| |
 |
|
|
Science Groups Forum Index » Medicine - Diseases (Lyme) » "The Burden of Proof" and "Under Our Skin"
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mort Zuckerman |
 Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To: bpcote@norwichdiocese.net, scientificintegrity@ostp.gov,
pkrugman@princeton.edu, Stanley.fish@fiu.edu,
emcsweegan@niaid.nih.gov, afauci@niaid.nih.gov,
SpinLyme@yahoogroups.com, kshepard@calea.org, fitzmas@gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, modelt1918@sbcglobal.net,
jdrazen@nejm.org, letters@courant.com, Jgerberding@cdc.gov,
michael.cole@po.state.ct.us, conndcj@po.state.ct.us, executive-
editor@nytimes.com, managing-editor@nytimes.com, news-
tips@nytimes.com, bizday@nytimes.com, foreign@nytimes.com,
national@nytimes.com, dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline.net,
trvl@hotmail.com, illinoislyme@aol.com, jlender@courant.com,
tinajgarcia@yahoo.com, jhornberger@fff.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, kurtzh@washpost.com,
georgewill@washpost.com, pj@allegorypress.com,
commissioner.dcf@po.state.ct.us, bransfield@comcast.net,
vtsherr@comcast.net, oca@po.state.ct.us, freethinker@charter.net,
scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us, governor.rell@po.state.ct.us,
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us, randall.samborn@usdoj.gov,
Robert.shiller@yale.edu, editor@greenwich-post.com,
harold.koh@yale.edu, sedmonds@nswbc.org, rrmcgovern@aol.com
Cc: francam@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir,
eugenerobinson@washpost.com, afauci@niaid.nih.gov,
bmiller@newstimes.com, trvl@hotmail.com, rastro18@aol.com,
billcurryct@gmail.com, amcguigan@rms-law.com, rjmurzyn@aol.com,
paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com, sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com,
criminal.division@usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov,
christopher.christie@usdoj.gov, richard.Levin@yale.edu,
harold.koh@yale.edu, james.phillips@yale.edu, inquire@aldf.com,
lyme@idsociety.org, meganmcardle@theatlantic.com,
bob.drogin@latimes.com
Subject: "The Burden of Proof" and "Under Our Skin"
Date: Jul 9, 2009 4:41 AM
The Perps Hit Back by Reversing the Argument
(BELOW)
================We have, in fact, proven that it is IDSA/ALDF's ***own data***
which proves Lyme (it's actually called Relapsing Fever; Lyme is
a strawman, the first commercial product in the intended series)
is a permanent infection:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAIN_PERMANENT.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/RICOCHRON.htm
Naturally, since the argument is that the entity sued by
the Connecticut Attorney General ***refused for a year and
a half to turn over their own self-incriminating data to Richard
Blumenthal*** until exactly the Monday following the
April 26th, 2008 screening of Under Our Skin in NYC, when
they panicked, caved, and ran to him with an offer of an
agreement to rewrite the "guidelines:"
http://www.actionlyme.org/080430_RICO_CABAL_CAVES.htm
And the REASON they, IDSA, panicked, was because Yale's
Eugene Shapiro was caught flat-out lying about Congenital
Lyme:
http://www.actionlyme.org/UCONNS_ABUSE_OF_CZECH_CHILDREN.htm
Remember what Willy Burgdorfer said to the Under Our Skin
crew:
http://underourskin.com/blog/?p=191
You should never believe these crooks about *anything* they
say about the entity which was intended to be the first
false claim in a "Gold Mine of Virulence Determinants"
series or a commercial enterprise based on free venture
capital (NIH grants), "Lyme Disease."
Here Edward McSweegan, likely the fourth partner in the
founding ALDF "trio",
http://www.actionlyme.org/CONNOLLY_FISH_WEINSTEIN.htm
explains how Europeans will be even more stupid than Americans
and not fight back against the idea that we need a vaccine for a
disease that does not exist:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MCSWEEGAN_AND_DUMB_EUROPEANS.html
Regardless of the Lyme crooks' relentless hysteria, everyone
knows they fought the lawsuit for as long as they could, and
then got the best deal. So far, no criminal charges.
It was GAME OVER when Under Our Skin caught Shapiro
lying his face off about Congenital Lyme:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MOMS_CAN_GIVE_LYME_TO_BABIES.htm
This is mostly Yale's and Allen Steere's data ^^^.
Willy does not approve of how this clique treats children.
http://underourskin.com/blog/?p=191
The title of the movie clearly should have been "Under
*THEIR* Skin," based on the Lyme crooks' response.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===============================
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/rodricks/blog/2009/07/a_polemic_on_lyme_disease.html
A polemic on Lyme Disease
Before Wednesday's radio show, I watched on DVD Under Our Skin, the
film about Lyme disease by Andy Abrahams Wilson, the brother of a
woman who has the disease. Wilson was a guest on Midday today by
telephone from California. (You can listen to a podcast of the show by
visiting the WYPR web site.)
Wilson's film will be screened at The Senator Theater in Baltimore,
starting Friday. You can get information about screenings on the
film's web site.
Wilson has made a compelling and disturbing film, and it is
beautifully shot, with a strong musical score -- and no narration, and
the lack of narration is not a plus. Without the voice of a story-
teller, Wilson moves the camera from Lyme sufferer to Lyme sufferer,
from doctor to doctor (including one researching Lyme in the basement
of his house) to the occasional (dismissively quoted in brief) expert
at Yale or UConn -- no one from Johns Hopkins -- back to the
sufferers, and then there are collages of people -- never identified
-- who claim they suffer from "chronic Lyme disease" and that their
doctors either refused to treat them for it or told them they needed
to see a psychiatrist.
This is not a documentary. A documentary suggests journalism. There's
not much in the way of journalism here, nothing you might call
objective, detached, skeptical inquisition. The New York Times refered
to Under Our Skin as a polemic, and that's exactly it. Wilson's
targets are the doctors and research scientists who say there is no
evidence that Lyme disease is chronic and who believe that long-course
antibiotic treatments have not been proven effective in arresting the
disease and making its victims healthy again. The film sets out to
discredit the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which has
declared that chronic Lyme disease does not exist. Wilson's claim that
the doctors who wrote the IDSA's treatment guidelines for Lyme have
conflicts of interest is just that -- a claim, and the charge is not
effectively supported. Under Our Skin is full of suspicions,
assertions and anecdotes; it's low on science and objectivity. That
doesn't work -- in fact, borders on irresponsible -- when you're
telling a medical story.
This is the kind of media "coverage" of Lyme disease that the New
England Journal of Medicine criticized in a 2008 article: "The media
frequently disregard complex scientific data in favor of testimonials
about patients suffering from purported chronic Lyme disease and may
even question the competence of clinicians who are reluctant to
diagnose chronic Lyme disease. All these factors have contributed to a
great deal of public confusion with little appreciation of the serious
harm caused to many patients who have received a misdiagnosis and have
been inappropriately treated."
Had Wilson presented the controversy over whether Lyme is chronic and
whether long-term use of antibiotics is effective -- had he explored
that and presented both sides -- then I would call his film a public
service. In that it draws attention to Lyme disease, the most common
vector-borne disease in the nation and spreading each year as ticks
bite into humans, Under Our Skin deserves props. But it takes a long
detour to defend what current credible science dismisses and in the
process pretty much goes off a cliff.
If you see the film, make sure you read the following excerpts of
letters I received early today in preparation for the radio show. The
first is from Dr. Paul G. Auwaerter, clinical director of the Division
of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
and the second is from Diana Olson, vice president of communications
for the IDSA.
Dr. Auwaerter, of Hopkins:
"I see the effects of misdiagnosed Lyme disease frequently (as
patients actually have conditions such as fibromyalgia, multiple
sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease, and many others) who are not well
served by taking antibiotics for months and years for fears of
persistent infection that are not substantiated by any good evidence.
Well-controlled scientific studies have not shown any durable benefit
from long-term antibiotics compared to placebo, and importantly these
studies show rates of improvement in the placebo arm of 30 percent or
higher. therefore, ask for proof from these people that they are
doing better than 30 percent with their treatments. They may say so
from a testimonial basis, but they have no evidence published in
quality medical journals."
Ms. Olson, quoting from a recent letter on Lyme disease from IDSA:
"The concept of Lyme disease as a chronic condition requiring long-
term antibiotic therapy is not shared by the vast majority of the
medical community and relies on questionable scientific evidence.
Furthermore, long-term antibiotic therapy poses substantial risks to
the community and the patient and can even be fatal.
Lyme disease is a real and growing public health threat. Patients
with Lyme disease are frequently misdiagnosed. However, IDSA’s concern
is with the concept of chronic Lyme disease.
Self-described “Lyme-literate” clinicians believe that the Lyme
disease bacteria, Borrelia burgdorferi, can survive conventional
antibiotic therapy (usually 10 to 28 days of oral antibiotics) and
become a chronic infection. Therefore, they claim, patients must take
antibiotics for months or even years in order to fully eradicate the
infection.
The vast majority of scientific evidence does not support this
view. Not a single well designed, reproducible study to date has found
B. burgdorferi in human patients following conventional antibiotic
therapy. This casts doubt on the basic premise of long-term antibiotic
therapy. (The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
has a review of several studies on its web site:
http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lymeDisease/research/antibiotic.htm.)
Some patients do improve while taking long-term antibiotics. But
in studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, patients
receiving placebo improved at about the same rate as those receiving
antibiotics. Also, some antibiotics have anti-inflammatory or
neuroprotective “feel-good” side effects. These properties are likely
responsible for the improvements some patients experienced in some
studies.
In addition to providing no proven benefit, the risks of exposing
patients to long courses of antibiotics are substantial. Patients
often experience adverse reactions to the drugs. In fact, some of the
symptoms that the “Lyme-literate” community attributes to chronic Lyme
disease, such as fatigue and mood swings, may be adverse reactions to
the antibiotics. In addition, infections in the catheter used to
deliver intravenous antibiotics are common and have led to life-
threatening bloodstream infections. There are many anecdotal accounts
of serious adverse reactions. In addition, according to one report
published in the peer-reviewed literature, a 30-year-old woman died
from an infected catheter after undergoing inappropriate intravenous
antibiotic therapy for more than two years.
The risks of inappropriate antibiotic therapy go beyond the
individual patient. Antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” such as
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are on the rise in
part because of the inappropriate use of antibiotics. Long-term
antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease only makes the problem worse,
without any evidence of benefit.
Many patients credit long-term antibiotic therapy for their
miraculous recoveries from debilitating fatigue, pain, headaches,
concentration problems, and other symptoms. There is no doubt these
patients were suffering. But the question is whether Lyme disease was
responsible for their suffering. Several studies from Lyme disease
clinics at major universities have found that most patients who came
to these clinics with a previous diagnosis of chronic Lyme disease did
not have Lyme disease at all, but actually had something else, such as
rheumatoid arthritis or other autoimmune disorders, fibromyalgia, or
depression—conditions that need treatment with something other than
antibiotics.
Diagnosing patients with subjective, nonspecific symptoms such as
fatigue, pain, and difficulty concentrating can be a difficult and
frustrating experience for both the patient and the clinician. Most
frustrating are the cases that don’t have a clear cause after a
thorough examination and an exhaustive battery of tests. IDSA does not
have all the answers for why some patients are suffering. Even in the
21st century, medicine is sometimes an inexact and imperfect science.
When patients are left seeking answers, a window of opportunity
opens for unscrupulous clinicians. These clinicians can earn
substantial amounts of money administering long-term antibiotic
therapy. Many “Lyme-literate” clinicians back up their diagnosis with
tests that are unproven or have not been approved by the Food and Drug
Administration for that purpose—a practice that has drawn a warning
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (See
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5405a6.htm.)
For vulnerable patients, the diagnosis feels like deliverance from
their suffering. For far too many patients, the diagnosis is false.
If sound evidence emerges that Lyme disease is a chronic condition
that can be successfully treated with long-term antibiotics, IDSA
would gladly accept it, if it would help physicians treat their
patients. The burden of proof rests with those who make this claim.
Until more reliable evidence emerges, IDSA regards the theory of
chronic Lyme disease infection as speculative at best, and we consider
long-term antibiotic therapy to be more harmful than beneficial. Lyme
and other tick-borne diseases are a serious and growing public health
threat, and we support efforts to improve prevention and education and
foster appropriate research. However, news coverage that support the
theory of chronic Lyme disease and long-term antibiotic therapy is not
in the best interest of patients or public health.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT
The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:34 am
|
|
|