-issuing of its ``Surveillance Definition.''

It has been a source of frustration and confusion that some in the medical community wrongly insist that a Lyme patient must satisfy CDC criteria (see memo below).


� IDSA panel had conflicts:

Members of the current IDSA Guidelines Committee for the Treatment of Lyme have been cited by the Connecticut Attorney General (33) for receiving payments from insurance companies as expert witnesses testifying against patient claims for treating chronic Lyme disease.


In addition, members received payments for consulting to LD testing companies regarding their accuracy in detecting LD serologically.


The Guidelines Committee has denied the existence of chronic borreliosis and has insisted that all LD patients are seropositive.


The Committee's conflicts of interest violate recommendations for guidelines committees (34).


� Need for research not opinion:

Finally, encouraging improved diagnostic (36) and therapeutic tools should be a major priority of a new Committee.


Recommendations should be evidence-based not unsupported opinions of Committee members.


Controversies need to be delineated not ignored in the interest of consensus.


The bottom line--Volkman puts his finger on the pulse when he notes that science in the US on persistent infection and the optimal way to treat that infection has been effectively silenced by the IDSA.

Download attachment Download attachment >>

Volkman_address_removed_Text_3_09_115176301.pdf
 

---

Posted by Leelee (Member # 19112) on :
 
That's a good letter. I hope it gets the attention it deserves.
 

---

Posted by LisaS (Member # 10581) on :
 
Wow amazing. I wonder if his courage in coming out with this letter will encourage any of his comrades to come forward with their real opinions also?
 

---

Posted by lakes592 (Member # 18905) on :
 
Hi,
What is the best way to send this to reps it is 10 pages and an attachment? Should I print it out and mail it? I can't e-mail them directly from e-mail it has to be through there homepage it appears?

Thanks,
Ann

[ 03-29-2009, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: lakes592 ]
 

---

Posted by nomoremuscles (Member # 9560) on :
 
Ann,

I sent a copy of the article to my state reps, and attached a copy of the actual letter.
 

---

Posted by nomoremuscles (Member # 9560) on :
 
Up, because this is SO important. I'm surprised so few acknowledged it. Someone is finally speaking the truth for us, people.
 

---

Posted by luvdogs (Member # 9507) on :
 
I agree! This letter is amazing!
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
anyway any of you could copy it HERE? i went there but with my low vision, i could not begin to read anything and it has to be arial/verbana for me to read?
anyone? thanks; perhaps that is why not much discussion here.

thank you for helping ME this time xox
 

---

Posted by nenet (Member # 13174) on :
 
Here you go bettyg and others who need it:
(From: http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/82.html )

"David Volkman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at SUNY, Stony Brook, and previously Senior Investigator with the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, has submitted the attached letter to the IDSA pursuant to its document submission process.

He has performed both clinical and bench research in Lyme disease since 1985. Given his impeccable credentials, outlined in the first paragraph of his letter, his submission should carry considerable weight with the panel.

Among other things, he points to the suppression of research and stifling of the types of investigative inquiry necessary to begin to address pressing issues for Lyme patients--the need for better testing, the need to acknowledge persistence and start looking for treatment protocols that help patients get better,

the need to keep surveillance definitions outside the arena of patient diagnosis, the need to acknowledge the usefulness of PCR testing, and the need to avoid prophylaxis regimens that may promote chronic Lyme. His letter smells a little bit like ``courage'' to me--a pretty rare commodity these days.

The introduction of his letter hits the ball out of the park by framing how to play fair when scientists disagree.

Recommendations from Guidelines Committees ought to be evidenced based, unbiased, and valid, not consensus dictums based on the authoritative opinions of "experts" which should be objectively evaluated and often challenged.

Rather than avoid controversy and dissenting views to achieve unanimity the Guidelines should accurately reflect confirmed medical principals and both sides of unresolved questions.

Volkman then proceeds to dismantle the IDSA tightly controlled campaign to avoid scientific truth at all costs:

quote:

---

Dr. Volkman wrote:

** Abundant evidence of persistence: There is abundant evidence of persistent borrelia infection in both humans and mice (5-14).

Contrary to the claims of the IDSA guidelines and its Committee members, chronic borreliosis patients can be either seropositive or seronegative, i.e., individuals with persistent infection have or lack anti-borrelia antibodies (7,8,10-14). . . .

In the face of both animal (5,6,9) and human (7,8,10-14) evidence of persistent borreliosis following inadequately treated LD, it is disappointing that Guidelines members continue to dismiss the possibility of persistent borreliosis with unreferenced assertions that it has been ``discredited'' by ``current thinking.''

** IDSA ignores need for better diagnostic tools: However instead of urging the development of better diagnostic tools to identify individuals with previous infections who may still be infected (36) with chronic symptoms, Guidelines members merely assert the unsupported dogma that chronically infected people are all seropositive.

This claim is simply untrue (7,8,10-14). Some of these committee members have testified as ``expert witnesses'' for insurance companies attempting to deny health benefits to chronically symptomatic individuals and written articles disputing its existence (17).

** IDSA stifles needed research: Instead of fostering research on the optimal antibiotic regimen to eradicate persistent borreliosis in in vitro, animal, and human models, committee members have stifled investigation by their obdurate insistence that persistent borreliosis does not exist (15-19,22).

It remains unclear what combination of antibiotics and sustained treatment will eliminate a carrier state and minimize morbidity. The IDSA's Committee should be a strong proponent of this sort of research rather than an obstacle.

** PCR testing is reliable and reproducible: Committee members have assailed the PCR evidence from several labs that detected borrelia DNA in the CSF or joint effusions of seronegative patients (11,13,14).

Feder (17) cited problems with nested primers in disputing PCR evidence. However, as shown below the PCR data was reliable and reproducible.

** IDSA suppresses science: Despite Drs. Burgdorfer and Barbour having pioneered the isolation and growth of B. burgdorferi at the CDC, much of the current work on persistent borreliosis is being done in Europe as American work in humans may have been suppressed by prevailing dogma (21)

** CDC surveillance definition misused: The CDC explicitly cautioned against using this restrictive case definition for clinical diagnosis and reiterated this proscription with every re-issuing of its ``Surveillance Definition.''

It has been a source of frustration and confusion that some in the medical community wrongly insist that a Lyme patient must satisfy CDC criteria (see memo below).

** IDSA panel had conflicts: Members of the current IDSA Guidelines Committee for the Treatment of Lyme have been cited by the Connecticut Attorney General (33) for receiving payments from insurance companies as expert witnesses testifying against patient claims for treating chronic Lyme disease.

In addition, members received payments for consulting to LD testing companies regarding their accuracy in detecting LD serologically. The Guidelines Committee has denied the existence of chronic borreliosis and has insisted that all LD patients are seropositive.

The Committee's conflicts of interest violate recommendations for guidelines committees (34).

** Need for research not opinion: Finally, encouraging improved diagnostic (36) and therapeutic tools should be a major priority of a new Committee. Recommendations should be evidence-based not unsupported opinions of Committee members. Controversies need to be delineated not ignored in the interest of consensus.

---

The bottom line--Volkman puts his finger on the pulse when he notes that science in the US on persistent infection and the optimal way to treat that infection has been effectively silenced by the IDSA."


The entire letter is a must-read, and includes all of the referenced research and other citations, and is in pdf form at this link:

http://www.lymedisease.org/news/files.php?file=Volkman_address_removed_Text_3_09_115176301.pdf

(betty and others that need to view the pdf in the proper font size and fonts, you should be able to change those in your pdf reader application. Otherwise please let me know and I will copy that here for you too - it's going to be a bit messy though since it is 10 pages long. Wow!)
 

---

Posted by nenet (Member # 13174) on :
 
Hey nomoremuscles, just a suggestion, but you might get more readers if you make the title a bit more noticeable so it doesn't get skimmed over. I'm not sure what would be best, but maybe something like:

"Emeritus Prof of Medicine and Pediatrics at SUNY, once Snr Investigator w/NIAID sends rebuttal to IDSA Committee!!!"

OR

"Well-respected Mainstream MD, Prof, Rebutts IDSA Committee!!!"

I bet that doesn't fit haha. Just brainstorming here. People need to be clued in that this is BIG.


This is hugely important! Thank you very much for posting it here!
 

---

Posted by nomoremuscles (Member # 9560) on :
 
nenet,

Good idea. I will try. Though, knowing me, I'll probably end up with something even lamer that what I started with!
 

---

Posted by nenet (Member # 13174) on :
 
cool, I am bumping this for BettyG and others!
 

---

Posted by Dekrator48 (Member # 18239) on :
 
Wow, Dr Volkman, deserves alot of thanks for speaking up to the IDSA about the truth.

That is a totally awesome letter he wrote.

Anyone know how to reach him by email?
 

---

Posted by Dekrator48 (Member # 18239) on :
 
nomoremuscles,

It would be great if Dr Volkman's letter to the IDSA could be sent to Greta VanSustern and Oprah, who are both looking at info about lyme that we and others have sent....as long as it is not a problem for Dr Volkman to share the info with them.
 

---

Posted by Barby (Member # 18348) on :
 
Wow! That is outstanding.
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
NENET, god bless you for bringing that over here and your summary as to what it was all about! i really appreciate the time/effort you took to bring it here.

thank you also for breaking it up my style; made an easy read thanks to your thoughtfulness!


no, that's asking way to much to do 10 pages and copy here!!
 

---

Posted by Robin123 (Member # 9197) on :
 
Maybe someone finally just got tired of all the lies...
 

---

Posted by DakotasMom01 (Member # 14141) on :
 
Excellant!!

Thanks for posting it!!
 

---

Posted by nenet (Member # 13174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bettyg:
NENET, god bless you for bringing that over here and your summary as to what it was all about!

---