You can also get it on a coffee mug.
I've added it to my wish list.
This patient population needs treatment and is not getting it, insurance is denying payment for their treatment and science proves it is necessary; to not treat them would be unconscionable and like letting people die from tuberculosis, syphilis, and HIV just because insurance won't pay for it.
"The controversy in Lyme disease research is a shameful affair. And I say that because the whole thing is politically tainted. Money goes to people who have, for the past 30 years, produced the same thing: nothing. Serology has to be started from scratch with people who don’t know beforehand the results of their research.
There are lots of physicians around who wouldn’t touch a Lyme disease patient. They tell the nurse, “You tell the guy to get out of here. I don’t want to see him.” That is shameful. So [this] shame includes physicians who don’t even have the courage to tell a patient, “You have Lyme disease and I don’t know anything about it.”
"I am a believer in persistent infections because people suffering with Lyme disease, ten or fifteen or twenty years later, get sick [again]. Because it appears that this organism has the ability to be sequestered in tissues and [it] is possible that it could reappear, bringing back the clinical manifestations it caused in the first place. These are controversial issues for microbiologists, as well as the physicians who are asked to treat patients."
|Lockout Signs - MySafetySign.com|
Why won't the IDSA simply explain to the public what is causing what some patients call Chronic Lyme Disease and some call Post-Lyme Syndrome? Don't they know? If they don't, and it is just speculation, then numerous hypotheses belong on the table.
Why do some of the IDSA's own members use the term "Chronic Lyme Disease" in their papers and on their own patents - including a patent as recently as 2005 - if Chronic Lyme Disease does not exist?
Why have some of the IDSA's own members made statements about the persistence of Borrelia and its chronic nature in their own research publications - but when asked today deny Borrelia persists and can be chronic?
If there was a shift in opinion from these IDSA members from a persistence model to an autoimmune model explaining why Chronic Lyme Disease occurs, what was the research or pivotal event which led to that shift?
Why do Chronic Lyme Disease patients who go to other doctors to ensure they are not missing any additional diagnoses often fail to find any other cause for their symptoms?
If Chronic Lyme Disease is (as some IDSA doctors and others have suggested without any scientific proof given) a psychological condition, why is it that the medications used to treat such conditions are ineffective in eliminating the symptoms in Chronic Lyme Disease patients when tried?
If, as it is claimed, months of antibiotics did not help the patients in trials who have Chronic Lyme Disease - is it possible that the issue isn't that the patient must not have Chronic Lyme Disease - but instead the wrong antibiotic treatment was used during the trials?
Is it possible that due to antigenic variation and sequestration of Borrelia bacteria, it can evade antibiotics successfully, and that their slow reproduction cycle can require a longer treatment cycle in order to kill all the bacteria?
Can spirochetes found in tissues and collagen after antibiotic treatment cause symptoms based on infection even if those spirochetes are found to be non-dividing? Dr. Stephen Barthold states they are still infectious.
How do the mouse infectivity tests apply to human beings?
What does the IDSA think of this research by UC Davis showing persistence of Bb?
What does the IDSA think of this research on neuroborreliosis positive patients with negative cultures?
What percentage of Lyme Disease patients go on to develop neuroborreliosis? Consider that question carefully, in light of the publication just linked.
"Bernard Raxlen, the doctor who received an award at the 2008 Turn the Corner Foundation gala, has faced four disciplinary cases before the Connecticut medical board in the past decade."Structural nitpick: This statement would be better incorporated into the first page of this article, as well as the following paragraph.
"The current case initially involved charges that Raxlen told a Massachusetts woman with fatal Lou Gehrig's disease that she had a Lyme infection and treated her with an illegal drug from Germany. After years of legal wrangling, what remains are charges that Raxlen, as a psychiatrist, failed to diagnose and treat the patient for severe depression or refer her for such an exam and failed to consider any diagnoses other than Lyme."This is the second time that Dr. Raxlen's and his disciplinary record is being mentioned in the same article, with a repeat of information offered earlier. The reader at this point might get the impression that Dr. Raxlen has repeatedly been charged with the same kind of actions when the article is just restating the case.
"In an interview, Raxlen said the patient did have Lyme disease. He said the relationship between Lyme and Lou Gehrig's disease "is unclear." (Last year, experts on ALS wrote in a journal devoted to the disease: "There is no convincing evidence that ALS can be caused by Lyme disease.")"Which experts? Which journal? What evidence has been presented where that ALS can be caused by Lyme Disease, convincing or not?
"Raxlen said he is proud of his medical record. Charges of patient harm have been repeatedly dismissed. He has been sanctioned twice for lesser charges related to his failure to turn over patient records to the medical board or insurers. Charges in 2003 related to a Lyme patient's suicide were dropped entirely. "If charges of patient harm have been repeatedly dismissed, doesn't this mean Dr. Raxlen wasn't guilty of the actions of which he was accused? Who filed the charges of patient harm in the first place? Was it the patient, the patient's family, another doctor, or an insurance company? Doesn't it make a difference who filed the charges?
'"I've never been reprimanded for my clinical judgment," Raxlen said.This second paragraph doesn't make sense to readers. Why would the executive director say it's shame Raxlen and other doctors in the movement have been disciplined? In light of what Dr. Ryser did - which sounds egregious compared to Dr. Raxlen - is there a point where Sobel would agree that being disciplined is the right course of action and not a shame to have happen?
Stacey Sobel, executive director of the Turn the Corner Foundation, says it's a shame Raxlen and other doctors in the movement have been disciplined. "We look at them as doctors who are trying to help Lyme patients," she said."'
"While they have lost the scientific battle so far, chronic Lyme activists are winning politically. In recent years, they have persuaded politicians in 13 states to introduce Lyme-friendly bills, many of which prevent medical boards from disciplining doctors for treating Lyme with antibiotics long-term."What scientific battle have the Chronic Lyme activists lost so far? What do Chronic Lyme activists think about Lyme Disease and why? What scientific arguments do they have in support of Chronic Lyme and why are they valid or invalid?
"It can be an uphill battle getting politicians to side with science when sick patients testify that long-term antibiotic treatment helped them, said infectious disease physician Dr. Jeffrey Parsonnet, who testified against a New Hampshire doctor-protection bill.Using Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, Dr. Parsonnet is being interviewed here in the role of being an expert who is helping the authors build their straw man by using ad hominem attacks.
"It is all focused on either siding with the big, rich doctors with their BMWs or this poor person who is suffering and misdiagnosed," said Parsonnet, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School."
"The biggest boon to the chronic Lyme movement came when Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal launched an antitrust investigation of the Infectious Diseases Society of America panel that set Lyme treatment guidelines in 2006. The panel was made up of some of the world's top experts in Lyme disease.Who was this independent ombudsman? What does "had no significant financial ties to Lyme Disease" mean? What if that included doctors who received a significant portion of their income from treating patients with Lyme Disease and coinfections, including infectious disease doctors who would be bound to see many Lyme Disease patients? In this way, wouldn't those who had the most experience with Lyme Disease be out of consideration for considering evidence?
But Blumenthal, soon to be a U.S. senator, said the society undercut its credibility by empaneling doctors who consulted for insurers and had financial interests in drug companies and Lyme disease diagnostic tests. A spokeswoman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) said the panelists did not benefit financially from the guidelines, which recommend generic drugs and lab tests.
Because of a 2008 agreement between Blumenthal and the IDSA, a new panel considered evidence submitted by all sides. Panelists were screened by an independent ombudsman to ensure they had no significant financial ties to Lyme disease."
"In April, the panel released its report. It agreed with the 2006 panel: The evidence for chronic Lyme disease was weak, and long-term antibiotic treatment was dangerous and ineffective."Who was on this panel that was selected? Why did they agree with the 2006 panel? To what degree did they agree - were there any inconclusive decisions or questions on any section of the guidelines? Why is the evidence for Chronic Lyme Disease weak? What is the evidence that was given to the panel?
"As is often the case in this era of dubious medicine, the scientific review did not put the issue to rest. Instead, the panel's decision was a call to arms for chronic Lyme advocates."Why didn't the scientific review put the issue to rest? Why was it a call to arms for Chronic Lyme Disease advocates? Did the advocates have any evidence that conflicted with the panel's that could be considered scientifically valid? Did the panel have any other agendas which did not involve their financial gain from Lyme Disease related services or products which could have influenced their decision?
"On a popular blog for Lyme sufferers, Ashley van Tol wrote that "infecting the committee members with Lyme sounds great because we are pissed off."The authors have taken one quote (which Ms. Tol later stated (online in a comment in response to the article) was a misquote) of one Lyme patient and used it to represent the sentiment of all Lyme patients. By using one (mis)quote which characterizes a Lyme patient as wanting to infect others - even with a retraction - the authors are painting Lyme patients as angry and vengeful. By adding the additional note about a patient saying personal stories are more powerful than scientific guidelines, the authors are able to support their platform they've been promoting all along: Chronic Lyme Disease is not about science or proof, but about the stories that people tell others about their experience.
After acknowledging that would not be "realistic or appropriate," van Tol went on to urge readers to make their voices heard, because personal stories are more powerful than scientific guidelines.
"In a competition between posting the IDSA guidelines or your Lyme story," she wrote, "it is going to be you that they choose to read about."