Newsweek article: Doctors debate Lyme’s | Arthritis Information

 

Today I read an interesting article about Lyme's disease that was linked in the RBF newletter. The article outlines the tug-of-war between people who believe in stealth pathogens and people who don't pay them stealth pathogens any mind (although in all of my reading of everything I have never come across anyone who claims there's no such thing as stealth pathogens. In fact, the existance of such is well documented). Patients and doctors who study stealth pathogens say Lyme's can be cured with long term antibiotics. Other doctors claim if it's not cured after 30 days with antibiotics then it must be some other disease. From what I understand, if infection with Lyme's is detected immediately, it can be completely irradicated with a course of antibiotics, whereas if it is left unchecked it is much harder to control or cure. This is consistant with what I have read about ABX in RA.

For those unfamiliar with Lyme's disease, it's one form of arthritis no one denies is infectious.

I thought this article was interesting because it describes the nature of the fighting and what could be motivating the different factions. It quite parallels debates I've seen raging over auotoimmune vs infection theory in RA.

Anyway, if you're interested here's a link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010701/site/newsweek
Another interesting article concerning chronic Lyme's disease from the New England Journal of Medicine..

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1422?query=T OCUm...I think that article would represent the con side of the debate. The article I posted was about the raging debate between the people in your article and the patients and doctors who believe in the stealth pathogen theory. To me the most interesting part of your article is the conflict of interest disclosures of their associations with pharmacuetical and insurance companies at the end.
And the band played on...
Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions...I thought it was interesting.

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.

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

-------------

The disclosures - what did you expect them to say?

Pip

Lynn, thanks for posting

I just got my RB (edited Road Back, frain bog) newsletter, and it is all over this one.  Amazing. 

justsaynoemore39359.296099537Why was that article dated Oct 4th? It's niggling at me.It is an early release article that you receive when you have a subscription to the NEJM.

LynnWell, it seems this article Lynne posted has started a snowball of fury in the medical world, especially among sufferers of Lymes. It seems many of the authors of the article are under anti-trust investigation because of the short term treatment for Lyme's guidelines they have published in the past which ignores a mounting body of scientific evidence contrary to their opinions, and examining their financial interest in insurance companies who do not want to pay for long term treatment of lyme's. The International Lyme and Associated Disease Society has sent out a press release which in part discloses this:

ILADS members believe the article's conclusions ignore more than 19,000 scientific studies on tick-borne diseases and reflect a huge conflict of interest. Specifically:

• 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.

In this article the author mentions that the writers of the NEJM article (Lynne's post) are all defendents in an anti-trust investigation launced by the AG of Conneticut

"The authors of the study also take to task lawmakers who attempt to mandate insurance coverage for long-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme, along with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who launched an anti-trust investigation over the recent approval of treatment guidelines that do not recommended extended courses of antibiotics.

Advocates in the long-term Lyme camp criticized the study, saying it ignores valid scientific evidence of long-term infection by the Lyme bacterium and will lead to withdrawal of effective treatments for thousands of patients."

and

" Smith and other patient advocates are irked that some of the authors on the study are the same being investigated by Blumenthal.

For instance, the senior author is Dr. Gary Wormser of New York Medical College. Wormser also helped write Lyme treatment guidelines for the Infectious Disease Society of America, which recommended against long-term use of antibiotics for treatment of Lyme.

The financial interests of Wormser and others led Blumenthal to launch an anti-trust investigation into whether the scientists deliberately ignored evidence that could justify the use of antibiotics for more than 30 days and therefore deny patients antibiotic treatments."

The Lyme Disease Association has also slammed the article in the NEMJ, sending out this press release.

It seems irresponsible that a respected medical journal such as the NEJM would print such an inflammatory, unscientific, unsubstantiated and partisan article. The real losers are the tens of thousands of Lyme's disease sufferers who will lose out on long term treatment because of these shennanigans.

Oh, and here is a little human interest ABC news video, about one of those Lyme's sufferers (almost) caught up in this web of misinformation.

Is it just me, or does this kind of thing seem to be happening more often? Okay, I know I am perhaps more paranoid than most people who come to this board, but it seems odd that this treatment for lyme's has been going on undisputed for years, and suddenly a group of paid guys are loudly yelling it's bogus? Perhpas the beginning of more mainstream acceptance to long term ABX treatment is getting some people nervous? It's food for thought, anyway.

You know -

I am in a very, very bad mood today.  I just got back from the pharmacy were I was told my insurance will not cover yet another antibiotic that my AP doc wants me on.  As I sit at this lap top and try not to get up and break something I read what GoGo posted and I just cannot take it anymore. 

A 350% increase in price in 6 months a year ago.  How many people are being pushed off relatively benigh meds because the insurance companies will mostly cover the traditional meds?

So, off I go to Canada, again!  It seems so morally wrong to have to be a criminal to get basic treatment.

Part of the Conn. AG's restraint of trade suit covers the fact that the guidelines are being used for insurance purposes. 

!*$&$^*@)@$^(&(@^%%&!% 

Pip

http://www.canlyme.com/amy.html

http://www.amytan.net/LymeDisease.aspx

And I have no FREAKIN' idea why that made a hyperlink.

Pip

ARGH! Pip, I feel so frustrated for you. It might be easier to just move here rather than fight with your insurance provider all the time, haha! (Although, seriously, it's not that easy to immigrate here). Please don't think of yourself as a criminal---from on planet Earth citizen to another I'm just glad you have SOME way to get the drugs you need.

Seems unfair, though, that you paid the premiums but they won't fork over the treatment.
Pip - ask them what is the name of the antibiotic they will pay for, that's the most expensive.  Then tell them to pay that much and you will pick up the rest.  A&$holes. 
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com