Over the years in the trenches, Dr. Stricker and I have written a number of letters jointly or individual to the New York Times. Not a one has been published. And, we are not the only ones–leading some patients to question what it is the NY Times has against Lyme patients. It's enough to make one wonder about fair and impartial journalism. A number of patients groups have written the NY Times Ombudsman to protest its uniformly one sided view of Lyme disease. Clearly, the topic of Lyme is timely, controversial and newsworthy. Yet only one side seems to merit the cost of ink by the NY Times.

Over the years in the trenches, Dr. Stricker and I have written a number of letters jointly or individual to the New York Times.  Not a one has been published.  And, we are not the only ones–leading some patients to question what it is the NY Times has against Lyme patients.   It’s enough to make one wonder about fair and impartial journalism. A number of patients groups have written the NY Times Ombudsman to protest its uniformly one sided view of Lyme disease. Clearly, the topic of Lyme is timely, controversial and newsworthy.  Yet only one side seems to merit the cost of ink by the NY Times.

I have posted below, our most recent rejection from the New York Times. (By the way, the original article is highly recommended “Plenty of Guidelines, but Where’s the Evidence?”)

Dr. Sanghavi notes that centralization of medicine through guidelines is becoming a quagmire.  The notion that “expert opinion” from guidelines rather than solid studies can be used to limit the clinical judgment of physicians is of great concern because this “expert opinion” displaces or replaces the standard of care and stifles innovation, future research and ultimately patient care.

 

The situation is even worse when guidelines panels have significant conflicts of interest. Your readers should be aware that the Connecticut Attorney General launched an investigation into the Lyme disease guidelines panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).  The AG found extensive panel conflicts of interests and required the IDSA to reconstitute the panel without conflicts.  Interestingly, the majority of the panel recommendations (38 of 71) were based on “expert opinion” This is the worst of both worlds: conflicted opinion-based medicine that interferes with patient care.

Dr. Raphael Stricker, MD

Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA