posted
I was just reading the latest issue of Public Health Alert. Lots of GREAT stuff, including an article focusing on the relationship between the CDC & IDSA.
The author suggests we contact CDC officials to demand accountability.
But guess what esteemed organization CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding is affiliated with?
"Dr. Gerberding is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Omega Alpha (medical honor society), American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI), American College of Physicians, the American Epidemiology Society, and is a Fellow in the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)..."
Is this bad or is she maybe a force for change in that organization? Assuming she had any interest in change.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Areneli
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6740
posted
Almost all Infectious Diseases Doctors would be members of IDSA.
Posts: 1538 | From Planet Earth | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
shazdancer
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 1436
posted
A fellowship in IDSA is a higher-level position than a membership. The fellow should have made an impact in infectious diseases on the local, state, or federal level, either in clinical practice or in administration/research.
Fellows can participate in committees and task forces, and they have full voting privileges, as do full members. They must be nominated by 2 other Fellows, and fill out an application.
posted
I just KNEW someone would find something like this! Yes, a FELLOW is definitely different from just a membership.
There are so many conflicts of interest going on and when anyone finds this evidence, please post here so people working behind the scenes document this information.
This just makes me so angry. We are up against a labyrinth of corruption and we are suffering so much because of it.
I truly believe that in the coming years information such as this will vindicate our cause. But in the meantime we need to stand strong, keep helping each other and compiling data so that the truth sees the light of day.
JMHO.... Janet
-------------------- DISCLAIMER: No information presented above should be considered medical advice or take the place of advice given by a medical professional. Links to other sites are provided merely for ease of research. Posts: 287 | From Tennessee | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to see someone reading the article. I hope everyone posting did.
Don't be too concerned with the Fellow status, except that it should reflect that the Dr. has achieved a highly respected status in her specialty. It's normal business in any professionl society.
The Dr's experience at that level should reflect the wisdom of not believing everything she reads. In fact, experience breeds skepticim as one is exposed to all manner of ill conceived 'science' as their carer matures.
The crux of the argument is peer review, or in this case sham peer review. There is no way that CDC, not atypical of any government agency, could complete a peer review per their own standards within the time frame between electronic release of the IDSA guidelines and the time that the link appeared on the CDC website - unless it was prearranged.
In most circles peer review requires at least three months to complete, and in general there are always revisions negotiated with the authors.
I didn't search out those phone numbers just to fill column space. Put them to good use.
David
Posts: 20 | From DFW,TX, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
AliG
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9734
posted
Is Director of the CDC an appointed position?
Can we protest a conflict of interest and demand that her resignation be requested for allowing unfair practices in the peer review process?
-------------------- Note: I'm NOT a medical professional. The information I share is from my own personal research and experience. Please do not construe anything I share as medical advice, which should only be obtained from a licensed medical practitioner. Posts: 4881 | From Middlesex County, NJ | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes....it is an appointment and she serves at the pleasure of the President.
Posts: 393 | From Washington, DC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you know that the LDA, etc met with the CDC director and are hoping this will bring a change in their lyme policy, so maybe hold off doing anything until we know more. Having the director in a fellow position with IDSA might not be a bad thing.
There is no point in antagonizing someone we hope will help us.
She is right now the subject of a program to get rid of her, and some of the complainers are definitely bad guys, such as Ostroff. This doesn't prove that she is a good guy, but Ostroff and his buddies are absolutely the black hats.
Posts: 8430 | From Not available | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
Areneli
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6740
posted
As far as I understand our concerns are about the Lyme committee of IDSA. This part has been rotten to the core and unfortunatelly holds a lot of power also to discipline other IDSA members. IDSA itself might have several decent individuals working in other non-Lyme areas.
Posts: 1538 | From Planet Earth | Registered: Jan 2005
| 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!
Printer-friendly view of this topic