Post by Patti on Aug 7, 2006 13:02:00 GMT -5
Boy, talk about some blood-boiling days here lately....check out a couple of these responses to Dr.Stricker's article...
Patti
From Rose: This post contains four (4) Letters to the Editor (with very different opinions) in response to Dr. Raphael B. Stricker's article "Medical Revisionists Threaten Effective Lyme Treatment".
See LymeInfo post: health.groups.yahoo.com/group/LymeInfo/message/3282 for original article.
==========
www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc- letbox0805.artaug05,0,6496374.story
Hartford Courant Hartford CT August 5, 2006
Lyme Disease Treatment Is Source Of Contention
August 5 2006
I applaud The Courant for publishing the July 31 Other Opinion article "Medical Revisionists Threaten Effective Lyme Treatment" by Raphael B. Stricker, M.D., president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society.
In my psychotherapy practice, I see children and adolescents who have serious neuropsychiatric manifestations of chronic Lyme disease. These profoundly affect their lives, in and out of school. Most have been misdiagnosed in the past by at least one doctor who restricts his or her view of Lyme to that of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and who denies chronic Lyme. It often takes years for the parents to find an answer to their child's devastating headaches, stomachaches, sleep problems, profound fatigue and problems with mood and cognition; to learn that their child does indeed have Lyme; and for treatment to begin. At this stage, treatment is usually longer and more costly, and those years the child lost will never be regained.
I see these children when they are very ill, and then I see these children's health restored after months or years of treatment by doctors who understand chronic Lyme and use the ILADS treatment guidelines. I see these children return to school, sometimes after months or years of absence, and go on to college.
How much of this do the Lyme deniers of the IDSA see? If they saw it, would they be willing to take another look at the damage their narrow-minded thinking continues to do?
Sandy Berenbaum Southbury
The writer is a licensed clinical social worker.
=======
The July 31 Other Opinion article by Dr. Raphael B. Stricker is filled with inaccuracies and misleading information that can only contribute to the public's misunderstanding and unfounded fears about Lyme disease.
For example, the "small group of scientists" whom Dr. Stricker states are impeding effective treatments for the disease is in fact the 8,000-member Infectious Diseases Society of America, the nation's largest professional association of infectious disease experts. Ironically, it is Dr. Stricker who represents "a small group of scientists." The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, of which he is president, has approximately 200 members, many of whom have a vested interest in promulgating long-term treatment for Lyme disease because they make their living off such treatment. Here's what else Courant readers need to know:
The IDSA Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lyme disease, which Dr. Stricker dismisses, were developed by a panel of world-renowned experts in Lyme disease, doctors who are researchers and who regularly treat Lyme disease patients. The guidelines were created based on stringent rules of evidence-based medicine, which includes a thorough and objective review of published scientific research. This comprehensive review also included research submitted by members of Dr. Sticker's organization. The guidelines undergo a rigorous peer review and must ultimately be approved by the IDSA board of directors, who are all infectious-disease specialists and leaders in the field.
Despite claims that many people suffer from "chronic Lyme disease," a thorough review of published research reveals no credible scientific evidence that the disease persists after appropriate antibiotic treatment indicated in the IDSA guidelines.
There is valid scientific evidence documenting that more than 50 percent of patients diagnosed with "chronic Lyme disease" never actually had any form of Lyme disease. In one published scientific study, the majority of such patients were found to have conditions that, because of the misdiagnosis of chronic Lyme disease, were not properly diagnosed or treated.
In fact, Lyme disease is a tick-borne bacterial infection. In the vast majority of cases (95 percent to 98 percent), the disease is successfully treated with a two-week course of oral antibiotics. A small number of patients may require longer treatment of up to one month. These facts are supported overwhelmingly by the most current published studies.
There are a very few patients treated for Lyme disease who continue to have symptoms after the recommended treatment. The long-term antibiotic therapy advocated by Dr. Stricker and his colleagues can endanger these individuals, cause needless suffering and may promote the development of drug-resistant "superbugs."
We encourage anyone who is diagnosed with so-called chronic Lyme disease to get a second opinion. We strongly advise that people with Lyme disease avoid long-term antibiotic treatment, which is ineffective, costly and potentially very dangerous.
IDSA members have been at the forefront of preventing and treating Lyme disease. Our singular mission is to find out what is best for patients. We believe that our guidelines represent the best that science has to offer.
For reliable, scientific-based information on Lyme disease, we would direct your readers to sources such as the websites of the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov), as well as that of IDSA (www.idsociety.org).
Martin J. Blaser, M.D. President Infectious Diseases Society of America Alexandria, Va.
The writer is chairman of the Department of Medicine at the New York University School of Medicine in New York City.
============
Dr. Raphael B. Stricker's assertion that "Medical Revisionists Threaten Effective Lyme Treatment" might be true if he was writing about himself and his colleagues.
Over the past 30 years, physicians have been successfully treating Lyme infections and researchers have spent more than a third of a billion federal dollars studying the agent of Lyme disease. That vast body of knowledge and experience has provided the public with
70 Food and Drug Administration-approved diagnostic tests and effective antibiotic treatments.
Lyme disease diagnostic and treatment options also have been updated by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Moreover, the guidelines are just that: guidelines - not laws - meant to provide physicians with useful options for treating different patients with different symptoms based upon medical evidence.
Some patients may have persistent symptoms following treatment, but two long-term antibiotic treatment trials that were ended after 90 days of intravenous and oral antibiotics failed to improve patients' symptoms (New England Journal of Medicine, July 12, 2001).
In the June 2005 Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Henry Feder, the University of Connecticut's Lyme disease expert, wrote that "following the recommendations of Stricker and the ILADS of using prolonged antibiotic therapy for presumed Lyme disease has been shown to be harmful and even fatal."
In the end, this small band of medical revisionists may be threatening not Lyme treatments, but Lyme patients.
Edward McSweegan Crofton, Md.
The writer is a microbiologist and managed a federal Lyme disease research program at the National Institutes of Health.
=============
In the late '90s, because I spend a lot of time outdoors in areas where Lyme disease is frequently diagnosed, I received from my physician the three-shot series of vaccinations of Lymerix, a drug originally produced by SmithKline Beecham to protect against the disease.
At that time, I was told the medication proved around 85 percent effective in warding off the disease. This seemed like good enough odds for me, because I also continued the use of anti-tick sprays.
A couple of years ago, concerned that friends had contracted the disease and had never been offered the vaccine, I did a Google search on the Internet and found that Glaxo SmithKline (which had bought the original producer) had removed Lymerix from the market in February 2002, claiming demand hadn't reached a sustainable level.
Well of course that made me furious, thinking that a product that could protect many from the ravages of Lyme disease would no longer be available. I railed against a system that allows such decisions to be based on profit rather than on disease prevention.
Turns out (more Googling) the manufacturer might have had another reason for the vaccine's withdrawal: At the time of the drug's removal from the market, there were lawsuits pending against the manufacturer for a range of adverse effects, some of which were Lyme- like, which seemed to have been caused by the vaccine.
And we're told that last winter was warmer than usual and thus more deer-tick larvae survived than usually do. So it's likely there will be more bites and more illness.
Between global warming, medical revisionists and no vaccine, it looks as if we're in for a long fight against this increasingly common illness.
Susan Forbes Hansen
West Hartford
Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant
Patti
From Rose: This post contains four (4) Letters to the Editor (with very different opinions) in response to Dr. Raphael B. Stricker's article "Medical Revisionists Threaten Effective Lyme Treatment".
See LymeInfo post: health.groups.yahoo.com/group/LymeInfo/message/3282 for original article.
==========
www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc- letbox0805.artaug05,0,6496374.story
Hartford Courant Hartford CT August 5, 2006
Lyme Disease Treatment Is Source Of Contention
August 5 2006
I applaud The Courant for publishing the July 31 Other Opinion article "Medical Revisionists Threaten Effective Lyme Treatment" by Raphael B. Stricker, M.D., president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society.
In my psychotherapy practice, I see children and adolescents who have serious neuropsychiatric manifestations of chronic Lyme disease. These profoundly affect their lives, in and out of school. Most have been misdiagnosed in the past by at least one doctor who restricts his or her view of Lyme to that of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and who denies chronic Lyme. It often takes years for the parents to find an answer to their child's devastating headaches, stomachaches, sleep problems, profound fatigue and problems with mood and cognition; to learn that their child does indeed have Lyme; and for treatment to begin. At this stage, treatment is usually longer and more costly, and those years the child lost will never be regained.
I see these children when they are very ill, and then I see these children's health restored after months or years of treatment by doctors who understand chronic Lyme and use the ILADS treatment guidelines. I see these children return to school, sometimes after months or years of absence, and go on to college.
How much of this do the Lyme deniers of the IDSA see? If they saw it, would they be willing to take another look at the damage their narrow-minded thinking continues to do?
Sandy Berenbaum Southbury
The writer is a licensed clinical social worker.
=======
The July 31 Other Opinion article by Dr. Raphael B. Stricker is filled with inaccuracies and misleading information that can only contribute to the public's misunderstanding and unfounded fears about Lyme disease.
For example, the "small group of scientists" whom Dr. Stricker states are impeding effective treatments for the disease is in fact the 8,000-member Infectious Diseases Society of America, the nation's largest professional association of infectious disease experts. Ironically, it is Dr. Stricker who represents "a small group of scientists." The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, of which he is president, has approximately 200 members, many of whom have a vested interest in promulgating long-term treatment for Lyme disease because they make their living off such treatment. Here's what else Courant readers need to know:
The IDSA Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lyme disease, which Dr. Stricker dismisses, were developed by a panel of world-renowned experts in Lyme disease, doctors who are researchers and who regularly treat Lyme disease patients. The guidelines were created based on stringent rules of evidence-based medicine, which includes a thorough and objective review of published scientific research. This comprehensive review also included research submitted by members of Dr. Sticker's organization. The guidelines undergo a rigorous peer review and must ultimately be approved by the IDSA board of directors, who are all infectious-disease specialists and leaders in the field.
Despite claims that many people suffer from "chronic Lyme disease," a thorough review of published research reveals no credible scientific evidence that the disease persists after appropriate antibiotic treatment indicated in the IDSA guidelines.
There is valid scientific evidence documenting that more than 50 percent of patients diagnosed with "chronic Lyme disease" never actually had any form of Lyme disease. In one published scientific study, the majority of such patients were found to have conditions that, because of the misdiagnosis of chronic Lyme disease, were not properly diagnosed or treated.
In fact, Lyme disease is a tick-borne bacterial infection. In the vast majority of cases (95 percent to 98 percent), the disease is successfully treated with a two-week course of oral antibiotics. A small number of patients may require longer treatment of up to one month. These facts are supported overwhelmingly by the most current published studies.
There are a very few patients treated for Lyme disease who continue to have symptoms after the recommended treatment. The long-term antibiotic therapy advocated by Dr. Stricker and his colleagues can endanger these individuals, cause needless suffering and may promote the development of drug-resistant "superbugs."
We encourage anyone who is diagnosed with so-called chronic Lyme disease to get a second opinion. We strongly advise that people with Lyme disease avoid long-term antibiotic treatment, which is ineffective, costly and potentially very dangerous.
IDSA members have been at the forefront of preventing and treating Lyme disease. Our singular mission is to find out what is best for patients. We believe that our guidelines represent the best that science has to offer.
For reliable, scientific-based information on Lyme disease, we would direct your readers to sources such as the websites of the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov), as well as that of IDSA (www.idsociety.org).
Martin J. Blaser, M.D. President Infectious Diseases Society of America Alexandria, Va.
The writer is chairman of the Department of Medicine at the New York University School of Medicine in New York City.
============
Dr. Raphael B. Stricker's assertion that "Medical Revisionists Threaten Effective Lyme Treatment" might be true if he was writing about himself and his colleagues.
Over the past 30 years, physicians have been successfully treating Lyme infections and researchers have spent more than a third of a billion federal dollars studying the agent of Lyme disease. That vast body of knowledge and experience has provided the public with
70 Food and Drug Administration-approved diagnostic tests and effective antibiotic treatments.
Lyme disease diagnostic and treatment options also have been updated by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Moreover, the guidelines are just that: guidelines - not laws - meant to provide physicians with useful options for treating different patients with different symptoms based upon medical evidence.
Some patients may have persistent symptoms following treatment, but two long-term antibiotic treatment trials that were ended after 90 days of intravenous and oral antibiotics failed to improve patients' symptoms (New England Journal of Medicine, July 12, 2001).
In the June 2005 Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Henry Feder, the University of Connecticut's Lyme disease expert, wrote that "following the recommendations of Stricker and the ILADS of using prolonged antibiotic therapy for presumed Lyme disease has been shown to be harmful and even fatal."
In the end, this small band of medical revisionists may be threatening not Lyme treatments, but Lyme patients.
Edward McSweegan Crofton, Md.
The writer is a microbiologist and managed a federal Lyme disease research program at the National Institutes of Health.
=============
In the late '90s, because I spend a lot of time outdoors in areas where Lyme disease is frequently diagnosed, I received from my physician the three-shot series of vaccinations of Lymerix, a drug originally produced by SmithKline Beecham to protect against the disease.
At that time, I was told the medication proved around 85 percent effective in warding off the disease. This seemed like good enough odds for me, because I also continued the use of anti-tick sprays.
A couple of years ago, concerned that friends had contracted the disease and had never been offered the vaccine, I did a Google search on the Internet and found that Glaxo SmithKline (which had bought the original producer) had removed Lymerix from the market in February 2002, claiming demand hadn't reached a sustainable level.
Well of course that made me furious, thinking that a product that could protect many from the ravages of Lyme disease would no longer be available. I railed against a system that allows such decisions to be based on profit rather than on disease prevention.
Turns out (more Googling) the manufacturer might have had another reason for the vaccine's withdrawal: At the time of the drug's removal from the market, there were lawsuits pending against the manufacturer for a range of adverse effects, some of which were Lyme- like, which seemed to have been caused by the vaccine.
And we're told that last winter was warmer than usual and thus more deer-tick larvae survived than usually do. So it's likely there will be more bites and more illness.
Between global warming, medical revisionists and no vaccine, it looks as if we're in for a long fight against this increasingly common illness.
Susan Forbes Hansen
West Hartford
Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant