Lyme disease, science, and society: Camp Other
Showing posts with label feedback. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feedback. Show all posts

Sunday, July 15, 2012

0 House Subcommittee Hearing On Lyme Disease

In the "this could be interesting to watch" file:

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON LYME

The Lyme Disease Association, Inc (LDA) announces that the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, & Human Rights will hold a hearing 2PM EDT, on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 in 2172 Rayburn HOB in Washington, DC. The hearing, Global Challenges in Diagnosing and Managing Lyme Disease - Closing Knowledge Gaps, will be webcast and available live via the Committee website:

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearings/view/?1455

US Representative Christopher H. Smith (NJ) is chairing the hearing.



UPDATE:

Go here for NOTES from this hearing, posted July 17, 2012:

http://campother.blogspot.com/2012/07/notes-house-subcommittee-hearing-on.html



For those readers who are viewing from outside Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) zone, the following guide may be helpful:

Chicago, Illinois: Tuesday, July 17, at 1:00 PM
Denver, Colorado: Tuesday, July 17, at 12:00 PM
Los Angeles, California: Tuesday, July 17, at 11:00 AM
Honolulu, Hawaii: Tuesday, July 18, at 8:00 AM
London, UK: Tuesday, July 17, at 7:00 PM
Sydney, Australia: Wednesday, July 18, at 4:00 AM

LDA President Pat Smith will be one of the witnesses presenting testimony─problems with doctors diagnosing and treating Lyme and with patients receiving treatment for Lyme.

Lyme disease numbers have continued to rise nationwide and throughout the world, and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) has indicated that in 2009, Lyme disease surpassed HIV in incidence ─ Lyme was the 7th highest in disease incidence reporting. Lyme is no longer a disease of the Northeast. LDA has developed a pie chart using CDC reported case numbers for 2010 showing that 9 Northeastern states had 66% of the case reports, the remainder of the country had 34% of reported Lyme cases─ a 10% increase in disease in the remainder of the country from 2008 figures (see www.LymeDiseaseAssociation.org for pie chart). Experts have been seeing a significant increase in ticks and tick-borne diseases in 2012.

Lyme is now found in approximately 65 countries worldwide. From May through mid July of this year, the LDA had an electronic billboard in Times Square, NY, presenting that Lyme disease is found throughout the body and all over the world.

Currently, Congressman Christopher Smith has a bill introduced in the US House of Representatives HR 2557, and Senator Blumenthal has one introduced in the US Senate, S-1381, both calling for a federal advisory committee on Lyme and tick-borne disease with representation from patients, voluntary Lyme organizations, and from doctors and scientists from a broad spectrum of viewpoints on Lyme disease.

The room for the hearing will hold about 150 people and the public is invited to attend. People should arrive 45 minutes early because there are lines for security. The Rayburn House Office Building does have a large cafeteria in basement.

The LDA encourages everyone to contact their federal legislators to encourage their attendance and co-sponsorship of Us House bill HR 2557 (C. Smith-NJ). Also notify your state officials to encourage their attendance or viewing of the hearing and notify other officials such as your State Health Department officials and any other individuals that have an interest in Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. Please distribute and post this release to your websites, blogs, newspapers and any other media.

Stay tuned for an update and action on the Senate Lyme bill S-1381 (Blumenthal-CT) in the next few weeks.

HEARING WITNESSES

Stephen W. Barthold, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology
Center of Comparative Medicine, School of Veterinary Medicine University of California, Davis

Raphael Stricker, M.D.
Vice President
International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society

Mark Eshoo, Ph.D.
Director, New Technology Development
Abbott

Ms. Patricia Smith
President
Lyme Disease Association

Mr. Evan White
Lyme Disease Patient

Ms. Stella Huyshe-Shires
Chair
Lyme Disease Action



Of course, of all the speakers who will be presenting that day, I am looking forward to what Stephen Barthold is going to say...

Edited to add: Mark Eshoo may also have something interesting to say about testing for Lyme disease. Refer to this post on LNE for more information on his research: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4014#p30012

UPDATE:

Go here for NOTES from this hearing, posted July 17, 2012:

http://campother.blogspot.com/2012/07/notes-house-subcommittee-hearing-on.html

Read More

Friday, May 25, 2012

2 Wormser et al Criticism Launched at Embers' Rhesus Macaque Study

Wormser et al have recently published a critique of Embers' study, "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection".

Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 2012 May 23. [Epub ahead of print]

Critical Analysis of Treatment Trials of Rhesus Macaques Infected with Borrelia burgdorferi Reveals Important Flaws in Experimental Design.
Wormser GP, Baker PJ, O'Connell S, Pachner AR, Schwartz I, Shapiro ED.

Abstract

A critical analysis of two treatment trials of Chinese rhesus macaques infected with Borrelia burgdorferi indicates that insufficient attention was placed on documenting the blood levels, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic parameters of the antibiotics used in this host. Consequently, it is impossible to conclude that the findings have validity in judging the efficacy of doxycycline or ceftriaxone for the treatment of Borrelia burgdorferi in this animal model.

PMID: 22620495 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Full text of this critique is available here:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vbz.2012.1012

The full text of the original study which is the focus of this critique is here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029914


Related material on Camp Other blog:

Comments:


For now I am sharing the news that the free full text this critique is available online. Further comments to be made at another time. Comments by readers are welcome.

Read More

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

12 A Personal Note From A Fellow Lyme Patient




I was going to work on a page about the Lyme disease controversy which incorporated some of the discussion about Embers et al Rhesus macaque study on the Lyme Policy Wonk blog or post something about how Viral Genetics' chronic Lyme disease treatment is supposed to work.

But I've decided for now to set that aside because now I have something to say about something more personal.




Recently, someone mentioned me online in a Lyme disease support group forum and stated that my ability to knock out 1,000 word rebuttals and look up all this research made other people with Lyme disease look bad.

I took exception to that statement, and disagreed with it.

It wasn't all that long ago that I wasn't even able to write and do research, and it wasn't until I had been treated for Babesia by my LLMD that I began to see a difference in how quickly my mind worked.

When this change took place, I wanted to take advantage of it.

I felt compelled to write and do research because I finally could do so again and I was afraid I would relapse again any day. I feared I would return to some muddy primordial brain soup that couldn't string other people's sentences together and would put down a book after two minutes of frustrated repetition that looked like reading but really wasn't.

Relapse when? Who knows. I'm still afraid of my old symptoms returning and losing ground. Relapse happened to Pamela Weintraub. Relapse happened to others. And I've already relapsed once from about 85% of my original baseline.

I was so close. So, so close to feeling normal again. And then I lost what I had gained.

I'm not 100% now and I'm not at 85% again - however, I'm still better off than I was over a year ago.

This writing I do here and other places online? It isn't a game to me. At times it has been a genuine challenge. I've done it while having headaches and muscle pain and joint swelling. I've done it in the middle of episodes of fatigue and to avoid standing up due to vertigo. I've done it at 3 am. I've done it after waking up after being crashed out for hours because I'd been in the ER all night.

It's true that I do a lot of research. And it's not hard to do because it's what I used to do for a living. To some degree, it's force of habit and was easy to return to once I was able to understand what I read again. And I'm trying to reeducate myself and learn new things so that I have a better understanding of what I write and share with you.

But just because I do this does not mean I am capable of returning to my old job. Even if I can read and write, my health is so unstable that employment has not been possible during this time. Employment requires stability.

My brain - while functioning in some ways - is not fully running on all cylinders in others. It's just not obvious how it isn't to someone who isn't living life inside my skin every day.

Care for the rest of me outside my brain can be time consuming.  Case in point: I just looked on my calendar for February to see how many appointments I had. If you add it all up, I've had 5 appointments for different health problems - either to follow up on an already existing condition or to check up on a new one.

Many if not most of my friends without Lyme disease haven't seen a doctor within the past year.

That used to be me. Not any more.


When it comes to blogging online, I think it's a great thing: In some small way, this has been my slice of "normal". No one could see how impaired I have been and how bad things can be.

Perversely, having my capability for research and writing online being pointed out by a near-total stranger is satisfying: It means that I pass as being more normal than I truly am to someone in a world where the dominant paradigm of normal = healthy - even when I'm part of a community where it's normal to not be healthy and one faces challenges daily. But it can be demoralizing and confusing to read the accusation attached to it that my doing my best is somehow reflecting poorly on others.

I'm not doing research and writing about Lyme disease to make other patients look bad. I've been doing it because it's one of the few things I've been capable of doing from my sofa during the past year. 

I've been doing it because I want to learn as much as I can about this disease and topics related to it.

I've been doing it because maybe what I learn and share with others can help them, somehow, in some small way.

I've been doing it to educate people about Lyme disease and other tickborne illnesses.

I've also done it because it keeps me saner than I otherwise might be after all I have been through. It distracts me. It gives me a goal to live for other than to drag myself through another appointment, another blood draw, and another tedious stack of paperwork.

I've been trying to do something positive with the situation I've been placed in against my will, and implied assumptions about my health and reasons for writing long rebuttals or doing research are about as useful to hear as hearing a statement such as "those with chronic Lyme disease only suffer from "the aches and pains of daily living" is useful to hear: It isn't.

And when it boils down to it, a remark about my being a bad example for knocking out long posts online doesn't even make sense to anyone when so many other patients - including ones with other medical conditions which are disabling - spend at least as much time reading, writing, and posting online as I do.

If I've actually improved - if I've actually been doing better than I used to be doing - that is a good thing. When anyone else shares the news that they are doing better, I tell them I'm happy for them. I don't tell them they set a bad example. That doesn't make sense.

A lot of us struggling with disabilities are in the same boat. Former lives are broken and may not come back together the same way again. It sucks, all the way around.

I don't know what the future holds.

In the meantime, though, I am going to make good use of this time to research and write if I can, and do the best I can do at what I'm capable of doing.

How can anyone salvage something out of this situation? You do the best you can.

I encourage you to do likewise. Life is short.
Read More

Saturday, February 25, 2012

5 Debate About Embers Non-Human Primate Chronic Lyme Disease Study Continues

UPDATE - Feb. 27:  I did receive a response from Dr. Baker. See comments below this post.

There is some heated discussion going on at CALDA's web site regarding Embers et al study, "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection (2012)".

I wrote about this study last month and commented on some of the findings and the need for further research and confirmation of the findings in this study. (I recommend reviewing that post and comments made on it.)

CALDA's Lorraine Johnson has questioned Dr. Phillip Baker, who was Program Officer for the NIH's Lyme disease research division at the time the Embers study began (then known as Mario Phillip's study; Baker retired from NIH in 2007 and is now in charge at the ALDF), over the 12 year delay of Embers et al publishing the results of this study.

Dr. Baker himself decided to respond to Lorraine's questions and respond to a number of the comments and questions patients and advocates shared on CALDA's Lyme Policy Wonk blog.

Interestingly, a number of people have discussed this study on Lymenet Europe - with one member, Henry, questioning the use of ceftiofur when Embers study was supposed to emulate Klempner's chronic Lyme study. This issue happens to be one of of main issues Dr. Baker also raises on the Wonk blog about the Embers study. (Warning: There are seven pages of spirited discussion on this topic at LNE thus far - some of which may raise blood pressure in readers.)

To follow the discussion and see an example of different points of view over the issue of chronic Lyme disease, read here: http://lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/lymepolicywonk-was-this-important-lyme-study-hidden-for-12-years.html

In the meantime, I have submitted my own questions and comments to CALDA's web site for Dr. Baker. As of this writing, my post has just cleared moderation and I await a response from Dr. Baker.

I want some answers. Not just about oversight for how the study was designed but about the lack of treatment studies for chronic Lyme disease patients.

Even if your position is that chronic Lyme disease is not caused by a persisting Borrelia infection, there is no reason why more research cannot be completed to provide evidence that this is or is not the case in some circumstances. And even if your position is that chronic Lyme disease's persisting symptoms may be caused by other factors, there is no reason why more treatment research cannot be completed to provide evidence either for or against these factors playing a role...



Dr. Baker,

First of all, I want to thank you for being here and presenting your view in the presence of Lyme disease patients who have different points of view than your own and who are at a minimum questioning your opinion about Lyme disease and at a maximum - quite angry.

This isn't an easy thing to do. I recognize that. But this is a necessary thing to do, and I wish that more dialog occurred between people with differing views even at the risk of it becoming contentious. It is often the only way opinions get aired and heard and questions get answered - even if we don't like the answers we hear.

I have a few questions for you, and hope I did not miss the boat on getting a response from you at this late hour:

1) Just so the storyline is clear: Who determined that ceftiofur should have been used in Embers et al study on NHP and is this decision something that NIH would have had to give approval - or is this a decision that would have been made at the individual level of the PI/researcher and not require any approval from the NIH? Would any independent governing scientific board outside the NIH been expected to approve of the study design including methods and materials? It seems that in order to emulate the Klempner study, the antibiotic chosen should either be the same as used in the original study or have, as you've stated, PK and PD that are pretty much indistinguishable from ceftriaxone.

2) In your opinion - and in the opinion of others at the ALDF - would you have to see studies separately completed on ceftiofur that provide you with evidence that its PK and PD in NHP are functionally equivalent to the use of ceftriaxone in humans? If these studies are conducted and they are found to be equivalent, then would you say that the results of the Embers et al study are valid? (Even if - according to your position - they don't yet prove a persistent infection/persister cells are the cause of patients' symptoms.)

3) The central point on which a lot of this debate hinges is whether or not spirochetes which remain after antibiotic treatment are viable and infectious. I've never gotten the impression that the majority of researchers out there have debated the existence of spirochetes after abx treatment - the impression I've had is that they either didn't think they were the cause of persisting symptoms in patients or did not know one way or the other if they were the case of persisting symptoms.

Parallel to demonstrated survival of some spirochetes after abx treatment, some research has indicated that a combination of Borrelial strain, host genetics, immune system response, and in some cases, molecular mimicry - may be causative factors for persisting symptoms. I myself think that based on evidence I've read to date, both persisting spirochetes and immune system changes can lead to persisting symptoms. I am particularly intrigued by HLA-DRs and variable immune response in this regard (see "HLA-DR alleles determine responsiveness to Borrelia burgdoferi antigens" by Bettina Panagiota Iliopoulou, Mireia Guerau-de-Arellano, and Brigitte T. Huber. Arthritis Rheum. 2009 December; 60(12): 3831–3840.).

My questions are:

When is the NIH-NIAID going to conduct more studies aimed towards this end? And also, if you and others are convinced that chronic Lyme disease patients are not suffering from persisting infections - why hasn't more treatment research been conducted that supports your point of view of what is or what are the causative factors for such symptoms?

Why are patients, advocates, and Lyme disease advocacy organizations having to donate money to Dr. Karen Newell Rogers and Viral Genetics to find alternative treatments to long-term antibiotics - why isn't the NIH-NIAID pursuing these alternative approaches now, if the argument is that long term antibiotics do not work and you consider them unsafe (Which in my opinion debatable in my eyes - I have personally benefited from more than the guidelines recommend - and I do not think the use for or against more abx is applicable to everyone because this is a heterogenous patient population. The patients need to be characterized into subgroups first rather than boxed into meeting CDC specific requirements before designing new trials.)?

I have been offended with the letter to the Lancet about Lyme disease patients and advocates supporting pseudoscience when so many of us have wanted to fund more research and get answers. When a number of our friends and families have donated their money to research even when they have already paid so much for treatment.

Some of the answers are already there. If more than one hypothesis is solid enough for testing, I'm for it. Test different combinations of antibiotics. Create drugs which have the anti-inflammatory properties of these antibiotics and use them as a control against combinations of antibiotics. Use higher doses of orals, if the fear of line sepsis freaks you out (it does me, and I have not had a PICC line by choice). Try testing thymus peptides and altering the distribution of B cells to see if that helps patients.

What I see as an observer is that Lyme disease treatment research has been shut down unless it's for acute Lyme disease. We need more late stage untreated Lyme disease research, and I'm with Fallon on this one - more specific neuroborreliosis research. His suggestions for those trials seem worthwhile.

But for God's sake, something has to be done. Some people are seriously impaired. I am doing somewhat better now and have my mind back to a large degree and don't need a wheelchair. But I am not yet well enough to work due to pain and fatigue with normal amounts of exertion. Something is broken there.



Dr. Baker's response to me:


Hi Campother,
Even though I feel that some have their minds made up and will not believe anything that I have to say, I will try to answer your questions:
1. Dr. Philipp received a small grant (AI042352) to conduct an experiment in NHPs to replicate the Klempner clinical trial, except of course for the manner in which the NHPs were infected. Because the grant was a small one (about $250K as I recall), Dr. Klempner was able — with support from the drug company– to provide him with the ceftriaxone and doxycycline to be used; these antibiotics were from the same lots used in the human study. Fair enough? That made working on a small grant a bit easier. 
Since NHPs are rather expensive to use and maintain, not too many could be used in the Philipp study because of limited funding. Furthermore, NHPs were in short supply at that time because of increase competition for use in studies on AIDS. The grant was funded for a 4 year period of time, during which time Dr. Philipp reported to me that he was having technical problems, especially with the strain of Borrelia that he had been using in past experiments; it appeared to have “lost its punch” and was no longer eliciting an infection of the same magnitude and character as noted in previous studies. This meant that he would have to re-drive the strain and test it in other NHPs to confirm that it was suitable for use in the definitive studies planned for the grant; that of course would take a great deal of time — and additional NHPs–to do. 
Although situations like this are unfortunate, they do happen and are part and parcel of the realities of doing scientific research — if you want to do it right. 
So, as far as Dr. Philipp’s original grant is concerned, it expired — after the 4 year period– with no data that he felt was was ready and complete for publication at that time. Obviously he continued with his NHP studies and apparently received funding from other sources; note that research Resources grants like RR00164 are designed for the purchase materials, equipment, and supplies, in this case, more NHPs I assume. But, I was “out of the picture” at that point — as far as Dr. Philipp’s research on NHPs was concerned. Keep in mind that as Program Officer, I was not the czar of NIH’s entire research program on Lyme disease, even though so people have the mistaken notion that I had such “power”.
So, you ask who made the decision to use ceftiofur instead of ceftriaxone? I honestly don’t know. 
You will have to ask Dr. Philipp, whose e-mail address is provided in the Embers paper. During the time that Dr. Philipp was doing his work under AI042352, it was being done in accordance with the terms of that grant indicated above. Whatever else he did — or may have done– must have been accomplished afterwards and with other support that did not involve me or NIAID. I must say that I find it strange that the term ceftriaxone is used throughout the Embers et al. paper, and it is only in the first paragraph on page 9 that it is first mentioned that ceftiofur was actually used. I find that very strange indeed.
As stated before and in other postings on this site, I have two major — and legitimate– concerns with the work reported by Embers et al. . First, since so little is known about the PK, PD, and MIC of ceftriofur, was the treatment adequate to eliminate the massive infection induced by needle inoculation? Since the author did not provide such assurances, that is a major and significant unknown. Second, if the therapy was adequate, there is no evidence to indicate that the “persistors” are able to infect other animals and produce disease. They might just be sitting there, for all we know, doing nothing harmful to the host. In view of these considerations, the PCR, RT-PCR, and xenodiagnosis data are not informative. In fact, there are no real differences between the antibiotic treated and sham-treated groups in terms of the objective signs of infection (pathology) noted ; that makes me wonder if the therapeutic regimen was truly effective. So, if I were reviewing this paper for publication in a journal, I would have to reject it publication for these and other deficiencies that I will not elaborate on at this time.
2. Since ceftiofur and cetriaxone differ significantly in chemical structure, I would not be at all surprised if they had different PD/PK properties; those who do drug design research find that the addition of a single chloride atom is enough to alter the properties of some drugs. What is certain is that ceftiofur is not approved for use in humans and there is no published evidence on its efficacy for treating borreliosis in animal models. Obviously, the use of ceftiofur is a big unknown. My best advice, if someone wanted to replicate the Klempner studies in an animal model would be to use ceftriaxone and doxycycline in the same manner that he did and not introduce another variable like ceftiofur– unless you plan to get the FDA to approve the use of ceftiofur in human studies. That may take a long time to do….

3. Since I have retired from the NIH, I don’t know what their plans are for future research on Lyme disease. But, I can tell you that about 90% of the research that NIH supports is driven by proposals submitted as investigator initiated grant applications — the RO1 grants. 
So, if anyone has any good ideas, they are always welcome to submit a grant application, although competition for grants is very keen and only about 25% of all applications submitted are funded. One has to be persistent as most of my colleagues are to make it in science. 
Although I am not opposed to conducting another clinical trial, the odds for such a proposal getting funded are rather slim, especially since NIH has already supported 4 trials indicating that extended antibiotic therapy is not beneficial. 
Obviously, I would like to see more work done on whether the “persistors” Bockenstedt and Barthold noted in mice are infective and can cause disease, as well as whether they can stimulate a local inflammatory response. But, I think we would be making a big mistake by not considering other possibilities as I’ve mentioned in a recent article (http://www.fasebj.org/content/26/1/11.long). 
There are MANY people who believe that they have “chronic Lyme disease” with no evidence that they ever had Lyme disease in the first place. Some have been misdiagnosed and are being subjected to all sort of unproven therapy. Also, there are individuals who go from one doctor to another seeking a “cure” and who often are victims of “quack” remedies. 
One reason we had so much difficulty enrolling patients into the Klempner study was that only about 5-8% of those who presented themselves for enrollment had unequivocal evidence in their medical record of having been diagnosed correctly for Lyme disease in the first place. Obviously, one can not have a chronic infection without first having an active and correctly diagnosed infection in the first place. That was made a criterion for enrollment to ensure that we would have a cohort of patients with a reasonably high — though still not absolutely certain– probability of having a persistent infection — if one were present. I assure you, and you can ask Brian Fallon and Lauren Krupp, such people are NOT easy to find.
But, I have said enough. The biggest obstacle to making any progress is the lack of trust and the tendency to condemn anyone in the scientific community who disagrees with the unproven concept of others. Some simply have no understanding of evidence-based research and how it works, let alone things like the placebo effect. There is just too much misinformation being spread on the internet — and too many people gobbling it up as though it were fact. It’s an ideal environment for all the “quacks” to thrive — and they surely do. And that is what disturbs me the most………



So, there you have it - that's his response, and while I posted a response to the Wonk blog, because my response was too lengthy it has not been posted there. So I posted it to comments below, after an explanation of why my response was not posted there.

The moderator emailed me personally and said that I could post another 150 word comment of my choosing, but I have declined for now because I don't think what I can say in response to Dr. Baker is adequately summed up in 150 words.

There was a second comment with other content which I submitted that I later decided needed a serious rewrite before posting - I won't be posting that here now and am okay with the moderators not publishing it (good job, mods - thanks).

I just want to take a moment here to acknowledge those who left intelligent and insightful questions and comments on the Wonk blog - even when addressing someone with whom they vehemently disagree. I would like to see more dialog such as this, but even more so I would like to see more thorough education and outreach going on which deconstructs all the hypotheses behind why chronic Lyme disease patients have persisting symptoms and what research is required to resolve the debate over cause.

Read More

Sunday, January 29, 2012

0 Poll: Cause Of Post Treatment Lyme Disease Symptoms

A couple months ago, a non-scientific poll was placed on the site which asked readers to select from a number of choices for what they think causes post treatment Lyme disease symptoms: persistent infection, an autoimmune disorder, b-cell dysfunction, all of the above, and none of the above.

During the two months the poll was open, only 18 votes were cast by readers who were given the option to select more than one response. 

This time, the poll will be open again with the same question - and in the interest of collecting more votes,  the poll will be open to voting for one year. Also, additional choices will be given (molecular mimicry, metabolic disorder, and immunosuppression) for readers to select. After the poll is closed, the results will be reported and further discussion of each of these choices will go on.

As it stands, of the 18 responses given in two months' time from the old poll, 10 responses stated that post treatment lyme disease symptoms are caused by a persistent infection, 3 stated that they are caused by an autoimmune disorder, one stated they are caused by a b-cell dysfunction, and 7 stated they are caused by all of the above.

We'll see what kind of responses are received on the new poll as time goes on...


Creative Commons License
This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
.
Read More

Friday, January 6, 2012

0 IDSA Requesting Feedback On Facebook

Well, the past 24 hours in Facebook Lymeland have certainly been interesting...

The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), of whom a subset are authors of the 2000 and 2006 Lyme Disease Treatment Guidelines, decided to solicit comments from their readers on Facebook at the below link:

https://www.facebook.com/IDSociety/posts/357764004239867

The question they posed was simply this:

"What would you like to see from your society in the coming year?"



And with that question, the floodgates opened, and a rush of disgruntled sick Lyme disease patients, chronic Lyme disease patients, caretakers of patients, patient advocates, physicians who were not LLMDs but were on long term treatment, and those questioning chronic Lyme disease's causes and wanting answers responded at length.

At some point, responders complained both on and off Facebook that whoever moderates the Facebook IDSA page was deleting their comments - even if the contents were not abusive, insulting, or engaging in ad hominem attacks. I don't know the full story there, having only caught a portion of the accusations about deletions.

But I will say that whether one agrees with the content in total or not: over 1500 comments in so short a period of time is notable.

What would you like to see the IDSA do in the coming year?

Read More

Thursday, October 20, 2011

0 Where Have All The Sane Lyme Patients Gone?

Here is an exchange I've seen elsewhere on the internet, names removed to place more focus on the content:

Do you think that morgellons stuff is a joke? Or lida mattman saying that Lyme can be transmitted by doorknobs and pens? Or that every sample she's ever seen shows Lyme?

No, those who put forth these theories are not joking. And no, I do NOT believe these things. And YES, I think they are damaging.

there are minions ready to believe anything.

This is true --patients who remain ill and find themselves fighting mainstream treatment guidelines have become angry and confused, and almost anything sometimes seems possible to them. They lack the scientific/medical background to distinguish.

Sober? Maybe. Not when they insist that mcsweegan is poisioning their well water though. I've heard some crazy stuff.

This is an old story. Let's move on. The baton has passed.

More sober and savvy than most people who have ever posted here? Sure. But that is like saying that they see and hear better than Helen Keller.

Many times people work behind the scenes because of forums like sci.med, which have gotten issues so knotted and confused.

I know some people with Lyme who aren't extremists. But they're few and far between.

Define extremist: In some circles, simply believing the cure didn't take after 28 days doxy is considered extreme. I find that if I talk to people logically and rationally they can respond in kind. Most people I have met in Lyme are turned off by the outrageous antics of the most notorious protagonists here, and I will not name the names. I don't know who you have met --but those I speak to, while sometimes empathetic, are NOT marching in line with a RICO lawsuit.

I've seen more than one "llmd" and waited in their waiting rooms with other lyme patients and heard them start talking or started talking with them. They're "informed" but don't seem to distinguish between what is good information and what isn't.

They are very confused by the situation --but the confusion starts with what medicine has handed down to them, not with the patients. If you create an artifactual disease that people don't have, then the patients who don't fit your model might be accused of factitious illness. It's a very frustrating situation for patients. The psychopathology starts with medicine, and patients are caught up and then labelled pathological, themselves. It is one of those Freudian boxes --the patients find there is no way out.

I don't see a lot of rationality anywhere.

It's hard to be rational in the face of an irrational situation that predated your involvement.

I don't think that two wrongs make a right and that rigid academic experts views are "balanced" by the views here.

Of course I do not believe this --I am simply saying that extremism begets extremism. I hold to my view that the dysfunction in Lyme was kicked off by biomedicine and not by patients.

It is just as easy to conclude that both are wrong and that maybe the "truth" is somewhere in between. Or nowhere in between but somewhere else entirely.

You must resolve dysfunction before you attempt to learn the truth.

I think you're glossing over things. Let's say you reject what the  academics say. Why does that mean that you have to buy into what Lida Mattman says?

I don't buy into what Mattman says. And nor do I reject academic research --some of what the academics say is right-on. But some of them have misused their craft and trampled the scientific method (perhaps unwittingly) in the process creating an unduly restrictive disease definition, discarding or twisting data, and spawning an untenable, dysfunctional situation out in the field. Most patients who appear dysfunctional once they get to Lyme were perfectly functional before --it is the scene and the situation --the disturbing dissonance between patient experience and medical paradigm-- that is at fault.

Rejecting the false negatives on elisa or western blot doesn't mean accepting a specific Lyme speciality lab's test results does it?

we don't need to keep debating this --of course not.

Have Lyme patients made things better?

Sadly things have not gotten better, but worse, IMO.

So you didn't answer the question. Where have all the sane Lyme patients gone?  Where is the forum, in real life or on the internet where I can find them? Where do they dominate? Where is rationality revered over reactionary radicalism?

I have met many MANY sane Lyme disease patients. I am sorry you have not. They are everywhere.

Lyme patients are fully to blame for how they've responded to the medical establishment.

Lyme patients are between a rock and a hard place --they have been dismantled, dismissed, and made fun of; they have been misdiagnosed for so long they develop chronic illness when they could have been totally cured. Lyme patients are angry. But they have not often strategized well in the past, I'll grant you that.

It's been a very bad confluence of situations and personalities all around, I'm afraid. It is, in short, a disaster: But if you don't look to what has transpired in medicine and science to stanch out the dysfunction, you will be spinning your wheels to the end of time. Should Lyme patients do a better job of achieving this? Yes of course.



And another comment from a Chronic Lyme Disease patient seen elsewhere, from someone who reminds me of LymeEngima (but was not identified as such):

"I have Chronic Lyme and I hated the movie “Under Our Skin”.  All it did was try and instill panic in people who are already sick and vulnerable to making desperate choices.  [...]
The IDSA Guidelines scare me. The doctors who treat Lyme scare me. The treatments scare me and the fear and anger around the whole subject scares me. Nothing about Lyme resembles even handed scientific principles and more closely resemble hysteria."

Comments such as this are rare to come by online. Few Lyme disease patients have said anything negative about UOS or admitted that everything about Lyme disease scares them.



These comments are a prelude to my own post about why and how dealing with Lyme disease drives me crazy, so I put them here for review and discussion.

Any thoughts from those of you reading along?

Read More

Friday, October 7, 2011

4 Admin Update: Scavenger Hunt Extension, Vote On Topics, Busyness

To my readers:

Hope you have been having a decent week and that this weekend is a good one, too.

As for me... I have been either busy or markedly unwell during the past week and a half, thus the slow down in posting frequency here.

I think there's a correlation there, too: Any time I do not get enough rest and push a little more than I should, I end up paying for it.  This has been what has happened recently, and today I had a really hard time getting out of bed.

Hopefully this weekend will be better.

Lyme Disease Research Scavenger Hunt Announcement

Regarding the Lyme Disease Research Scavenger Hunt, I am giving participants an additional week. Please submit your entries for Round Three no later than next Friday, October 14th, 12 am Hawaiian Time.

After the 14th, if no entries have been submitted for Round Four, I will post the answers for both Round Three and Round Four.

I expect the game will have a few more rounds through November, at which point the winner will get to pick the topic of their choice related to Lyme disease and coinfections which I will hand illustrate.

Request For Feedback: Vote For One Of Next Week's Post Topics

I'm outlining some upcoming topics for new posts and would like to hear from feedback from you.

Which of the following are of the most interest to you? How would you rank them in order of importance?

  1. Why is (or isn't) neuroborreliosis a big problem?
  2. Commentary: Scientific rigor and providing evidence for chronic Lyme disease
  3. Commentary: Why (and how) contracting Lyme disease has driven me crazy
  4. Lyme disease animal studies
  5. Part 2:The Value of Anecdotal Evidence (Here's a link to Part 1.)
  6. Other: _________________ (topic YOU think is important to read about)

Keeping it simple for now, narrowing it down to these few choices.

Okay, I'm going to call it a night. I'm tired.

Read More

Monday, August 29, 2011

3 Antiscience letter and conflicts of interest

Since I finally had the opportunity to read the full text of the antiscience and Lyme disease advocacy letter in the Lancet, someone asked me if the letter had any stated conflicts of interest attached to its full text version.

Yes, it does - and here is the stated conflicts of interest portion:

Conflicts of interest
PGA has served as a consultant for Oxford Diagnostics and has participated in expert testimony in two medicolegal suits about possible Lyme disease. He has equity interest in Johnson & Johnson, no products of which are referred to in this article. RJD is part owner of and has stock in Biopeptides Corporation, no product of which is referred to in this article, has received payment for providing expert testimony in malpractice cases and holds patents on vaccine and diagnostic technology with SUNY at Stony Brook Biopeptides. JSD has received support for travel to meetings from DiaSorin and has licence of US patent 5,955,359 to Focus Diagnostics; none of these declarations are directly related to the contents of this article. JJH has served as an expert witness in several medicolegal cases concerning Lyme disease and has equity in Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck; no products from these companies are referred to in this article. EMcS was a former programme officer for Lyme disease at the US NIH. RBN has served as an expert witness in malpractice litigation involving Lyme disease. EDS is a board member of the American Lyme Disease Foundation, for which no compensation is received. He has reviewed medical records for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and has provided medicolegal testimony. GPW is a board member of the American Lyme Disease Foundation for which no compensation is received, has served as an expert witness in malpractice cases involving Lyme disease, has research grants from the NIH/Immunetics, BioRad, DiaSorin, and BioMerieux to study diagnostic tests for Lyme disease, none of which is mentioned in the manuscript, and has equity in Abbott, a company not known to have any approved product for Lyme disease. JSB, RJD, JSD, JJH, RBN, EDS, ACS, and GPW have served on the panel for the 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines. JSB, SO'C, SKS, ACS, and AW declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


Related to this, here are your questions of the day:

Does having these conflicts of interest affect how the authors of the letter act in the treatment of Lyme disease, if the authors engage in determining the outcome of insurance cases for Lyme disease treatment, develop vaccines and diagnostic tests, and write up guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease? At what point does one say that one has a conflict of interest versus because one is considered an expert they are called upon to make these decisions by others? How does one separate the two?

In the Lyme disease controversy, Lyme disease patient advocates have pointed out IDSA Lyme disease guideline panelists' conflicts of interest in the past, and in the full text of this letter, the authors pointed out conflicts of interest being held by ILADS members. Is pointing out these conflicts of interest being done in the interest of fairness or in order to engage in a negative campaign against the other party?

Is there anyone out there who is free of conflicts of interest who is involved in the Lyme disease controversy? How do you know they are free of conflicts of interest?

Now that this letter has created a stir in the Lyme disease patient community, what's next? For anyone who has read the full text of the original letter, what is the best next step for resolution of this controversy? Brainstorming is welcome.

Addendum: Regarding Abbott, see this link on their research assays and ask why there isn't a better diagnostic test available for patients.

Read More

Friday, July 1, 2011

19 Admin Update: Holiday break & Request For Topics



I've been pounding the keys pretty heavily in the past couple days on commentary, and after taking a break for a few days, I would like to get back to discussing more of the science of Lyme disease.

I have some topics in the pipeline I can write about, but I'm putting out a request for feedback here:

What Lyme disease and other tickborne infection topics would you like to know more about?

Please leave your topics in comments - your top three choices if you have them, but one is okay, too.

Thanks!

Read More

9 Recap Of Dr. Zemel and Dr. Cameron Chat

ZEMEL VS. CAMERON
I'm going to be posting comments here during the course of the chat, then offer additional feedback here afterwards.

So far, this is off to a slow start. I don't know if it's the live chat software or if the servers are flooded with Lyme disease patients, but it's 10 minutes in and we barely have introductions. Dr. Cameron apparently wasn't logged in or having trouble logging in.

Okay, now things are moving along, and questions about testing are being posted by the audience. Questions on how to test for Lyme disease and on seronegative Lyme disease.

(I think that the servers are really busy - huge lag time on my end. I emailed my questions in advance, and I don't know if they are taking a combination of emailed questions or live - what is the deal here?)

Not that Milton! We said
Milton Carrero!
Milton Carrero, live chat moderator just wrote, "Because the questions are so many, and often similar I'm trying address the most prevalent topics associated with Lyme disease" - I suspect only a small fraction of questions and comments that got emailed or posted are showing up here and they may not ever pick mine. Or yours.

Okay, now we're getting a mix of questions and answers on different topics, some personal and some general. One man asks about the relationship between lipogranuloma cysts and late stage Lyme disease, a good question about the existence of chronic Lyme disease being investigated by an NIH study, the ineffectiveness of oral antibiotics for neurological Lyme disease, one mother's question about the relationship between her daughter's symptoms of anxiety and depression after Lyme disease...

Is Lyme disease underreported, why not continue to treat the patient if he is suffering, what is the role of coinfections, treatment approach by each organization, question about neurological testing... It's hard to keep up now, and the questions and answers are a jumble.

Okay, it looks like it's wrapping up now... Dr. Zemel has to leave even though Milton said an extra 15 minutes could be extended for the live chat.

My questions never made it into the chat - did any of yours?

In case you're wondering, here is a copy of what I sent out:



Mr. Carrero, I'd like to ask the following questions of Dr. Zemel and Dr. Cameron for Friday, July 1, chat on Lyme disease:

For Dr. Zemel, I have the following questions:

1) Since there is evidence that Borrelia burgdorferi can be intracellular and studies indicate a small number of spirochetes can survive antibiotic treatment, what further studies can be conducted to provide evidence of persistent post-antibiotic infection in human hosts? Are there any currently being done which address these issues?

2) What mechanisms does Borrelia burgdorferi use which lead to immune dysregulation in the human host, and what research do you know of being conducted now that could determine how to prevent immune dysregulation in the infected human host?

For Dr. Cameron, I have the following questions:

1) Do you and other members of ILADS compare case studies and have you been working on conducting your own clinical trials based on those case studies? Lyme patients are sorely in need of more research for effective treatment and hopefully shorter term treatment.

2) Have you and other members of ILADS considered writing a detailed, scientific book with citations that explains for both public and medical professionals why your treatment guidelines are more in line with the state of the science on Lyme disease? If not, would you? It would be great to have a better understanding why long-term treatment is an effective approach for a number of patients beyond their own success stories.

Thank you,

Camp Other



My general thoughts about the chat:

I think that a live, in-person presentation of the material would be more effective than the live chat presentation. One thing which kept happening is that even with leaving audience participation limited, questions and answers to those questions were being posted out of sync and hard to follow.

The answer to a previous question asked minutes ago would show up directly after a question which was just posted, making it difficult for the audience to line up questions and answers.
In a real time, in-person presentation, an answer would immediately follow a question. I would have preferred something along the lines of streaming video with a split screen that looked like a Presidential debate if I have to watch something like this again.

It's not clear to me from where Milton was drawing his questions at all times. Sometimes they seemed to be taken from email, and at other times from the live chat box. I wish that the Morning Call could put together a page showing all of the questions they'd been asked because I (and I'm sure others) are curious about what they are - and perhaps leave it up to Dr. Zemel and Dr. Cameron to address them in writing at a later time either for the Morning Call or elsewhere.

At any rate, my questions did not get asked. I'm wondering how much success I would have if I wrote the doctors directly.

Okay, comments on what was said:

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Approximately 10 percent of people who have had Lyme Disease will develop persistant symptoms following appropriate treatment. Most of these patients are no longer considered infected. Previous research has shown that at least 50 percent of people with "chronic Lyme Disease" never had Lyme Disease in the first place. We as physicians are obligated to treat these patients in the most humane and safe way possible."

Dr. Zemel, please provide references and citations for your statements. Up to 10 percent of early cases of infection have resulted in treatment failure and by extension, persisting symptoms. In a number of studies, the authors retreated individual patients - in some cases, with IV antibiotics when the study was based on oral antibiotics. They went on to improve, when they hadn't improved earlier. Do you call this a discrepancy, or is this a case where a garden variety Lyme disease infection became neuroborreliosis and researchers decided to give the patient additional treatment? Consider the real life scenario of a patient who fails early oral antibiotic treatment and does not go on to receive additional treatment when symptomatic. How do you differentiate between an individual case which requires more treatment versus one which has immediately become an autoimmune case?

Can you please cite evidence and research on how many patients with Chronic Lyme disease never had Lyme disease to begin with? I'd like to know more about that research.

It seems to me that between the IDSA Lyme disease guidelines panel's article in the NEJM and your comments that you tend to focus on this group of patients who never had Lyme disease in the first place. I know nothing about this group. Please focus on those of us who have had it and conduct more research for effective treatment for us. We deserve humane, safe, and effective treatment.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Dr Cameron is correct: early treatment with antibiotics may blunt an antibody response, but at that point, no further treatment is needed."

But what about early treatment which is inadequate? Dr. Zemel, you're making an assumption that everyone who gets treated early has had enough antibiotics for a long enough duration of time. If a patient only receives 10 days of doxycycline - which is what some patients receive from their doctors (and not 21-28 days of oral antibiotics) is that enough? What if the patient has neuroborreliosis and they only receive a short course of doxycycline? What if they are allergic to doxycycline - could they have treatment failure from having had a shorter course of a third line choice which was not the most effective antibiotic to use for Borrelia burgdorferi?

A patient, Steve Hollingworth, had this to say:

"The NIH's study brief at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01143558?recr=Open&cond=lyme+disease&cntry1=NA%3AUS&cntry2=EU%3AIE&age=1&rank=1 actually says "It is currently unknown why some patients continue to have symptoms. One possibility is that the antibiotics have not successfully gotten rid of all of the bacteria. Current tests for Lyme disease cannot tell whether the bacteria have been successfully eliminated from the body." Care to comment on that government statement?"

and

"In particular, how does the doctor expect an infection in the brain by the Lyme spirochete to be eradicated by oral antibiotics, when no appropriate oral antibiotic is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier?"

Go Steve! Please keep asking these kinds of questions! This is the line of questioning which is sorely needed in these discussions.

Sadly, they never did answer your question about the NIH, did they? But you got this response from Dr. Zemel on your second one:

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Steve, CNS infections are treated with intravenous antibiotics. Thank you for sharing the other information."

Steve, I take it that this answer was inadequate for you? It was for me. While Dr. Zemel is technically correct, he is answering the letter of the question and not the spirit of it. His response didn't address my concern that a number of cases of neuroborreliosis are missed in diagnosis and not treated adequately. Dr. Brian Fallon has cited research which shows a relationship between neuroborreliosis and the development of chronic, persisting symptoms. Diagnosing and treating neuroborreliosis early on seems key to me in preventing persisting symptoms.

Backtracking a bit, I'd like to make a comparison here on the responses both doctors gave:

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: There are at least 3 studies that demonstrated the lack of benefit from the use of long-term antibiotics, suggesting that persistent symptoms are no longer antibiotic sensitive.

Daniel Cameron: Dattwyler published several papers on Late Lyme disease with success. Donta also described successes, The original Logigian papers on neurologic LD also described successes. The Krupp clincal trial supported treatment."

Dr. Cameron, you get points for citing names for research. Dr. Zemel, given my knowledge and experience in the Lyme world, I know which studies you are likely to be referring to - but for the sake of the audience, please give names and citations for your studies.

I often wonder why in mentioning any studies on long-term antibiotic use, most of the media does not mention Dattwyler's research - given he is a member of the IDSA and has done a lot of Lyme research. Same goes for Logigian, who has cowritten work with Dr. Steere.

Biostatisticians such as Alison Delong have analyzed the raw data and data reporting on the clinical trials and studies related to the 2006 Lyme disease guidelines and came to the conclusion that while the studies were well designed, the data could be finessed in different ways and extended antibiotic treatment did, in fact, help a sub-population of the groups studied.Her team concluded that more research is necessary - something I've been saying all along.

Further discussion by both of you about the data on this sub-population would be very insightful for us all.

"Daniel Cameron: The three trials -Klemner's and Fallon describe patients ill an average of 4.7 to 9 years after treatment failures. Patients this severe for this long need much more support and treatment than was offered in the trials."

Dr. Cameron, where are these patients now? How are they doing? Were they on any treatment after the trials? Has anyone followed up on them?

Time for another comparison, this time on the issue of if Lyme disease is underreported:

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Most likely under reported. Estimates are that Lyme Disease may be two to three times more prevalent than the CDC data

Daniel Cameron: There are at least 10 time more cases than the 30,000 cases reported to the CDC per epidemiologist projections. The chief epidemiologist in Connecticut estimate in testimony there are 24 times the numbers in their state."

So, guys, you both agree on something: Lyme disease IS underreported, anywhere from 2 times the reported number of cases are out there on upwards of 10 times. What about the citation by the CDC of there being 6-12 times the number of reported cases in highly endemic areas?

Could we please hire more epidemiologists and expand surveillance? I noticed it's getting the lowest amount of funding from the NIH. Can you shift funding from another area even if funding isn't increased for 2012? I'd like to aim for a more accurate estimate here if nothing else.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Dr Cameron's data is pure speculation. Current testing for the Lyme bacteria picks up all spirochetes in North America, at all commercial labs. One lab in California has not been shown to produce reliable results."

Dr. Zemel, please provide citations and research to support your claims. Last I checked, research indicated that Borrelia lonestari is not picked up by standardized lab tests for Lyme disease, and according to Durland Fish, neither is Borrelia miyamotoi. There may be other strains which have yet to be discovered which are not picked up.

I'm hoping that Dr. Ben Luft's research will lead to better testing in the future.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Chris: Persistent symptoms may represent earlier tissue damage even though the bacteria is gone. Futher more, antibodies to the Lyme bacteria may be toxic. Persistent symptoms do not necessarily mean ongoing infection."

Dr. Zemel, can you explain how to detect evidence a patient has tissue damage, persistent infection, or a combination of both?

In stating that "antibodies to the Lyme bacteria may be toxic", could you explain more to me and everyone else reading along? This sort of statement requires clarification and sounds off a cause for concern in everyone not knowing what you mean.

"Daniel Cameron: Many of these chronically ill patients remain sick. Symptomatic treatment with pain medication, Lyrica, Neurontic etc often fail. Antibiotics have helped many of these patients."

Dr. Cameron, do you have a record of case studies on these patients? Have you conducted any larger scale studies on the treatment of post-treatment Lyme disease patients (to use Dr. Maloney's term, which is growing on me) which show which patients receive benefit from pain medication and which fail?

I'd be curious to know, because some subset of patients I know of have received some relief from pain medication while others have not. Do they have different conditions? I have also found some people have had abdominal pain and other pain is relieved by use of small doses of specific antidepressants and tranquilizing medications such as Ativan. Any comments on this?

"Daniel Cameron:
Krause first introduced the concept that Babesia and Lyme together can lead to a severe presentation."

True. Krause also wrote the Babesiosis treatment guidelines for 2006, if I recall correctly, and acknowledges that Babesia can relapse and may need additional treatment - especially in immunocompromised patients.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Coinfections do not interfere with diagnostic testing. If patients have high fever and other flu like symptoms, then tests for anaplasma and Babesia are indicated."

You know what? This is a good response. But time and again, what I have noticed is that the reasonable response the ID doctor gives is not what is happening with people who are showing up to their primary care physician or urgent care clinic. Based on patients' own self reporting, what I hear about are people who were not accurately diagnosed early on by their family doctor and went on to develop more severe symptoms

If the agreed upon mantra between ILADS and IDSA doctors is "early treatment usually leads to success", Dr. Zemel, what is your organization doing to ensure patients get diagnosed and treated early on for both coinfections and Lyme disease, since coinfections can increase the severity and duration of symptoms?

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: IDSA recommends oral antibiotics for 10-21 days for early Lyme Disease, one month for Lyme arthritis, and intravenous antibiotics for CNS disease or persistent arthritis."

Dr. Zemel, why is the treatment range such a wide number of days? How does a clinician make the decision to use 10 days versus 21 days? What if 10 days doesn't work - is retreatment advisable then?

If someone takes the recommended 2 tabs of doxycycline after a tick bite as prophylaxis, does that prevent a seropositive test from developing later if the prophylactic treatment fails and the patient goes on to develop Lyme disease later? This is important to know, and to let doctors know not to rely to heavily on tests and look at the clinical picture.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Dr Cameron, while physicians have a right to treat with antibiotics, they have a responsibility to practice medicine in the safest way possible, following established scientific principles. Avoiding science is not in society's best interest."

I agree with this statement on face value. But I don't always agree with the implied statement behind it, which is, "long-term antibiotic treatment is not safe and is not scientifically supported".

I think that more research is required on this issue, in terms of efficacy, and I think that long-term antibiotic use confers the same kinds of risks for many different kinds of infections. One has to weigh the risks and benefits in any medical treatment, and recognize there will always be risks. For example, I had to get a colonoscopy and sign a paper before the exam, a paper telling me there was a small chance I could die from the procedure - miniscule - but the benefits outweigh the risk. Do you make sure you don't have colon cancer or do you avoid the small chance of death? Most people would go for the colonoscopy. (No cancer was found, thankfully!)

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Medicine should be practiced by physicians and not by politicians. Physicians should engage in a dialogue with their patients."

Microbiologists and molecular biologists will hopefully split the difference for you all.

I'm really tired of your infighting. Jane! Stop this crazy thing! I want to get off!

"Daniel Cameron: We need many more physicians to diagnosed and treat chronic Lyme disease. We will have less chronic LD if they are recognized early. Finally, more physcians will offer more options for patient within HMO's"

Dr. Cameron, I'm going to emphasize this bit: We need many more physicians to diagnose and treat Lyme disease, period. Early on, along with coinfections, so that people can avoid persistent symptoms.

Saying that more physicians and HMOs should be participating in increased early diagnosis and treatment is a positive statement on your end for both patients and for how it reflects on ILADS, because critics have stated that as long as ILADS stands to profit from their position there is no reason for the current situation to change.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Insurance companies respond to evidence based medicine. Since there is no evidence, that IV therapy beyond 4-6 weeks is effective, they should rightfully deny coverage."

Dr. Zemel, what do you do about insurance companies denying patients access to any IV therapy to begin with? Let alone beyond 6 weeks?

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: A small vocal group of constituents should not be dictating medical care."

Oh, I agree. But what does science have to say about this? If all we have is a hypothesis and not a proven and accepted theory, is it ethical to base treatment guidelines on a hypothesis or is more research required?

"Daniel Cameron: We need more dialogue among physicians to come to common ground for the increasing number of patient who fail treatment."

Yes, I agree here, too. But first and foremost, we need more research, more meticulously reported case studies, and clinical trials using antibiotic and non-antibiotic treatments. If you've got a hypothesis you want to provide evidence for, I'd like to see both sides actually do something about it to help patients.

More treatment studies, please? And more scientific research on Bb pathogenesis, please?

Are you familiar with William Burgdorfer's "thirty years quote"? I want to hear Dr. Zemel's response to it.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Lois: Most physicians are now testing for Lyme Disease if there is a reasonable likelihood that Lyme disease is present. It is probably not accurate to say that Lyme Disease is still underdiagnosed in most Lyme areas."

Do you have references and evidence to support your statements? What about patients in the southeast US? The midwest? The west coast? Canada? There are many reports patients have given of being told by doctors that Lyme disease is rare and not in their area when according to what limited epidemiological data is on record and their state health departments, Lyme disease is not rare. How do you recommend closing this gap between doctors' knowledge and knowledge of other institutions?

More Q & A:

"[Comment From Dedee]
Is it common for scientific principles to not be challenged? New discoveries cannot be made without challenging science."

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Dedee: I entirely agree with you. This is why scientific guidelines are continually updated. The problem occurs when the public and wayward physicians ignore the science."

It's a good question, Dedee. And Dr. Zemel, it's a good answer.

The problem is, I think treatment and diagnosis is lagging behind the science at the moment, and that right now, not enough is understood about chronic Lyme disease and Lyme disease's pathogenesis to effectively treat everyone in a timely fashion.

When one makes the statement, "We don't know what causes persisting symptoms", what that should mean is "We don't know what causes persisting symptoms". Period. The rest is speculation, and what the cause is may not be a uniform, one-size-fits-all answer. This is why I ask for more research, and I want to see more independent research from parties not invested in either "side", if there have to be sides at all.

Ah, look! This sounds like consensus. Sorta...

"[Comment From Ellen] My insurance will not cover the antibiotics my doctor prescribes and I can not afford them out of pocket. What are your thoughts on homeopathic and herbal treatments?"

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: Ellen: I'm not aware of evidence to support alternative treatments in place of antibiotics. Can you please educate me?"

"Daniel Cameron:
Many of my patients with chronic issued try many different alternative medications. We need more research on new strategies."

I initially found it amusing that Dr. Zemel is asking for a patient to educate him on the use of alternative treatment. But then I got pissed off. As someone who is supposed to be upholding his own guidelines, if that patient needs antibiotics, he could be providing advice as to how to get authorization for antibiotics if they are medically necessary and/or advise further testing to substantiate her diagnosis for treatment. Instead, he is humoring her.

But in the end, the message I'm getting out of this: Alternative treatments are currently not evidence-based treatments for Lyme disease. Sure, people try them, and some may help with some symptoms - but we need more research on them.

"Daniel Cameron: ILADS published an evidence based guideline in 2004 reviewing the evidence. See our website at ILADS .org. We expect a new guideline soon. Many of our members are now publishing. The publication should help the dialogue."

I hope that you are providing more peer-reviewed-from-established-journal citations and references to support your guideline, and that we get to see it soon. I eagerly await the outcome of all this work you've been doing.

"Dr. Lawrence Zemel: The ILADS guidelines were reviewed by the British Health Agency and found to lack scientific credibility. Most major specialty organizations in North America and Europe have endorsed the IDSA guidelines."

Dr. Cameron, there's a reason why I said what I did above.

Interesting, Dr. Zemel. Could you please explain why each of these countries overseas have adopted IDSA's guidelines and not written their own, given that they have historically had somewhat different diseases and disease presentations? (This is becoming less the case with bird migration affecting infection distribution and rate.)

And then there are these differences in approach. Why is it in much of Europe doctors are trained to look for more cases of neuroborreliosis and treat them earlier on, whereas in the US they aren't? Recent evidence from EUCALB and your not-cited organizations state that the percentage of American-based Bb infected patients in Europe show a percentage of neurological symptoms equal to those found in European-based Bb infected patients. (It's in that recent Institute of Medicine report that was posted in April.)

Another patient weighs in...

[Comment From Julia Wagner]
Actually - while a dialogue will help, it is not uncommon in medicine to have multiple schools of thought that inform a physician, who can make the call that is best for that patient - the same approach should be used with Lyme - and physcians need to be educated that 2 schools of thought. Any scientist who vociferously opposes other thinking, is limited the potential for progress in medicine - we need to follow the science as it emerges, and not ignore or disparage this. The science just evolving last year was significant in explaining "chronic lyme" from the 13 subtrains genotyped by Dr. Luft with some having serious neuro sx and others a more limited easy to cure disease, to lymphadenopathy study finding spirochetes hiding in the lymphs as another means to evade the immune system. I so no reason why the IDSA should fight other points of view - physicians should be informed about emerging science period, and treat their patients to get them well. Chalking up all remaining symptons to "aches and pains of daily living" is not acceptable when other viable options have not been explored."

I've bolded what I particularly would want to emphasize of your good points - thank you for contributing to this discussion. We need more people to ask questions referring to the science related to Lyme disease.

PS Julia: Please have someone proofread your question or type it into Word or some other text editor to run it through spell check first. I know you didn't mean to post typos, but it makes it harder to read.



So after this, Milton asked questions about vaccines, but they went unanswered as the chat was shut down at 1 pm EST.

This is all I have to say on this for now.

What are your thoughts about it?

Refer to the original chat transcript here:
http://www.courant.com/health/mc-health-chat-lyme-disease,0,4675217.htmlstory

Read More

The Camp Other Song Of The Month


Why is this posted? Just for fun!

Get this widget

Lyme Disease

Borrelia

Bacteria

Microbiology