Although most people believe that a "good" physician licensure board is a "tough" one that protects people from bad doctors, medical boards that abuse their tremendous power, can persecutes or even destroy good doctors. Those in the Lyme community are aware of the relentless prosecution of Dr. Charles Ray Jones in Connecticut. The case which has dragged on for years and cost an enormous amount of money seems specifically designed to accomplish only one purpose–to put Dr. Jones out of business. The case is particularly disturbing because the Connecticut Department of Public Health had previously said that it recognized two standards of care in the treatment of Lyme disease and would not prosecute physicians solely because they followed a standard of care that provided for longer term treatment of Lyme disease. This is abuse of power by a medical board, pure and simple. Continue reading →

A recent article in Lancet written primarily by authors of the IDSA Lyme guidelines aims ”to blow apart the world of the Lyme disease advocates”–a goal that sounds more appropriate to warfare than medical journalism. Most of the authors of the article were under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for violation of antitrust laws in connection with the development process for the IDSA Lyme guidelines. The opinion piece is included in Lancet’s “personal view” section and reads like a personal vendetta from those named in the antitrust investigation, referring to patient advocacy groups as “antiscience” and making ad hominem attacks on physicians who treat chronic Lyme disease. Continue reading →

Drs. Macauda and colleagues (including Peter Krause) conducted a survey of residents in the New England area and found: “The majority of our survey respondents believe that the Lyme disease spirochete can persist following antibiotic treatment, that a standard course of treatment for 2 to 4 weeks is often not curative, and that long-term antibiotic therapy of >2 months is sometimes useful.” The authors of the study recommend that state and federal agencies increase efforts to educate the public to curtail the “widespread belief in chronic Lyme”. But surely something’s wrong with this conclusion. The survey population was HIGHLY educated—almost half had a graduate degree and an additional third had a BA. They had extensive knowledge about the disease. Should we then assume, as the authors did, that their views reflect ignorance? Or should we assume that they actually just disagree with the IDSA claim that all patients are cured in 30 days, that persistent symptoms reflect “some other disease”, and that “chronic Lyme” doesn’t exist? Disagreement is not ignorance. Almost all of the participants knew at least one person with Lyme disease. Essentially, these people are saying what those of us in the Lyme community have known for some time: The IDSA guidelines are out of sync with reality. Continue reading →

This is a terrific resource that explains what made the AIDS patient advocacy movement successful. It's is available for free. Here's an excerpt: "Change is possible. But in order to
create change, the focused voices of advocates must be heard through the din. Individuals and organizations must do the hard work of becoming ready to question the status quo, and be smart enough to present well-founded alternatives. Strong leaders in government must pave the path and prepare to stay the course. Specific strategies with clear goals must be established in order to hold people accountable." Continue reading →

A new study, "Bartonella and intraocular inflammation: a series of cases and review of literature looks at inflammation of the eye caused by bartonella", by Dr. Kalogeropoulos and colleagues looks at the role of Bartonella in eye inflammation. Eight patients with the diagnosis of Bartonella henselae and two patients with B. quintana intraocular inflammation were identified. Intraocular involvement caused not only by B. henselae but also by B. quintana is being diagnosed with increasing frequency. A high index of suspicion is needed because the spectrum of Bartonella intraocular inflammation is very large. Continue reading →

There is a lot to like about the Virginia Governor’s Task Force on Lyme Disease findings, which were unanimously adopted on June 30th after a number of public hearings. The report totals 19 pages and it is remarkably balanced. Congratulations to all involved! I want to share with you what I like about the report by highlighting key points from the findings on Diagnosis, Treatment, Public Education and Prevention, and Children. Continue reading →

In 2009 prior to the IDSA hearing, CALDA wanted patient voices to be heard and conducted a survey that drew over 4,000 responses. It ended up being the largest survey of Lyme patients ever conducted in the United States. Today, the results of this survey were published in Health Policy in a study by Johnson, Aylward and Stricker. Health Policy is a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal that explores health policy issues. This survey focused on 2,424 respondents whose clinical diagnosis was supported by positive test results. The study examines problems with access to healthcare and burden of illness, and it found that although patients with Lyme disease suffered a substantial burden of illness, they had significant barriers to healthcare access. Specifically, patients with Lyme disease had difficulty obtaining diagnosis and treatment for their illness, traveled great distances to receive healthcare, were turned down for health insurance based on their illness, and had difficulty receiving care at local hospitals. Continue reading →

Dr. Matthew Liang from Harvard made an interesting presentation at the Institute of Medicine Lyme Workshop. I have excerpted important points for those who don’t have the time to wade through the full report. Although I think his tick transmission times are too long for comfort, the balance of his presentation is worth of look.
Continue reading →

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has released its long awaited report on Lyme disease. So should we celebrate or despair? I think there is room for a little of both. We should certainly celebrate the tone of the report, which characterizes the session as “a walk in the woods” to start dialogue and we should celebrate the contributions made by those who attended and participated, whether as patients, advocacy groups, researchers or physicians. I think these people did their very best to represent a side of Lyme disease that is not often given public voice. We should also recognize the contribution to a better process that was achieved by the three groups who pulled out of the hearing (CALDA, LDA, and Time for Lyme). This action resulted in Dr. Benjamin Luft of Stony Brook University being added to the agenda and may have also added to the “tone” of the report. What we should not lose sight of though, is that a civil tone and the inclusion of some patients’ testimony are not enough. This is a debate about science. Debates are about equal time, opportunities to rebut, and not excluding opposing viewpoints. That did not happen here. And, what the IOM left out or left unchallenged harms patients. Our biggest hits were in diagnosis, the exclusion of the topics chronic Lyme and treatment, and the complete exclusion of any physicians from ILADS. Let me drill down into the details. Continue reading →

When I first became involved with Lyme disease, I remember wondering where the pharmaceutical interest was in the disease. Most of your double blind controlled trials are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This means that if your disease is not on their radar, you’re going to have a long hard slog getting funding for studies on the efficacy of different treatments. Diseases that are on the agenda of big Pharma have a distinct advantage in evidence based medicine because studies, typically large scale studies, have been funded by someone with a dog in the hunt. In other diseases, the dog in the hunt may be overzealous, promoting treatments and selling drugs with little proof of effectively. But when a disease is neglected by big Pharma, the opposite occurs. Research simply isn’t done. And, that becomes a social justice issue when insurers and specialty societies deny patients access to care because research studies haven’t been funded and aren’t likely to be funded. Drugs are expensive to develop and research is expensive to conduct. Recently, GlobalDate releases a report that explains why Lyme disease is neglected and is likely to remain neglected by big Pharma. Continue reading →

I was surprised. I had just settled into my long read of the 217 page new Institute of Medicine report on guideline reform (Clinical Practice Guidelines, We Can Trust, 2010), when the report took an amazing left turn. No, this is not the IOM report on Lyme disease (no telling when that comes out). This is the one on the need for medical guidelines reform in general—not just for Lyme disease. The IOM points to the Connecticut Attorney General investigation into the IDSA Lyme guidelines and says: “This case highlights the need for standardization and transparency in all aspects of systemic data collection and review, committee administration, and guideline development, so that questions about these issues do not detract from the science. [Guideline developers]. . . must be aware of the many, varied observers who will consider their development processes,
particularly when their recommendations are likely to be controversial.” That’s a public slap on the wrist to the IDSA and it matters.
Continue reading →

Today, the Institute of Medicine released a new report “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust”. I haven’t read the entire report (217 pages), but this emphasis on the word trust is important. Lyme patients have a number of complaints with the treatment guidelines developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Mainly, we don’t trust them. Over 80% of the roughly 4,000 respondents to CALDA’s 2009 survey said that they would not choose to be treated under IDSA guidelines. That’s a boatload of dissatisfaction and distrust. Chief among the complaints about the IDSA guideline development process was that the panel was not balanced and excluded those who would be most affected by the guidelines—patients with chronic Lyme and the physicians who treat them. The IOM new report seeks to change this by recommending involvement in the guidelines process by “clinicians and populations expected to be affected by [the guidelines]” and by recommending that a patient or patient advocate be represented in the guideline development. That’s welcome news.
Continue reading →

In the movie “The King’s Speech”, the Duke of York tells his unorthodox speech therapist Logue that he has “been t-t-treated f-or this by the f-f-finest ph-ph-physicians.” Logue responds: They are idiots. When the Duke protests that “Th-they h-h-have knighthoods”, Logue responds “Well, that makes it official that they are idiots.” He is talking about hubris and arrogance interfering with medicine and science. So it is with “eminence based medicine”–guidelines that hinge upon the opinion, bias and arrogance of physicians that hold a particular viewpoint rather than science. The IDSA has been called to task in research by its own members that find that the IDSA’s guidelines are based mostly on opinion—not evidence. Continue reading →

Dr. Ben Beard of the CDC met with directors of CALDA on March 10 as part of an effort to reach out to Lyme patient groups across the nation. After meeting with CALDA, he attended the regularly scheduled meeting of the California State Lyme Disease Advisory Committee, which was created under legislation sponsored by CALDA to encourage dialogue with the California Department of Public Health. If you have not met Ben Beard before, he is both engaging and likable and has a measured tone. CALDA believes that respectful dialogue is essential to moving forward for the Lyme community, and we are pleased with this first step. We also believe that patients need to be meaningful participants in any solution for Lyme disease. We raised a number of concerns about the CDC's Lyme disease policies, including the need to treat to cure disease, the education of physicians and government funding of research. Here are the issues that loom large. Continue reading →

Dr. David Resnik at the University of Wyoming is a plainspoken public health care policy ethicist. When he describes the obligation that governments and others with positions of authority in health care have when communicating with the public, he may sound a bit like your mother. It is "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". The obligation is to tell the public the information that they need to be able to make individual choices. This includes not exaggerating or preying upon fear to manipulate people-even if you do so with good intention. A recent case study, anecdote if you will, violates each of these tenets, one by one. . . More after the jump. Continue reading →

CALDA has just sent a letter to National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) asking them to pull the plug on an experiment that threatens to harm Lyme patients. The study involves allowing live tick larvae to feed on patients. It is impossible to ensure that ticks are truly sterile and do not carry unidentified pathogens. In addition, tick saliva as well as Borrelia burgdorferi suppress the immune system of patients. Both factors place patients who enroll in the study at risk. Because of this, we feel the study is unethical and could harm patients. Keep reading for details. . . Continue reading →

During 2010, Dr. Stricker and I published nine articles or letters on Lyme disease. Shortly after the New Year, another publication by us came out. This post lists these 10 publications and tells you how to access those that are available without charge. More after the jump. . . Continue reading →

A recent study evaluated over 4,200 IDSA guideline recommendations and concluded that more than half—really?—more than HALF? were based on no more than expert opinion and anecdote, not evidence. As it turns out, only 1 of 7 treatment recommendations were based on high quality research trials. According to a recent article in Reuters, in the absence of a strong evidence base “the recommendations end up depending largely on who's on the guideline-drafting panel and any assumptions or opinions they may bring to the process.” The IDSA likes to paint patients who oppose its Lyme guidelines as “anti-science” misfits, but the truth is that patients just want some honesty and transparency. We’d like a little more evidence and a lot less opinion. We’d like more treatment options when the evidence is poor. Evidence based medicine is supposed to be about wringing the bias out of the process, but expert opinion is all about bias. One doctor who served on many IDSA panels acknowledged that “we are operating on a lot of bias. We recognize we have bias, but it’s impossible to eliminate when there is a dearth of data.” Well, this is clearly wrong. It is easy to acknowledge the lack of evidence and provide treatment options. Just like the prostrate guidelines do. More after the jump. .. . Continue reading →

Here’s an interesting approach to conflicts of interests offered by one of the fathers of evidence based medicine, Dr. Gordon Guyatt. The topic was guideline development and the interests of those serving on a guideline panel in having their pet theories and research promoted in the guidelines. Why is this important to researchers? It helps further the academic careers of researchers when their work is cited, referred to and used as the foundation for creating treatment guidelines. There is a dynamic tension between the use of expertise and the potential bias expertise may bring to the table. Those of us in the Lyme community are only too familiar with the fact that the IDSA guidelines were developed by academic researchers and that references to their own research dominate the guidelines. Being tied to a theory that your research has advanced creates a bias towards reinforcing that theory in the selection of evidence cited, the evaluation of that evidence, and the development of guideline recommendations that confirm that bias. Guyatt’s perspective is novel and interesting. In his mind the way to manage this bias is not to exclude the researchers from sitting on the guideline panel but to limit their ability to misuse their power to further their own ends. Hence, those with what he called a primary conflict of interest are precluded from chairing a guideline panel, drafting recommendations and voting on them and even the ranking of evidence. Read how he defines an intellectual conflict of interest and how he would restrict participation in guideline development by those with intellectual bias. Continue reading →