Re: [SpinLyme] IDSA Windbag Speaks About Lyme...

[Mort Zuckerman]

To: bpc...@norwichdiocese.net, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
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: Re: [SpinLyme] IDSA Windbag Speaks About Lyme...

Date: May 25, 2009 5:51 AM

Well, we don't care what ILADS has to say.
Most of them are psychiatrists and the like,
which is why they're retarded.

We already had this discussion.

The Biomarkers are IDSA's and they change all
the time depending on one's own personal infection
history and HLA background. That's why Lyme is
the New Great Imitator- we would expect there to
be difficulty with BIOMARKERS and ANTIBODIES, because
Lyme and OspA vaccination are immunosuppressive.

Most important is that IDSA never mentions
what Paul Duray told them TWICE and was the
key to the New Great Imitator:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_IMMUNE_SUPPRESSION.htm

This has already been discussed and revealed.
Not worth further rebuttal. The whole world
passed them by - last year, in fact, formally,
when Fauci had to admit he was clueless:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/9/888

"DERR, HERR-HERRR-HERRR, Which way did he go
George??"


And now here is Fauci following up on what was
revealed by Pam3Cys immunosuppression and the
Multiple Sclerosis outcome of Lyme and LYMErix:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_IMMUNE_SUPPRESSION.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19319142?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


This is just IDSA picking out bad arguments from
the ILADS.org REtards. That's the best they can do to
defend themselves. We're not interested. It's like
Cheney and Limbaugh having a contest over who's
the biggest blowhard for the has-been Bushie
repugs. It's over.

ILADS has never once performed a scientific rebuttal
since I wrote their Klempner rebuttal in June, 2001.

http://www.actionlyme.org/MKLEMPNER.htm
^^That's the update. It features the idiot
Anthony Fauci and his patented treatment for
the infection-induced immune suppression of
MS, while cough-puking-up his fart-scented
Kool-Aid on Lyme & LYMErix all over Lou Dobbs
in the summer of 2003:
http://www.actionlyme.org/The_Fauci_Files.htm


They're all idiots and not to be concerned
about.


Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.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
>


"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci