NEWS: "The Lancet" publishes rebuttal letters by Lyme advocates
Three letters refute charges that the Lyme community is “anti-science” and a “threat to public health.”
Last fall, the British medical journal “The Lancet” ran an article accusing Lyme activists of being “anti-science.” The article, by the IDSA’s Paul Auwaerter, Gary Wormser and others, said advocates for Lyme patients are trying to “subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science.” (Click here to read a summary of the article.)
The Lancet’s May 2012 issue has published three rebuttal letters, which can be read on-line by clicking on the names below:
Stella Huyshe-Shires, of the UK charity Lyme Disease Action.
Click here to read the reply to these letters by the authors of the original article. (Hint: same-old, same-old.)
When Gary Wormser claims that Chronic Lyme patients are trying to “subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science” the hypocrisy grates on me like nails on a chalkboard. He and the other co-authors of the IDSA treatment guidelines hardly looked further than the table they were sitting at when looking for research on the topic.
The majority of the studies and articles cited in the guidelines were written or conducted by one of the men working to construct the guidelines. They did not look at “independent” or unbiased studies. This was because most of the men selected for the panel have some sort of financial stake in pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, or other places in the medical industry that might suffer a loss in profits due to proper long-term treatment of Lyme Disease.
Additionally, there are few who are more willing to dismiss concrete evidence than some of those denying the existence of Chronic Lyme. For example, when Dr. Paul Auwaerter appeared recently on the Dr. Phil show to discuss Lyme Disease, he repeated the bogus claim that there is no solid evidence showing that the borrelia bacteria (that causes Lyme) will persist in the body after the initial few weeks of treatment recommended by the IDSA guidelines.
Also featured on the show was Dr. Chitra Bhakta, who has far more experience than Dr. Auwaerter in actually treating patients with Lyme. She was quite obviously appalled at this utterly baseless claim and was instantly able to cite a study recently conducted at Tulane University. In this study, monkeys were injected with the borrelia bacteria, then treated for several weeks, as the IDSA guidelines suggest. Symptoms appeared to alleviate for a period of time, but all monkeys continued to test positive for Lyme, and there was eventual relapse. Dr. Auwaerter had no response for this. He was unable to deny the credibility of the study, so he had chosen to deny its existence instead, even if by omission.
Unfortunately, when a patient is treated with the initial round of antibiotics suggested by the guidelines and their symptoms seem to clear up, that is often the end of their treatment. With any other type of bacterial infection, patients are instructed to continue taking antibiotics for a period of time after symptoms are gone, because doctors know there will still be a few lingerers. They know that if the patient stopped the antibiotic treatment even a few days early, it could lead to drug-resistant bacteria.
In Lyme patients, this is an even greater risk, because the bacteria has the ability to go into “cyst-form” where it forms a type of shield around itself, which can only be penetrated by certain, specialized drugs. Once the antibiotics are no longer being administered and threat is no longer present, the bacteria will emerge from the cyst-form and begin to wreak havoc on its host once again.
Having done extensive amounts of research on this topic, the only explanation I find plausible is that Wormser, Auwaerter, and others are caught in the throes of a dying lie. They constructed stories and fables to protect their personal assets. However, there is now much more independent (and truly unbiased) research coming to light, and becoming much harder for these men to defend their unsupported argument. Because they are unable to disprove their opposition in a laboratory setting, or even a doctor’s office (i.e. a patient returning for a re-test after a year of no antibiotics), they are resorting to character defamation.
Instead of slandering many, many dedicated doctors and researchers, they should try improving the standards of their studies instead. Perhaps if they had actual evidence to fall back on, they would be less likely to resort to denial and childish insults.
(IDSA) – There is no cookie cutter 28-day receipe for any disease -all are individuals of genetics, environment, stress, mind, body and spirit –
“Anti-science” – “a threat to public health” – those that control and harm health of others are a “threat to public health.”
Lyme disease is not just one disease! We carry multiple diseases. (ISDA) denies more than 28 days of antibiotic treatment for tick borne disease bacterial encephalitis, carditis and paralysis – this is inhumanity, animals get better care, compassion, treatment, prevention and surveillance.
We need ongoing film of patients, after misdiagnoses – during, and after long term antibiotic treatment under (ILADS.org) Standard of Care.