They sound hysterical and ridiculous. They continue to spout this nonsense despite the huge body of science that they choose to completly ignore.
Apparently if they are not involved in the study it isn't scientific enough. Funny considering the flawed methods that Delong found in the studies that they were involved in and for which they base thier flawed opinions on.
I'm amazed that other doctors continue to support their view. I can only think that most of them never bother to look at the evidence.
The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages 713 - 719, September 2011
Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with advocacy of Lyme disease
Dr Paul G Auwaerter MD a , Johan S Bakken MD, PhD c, Prof Raymond J Dattwyler MD d, Prof J Stephen Dumler MD b, Prof John J Halperin MD f g, Edward McSweegan PhD h, Prof Robert B Nadelman MD e, Susan O'Connell MD i, Prof Eugene D Shapiro MD j, Prof Sunil K Sood MD k, Prof Allen C Steere MD l, Prof Arthur Weinstein MD m, Prof Gary P Wormser MD e
Advocacy for Lyme disease has become an increasingly important part of an antiscience movement that denies both the viral cause of AIDS and the benefits of vaccines and that supports unproven (sometimes dangerous) alternative medical treatments.
Some activists portray Lyme disease, a geographically limited tick-borne infection, as a disease that is insidious, ubiquitous, difficult to diagnose, and almost incurable; they also propose that the disease causes mainly non-specific symptoms that can be treated only with long-term antibiotics and other unorthodox and unvalidated treatments.
Similar to other antiscience groups, these advocates have created a pseudoscientific and alternative selection of practitioners, research, and publications and have coordinated public protests, accused opponents of both corruption and conspiracy, and spurred legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science.
The relations and actions of some activists, medical practitioners, and commercial bodies involved in Lyme disease advocacy pose a threat to public health.
Posted by lymeboy (Member # 24769) on :
oh boy there go those names again. Those names make my blood boil. These guys are turning into my "Niagra Falls" WORMSER??? - Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch.....
!!!!!
Posted by ticksickfamily (Member # 22786) on :
Shame on the Lancet for publishing such nonsense. Smacks of desperation by the IDSA cabal authors to me.They know the genie is out of the bottle and they are desperate to hang on to their power/ position.A couple of them were even at the IOM meeting last year and heard all the presentations and still choose to ignore their colleagues and their evidence that a lot is not known about Lyme, that testing is unreliable etc etc.
Posted by rks (Member # 24316) on :
Hmm . . . maybe it's due to the Volkman article?
Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
The Volkman article is old. That post is from 2009, recently sent up so that's probably not the case.
Posted by jackie51 (Member # 14233) on :
Character assassination at it's finest.
Anti-science groups? What are they? This is amazing.
A threat to public health?
In the olden days, I would liken this to a challenge of a duel.
Whoever wrote this cr*p is obviously very narrow minded, stubborn and possibly feeling trapped in a corner.
There wasn't this much stigmatism with AIDS. Harumph...
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
quote:Originally posted by rks: Hmm . . . maybe it's due to the Volkman article?
quote:You might remember that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently highlighted the IDSA Lyme guidelines to illustrate the necessity for standardization and transparency in guideline development processes. �On top of this, two research studies by members of the IDSA conclude that IDSA guidelines in general are largely based on opinion, not science. �That�s a lot of public pressure placed on the IDSA regarding its guidelines. Unfortunately, this article seems intended to deflect attention, rather than remedy, the real crises the IDSA faces as an organization�the substitution of opinion for science in guidelines and its shoddy guideline development processes.
Does anybody know where we can get quotes from the above-mentioned IOM meeting where they spoke against the IDSA guidelines?
Posted by James1979 (Member # 31926) on :
Someone should ask the Lancet why they have published contradictory information in the past.
Examples: From a 1995 publication by Ferris J, Lopez-Andreu JA, et al.
quote:In this study over a two-year period, one patient received seven short-term antibiotic treatements with temporary improvements. Following this, the patient's condition deteriorated tremendously. After retreatment with ceftriaxone, the patient took oral minocycline with a greatly improved quality of life. The authors felt that long-term antibiotics should be utilized until a cure or delay of disease progression is established.
From a 1995 article in the Lancet called "Living with Lyme":
quote:What should be done when a patient has the typical Lyme disease history but negative serology? This is still a hot question especially in the USA. My strong opinion is that oral antibiotics should be given in such cases. Ordinary laboratory test cannot be relied upon and the PCR is too expensive for routine use. When the whole picture leans towards Lyme borreliosis it is both ethically and medically right to treat."
The above quote was written by a physician who caught Lyme, and treated himself with long-term antibiotics. After 6 years of abx, they determined that the spirochetes were "still alive".
I wonder what the Lancet thinks about themselves publishing "anti-science" articles...
Posted by map1131 (Member # 2022) on :
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)