LYMEPOLICYWONK: Odd Couples—CDC, NIH, IDSA, others? “Hey, what are you yelling about? We’re playing a friendly game!”
The IDSA recently reaffirmed its beleaguered Lyme guidelines with a panel it selected of IDSA members. (Aren’t we all surprised?) Turns out the CDC can’t be quick enough to endorse the IDSA after the IDSA vindicated itself. Overly clubby, don’t you think? The IDSA’s cavalier dismissal of 1600 pages of peer reviewed evidence rebutting its guidelines recommendations actually took my breath away. Now, it seems that the NIH is handing the “hot potato” of a “state of the science” review of Lyme disease that it is mandated to do by law to an “independent” government group, the Institute of Medicine— which, also, surprise-surprise, is composed mostly of IDSA members (according to my sources 4 of 6 members), in what seems like a saga of deniable accountability. (I would so love to be wrong on this.)
Turns out that the NIH actually does a pretty bad job of managing conflicts-of-interest and cronyism all around. . . NIH grantee, Charles Nemeroff, was investigated by the US Senate Finance Committee for conflicts-of-interest in connection with an antidepressant study he conducted while he was being paid big$$$$ from GlaxoSmithKline (ring a bell, think Glaxo as in Lyme vaccines, Lymerix). Seems that when he lost his job at Emory as a result of this fiasco an NIH employee, Tom Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, helped his buddy land a new job at U of Miami and told him to go ahead and apply for more NIH grants. The irony here is that Tom Insel is leading the charge on NIH conflict revamping efforts. Surprise ending and spoiler alert, Tom Insel is now being investigated by the Senate Finance Committee—for what appears to be failure to act with any sense of propriety in the face of serious conflicts of interest by an NIH funded researcher. NIH doesn’t seem to get this conflicts of interest thing, does it? But wait! There’s more….
And more…
Turns out (WHO knew?) that the World Health Organization (WHO) is also under scrutiny for recommending the flu vaccine that GlaxoSmithKline promoted. Small world. Lots of people get confused about conflicts-of-interest when Glaxo $$$ is involved. You may recall that IDSA Lyme guidelines panel members had significant conflicts-of-interest with Glaxo.
I have begun to think of large medical societies and government (the IDSA, the NIH, the CDC, WHO (who knew?)) as simply being marketing aggregators for pharmaceutical interests and stand up men for researchers with industry ties. I realize that this is, really, hopelessly cynical, and I hope someone — please soon– wakes me up from this dream(?) As I said before, I would love to be wrong on this. I am so hoping that the IOM proves me wrong… for once.
You can contact Lorraine Johnson at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.
thanks for keeping us updated
Hi, Lorraine. Thanks, as always, for your cogent, informative words. I keep wanting to wake up, too. Sadly, I don't think we're asleep. Thank you for your continued dedication to creating a better, safer world.
Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!
It seems like health organizations are under the thumbs of pharmaceutical companies whenever it comes to health care policies and guidelines. It surely makes us wonder why our government has no control over something as fundamental as health care, when accountability can be easily swept under the blanket. The saga on the flu vaccine has been ongoing for a while now. Ask yourself, is it or is it not necessary to have a flu vaccine at all? I, for one, firmly believe that there is no cure or vaccine for flu. All you need to do is to ride it out. The government’s and health organizations major role is to make sure that everyone can have access to clean water, basic sanitary facilities and health care (when needed), not any fancy miracle vaccines or pills.
The IDSA has recently reaffirmed its Lyme guidelines besieged by a committee elected by the members of IDSA. (Are not we all surprised?) It turns out that the CDC can not be fast enough to approve the IDSA IDSA is justified. All clubby, do not you think? Cavalier dismissal IDSA 1600 pages of peer-reviewed evidence to refute its recommendations guidelines actually took my breath away.
I have begun to think of large medical societies and government (the IDSA, the NIH, the CDC, WHO (who knew?)) as simply being marketing aggregators for pharmaceutical interests and stand up men for researchers with industry ties. I realize that this is, really, hopelessly cynical, and I hope someone — please soon– wakes me up from this dream(?) As I said before, I would love to be wrong on this. I am so hoping that the IOM proves me wrong… for once.