Denialism is a form of propaganda covering a variety of activities. It can be as simple as like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent, or as elaborate as professional grey or black propaganda campaigns by advertising and marketing agencies.
Denialism can arise from personal ideologies, or desire for profit. Industry groups may seek to protect markets from damaging facts and information. Political groups may work to advance their agendas. Combinations of these may work in concert with interest groups on issues of mutual importance. Despite the disparity between these groups and the motives behind them, the tactics used by denialists are largely similar. Common features include:[11]
* Conspiracism - Suggesting scientists have an ulterior motive for their research, or that they are part of some hidden plan or agenda.[12] * Selectivity - Relying upon discredited or flawed work supporting their idea while dismissing more credible work; presenting discredited or superseded papers to make a field look like it is based on weak research. The selective use of evidence by denialists includes quote mining and cherry picking. * False experts - Citing paid, partisan scientists, or self-appointed 'experts,' often from an unrelated field, inflating favorable 'evidence' while discounting the contradictory, often while misrepresenting the significance of each.[13][14][15] * Impossible expectations - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge. * Misrepresentations and logical fallacies - Denialists sometimes employ logical fallacies: red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy. An example of the misuse of analogy in arguments is the watchmaker analogy. A common misrepresentation used in the intelligent design movement is the intentional use of the term Darwinism when what is being objected to is evolution. An example of an appeal to consequences is the common neo-creationist claim that an acceptance of evolution (Darwinism) leads to social ills such as the atrocities committed by Hitler's Nazi regime.[16] Which is furthermore, an example of cherry-picking, since Hitler also appealed to religion, germ theory, and animal husbandry.
sparkle7
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 10397
posted
Thank you!
I wasn't quite sure who the "denialism" was addressed to. Your
link was very helpful to me. I've been wondering about the use
of highly invasive IVs to "cure" Lyme. I also just came across info
about Columbia University & their new center for Lyme research.
This quote addressed both issues:
"Evidence of Chronic Lyme
Just when it seemed as though the denialist foxes had completely taken over the chronic Lyme henhouse, a new study in the journal Neurology, "A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy", concluded that lengthier courses of antibiotics are helpful in reducing neurologic symptoms related to chronic Lyme disease. This study was conducted by Dr. Brian Fallon et al at Columbia University (possibly the only major American medical school that is not under the thumb of chronic Lyme denialists).
The Columbia study, while confirming the effectiveness of lengthier courses of antibiotics for at least temporarily improving symptoms, was unable to draw any conclusions as to whether lengthier courses of antibiotics might have produced a more permanent improvement in health:
Conclusion: IV ceftriaxone therapy results in short-term cognitive improvement for patients with posttreatment Lyme encephalopathy, but relapse in cognition occurs after the antibiotic is discontinued. Treatment strategies that result in sustained cognitive improvement are needed.
The conclusions reached by this study not only agree with the experience reported by many clinical doctors and their chronic Lyme patients (it is important to note here that many patients have experienced permanent improvement in their symptoms using more varied and lengthier treatment protocols than those employed by Columbia), but are also corroborated by a wealth of existing research documenting the Lyme bacteria's ability to evade treatment."
Why do you suppose this debilitating illness is undergoing such
vehement denial by so many? I have my own "conspiaracy
related" theories but I wouldn't mind reading what others have
to say.
Posts: 7772 | From Northeast, again... | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Right, the common understanding of the world "denialist" is as somebody who disagrees or say 'no' often.
In reality, this is quite a nasty but appropriate word that describes IDSA.
I wish, that the Wikipedia definition of this word somehow made it the media, whenever the word is used in order to obtain a proper effect on readers.
Posts: 54 | From Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
adamm
Unregistered
posted
Because the government does not want it known that it
sparked an epidemic, and there are a ton of people
in the health care industry who would lose
money if it were getting proper treatment.
I don't believe anyone's goal was to sentence
millions to this "death in life" from which there
is no return, but nevertheless, an atrocity
on the same scale as the Holocaust is being
perpetrated, and the only way it'll
change is if people take measure FAR more drastic
than anything anyone's conceived of so far...
THIS represents the most horrific aspect of this experience for
me. I have now known hate and evil. And I no longer know how I
sparkle7
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 10397
posted
I can't speak for everyone but some of us are waking up. Alex Jones
has millions of listeners & viewers. I watched "Terrorstorm" & it was
quite good. He doesn't make stuff up. Everything is documented.
Some people just have a hard time accepting a paradigm shift in
regards to the way they preceive reality. That to me is "denialism".
Posts: 7772 | From Northeast, again... | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tracy9
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7521
posted
If you can get through this; you will find a lot of amazing answers here:
The corporate media often portrays this war as one between equally powerful sides posing equally valid arguments, but that is far from the case. It has never really been a fair fight, nor has it ever really been about making sure the best science wins. The academics on the IDSA side of the battle, who I will refer to as "chronic Lyme denialists", have chosen to forego the rigors of scientific debate, opting instead to dominate the marketplace through the use of sheer political force. They have accomplished this by seeking out positions of influence both inside and outside of government, and using those powerful positions to further their particular ideology to the exclusion of all others. In so doing, they have established control over every aspect of Lyme disease -- research, testing methods, diagnostic standards, treatment standards, insurance reimbursement and even over the livelihoods of those doctors who dare to treat outside the denialists' protocols. Through their connections at NIH and CDC, they have gobbled up most of the public grant money available for Lyme disease research, and expended far too much of it on poorly conceived studies designed to substantiate their long-held beliefs that long-term antibiotic therapy is unwarranted and that chronic Lyme disease is a myth. Their sphere of influence extends to America's most prestigious medical journals, where they are able to impact which studies get published, which studies don't, and how quickly such decisions are made. Invariably, studies whose conclusions contradict those of the chronic Lyme denialists have a harder time passing through the journals' peer review process. They have similarly used their powerful connections to encourage and support investigations by state medical boards against doctors who treat chronic Lyme disease in order to drive the "competition" out of business. And they have used their consulting relationships with insurance companies to deprive patients of access to extended antibiotic therapy and/or insurance reimbursement, even when that therapy has been shown to improve the patients' health. Stacking the Deck Last year, determined to put an end once and for all to the debate over chronic Lyme disease, the denialists, under the rubric of the _Infectious Diseases Society of America_ (http://www.idsociet y.org/) (IDSA), published an _updated set of diagnostic and treatment guidelines_ (http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/CID/journal/ issues/v43n9/ 40897/40897. html) that literally defined chronic Lyme disease out of existence. While the IDSA authors' ideology was reason enough to doubt the scientific objectivity of the guidelines, suspicions of bias grew even deeper when it was revealed that the authors had relied on only a small subset (405) of the "_more than 19,000 scientific studies on tick-borne diseases_ (http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2007/10/prweb558 547.htm) " in formulating their conclusions, and that they had largely disregarded contradictory research. As further evidence of the ideological echo chamber within which IDSA's guidelines were created, a significant percentage (close to 40% by my count) of the 405 studies were authored by the very same people who had authored the IDSA guidelines. Because of the serious public health consequences which could result from adherence to erroneous diagnostic and treatment protocols, and because evidence suggested that bias in the creation of IDSA's guidelines had corrupted its conclusions, and finally because the financial ties of IDSA authors to insurance companies, labs, and Lyme related patents, royalties, etc. might have provided motivation for such bias, Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal _decided to investigate_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ doi/full/ 10.1586/14787210 .5.5.759) :
The controversy came to a head in November 2006 when the IDSA released new guidelines severely limiting treatment options for patients with persistent Lyme symptoms _[3]_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ action/showPopup ?citid=citart1& id=ref-3& doi=10.1586/ 14787210. 5.5.759) . The guidelines were so restrictive that the Attorney General of Connecticut (USA) initiated an unprecedented investigation into possible antitrust violations by the IDSA, the dominant infectious disease society in the USA, in its formulation of the guidelines _[13,101]_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ action/showPopup ?citid=citart1& id=ref-13% 20ref-101& doi=10.1586/ 14787210. 5.5.759) .
In the months since Blumenthal announced his investigation, the chronic Lyme denialists have been working feverishly to create an aura of overwhelming support for their conclusions. The _IDSA Guidelines_ (http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/CID/journal/ issues/v43n9/ 40897/40897. html) were soon followed by the publication of a _strikingly similar set of guidelines_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ rapidpdf/ 01.wnl.000026551 7.66976.28v1. pdf) from the _American Academy of Neurology_ (http://www.aan. com/go/home) (AAN). Although these new guidelines were trumpeted as independent scientific corroboration of the IDSA guidelines' pronouncements, nothing could be further from the truth. Because, as it turns out, the _AAN guidelines_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ rapidpdf/ 01.wnl.000026551 7.66976.28v1. pdf) were authored by 3 of the same people who had authored the IDSA guidelines (Wormser, Shapiro, Halperin) and who therefore had a vested interest in arriving at identical conclusions. Thus, the professed independence of AAN's guidelines is likely nothing more than an illusion. Attorney General Blumenthal apparently agrees with that observation, as he recently subpoenaed related documents from AAN (as inferred from the title of a firewalled article, available to paid subscribers only, "_Guidelines on Trial: AAN Subpoenaed as Part of Investigation into Treatment Parameters for Lyme Disease_ (http://www.neurotod ayonline. com/pt/re/ neurotoday/ toc.00132985- 200710160- 00000.htm; jsessionid= H21bWD0dcwzphSHJ SkPv7gb3QDcp pqxgy8Ds2cwHvzLNMMW CQMmz!-194743534 5!181195628! 8091!-1) ", which can be found in the October 16th, 2007 AAN publication, _Neurology Today_ (http://www.neurotod ayonline. com/) ). That wasn't the end of the politically motivated "scientific" onslaught. On October 4, 2007, barely over a month ago, the prestigious _New England Journal of Medicine_ (http://content. nejm.org/) (NEJM) became the latest to join the fray with their publication of a research review titled, '_A Critical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme Disease"_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) '. That article, whose primary author is long time chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Henry Feder of Connecticut Children's Hospital, reached virtually the same conclusions as the previously released IDSA and AAN guidelines (my emphasis):
Chronic Lyme disease is the latest in a series of syndromes that have been postulated in an attempt to attribute medically unexplained symptoms to particular infections. Other examples that have now lost credibility are "chronic candida syndrome" and "chronic Epstein�``Barr virus infection."_ 57_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422#R57) ,_58_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422#R58) The assumption that chronic, subjective symptoms are caused by persistent infection with B. burgdorferi is not supported by carefully conducted laboratory studies or by controlled treatment trials. Chronic Lyme disease, which is equated with chronic B. burgdorferi infection, is a misnomer, and the use of prolonged, dangerous, and expensive antibiotic treatments for it is not warranted._2_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422#R2)
Promoted as important new science, this article actually broke NO new ground whatsoever. Rather than providing any original Lyme disease research, Feder's NEJM "study" was nothing more than a retrospective review of existing science. Moreover, the science from which Feder and his colleagues drew their conclusions was barely distinguishable from that which the IDSA authors had relied upon in formulating their guidelines (approximately 66% of the references cited by Feder were also cited by the IDSA guidelines). Most telling of all, the IDSA guidelines themselves were cited as a reference by the NEJM study. Those commonalities alone would be enough to cast doubt on the originality and independence of Feder's work. But that's not all. The NEJM study's collaborators included a whopping 11 out of the 14 IDSA guideline authors (IDSA's Wormser, Shapiro and Steere were listed as NEJM lead authors, while IDSA's Klempner, Bakken, Bockenstedt, Nadelman, Dattwyler, Dumler, Halperin and Krause were listed as NEJM ad-hoc committee members). Remarkably, there were only 3 IDSA authors, Durland Fish, Gerold Stanek and Franc Strle, who had no discernable involvement with the NEJM article. Conflicts of Interest It is common practice for medical journal articles to include a disclosure statement describing the potential conflicts of interest of each author. But there is never any guarantee that all relevant conflicts will be included in that disclosure. According to ILADS, there was one _one very important omission from the NEJM article's conflict disclosure_ (http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2007/10/prweb558 547.htm) (my emphasis): * The article was written by a group of researchers who have consistently voiced a narrow viewpoint on the existence of chronic Lyme disease and appropriate treatment. Eleven of the authors were members of the panel that formulated the 2006 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Lyme guidelines. The panel is currently under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for exclusionary practices in formulating the IDSA guidelines. * The authors of the article failed to disclose that they are under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General. This omission violates the "full disclosure" policy of the journal and creates a conflict of interest by calling into question the authors' motives for writing the article. * Several authors of the current article also participated in formulation of copycat Lyme guidelines for the American Academy of Neurology. Those guidelines were presented as "independent corroboration" of the IDSA Lyme guidelines, when in fact the same individuals were involved with both guidelines and employed the same exclusionary tactics that prompted the Connecticut Attorney General's investigation. And if that's not serious enough, NEJM also neglected to mention the fact that _IDSA guideline author Dr. Mark Klempner_ (http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/CID/journal/ issues/v43n9/ 40897/40897. html) not only served as an ad-hoc committee member for the NEJM article but at the very same time served as an _associate editor at NEJM_ (http://content. nejm.org/ misc/edboard. shtml) , a position which may well have afforded him undue influence over the publication of an article whose conclusions stood to greatly benefit both himself and his IDSA colleagues. Equally noteworthy are the _conflicts of interest that did get mentioned_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) :
Dr. Feder reports receiving lecture fees from Merck and serving as an expert witness in medical-malpractice cases related to Lyme disease. Dr. Johnson reports holding patents on diagnostic antigens for Lyme disease. Dr. O'Connell reports serving as an expert witness related to Lyme disease issues in civil and criminal cases in England. Dr. Shapiro reports serving as an expert witness in medical-malpractice cases related to Lyme disease, reviewing claims of disability related to Lyme disease for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and receiving speaker's fees from Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Steere reports receiving a research grant from Viramed and fees from Novartis. Dr. Wormser reports receiving research grants related to Lyme disease from Immunetics, Bio-Rad, and Biopeptides and education grants from Merck and AstraZeneca to New York Medical College for visiting lecturers for infectious-disease grand rounds, being part owner of Diaspex (a company that is now inactive with no products or services), owning equity in Abbott, serving as an expert witness in a medical-malpractice case, and being retained in other medical-malpractice cases involving Lyme disease. He may become a consultant to Biopeptides. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Extracurricular activities of the type listed above, most notably those related to the insurance industry, are quite common among university-based Lyme disease experts. With the quest for ever greater profits motivating insurers to deny payment wherever possible, it is only natural that they would seek out Lyme related medical opinions from those experts most willing to deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The chronic Lyme denialists have been only too happy to oblige, and their cooperation has proven to be highly lucrative (ten years ago the going rate for expert witness testimony by chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Lenny Sigal was $650/hr.*, and the going rate for a case review by chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Robert Schoen was $350/hr. for 2 hours work*). *documents on file. No doubt, similar conflicts of interest are shared by other members of NEJM's ad-hoc panel, which reads like a _veritable who's who of chronic Lyme denialists_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) :
The following were members of the Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease Group: Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI �'' W.A. Agger; National Microbiology Laboratory, Health Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada �'' H. Artsob; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore �'' P. Auwaerter, J.S. Dumler; St. Luke's Hospital, Duluth, MN �'' J.S. Bakken; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT �'' L.K. Bockenstedt, J. Green; New York Medical College, Valhalla �'' R.J. Dattwyler, J. Munoz, R.B. Nadelman, I. Schwartz; Danbury Hospital, Danbury, CT �'' T. Draper; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Crofton, MD �'' E. McSweegan; Atlantic Neuroscience Institute, Summit, NJ, and the New York University School of Medicine, New York �'' J.J. Halperin; Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston �'' M.S. Klempner; University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Farmington �'' P.J. Krause; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO �'' P. Mead; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada �'' M. Morshed; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey�``Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway �'' R. Porwancher; University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington �'' J.D. Radolf; Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME �'' R.P. Smith, Jr.; Schneider Children's Hospital at North Shore, Manhasset, NY �'' S. Sood; Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC �'' A. Weinstein; Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany �'' S.J. Wong; and Connecticut Children's Medical Center, University of Connecticut, Hartford �'' L. Zemel.
The Public Impact Before the NEJM article could even hit the presses, its PR machine had cranked into hyper-drive, scoring articles in the _Hartford Courant_ (http://www.courant. com/news/ health/hcu- chroniclyme- 1003,0,2031888, full.story? coll=hc_tab01_ layout) , _Danbury News-Times_ (http://www.newstime s.com/news/ story.php? id=1186572176) , _New Haven Register_ (http://www.nhregist er.com/site/ news.cfm? newsid=18882082& BRD=1281& PAG=461&dept_ id=590581& rfi=6) , _Washington Post_ (http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 10/04/AR20071004 01422.ht ml) , as well as securing TV reports on at least 2 Connecticut stations. The news media universally trumpeted "important new findings", and included numerous quotes from Dr. Feder, featuring such _fraudulent claims_ (http://www.courant. com/news/ health/hcu- chroniclyme- 1003,0,2031888, full.story? coll=hc_tab01_ l ayout) as:
"But the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist.''
Most of the articles and news reports employed the corporate media's now standard "he-said, she-said" format, pitting NEJM connected academics on one side versus Lyme advocates, patients and their doctors on the other, with no effort made by the journalists to actually ferret out the truth. The Courant article provided the most balance, juxtaposing Dr. Feder's claims with quotes from Dr. Raphael Stricker, president of ILADS. Stricker's reaction to the NEJM article was appropriately _outraged:_ (http://www.courant. com/news/ health/hcu- chroniclyme- 1003,0,2031888, full.story? coll=hc_ tab01_layout)
"It's a disaster for people with chronic Lyme Disease,'' said Dr. Raphael Stricker, president of the International Lyme Disease Association. "Since it appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, everyone will take it as dogma and nobody will want to pay for treatment.''
The NEJM study will, unfortunately, be taken by many as further evidence that the IDSA authors got it right when their guidelines dismissed the idea of chronic Lyme disease. Coupled with the similar conclusions of the AAN guidelines, there would appear to be an overwhelming case against persisting infection, one which is supported by 3 of the most highly regarded medical organizations in the country. But, as already discussed, each of these publications presents literally the same argument, founded on the same research, and authored by the same people. Seen in that context, what we are witnessing cannot po ssibly be considered the pursuit of objective science, but rather the advancement of a particular dogma disguised as objective science. It's truly a shame to see a respected organization like NEJM allow itself to be hijacked by medical experts for the furtherance of a political agenda. That's really what this latest pseudo-scientific article is about -- insulating the IDSA authors from prosecution while simultaneously further cementing the chronic Lyme denialists' control over the definition of Lyme disease (thereby also guaranteeing that their insurance benefactors will never again have to pay for long-term antibiotic treatment). Moreover, through their participation in the NEJM article, the IDSA authors have arrogantly and brazenly thumbed their noses at Connecticut' s attorney general, as well as at the many patients who depend on lengthy courses of antibiotics to recover from Lyme disease along with the doctors who risk their careers to treat them. If there is a silver lining at all to be found here, it's that the IDSA authors appear to have unwittingly provided Attorney General Blumenthal with yet more evidence of anti-competitive behavior. Evidence of Chronic Lyme Just when it seemed as though the denialist foxes had completely taken over the chronic Lyme henhouse, a new study in the journal Neurology, "_A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ content/abstract /01.WNL.00002846 04.61160. 2dv1) ", concluded that lengthier courses of antibiotics are helpful in reducing neurologic symptoms related to chronic Lyme disease. This study was conducted by Dr. Brian Fallon et al at Columbia University (possibly the only major American medical school that is not under the thumb of chronic Lyme denialists). The Columbia study, while confirming the effectiveness of lengthier courses of antibiotics for at least temporarily improving symptoms, was _unable to draw any conclusions as to whether lengthier courses of antibiotics might have produced a more permanent improvement in health_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ content/abstract /01.WNL.00002846 04.61160. 2dv1) :
Conclusion: IV ceftriaxone therapy results in short-term cognitive improvement for patients with posttreatment Lyme encephalopathy, but relapse in cognition occurs after the antibiotic is discontinued. Treatment strategies that result in sustained cognitive improvement are needed.
The conclusions reached by this study not only agree with the experience reported by many clinical doctors and their chronic Lyme patients (it is important to note here that many patients have experienced permanent improvement in their symptoms using more varied and lengthier treatment protocols than those employed by Columbia), but are also corroborated by a wealth of existing research documenting the Lyme bacteria's ability to evade treatment. Such evasive ability and potential chronicity was never more clearly illustrated than in a 1995 case report published in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences titled "_Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease_ (http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/ sites/entrez? Db=pubmed& Cmd=ShowDetailVi ew&TermToSearch= 7580195&ordinalp os=31&itool= EntrezSystem2. PEn trez.Pubmed. Pubmed_ResultsPa nel.Pubmed_ RVDocSum) ." The following Hartford Courant "letter to the editor" penned by this author _explains the significance: _ (http://www.courant. com/news/ opinion/letters/ hc-lets1011. artoct11, 0,4622314. story)
Evidence Of Chronic Lyme
October 11, 2007 In the Oct. 4 Courant article "Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged" [Page 1], Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr. is quoted as saying that "the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist." Dr. Feder seems to have a unique definition of "hard science," one that ignores the wealth of peer-reviewed science whose conclusions disagree with his entrenched ideology.
For example, in 1995, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neuros ciences published a study rooted in hard science titled "Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease." To summarize, a seriously ill man was diagnosed with Lyme disease and treated with the recommended course of antibiotics. He improved during treatment but rapidly deteriorated afterward. He was re-diagnosed with incurable progressive dementia and institutionalized. He soon died. An autopsy found his brain to be inhabited by the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, the same bacteria that Dr. Feder insists could not possibly have survived the amount of antibiotics given that patient.
In the real world, autopsies, cultures and biopsies are considered hard science. Apparently, in Dr. Feder's alternate universe, that of the chronic-Lyme denialists, such studies can simply be dismissed. And as you can see, the consequences to patients are potentially quite deadly. One can't help but wonder how different this patient's outcome might have been had his health not fallen prey to doctors who diagnosed and treated according to the rigid teachings of chronic Lyme denialists. While published case reports of deaths due to chronic Lyme disease are relatively rare, the one highlighted above provides dramatic proof of the Lyme disease bacteria's ability to persist, not to mention the devastating consequences which can result from failure to recognize such persistence. There are many more less dramatic but equally conclusive peer reviewed studies which have also proven the Lyme bacteria's ability to persist. A representative list was compiled by the _LymeInfo_ (http://www.lymeinfo .net/index. html) website in 2003 and can be found here: "_Relapse/Persisten ce of Lyme Disease Despite Antibiotic Therapy_ (http://www.lymeinfo .net/medical/ LDPersist. pdf) ". The More Things Change... Though the Columbia study noted above provides a major breakthrough, its conclusions will likely have little to no influence over the national treatment standards for Lyme disease. The chronic Lyme denialists, who control those standards, will simply denigrate and reject Columbia's work, as IDSA guideline author Dr. John J Halperin already demonstrated with his editorial rebuttal, "_Prolonged Lyme Disease Treatment_ (http://health. groups.yahoo. com/group/ KansasLyme/ message/294) " (complete version of article found _here_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ rapidpdf/ 01.WNL.000029140 7.40667.69v1. pdf) requires paid subscription) that was published in the very same issue of the Journal Neurology as the Columbia study. Meanwhile, as the battle rages on, a growing number of chronically ill Lyme disease patients find themselves victimized not only by a debilitating disease whose cause and cure remain uncertain, but also by a cabal of academics, the "chronic Lyme denialists", for whom power, money and ideology would appear to trump the commitment to "first do no harm."
____________ _________ _________ ______ Petition Against IDSA Guidelines: _http://www.lymedise aseassociation. org/referral/ Petitions/ Petition. php?id=1_ (http://www.lymedise aseassociation. org/referral/ Petitions/ Petition. php?id=1) References and Recommended Reading/Viewing: * _Lyme Disease: Does It Really Linger?_ (http://query. nytimes.com/ gst/fullpage. html?res= 9F0CE7DC153DF937 A1575BC0A9659582 60&sec=&spon= &pagewanted= 4) (Elisabeth Rosenthal, NY Times, August 24, 1993) * _The Lyme Controversy - Part 3_ (http://new.wset. com/news/ stories/1107/ 471065.html) (WSET-13 ABC TV, Virginia) * _Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders_ (http://www.latimes. com/business/ la-fi-insure9nov 09,0,4409342. story?track= mostviewed- s torylevel) (Lisa Girion, Los Angeles Times) * _No Basis For Chronic Lyme Disease_ (http://www.courant. com/news/ health/hcu- chroniclyme- 1003,0,2031888, full.story? coll=hc_tab01_ layout) (William Hathaway, Hartford Courant) * _ILADS Members Question Motives of New England Journal of Medicine Article on Lyme Disease Treatment -- Article in New England Journal of Medicine Fails to Disclose Conflicts of Interest of Overlapping Panel Members_ (http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2007/10/prweb558 547.htm) (PRWeb) * _Lyme disease: a turning point_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ doi/full/ 10.1586/14787210 .5.5.759) (Raphael B Stricker and Lorraine Johnson, ILADS)
* _A Critical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme Disease"_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) (Feder et al, New England Journal of Medicine) * _First Placebo-Controlled Study of Cognitive Impairment Due to Chronic Lyme Disease_ (http://www.docguide .com/news/ content.nsf/ news/85257102005 7CCF685257372004 A4B99) (Columbia Univ. Press Release) * _A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ content/abstract /01.WNL.00002846 04.61160. 2dv1) (Fallon et al, Journal Neurology) Lyme Disease Information and Resources: * LymeInfo: _http://www.lymeinfo .net/_ (http://www.lymeinfo .net/) * Lymenet: _http://www.lymenet. org/_ (http://www.lymenet. org/) * LymeBlog: _http://lymeblog. com/_ (http://lymeblog. com/) * The Lyme Times Magazine: _http://www.lymedise ase.org/lymetime .htm_ (http://www.lymedise ase.org/lymetime .htm) * Public Health Alert Online Magazine: _http://www.publiche althalert. org/_ (http://www.publiche althalert. org/) * Tick Tips for Kids: _http://ticktips4kid s.com/_ (http://ticktips4kid s.com/) Lyme Disease Research and Support Organizations * ILADS: _http://www.ilads. org/_ (http://www.ilads. org/) * Lyme Disease Association: _http://www.lymedise aseassociation. org/_ (http://www.lymedise aseassociation. org/) * Lyme Disease Foundation: _http://www.lyme. org/_ (http://www.lyme. org/) * CALDA: _http://www.lymedise ase.org/_ (http://www.lymedise ase.org/) * National Research Fund for Tick-Borne Diseases: _http://www.nrftd. org/_ (http://www.nrftd. org/) * Time for Lyme: _http://www.timeforl yme.org/_ (http://www.timeforl yme.org/) * Turn the Corner Foundation: _http://www.turnthec orner.org/ _ (http://www.turnthec orner.org/) * Columbia Univ. Lyme Disease Center: _http://www.columbia -lyme.org/ _ (http://www.columbia -lyme.org/) (http://www.columbia -lyme.org/ flatp/ldrc. html) (http://www.columbia -lyme.org/) US Government Lyme Resources: * CDC: _http://www.cdc. gov/ncidod/ dvbid/lyme/ _ (http://www.cdc. gov/ncidod/ dvbid/lyme/) * NIH: _http://www3. niaid.nih. gov/healthscienc e/healthtopics/ Tickborne/ _ (http://www3. niaid.nih. gov/healthscienc e/healthtopics/ Tickborne/)
Sheila M. Statlender, Ph.D. Clinical Psychologist 53 Langley Road - Suite 330C Newton Centre, MA 02459 617-965-2329
13 years Lyme & Co.; Small Fiber Neuropathy; Myasthenia Gravis, Adrenal Insufficiency. On chemo for 2 1/2 years as experimental treatment for MG. Posts: 4480 | From Northeastern Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
tracy, you just won the award for the LONGEST, SOLID BLOCK OF TEXT with no paragraphs making it easier for those of us with neuro problems that makes it impossible for us reading/comprehending what you copied above.
might be some good stuff in there, but it's buried, so i'll SOB, SCROLL ON BY, without tryin to read or comprehend.
to edit,
would you kindly edit your post by clicking on PENCIL/paper ICON and then break it up in 3-4 sentences unless you are a wordy person, then 1-2 sentences MAX! Also, do NOT breakup a sentence!! Thanks!!
hit the enter key twice after EACH paragraph as we neuro lymies need this to comprehend and read what you/others post. do this until you are all done ok.
then go to lower left hand corner and mark box to receive all replies to your post.
click edit send; done. THANKS. please do this on all posts/replies. otherwise, we may SCROLL ON BY, SOB, without reading/replying. it's your choice. for me, i just SOB them; too hard on me.
IP: Logged |
Tracy9
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7521
posted
Betty. I KNEW you were going to say something!!!
That's why I said "if you can get through this." I cut and pasted it from another Lyme group...and just didn't have the time, energy or focus to break it up or edit it.
If anyone does, feel free to copy it and repaste it. Otherwise it's really not that bad to read, and is incredibly informative about why there is such a controversy around Lyme disease.
13 years Lyme & Co.; Small Fiber Neuropathy; Myasthenia Gravis, Adrenal Insufficiency. On chemo for 2 1/2 years as experimental treatment for MG. Posts: 4480 | From Northeastern Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
treepatrol
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 4117
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tracy9: If you can get through this; you will find a lot of amazing answers here:
The corporate media often portrays this war as one between equally powerful sides posing equally valid arguments, but that is far from the case.
It has never really been a fair fight, nor has it ever really been about making sure the best science wins.
The academics on the IDSA side of the battle, who I will refer to as "chronic Lyme denialists", have chosen to forego the rigors of scientific debate, opting instead to dominate the marketplace through the use of sheer political force.
They have accomplished this by seeking out positions of influence both inside and outside of government, and using those powerful positions to further their particular ideology to the exclusion of all others.
In so doing, they have established control over every aspect of Lyme disease -- research, testing methods, diagnostic standards, treatment standards, insurance reimbursement and even over the livelihoods of those doctors who dare to treat outside the denialists' protocols.
Through their connections at NIH and CDC, they have gobbled up most of the public grant money available for Lyme disease research, and expended far too
much of it on poorly conceived studies designed to substantiate their long-held beliefs that long-term antibiotic therapy is unwarranted and that chronic
Lyme disease is a myth.
Their sphere of influence extends to America's most prestigious medical journals, where they are able to impact which studies get published, which studies don't, and how quickly such decisions are made.
Invariably, studies whose conclusions contradict those of the chronic Lyme denialists have a harder time passing through the journals' peer review process.
They have similarly used their powerful connections to encourage and support investigations by state medical boards against doctors who treat chronic Lyme disease in order to drive the "competition" out of business.
And they have used their consulting relationships with insurance companies to deprive patients of access to extended antibiotic therapy and/or insurance reimbursement, even when that therapy has been shown to improve the patients' health.
Stacking the Deck Last year, determined to put an end once and for all to the debate over chronic Lyme disease, the denialists, under the rubric of the _Infectious Diseases Society of America_
(http://www.idsociet y.org/) (IDSA), published an _updated set of diagnostic and treatment guidelines_ (http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/CID/journal/ issues/v43n9/ 40897/40897. html) that literally defined chronic Lyme disease out of existence.
While the IDSA authors' ideology was reason enough to doubt the scientific objectivity of the guidelines,
suspicions of bias grew even deeper when it was revealed that the authors had relied on only a small subset (405) of the "_more than 19,000 scientific studies on tick-borne diseases_
in formulating their conclusions, and that they had largely disregarded contradictory research. As further evidence of the ideological echo chamber within which IDSA's guidelines were created, a significant percentage (close to 40% by my count)
of the 405 studies were authored by the very same people who had authored the IDSA guidelines.
Because of the serious public health consequences which could result from adherence to erroneous diagnostic and treatment protocols, and because evidence
suggested that bias in the creation of IDSA's guidelines had corrupted its conclusions, and finally because the financial ties of IDSA authors to
insurance companies, labs, and Lyme related patents, royalties, etc. might have provided motivation for such bias, Connecticut Attorney General, Richard
Blumenthal _decided to investigate_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ doi/full/ 10.1586/14787210 .5.5.759) :
The controversy came to a head in November 2006 when the IDSA released new guidelines severely limiting treatment options for patients with persistent Lyme symptoms _[3]_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ action/showPopup ?citid=citart1& id=ref-3& doi=10.1586/ 14787210. 5.5.759) .
The guidelines were so restrictive that the Attorney General of Connecticut (USA) initiated an unprecedented investigation into possible antitrust violations by the IDSA,
the dominant infectious disease society in the USA, in its formulation of the guidelines _[13,101]_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ action/showPopup ?citid=citart1& id=ref-13% 20ref-101& doi=10.1586/ 14787210. 5.5.759) .
In the months since Blumenthal announced his investigation, the chronic Lyme denialists have been working feverishly to create an aura of overwhelming support for their conclusions.
The _IDSA Guidelines_ (http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/CID/journal/ issues/v43n9/ 40897/40897. html) were soon followed by the publication of a _strikingly similar set of guidelines_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ rapidpdf/ 01.wnl.000026551 7.66976.28v1. pdf) from the _American Academy of Neurology_ (http://www.aan. com/go/home) (AAN).
Although these new guidelines were trumpeted as independent scientific corroboration of the IDSA guidelines' pronouncements, nothing could be further from the truth.
Because, as it turns out, the _AAN guidelines_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ rapidpdf/ 01.wnl.000026551 7.66976.28v1. pdf) were authored by 3 of the same people who had authored the IDSA guidelines (Wormser, Shapiro, Halperin) and who therefore had a vested interest in arriving at identical conclusions.
Thus, the professed independence of AAN's guidelines is likely nothing more than an illusion.
Attorney General Blumenthal apparently agrees with that observation, as he recently subpoenaed related documents from AAN (as inferred from the title of a firewalled article, available to paid subscribers only,
"_Guidelines on Trial: AAN Subpoenaed as Part of Investigation into Treatment Parameters for Lyme Disease_
which can be found in the October 16th, 2007 AAN publication, _Neurology Today_ (http://www.neurotod ayonline. com/) ). That wasn't the end of the politically motivated "scientific" onslaught.
On October 4, 2007, barely over a month ago, the prestigious _New England Journal of Medicine_ (http://content. nejm.org/) (NEJM) became the latest to join the fray with their publication of a research review titled,
That article, whose primary author is long time chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Henry Feder of Connecticut Children's Hospital, reached virtually the same conclusions as the previously released IDSA and AAN guidelines (my emphasis):
Chronic Lyme disease is the latest in a series of syndromes that have been postulated in an attempt to attribute medically unexplained symptoms to particular infections.
Other examples that have now lost credibility are "chronic candida syndrome" and "chronic Epstein�``Barr virus infection.
"_ 57_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422#R57) ,_58_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422#R58) The assumption that chronic, subjective symptoms are caused by persistent infection with B. burgdorferi is not supported by carefully conducted laboratory studies or by controlled treatment trials.
Chronic Lyme disease, which is equated with chronic B. burgdorferi infection, is a misnomer, and the use of prolonged, dangerous, and expensive antibiotic treatments for it is not warranted._2_ http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422#R2)
Promoted as important new science, this article actually broke NO new ground whatsoever. Rather than providing any original Lyme disease research,
Feder's NEJM "study" was nothing more than a retrospective review of existing science.
Moreover, the science from which Feder and his colleagues drew their conclusions was barely distinguishable from that which the IDSA authors had relied upon in formulating their guidelines (approximately 66% of the references cited by Feder were also cited by the IDSA guidelines).
Most telling of all, the IDSA guidelines themselves were cited as a reference by the NEJM study.
Those commonalities alone would be enough to cast doubt on the originality and independence of Feder's work.
But that's not all. The NEJM study's collaborators included a whopping 11 out of the 14 IDSA guideline authors (IDSA's Wormser, Shapiro and Steere were listed as NEJM lead authors, while IDSA's Klempner, Bakken, Bockenstedt, Nadelman, Dattwyler, Dumler, Halperin and Krause were listed as NEJM ad-hoc committee members). Remarkably,
there were only 3 IDSA authors, Durland Fish, Gerold Stanek and Franc Strle, who had no discernable involvement with the NEJM article. Conflicts of Interest
It is common practice for medical journal articles to include a disclosure statement describing the potential conflicts of interest of each author.
But there is never any guarantee that all relevant conflicts will be included in that disclosure. According to ILADS, there was one _one very
important omission from the NEJM article's conflict disclosure_ (http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2007/10/prweb558 547.htm) (my emphasis):
* The article was written by a group of researchers who have consistently voiced a narrow viewpoint on the existence of chronic Lyme disease and appropriate treatment.
Eleven of the authors were members of the panel that formulated the 2006 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Lyme guidelines. The panel is currently under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for exclusionary practices in formulating the IDSA guidelines.
* The authors of the article failed to disclose that they are under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General. This omission violates the "full disclosure" policy of the journal and creates a conflict of interest by calling into question the authors' motives for writing the article.
* Several authors of the current article also participated in formulation of copycat Lyme guidelines for the American Academy of Neurology.
Those guidelines were presented as "independent corroboration" of the IDSA Lyme guidelines, when in fact the same individuals were involved with both guidelines and employed the same exclusionary tactics that prompted the Connecticut Attorney General's investigation.
And if that's not serious enough, NEJM also neglected to mention the fact that _IDSA guideline author Dr. Mark Klempner_ (http://www.journals .uchicago. edu/CID/journal/ issues/v43n9/ 40897/40897. html) not only served as an ad-hoc committee member for the NEJM article but at the very same time served as an _associate editor at NEJM_ (http://content. nejm.org/ misc/edboard. shtml) ,
a position which may well have afforded him undue influence over the publication of an article whose conclusions stood to greatly benefit both himself and his IDSA colleagues.
Equally noteworthy are the _conflicts of interest that did get mentioned_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) :
Dr. Feder reports receiving lecture fees from Merck and serving as an expert witness in medical-malpractice cases related to Lyme disease.
Dr. Johnson reports holding patents on diagnostic antigens for Lyme disease.
Dr. O'Connell reports serving as an expert witness related to Lyme disease issues in civil and criminal cases in England.
Dr. Shapiro reports serving as an expert witness in medical-malpractice cases related to Lyme disease, reviewing claims of disability related to Lyme disease for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and receiving speaker's fees from Merck and Sanofi-Aventis.
Dr. Steere reports receiving a research grant from Viramed and fees from Novartis.
Dr. Wormser reports receiving research grants related to Lyme disease from Immunetics, Bio-Rad, and Biopeptides and education grants from Merck and AstraZeneca to New York Medical College for visiting lecturers for infectious-disease grand rounds,
being part owner of Diaspex (a company that is now inactive with no products or services), owning equity in Abbott, serving as an expert witness in a medical-malpractice case,
and being retained in other medical-malpractice cases involving Lyme disease. He may become a consultant to Biopeptides. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Extracurricular activities of the type listed above, most notably those related to the insurance industry, are quite common among university-based Lyme disease experts.
With the quest for ever greater profits motivating insurers to deny payment wherever possible, it is only natural that they would seek out Lyme related medical opinions from those experts most willing to deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease.
The chronic Lyme denialists have been only too happy to oblige, and their cooperation has proven to be highly lucrative
(ten years ago the going rate for expert witness testimony by chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Lenny Sigal was $650/hr.*, and the going rate for a case review by chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Robert Schoen was $350/hr. for 2 hours work*). *documents on file.
No doubt, similar conflicts of interest are shared by other members of NEJM's ad-hoc panel, which reads like a _veritable who's who of chronic Lyme denialists_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) :
The following were members of the Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease Group: Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI �'' W.A. Agger; National Microbiology Laboratory, Health Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada �'' H. Artsob; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore �''
P. Auwaerter, J.S. Dumler; St. Luke's Hospital, Duluth, MN �'' J.S. Bakken; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT �'' L.K. Bockenstedt, J. Green; New York Medical College, Valhalla �''
R.J. Dattwyler, J. Munoz, R.B. Nadelman, I. Schwartz; Danbury Hospital, Danbury, CT �''
T. Draper; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Crofton, MD �'' E. McSweegan;
Atlantic Neuroscience Institute, Summit, NJ, and the New York University School of Medicine, New York �'' J.J. Halperin; Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston �''
M.S. Klempner; University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Farmington �'' P.J. Krause; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO �''
P. Mead; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada �'' M. Morshed; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey�``Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway �'' R. Porwancher; University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington �'' J.D. Radolf; Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME �''
R.P. Smith, Jr.; Schneider Children's Hospital at North Shore, Manhasset, NY �'' S. Sood; Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC �''
A. Weinstein; Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany �'' S.J. Wong; and Connecticut Children's Medical Center, University of Connecticut, Hartford �'' L. Zemel.
The Public Impact
Before the NEJM article could even hit the presses, its PR machine had cranked into hyper-drive, scoring articles in the _Hartford Courant_
_Washington Post_ (http://www.washingt onpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2007/ 10/04/AR20071004 01422.ht ml) , as well as securing TV reports on at least 2 Connecticut stations.
The news media universally trumpeted "important new findings", and included numerous quotes from Dr. Feder, featuring such _fraudulent claims_
(http://www.courant. com/news/ health/hcu- chroniclyme- 1003,0,2031888, full.story? coll=hc_tab01_ l ayout) as:
"But the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist.''
Most of the articles and news reports employed the corporate media's now standard "he-said, she-said" format, pitting NEJM connected academics on one side versus Lyme advocates, patients and their doctors on the other, with no effort made by the journalists to actually ferret out the truth.
The Courant article provided the most balance, juxtaposing Dr. Feder's claims with quotes from Dr. Raphael Stricker, president of ILADS. Stricker's reaction to the NEJM article was appropriately _outraged:_
"It's a disaster for people with chronic Lyme Disease,'' said Dr. Raphael Stricker, president of the International Lyme Disease Association.
"Since it appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, everyone will take it as dogma and nobody will want to pay for treatment.''
The NEJM study will, unfortunately, be taken by many as further evidence that the IDSA authors got it right when their guidelines dismissed the idea of chronic Lyme disease.
Coupled with the similar conclusions of the AAN guidelines, there would appear to be an overwhelming case against persisting infection, one which is supported by 3 of the most highly regarded medical organizations in the country.
But, as already discussed, each of these publications presents literally the same argument, founded on the same research, and authored by the same people.
Seen in that context, what we are witnessing cannot po ssibly be considered the pursuit of objective science, but rather the advancement of a particular dogma disguised as objective science.
It's truly a shame to see a respected organization like NEJM allow itself to be hijacked by medical experts for the furtherance of a political agenda. That's really what this latest pseudo-scientific article is about -
- insulating the IDSA authors from prosecution while simultaneously further cementing the chronic Lyme denialists' control over the definition of Lyme disease (thereby also guaranteeing that their insurance benefactors will never again have to pay for long-term antibiotic treatment).
Moreover, through their participation in the NEJM article,
the IDSA authors have arrogantly and brazenly thumbed their noses at Connecticut' s attorney general, as well as at the many patients who depend on lengthy courses of antibiotics to recover from Lyme disease along with the doctors who risk their careers to treat them.
If there is a silver lining at all to be found here, it's that the IDSA authors appear to have unwittingly provided Attorney General Blumenthal with yet more evidence of anti-competitive behavior.
Evidence of Chronic Lyme Just when it seemed as though the denialist foxes had completely taken over the chronic Lyme henhouse, a new study in the journal Neurology, "_A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy_
concluded that lengthier courses of antibiotics are helpful in reducing neurologic symptoms related to chronic Lyme disease.
This study was conducted by Dr. Brian Fallon et al at Columbia University (possibly the only major American medical school that is not under the thumb of chronic Lyme denialists).
The Columbia study, while confirming the effectiveness of lengthier courses of antibiotics for at least temporarily improving symptoms, was _unable to draw any conclusions as to whether lengthier courses of antibiotics might have produced a more permanent improvement in health_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ content/abstract /01.WNL.00002846 04.61160. 2dv1) :
Conclusion: IV ceftriaxone therapy results in short-term cognitive improvement for patients with posttreatment Lyme encephalopathy,
but relapse in cognition occurs after the antibiotic is discontinued.
Treatment strategies that result in sustained cognitive improvement are needed.
The conclusions reached by this study not only agree with the experience reported by many clinical doctors and their chronic Lyme patients (it is important to note here that many patients have experienced permanent improvement in their symptoms using more varied and lengthier treatment protocols than those employed by Columbia),
but are also corroborated by a wealth of existing research documenting the Lyme bacteria's ability to evade treatment.
Such evasive ability and potential chronicity was never more clearly illustrated than in a 1995 case report published in the
Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences titled "_Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease_
The following Hartford Courant "letter to the editor" penned by this author _explains the significance: _ (http://www.courant. com/news/ opinion/letters/ hc-lets1011. artoct11, 0,4622314. story)
Evidence Of Chronic Lyme
October 11, 2007 In the Oct. 4 Courant article "Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged" [Page 1], Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr. is quoted as saying that "the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist." Dr. Feder seems to have a unique definition of "hard science,"
one that ignores the wealth of peer-reviewed science whose conclusions disagree with his entrenched ideology.
For example, in 1995, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neuros ciences published a study rooted in hard science titled
"Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease."
To summarize, a seriously ill man was diagnosed with Lyme disease and treated with the recommended course of antibiotics.
He improved during treatment but rapidly deteriorated afterward.
He was re-diagnosed with incurable progressive dementia and institutionalized. He soon died. An autopsy found his brain to be inhabited by the bacteria that causes Lyme disease,
the same bacteria that Dr. Feder insists could not possibly have survived the amount of antibiotics given that patient.
In the real world, autopsies, cultures and biopsies are considered hard science. Apparently, in Dr. Feder's alternate universe, that of the chronic-Lyme denialists, such studies can simply be dismissed.
And as you can see, the consequences to patients are potentially quite deadly.
One can't help but wonder how different this patient's outcome might have been had his health not fallen prey to doctors who diagnosed and treated according to the rigid teachings of chronic Lyme denialists.
While published case reports of deaths due to chronic Lyme disease are relatively rare, the one highlighted above provides dramatic proof of the Lyme disease bacteria's ability to persist, not to mention the devastating consequences which can result from failure to recognize such persistence.
There are many more less dramatic but equally conclusive peer reviewed studies which have also proven the Lyme bacteria's ability to persist.
A representative list was compiled by the _LymeInfo_ (http://www.lymeinfo .net/index. html) website in 2003 and can be found here: "_Relapse/Persisten ce of Lyme Disease Despite Antibiotic Therapy_ (http://www.lymeinfo .net/medical/ LDPersist. pdf) ".
The More Things Change... Though the Columbia study noted above provides a major breakthrough, its conclusions will likely have little to no influence over the national treatment standards for Lyme disease.
The chronic Lyme denialists, who control those standards, will simply denigrate and reject Columbia's work, as IDSA guideline author Dr. John J Halperin already demonstrated with his editorial rebuttal,
"_Prolonged Lyme Disease Treatment_ (http://health. groups.yahoo. com/group/ KansasLyme/ message/294) " (complete version of article found _here_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ rapidpdf/ 01.WNL.000029140 7.40667.69v1. pdf) requires paid subscription) that was published in the very same issue of the Journal Neurology as the Columbia study.
Meanwhile, as the battle rages on, a growing number of chronically ill Lyme disease patients find themselves victimized not only by a debilitating disease whose cause and cure remain uncertain, but also by a cabal of academics,
the "chronic Lyme denialists", for whom power, money and ideology would appear to trump the commitment to "first do no harm."
* _Lyme Disease: Does It Really Linger?_ (http://query. nytimes.com/ gst/fullpage. html?res= 9F0CE7DC153DF937 A1575BC0A9659582 60&sec=&spon= &pagewanted= 4) (Elisabeth Rosenthal, NY Times, August 24, 1993) * _The Lyme Controversy - Part 3_ (http://new.wset. com/news/ stories/1107/ 471065.html) (WSET-13 ABC TV, Virginia) * _Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders_
(http://www.latimes. com/business/ la-fi-insure9nov 09,0,4409342. story?track= mostviewed- s torylevel) (Lisa Girion, Los Angeles Times) * _No Basis For Chronic Lyme Disease_ (http://www.courant. com/news/ health/hcu- chroniclyme- 1003,0,2031888, full.story? coll=hc_tab01_ layout) (William Hathaway, Hartford Courant)
* _ILADS Members Question Motives of New England Journal of Medicine Article on Lyme Disease Treatment -- Article in New England Journal of Medicine Fails to Disclose Conflicts of Interest of Overlapping Panel Members_
(http://www.prweb. com/releases/ 2007/10/prweb558 547.htm) (PRWeb) * _Lyme disease: a turning point_ (http://www.future- drugs.com/ doi/full/ 10.1586/14787210 .5.5.759) (Raphael B Stricker and Lorraine Johnson, ILADS)
* _A Critical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme Disease"_ (http://content. nejm.org/ cgi/content/ full/357/ 14/1422) (Feder et al, New England Journal of Medicine)
* _First Placebo-Controlled Study of Cognitive Impairment Due to Chronic Lyme Disease_ (http://www.docguide .com/news/ content.nsf/ news/85257102005 7CCF685257372004 A4B99) (Columbia Univ. Press Release)
* _A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy_ (http://www.neurolog y.org/cgi/ content/abstract /01.WNL.00002846 04.61160. 2dv1) (Fallon et al, Journal Neurology) Lyme Disease Information and Resources:
* Public Health Alert Online Magazine: _http://www.publiche althalert. org/_ (http://www.publiche althalert. org/) * Tick Tips for Kids: _http://ticktips4kid s.com/_ (http://ticktips4kid s.com/)
Lyme Disease Research and Support Organizations * ILADS: _http://www.ilads. org/_ (http://www.ilads. org/) * Lyme Disease Association: _http://www.lymedise aseassociation. org/_ (http://www.lymedise aseassociation. org/) * Lyme Disease Foundation: _http://www.lyme. org/_ (http://www.lyme. org/)
* CALDA: _http://www.lymedise ase.org/_ (http://www.lymedise ase.org/) * National Research Fund for Tick-Borne Diseases: _http://www.nrftd. org/_ (http://www.nrftd. org/)
* Time for Lyme: _http://www.timeforl yme.org/_ (http://www.timeforl yme.org/) * Turn the Corner Foundation: _http://www.turnthec orner.org/ _ (http://www.turnthec orner.org/)
* Columbia Univ. Lyme Disease Center: _http://www.columbia -lyme.org/ _ (http://www.columbia -lyme.org/) (http://www.columbia -lyme.org/ flatp/ldrc. html) (http://www.columbia -lyme.org/) US Government Lyme Resources: * CDC: _http://www.cdc. gov/ncidod/ dvbid/lyme/ _
Sheila M. Statlender, Ph.D. Clinical Psychologist 53 Langley Road - Suite 330C Newton Centre, MA 02459 617-965-2329
-------------------- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Remember Iam not a Doctor Just someone struggling like you with Tick Borne Diseases.
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!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
for me, i just SOB them; too hard on me.
![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic