OIM COI report (April, 2009) Re: [SpinLyme] IDSA Windbag Speaks About Lyme...
Mort Zuckerman
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com,
bob.d...@latimes.com
Subject: OIM COI report (April, 2009) Re: [SpinLyme] IDSA Windbag
Speaks About Lyme...
Date: May 25, 2009 9:30 AM
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/65/993/COI%20report%20brief%20for%20web.pdf
Aha! The plop thickens.
In response to the OIM Conflicts of Interest Report,
first written 10 years ago by myself:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Actionlyme_History.htm
with assistance in research by Lynn Shepler (MD, JD)
and Karen Forschner (JD, and 30 other letters after
her name),
IDSA starts talking about the non-science produced
by ILADS, without mentioning IDSA's own COI, sued
over by the CT AG Richard Blumenthal:
http://www.actionlyme.org/080430_RICO_CABAL_CAVES.htm
below.
The fact is, the IOM is itself interest-conflicted,
and should be investigated for COI. The IOM is not a
real, independent entity. The IOM for years drank the
ALDF/Yale/IDSA Kool Aid on "Lyme Disease."
The IOM is a version of Robert Woods JOhnson, or
the Rockefeller Institute or the Mayo Clinic.
Fake. Fake Philanthropies.
In all these years, the IOM had every opportunity
to discover what was the data IDSA refused to turn
over to CT AG Blumenthal, and, one would think they
would have followed the "controversy" ever since the
FDA forced Yale to take their bogus Lyme vaccine off
the market in 2002.
I will once again reveal what data IDSA refused to turn
over to AG Blumenthal in answer to his subpoena:
1) All the Dearborn data; who said what, and how Steere
came up with this bogus criteria, and the proof that Yale
knew all along that they never had a vaccine:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DICKSON_FDA_SUBMISSION_FULL.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP3_B.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/STEERE_IN_EUROPE.htm
2) The entire Lyme-and-spirochetal-diseases booklet
of IDSA's, their former journal the REVIEWS from 1989:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHP_9_IDSA_REVIEWS.htm
3) IDSA's own treatment failure data and the History
of Relapsing Fever (same, exact data for the past 100+
years) and that Lyme is a *permanent* brain infection:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAIN_PERMAMEMT.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/RICOCHRON.htm
4) The fact that IDSA is playing a DNA and RNA shell
game:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMERSHELLGAME.htm
5) The fact that Klempner is insane and a liar:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MKLEMPNER.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/BIOMARKERS2.htm
on persistent infection and Lyme as a brain-damaging
disease.
6) What's in their patents, and how that conflicts
with what they tell the public:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CENTRAL_LYME_RICO_PATENTS.htm
7) The fact that in spite of the fact that Yale et al
are lying their eyeballs out - and that the CDC
is lying their eyeballs out, too, and know that
the current CDC schema invented by Allen Steere in
Europe is a scientific hoax:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CDCS_PARTICIPATION_IN_LYME_CRIMES.htm
Yale and their NYMC and NYU Crony-dronies utter all
sorts of slander, perjury and libel against the
victims of their crimes, in addition to literally
stalking them and illegally, anonymously harassing
them online and in real life:
http://www.actionlyme.org/UN_PETITION.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/GOLDWATER_LETTER.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/TICK_BITE_CONSPIRACY.htm
8) And last, but hardly least, the Lyme crimes
inhibited discovery in EVERY MAJOR DISEASE:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_IMMUNE_SUPPRESSION.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_LYME_HIV.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/Duray.htm
ALS, MS, HIV, tuberculosis, and Cancer -
for the last 15 years.
Had Yale told the truth about their vaccine not
working, someone might have looked into the matter
of why it didn't work, and the answer would have
been the same answer to why the HIV and tuberculosis
vaccines did not work.
In 1995, Yale's Robert Schoen knew LYMErix would
be a problem, since he worked on the central
RICO patent with Dave Persing:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DICKSON_FDA_SUBMISSION_FULL.htm
Here Schoen says to send all the post-LYMErix vaccinal
blood to Yale's RICO lab:
http://www.actionlyme.org/SCHOEN_INSTRUCTING_DOCS_TO_BLOW_OFF_LYMERIX_INJUREES.htm
So, no one should care about what the IOM
is now saying. I think they're about 10 years
too late, not to mention being too stupid
to be a participant in this science game, since
all this data was available all these years
I really don't think we need the day-late and
board-short IOM to tell us about Conflicts of Interest
and how harmful they is. This crime was solved in
Jan 2001:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3680s2_11.pdf
The worstest problem for us'n Lyme victims
is MDs & lawyers who have not been trained in
*how* to think, because we *still* haven't gotten
to the point where anyone's talking about how
Pam3Cys immune suppression disorders (or the
Yuppie AIDS) are going to be treated.
Says Paul Duray in 1989:
"Hmmm. These look like Epstein Barr transformed
(pre-cancerous) lymphocytes:"
http://www.actionlyme.org/IDSA_CLINIPATH_DURAY.htm
*That* is where we *start!*
'Happens to be where Anthony Fauci says we
start, too!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19319142?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
TANKS, TON'!!
fer joinin duh real world!!
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
-----Original Message-----
>From: Miguel <miki...@pacifier.com>
>Sent: May 25, 2009 2:01 AM
>To: Spin...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SpinLyme] IDSA Windbag Speaks About Lyme...
>
>http://tiny.cc/XK2Xc
>
>
>Lyme Article Was Riddled with Inaccuracies--Putting Patients at Risk
>
>The article entitled "Attorney General Forces Infectious Disease Society of America to redo Lyme guidelines due to flawed development process" that appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics purporting to explain the agreement between the Connecticut Attorney General and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) regarding its Lyme disease guideline was extremely disturbing.
>
>This article is riddled with inaccuracies and misleading information.
>
>The article is the latest salvo from a small but vocal group of physicians and patients who attribute a wide range of vague symptoms to what they call "chronic" Lyme disease.
>
>To treat "chronic" Lyme infection, this self-described "Lyme-literate" group promotes the use of long-term antibiotics - often delivered intravenously for months or even years.
>
>The cost of this treatment must be borne by patients themselves, leading a discerning person to question the authors' interest in the real reason why they want the treatment guidelines changed.
>
>Blinded, randomized controlled trials show that long-term antibiotic treatment is not effective for any condition described as "chronic Lyme" - a condition that currently has no consistent diagnostic markers.
>
>Far worse, this treatment has been shown to be extremely risky, potentially leading to fatal infections, serious drug reactions and fostering development of life-threatening drug-resistant superbugs.
>
>That this group continues to use its assaults on the IDSA and its Lyme disease guidelines as a platform to promote a not only unproven but expensive and potentially dangerous therapy is, we believe, clearly unethical.
>
>Among the many inaccuracies in this article, the most egregious charge is that the IDSA's Lyme disease guidelines "excluded most Lyme patients and denied them treatment for their illness."
>
>It is difficult to find an accurate sentiment in that statement.
>
>To start with, the guidelines are simply that, guidelines, and by their very nature do not "exclude" patients, nor "deny" them treatment.
>
>Further, the authors seem intentionally to confuse Lyme disease - a proven and highly treatable illness - with "chronic" Lyme infection, an unproven condition that a small group of doctors may provide as a "diagnosis" for patients with vague but often serious symptoms.
>
>There is no solid evidence of the existence of "chronic" Lyme infection.
>
>Although we do not doubt that there are patients who initially were treated for Lyme disease infection and subsequently have ongoing, vague symptoms, we are concerned these patients likely are suffering from a different or new illness and are receiving potentially dangerous "treatment" rather than being evaluated, properly diagnosed, and treated appropriately.
>
>Although a comprehensive response to the remaining charges would require an entire article, following are our comments regarding several of the most salient.
>
>. Regarding the agreement (not "settlement") between the IDSA and the Connecticut Attorney General, the IDSA was not forced to "redo" the Lyme guidelines and no "antitrust laws" were broken.
>
>The Lyme disease guidelines remain in effect.
>
>IDSA voluntarily agreed to a special one-time review of the Lyme disease guidelines. IDSA paid no fines or penalties and is not restricted from promulgating guidelines of Lyme disease or other conditions.
>
>. The statement "at least 21 studies documenting death in patients with this potentially devastating tick-borne illness" is patently wrong.
>
>Lyme disease is not a life-threatening disease. This statement is reminiscent of a tabloid headline - the patients may have had Lyme disease, and may have died, but not of Lyme disease.
>
>. The IDSA Lyme disease guideline panel spent months scouring all of the Lyme disease research.
>
>Specific studies were not "selectively ignored," but in fact stringently reviewed along with all of the other research.
>
>Based on widely accepted principles of evidence-based medicine, some studies were determined to lack scientific rigor, and were therefore not used as a basis for treatment guidelines.
>
>. The comment that the guidelines are "treated as mandatory" and end up "denying" treatment to patients is inaccurate.
>
>The purpose of the guidelines is to attempt to guide physicians in providing the highest- quality treatment that is not harmful to patients.
>
>However, they are guidelines, not mandates.
>
>. IDSA does not have nor seek monopoly power. We do not work with insurers on any guidelines, nor do we develop our guidelines for the sake of insurers.
>
>We develop guidelines to provide guidance to our members, with the ultimate goal of ensuring the best quality in patient care and to protect the public's health.
>
>. Regarding the makeup of the guidelines panel, the IDSA chose the panel of experts that we believe is the most knowledgeable for the job.
>
>Further, the panel was not limited to "researchers known to have a bias against the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease."
>
>In fact, the point of the panel was to guide physicians in treating Lyme disease, a known and highly treatable disease.
>
>. The remark that some of the panel members were working on the development of vaccines is irrelevant.
>
>There are no Lyme disease vaccines approved for use in humans and the IDSA has made no recommendations in that regard.
>
>The vaccine mentioned in the article was previously in development, but the decision not to manufacture it was made before the guidelines were published.
>
>. Regarding conflicts of interest among panel members, physicians with expertise in a specialty of medicine are often called upon to serve as expert witnesses, just as lawyers are often asked to do.
>
>This is a professional activity, and compensation is relatively modest.
>
>The same is true of consultation fees with commercial organizations, as long as specific guidelines are followed.
>
>The physicians on our panel followed those guidelines.
>
>The implication that physicians on the guidelines panel stand to monetarily gain from their recommendations seems particularly hypocritical coming from a group of practitioners who stand to gain financially from treating vulnerable patients with an unproven condition using an unproven, expensive, invasive and risky long-term therapy.
>
>The IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the treatment of infectious disease.
>
>We are in good company in our lack of support of the therapy advocated by the authors of this article, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the Medical Letter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and even review articles in major medical journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine.
>
>We take our responsibility as protectors of the public health seriously, and as physicians who stand by our Hippocratic Oath to "above all, do no harm," we wish there were more evidence that these authors and the groups they represent did the same.
>
>Sincerely, Anne Gershon President, IDSA
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpinLyme/
>
><*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
><*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SpinLyme/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
><*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:SpinLym...@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:SpinLyme-f...@yahoogroups.com
>
><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> SpinLyme-u...@yahoogroups.com
>
><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci