5 On Stephen Hawking, Disability, and Capability: What Are Limitations?

A few months ago, I read an article in The Telegraph about a doctor in the UK who made a statement about how people who receive disability benefits should not because if Stephen Hawking could work, then pretty much everyone could work.

The Telegraph quotes Dr. Peverley, who practices in Sunderland, England:

“We are, as a profession, dedicated to making our patients as healthy as possible, and yet a proportion of punters are hell bent on trying to prove they’re really ill, and need us to confirm it." 

“The fact is, nearly everyone is capable of some kind of work. I had considered, at one point, putting up a portrait of Professor Stephen Hawking in my consulting room with a caption that said, ‘This bloke is not on the sick’.”

Dr. Peverley is one of a number of doctors and politicians who have been engaged in a strange war on the disabled in the UK. This war began during Prime Minister David Cameron's term in office, and has been reflected in the hiring of private firm, Atos, to complete disability assessments on new patients and reassess those already disabled for the purpose of getting them off a disability pension and put them back to work.

In theory, getting people with disabilities back to work who are capable of work sounds good. One problem is, though, that Atos doesn't appear to be doing a good job of determining just who is eligible to work again and who should remain on a disability pension.

Since 2008, Atos has conducted more than 1.5 million disability assessments. However, during this time there have been more than 600,000 appeals at a cost of £60 million. A number of these appeals were based on reevaluations of disabled people who were in fact still quite disabled, but their new evaluation forms were filled with erroneous or incomplete information which did not characterize patients' degree of disability properly.

One doctor, Dr. Greg Wood, who used to work as an evaluator for Atos became a whistleblower. When interviewed by the newspaper he revealed that he had been not only encouraged - but ordered - to downplay the severity of patients' disabilities or misstate their limitations so as to get them off the disability pension rolls.

Which brings me back to Dr. Peverley. Dr. Peverley sounds like the kind of doctor who would comply with whatever Atos asked him to do in order to get patients off disability and return them to work, no matter how sick or how poorly suited to work they would be.

The Telegraph article later states, regarding Dr. Peverley:

He said that being declared “fit to work” did not mean patients had to do a laborious job.

“Being found fit for some kind of employment by Atos does not mean you’re necessarily capable of being an FBI agent or a lumberjack”, Dr Peverley said.

“However, you might be able to work at a desk on a telephone, or hold a lollipop on a zebra crossing."

On one hand, he makes a good point: Many people with disabilities and chronic illness can do something and many are not completely incapacitated. They may be disabled in some way, but they are capable of completing a task.

On the other hand, he entirely misses the point that being able to work at a regular, part time or full time job is not just about being capable of doing a task once or even here and there - it's about being able to consistently perform certain tasks repeatedly on a regular basis, typically daily, often at long stretches of time without a break. And to do so in a workplace which may only allow you a minimum of flexibility in your work hours and may or may not permit you to work from home at all.

Stephen Hawking, in a short BBC interview about his autobiographical film, Hawking (by Vertigo Films - not to be confused with the film, Hawking, starring Benedict Cumberbatch), discusses his own disability and his view of it includes acknowledgments which Dr. Peverley does not make:



Stephen Hawking acknowledges that in his situation, he was very fortunate that his disability in some ways has been an asset which allows him to avoid teaching or attending more boring committee meetings so he can spend more time doing his own research on theoretical physics. He admits that because he cannot talk to people quickly, he tends drift off on a mental tangent about some aspect of physics while around other people. He also acknowledges that with his kind of disability, it has not been a drawback to working in his field because he can do theoretical physics in his head. His physical capabilities aren't necessary to do his work.

Stephen Hawking recognizes his good fortune despite his misfortune - of this it's quite clear. And it's this message he wants everyone watching to hold on to. But he also states that some of his good fortune has been due to the support and love of his family and friends, his upbringing, the opportunity he had to get a solid education until his physical condition began to deteriorate, the care he received for many years from the National Health Service, and the fact that his condition has been a form of motor neuron disease which has given him a chance to go deep into his mind to explore new concepts while outliving doctors' expectations about his lifespan.

It might have been more traumatic for Stephen Hawking to have lost his cognitive capabilities than it was to have lost his physical capabilities because his life up until the point his condition began to worsen was already about academia, about learning and innovative thinking.

Only Stephen Hawking can really say what his choice would have been if it were given to him - I'm just guessing. But it's very clear that his complex internal mental world is where he lives, works, and plays - and if that were to be cut off from him, depression and losing the will to live might follow. This world is a big part of who he is.

Stephen Hawking is visibly physically disabled. And yet he has certain abilities others with different disabilities do not have: He can see, hear, communicate with others on and off the internet, and think clearly and rationally. He can create whole models of the Universe inside his head. He can sleep 8 hours a night, wake up refreshed, and get around with the assistance of a wheelchair and a personal assistant. While he is physically impaired, others act as his physical extensions to care for him - whether it be eating, bathing, dressing, or using the toilet. With such support, he can focus on his work.

But just because Stephen Hawking can do what he does does not mean all people with disabilities and chronic illnesses can do what he does. No one would expect someone with short term memory problems and difficulty learning and retaining new information to be able to explore problems of theoretical physics in their head any more than one would expect Stephen Hawking to start washing windows and painting the trim.

I can think of any of a number of disabilities and chronic illnesses which could impair people to the degree that a regular part time or full time job would be impossible for them. Those with severe anxiety, severe depression, bipolar disorder, or PTSD can be so overwhelmed by managing their condition that at times it is enough work just to get through the next hour - let alone day or week. Those who have cancer and have many side effects from chemotherapy and fatigue may not be able to work. Those who have frequent flareups of autoimmune diseases or have conditions which require multiple surgeries over time and recoveries and/or multiple regular tests and scans every week or two may not be able work. Those who have more than one medical condition to manage may end up spending so much time and energy in their management that it would interfere with working.

Some disabilities and illnesses get in the way of accomplishing things in a number of spheres in life more than others. Some disabilities and illnesses are more disruptive or have the potential to be more disruptive than others for holding down a regular job with regular hours and regular deadlines.

It is this last bit around which I think Dr. Peverley - and those like him - has a blind spot: The issue of employment being contingent upon consistency and reliability.

When it comes to someone being disabled or chronically ill, their capability and consistent ability to do work is different from their disability or illness. In the UK, the 2010 Equality Act defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.” This definition covers a wide range of conditions, from mental illness and learning disabilities to chronic physical illness and long term physical impairments.

Sure, someone with moderate myalgic encephalomyelitis, fibromyalgia, or chronic Lyme disease might be able to hold up up a sign as a crossing guard for a few minutes one day. But can they do it for the next fifteen minutes? Can they do it for three hours a day? Can they do it for three hours a day, five days a week, for ten months of the year? If they can't - and an employer witnesses that their crossing guard begins to fail to carry out this supposedly easy task (easy for whom?) by leaving their station early or calling in sick too many days in a row, then they will not be a crossing guard for long.

Even if this crossing guard job were a job one could do, how on earth could it provide the disabled or chronically ill individual with enough financial support to keep a roof over their head? In all reality it can't, and so even if one could work 15-20 hours a week, within one's maximum capacity for work under the best of conditions, the wages earned from being a crossing guard are small. Anyone doing such work would need additional forms of support. And even if the disabled and chronically ill individual were to be capable of this type of job, one has to consider as an employer, if your employee will be capable of doing such job for at least an intermediate length of time if not the long run - and if one is a disabled or ill employee with such job, whether doing such a job with such frequency will have a negative impact on one's health.

The same applies to Dr. Peverley's assumption about anyone with a disability or chronic illness being able to hold down a desk job. Maybe some people with disabilities or chronic illness can. Maybe some people can't. In this Telegraph article, Dr. Peverley makes it sound as if everyone can and this, again, brings up the same issues that the crossing guard job has: Someone could have trouble sitting for long periods of time due to pain and fatigue, someone could have trouble consistently performing other duties required of the job due to their individual disability or illness.

In all of these situations, Dr. Peverley overlooks two realities:

One is that the way most work is organized is that there is a daily routine and expectation where - no matter what the job is - employers want employees who will be able to show up to work on time, work at a consistent level, leave work at a certain time (often later than originally intended), work day in and out, and meet deadlines at regular intervals.

Two is that in many ways, being disabled or chronically ill can interfere with this very structure of expectations and routine around which work is organized, and because of this, employers who fear the disabled or chronically ill will not meet expectations can either discriminate against hiring those who are visibly disabled or chronically ill, and/or more easily let go of employees with disabilities and chronic illnesses if simple accommodations aren't enough to help the employees accomplish their jobs under existing terms.

The missing piece that would help empower more disabled and chronically ill people enter the workforce that is currently not part of our modern workplace culture is to adapt jobs and adapt workplace infrastructures to accommodate the person who is disabled and/or chronically ill - not the other way around.

The situation for many disabled and chronically ill people is that they may not work at their best under circumstances which are normal and typical for the average able-bodied, healthy worker. In order to empower those who can work to some degree, the best accommodation comes from acknowledging the person with disability or chronic illness' circumstances and work with them to create a suitable position and environment.

In this respect, Stephen Hawking has the kind of support that many people with disabilities and chronic illnesses do not: Throughout the film of his life, people value Hawking's opinion and ideas and bend over backward to accommodate him, with graduate students often also serving as personal assistants early in Hawking's career. As time goes on, hired nurses and assistants take their place. Personal care, assistive technology, and Hawking's research position are all created specifically to support him in doing his work as much as it is possible - rather than having Hawking be given only a few accommodations which might make the simple act of living possible.

People with disabilities and chronic illnesses who could work and contribute something to society are better able to contribute if society as a whole begins to integrate a concept of working with disabilities and chronic illness into existing economies and workplaces. Workplaces and technology can evolve to create jobs which empower those with disabilities and chronic illnesses to work as much as it is possible.

Rather than have the standard job with typical requirements and routines, jobs would have to be created which disabled and chronically ill people can do which do not rely on consistency or on meeting deadlines at regular - often short - intervals.

Jobs and workplace infrastructures would have to be created which can flex around the circumstances of a person's reality, strengths, and weaknesses - rather than to try to shoehorn the disabled or chronically ill person into a job and workplace which permits a few small changes that help accommodate the person to try to work at the job in the same way able-bodied and healthy people do.

The support should be there to accommodate people in reaching goals whether or not they conform to standard workplace expectations. And not to do so in order to make the Dr. Peverleys of the world shut up and feel righteous about their idea that those with disabilities and chronic illnesses should be able to get off disability pensions and work - but to empower anyone to pursue goals, to follow dreams, to have some hand in supporting themselves and having a sense of a future despite the cards they've been dealt.

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

Read More

10 Thoughts on "Canary In A Coal Mine" and "Under Our Skin"

It's been five years since the controversial award-winning film about chronic Lyme disease, Under Our Skin, was first released.




When it was first released, Under Our Skin provided catharsis for me as a patient who developed chronic pain and chronic fatigue since that fateful day I received an infected tick bite and fell ill.  It was the first film - the only film, in fact - that I could point to, share, and say to others, "Look. Watch. I'm not the only one who is dealing with this problem".

And share I did. I bought the DVD and gave it to a therapist who at the time was working with me on tips for coping with secondary depression. I showed it to a few close friends who wanted to know more about the chronic Lyme disease controversy. And I sent a copy to my parents.

Under Our Skin helped open the door for discussion about my illness, it made me feel less alone in my suffering, it validated my condition for others, and it brought up the very controversies involving chronic Lyme disease I'd been discussing with other patients in a way which easily summarized them for those new to it.

Lately, I think more about Under Our Skin in a broader sense and less about it being a piece of my own personal chronic illness manifesto. Here was a film which scored an Academy Award nomination and several international film festival awards - no small feat for a documentary film of this nature. Here was a film which took Lyme disease into the spotlight and encouraged people to take more steps to prevent tick bites so as to avoid having the kind of experience I've been having. Here was a film that spoke to a larger proportion of the population than I originally thought possible.

"Lyme disease?" I remember muttering to myself, "Who the hell wants to watch a film about that except patients?" But watch it they did.

Whatever your personal opinion about Under Our Skin is - like it or loathe it - it spread awareness about the issue of chronic Lyme disease and touched on why the topic of persisting symptoms in patients has become a loaded subject.

Conditions like chronic Lyme disease, fibromyalgia, and myalgic encephalomyelitis - also known as chronic fatigue syndrome - fall outside the usual diagnostic box and frustrate doctors and patients alike.

Patients inexplicably report being diagnosed with depression or anxiety when they're running a fever and have joint pain, or report being diagnosed with anxiety when they're dizzy and have signs of orthostatic intolerance. Instead of more involved investigation and attempts to improve patients' symptoms, some are only sent home with a prescription for psychiatric medication and told to call if there are any side effects.

Doctors, likewise, mention patients who clearly have something going wrong but they have no idea how to help them because the literature just isn't there; the guidelines they are supposed to use have no contingency plans for those who fall outside the box. Some want to help, but they don't know where to begin. A rare few are willing to experiment and try an out-of-the-box treatment for the out-of-the-box patient, and some do so at a risk to themselves.

If there were more research, if people invested more in projects to help people with such conditions, then maybe we would already have more answers which would help people. As it stands, funding for such research is slim, people are not aware of how profound an impact these conditions can have, and as long as many patients are so sick that they venture outside tentatively (if at all), the only way they can stop slipping through the cracks is to make their voice heard without leaving their beds.

It is these kinds of points which were made during the Kickstarter campaign for the film, Canary In A Coal Mine, that grabbed my attention, including this one statistic: "Male pattern baldness gets more money for research than myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome".

It has to be one of the most ridiculous statements made in remarks sandwiched between footage for the film. Or rather, it would be ridiculous if it weren't for the fact that it's actually true. The reality is sad: ME/CFS only receives about $5 million in NIH research funding annually compared to the hairless wonder's many million dollar pot (hell, just this one private company announced an $11 million funding round for research) and an industry which generates hundreds of millions in profit. Bill Gates also stated earlier this year that male pattern baldness received more research funding than malaria - another sad surprise. So when $2 million of NIH funding is given to 3 different institutions to study ME/CFS, it's considered a big deal - however, that amount of money pales in comparison to the funding for research on other conditions.

Sadly, somewhere along the line, it was decided that vanity was more important than a person's ability to get through their day like a normal human being, such as being able to hold down a job and go out to a movie after work - maybe even have a family. Things like that. Normal, you know?

(I don't know about you, but screw my insecurities about going bald - If I had to choose between being bald and having ME/CFS or chronic Lyme disease, well, show me the god that can grant me this wish and let's get that shaver rolling. I can join the Hair Club for Men later and get a transplant or an outrageous selection of hair pieces.)

Chronic Lyme disease falls into its own funding hell, because while Lyme disease receives a fair amount of funding compared to ME/CFS, it's still relatively less compared to other conditions and projects which are specifically about chronic Lyme disease are rare.

Twelve years ago, the NIH Lyme disease program officer said data collected from the Klempner antibiotic trial for chronic Lyme disease would be used to help develop new innovative treatments for patients. Well, it's twelve years later, and the number of innovative treatments for chronic Lyme disease which have been developed from this NIH-NIAID project data are exactly zero.

But getting back to Canary In A Coal Mine...

When I first saw the appeal for Canary In A Coal Mine, it came via a tweet from a member of the ME/CFS community. I didn't know what to expect, and when I played the trailer, I was immediately taken in by it.

Canary In a Coal Mine began as a Kickstarter project initiated by Jennifer Brea, a Harvard doctoral student on medical leave whose life has been changed dramatically by myalgic encephalomyelitis (more commonly referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome, a name which does not do the condition justice) and Kiran Chitanvis, an independent filmmaker who attended NYU Tisch School of the Arts. Jennifer Brea directs the film, Kiran and Jennifer are both producers, and Kiran is director of photography.

Within days of posting the project on Kickstarter, the initial funding drive exceeded its first goal of $50,000 and today, weeks after posting, it has received over $150,000 funding towards the entire $200,000 needed to complete the film.

How has this independent film produced in dimly lit bedrooms using iPads and video cameras gained such a meteoric rise in support in so short a time? The answer lies in the trailer presented on Kickstarter, which struck such a note with viewers that they immediately felt inspired to donate:

I've viewed the trailer several times, and with each passage the same scenes stand out for me, over and over. As a whole, it is a masterful piece which builds suspense around the mysterious beginnings of ME/CFS with a history of unusual outbreaks of illness where no one could pinpoint the cause to demonstrating how ME/CFS has had a profound impact on its sufferers and the current controversy over the scientific positions on what causes ME/CFS.

In this regard, the trailers for Canary in A Coal Mine and Under Our Skin are similar: Both hint at a history of controversy and mystery surrounding the condition. Both highlight the patient experience, by capturing the suffering and changed lives of individuals and families whose lives are abruptly jarred by disease. Both point fingers at doctors who claim patients' symptoms are psychological in nature rather than looking at evidence that the condition is physical. Both open the door into sharing moments in people's lives which are difficult and usually suffered alone in silence or only with those closest to them.

But where Canary In A Coal Mine immediately diverged from Under Our Skin as a concept is what truly got to me, and almost made me break inside: The trailer is in large part made by the very person who is invested in it the most: Jennifer Brea, a patient suffering with ME/CFS.

As Kiran Chitanvis, the independent filmmaker directing the project states, the film is intended to be a narrative which pulls the viewer into the experience of what it's like to have ME/CFS in a way that hasn't been done before. And this is one reason why the trailer has been a success: It subtly places the viewer in the position of imagining what it is like to have ME/CFS and have to live life around and through it.

It can do so effectively because Jennifer Brea is telling her own story, filming her story, interviewing others about her story, and by extension, the making of the trailer and the film actually become part of her own story.

Footage in the trailer and supplemental videos on the Kickstarter page show the viewer how difficult it is for Jennifer to work on the film and the costs on her body of pushing through a 12 hour day of shooting - a day which will not be repeated because the cost is too high. To emphasize this decision, the statement is made that pacing is important to preserve Jennifer's health, and that if 6 weeks' worth of shooting the film has to be done over the course of a year or more, then so be it. There is no race to finish the film. The important thing is to finish it, period.

We witness the difficulty involved in watching Jennifer slowly walking, staggering towards a vehicle and outlining the planning required for a journey that most people don't give much thought when they get in a car for a one hour trip to New York City. We see Jennifer slowly struggling to stand up with a laptop in her arms, only to watch her fall forward. We observe Jennifer lying down on a couch in a dimly lit room, too exhausted to stand while friends socialize in a kitchen down the hall. As time trickles by, we catch glimpses of how plans and key milestones Jennifer had planned for her life have been railroaded into some murky unknown future where it's uncertain what will happen.

This is a trailer which inspired other patients, caregivers, and advocates to fund the project because it is a film that is not only speaking on behalf of all the patients who cannot march on Washington to request funding for more research, who cannot stand for more than a few minutes or even a second, who cannot speak for themselves - it inspired others because it is by a patient, about a patient, and for patients in the voice of a patient - and using this perspective to spread awareness to those who do not have ME/CFS. This angle is one way in which it is very different from a documentary like Under Our Skin.

One of the scenes in the trailer which put a catch in my throat is shown in this still:

Jennifer Brea mapping out the pathways and immunological profiles which underlie part of the myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) puzzle, or what American researchers renamed "chronic fatigue syndrome" (CFS).
© 2013 Canary Films with permission

I can't get this scene out of my mind, because this one moment captures so much of my own experience as chronic Lyme disease patient with an diagnosis of ME/CFS as well.

While much of my limited energy goes into a few mundane tasks during the day, it also is spent on research related to Lyme disease and immunology, microbiology, molecular biology, and genetics. It is spent pouring over many documents, where I am trying to piece together parts of the chronic Lyme disease puzzle and figure out what happened to me - and to see what novel ideas I can come up with that might make my quality of life better.

This one snapshot of Jennifer Brea's life could just as easily be a snapshot of my own. I couldn't help but be moved by watching someone else having an experience similar to my own; someone who wanted to do the hard work of getting answers and learning as much as they could even with the challenge of brain fog, overwhelming fatigue, and other disruptive symptoms getting in the way.

And at the same time, this scene is also one which triggers tremendous anger. Why should she - and why should I - have to be placed in a position where we are compelled to figure out what is going on with our conditions? Why isn't there more research for people in our situation? Why aren't there more doctors who can help us? And most of all: Why the hell do people value a full head of hair over helping people be able to sit up and feed themselves - let alone go to work every day and have a life? Because that's what the dollar signs say. That's where the money is going.

Another scene which struck me is near the end of the trailer, when Jennifer sits in a wheelchair in the yard and watches others doing yard work:

Scene from Canary In A Coal Mine © 2013 Canary Films with permission

Howard Bloom, writer and former publicist in the music industry who came down with ME/CFS years ago does a voice-over during the scene, saying:

"There is a future you take for granted every day and never articulate to yourself - and yet it's always there. And when you come down with an illness that has no end, it strips away that idea of a future."

Howard later discusses the ability to see the infinite in the smallest detail as one of the benefits of having to slow down due to a chronic illness, and while this experience can soften the edges of the blow of having a bad day, it in no ways diminishes awareness that one's life plans have been altered - in some cases, irrevocably.

These scenes are not about the science behind ME/CFS, yet they strike a personal chord for someone in my shoes and I suspect they stand out for others who have been on the same path. Some of us have been up to our eyeballs in research and controversy - just for a moment let us reflect on our humanity in facing a difficult situation.

While all I can write about at this stage of the production is about Canary In A Coal Mine the trailer, I am hopeful that Canary In A Coal Mine the film will retain the same focus I saw in the trailer which put the patient experience front and center. I am hopeful there will be more discussion about the realities of ME/CFS and the scientific evidence supporting it as a physical, immunological condition and not something akin to the 19th century version of hysteria. And most of all, I am hopeful it is an experience Jennifer Brea will get through, intact, with adequate rest and a sense of major accomplishment on the other side of it.



[Edit Nov. 12: Updated to include info on director and producer roles by Jennifer Brea and Kiran Chitanvis.]

The written content of this work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
All images subject to copyright and are used with permission of Canary Films.

Read More

4 Commentary: Slate's Article On Romney & Lyme Disease

It seems like over the past two weeks, every time I turned around, there's a new article about Mitt Romney and chronic Lyme disease. How much mileage from one topic can the media get? You would think by now they would have moved on, but today The Day decided it was going to post yet another rehashing about this subject.

Well, if they get to rehash, then so do I. I have some things to say in response to the Slate's article, "Why Is Romney Campaigning on Medical Quackery?", even though it's not the most recent in this set of offerings.

And again, I'd like to make one request of the media at large:

Can you please investigate more deeply the issue of people with persisting symptoms after delayed or initial antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease?

And not just spout out the same tired phrase that clinical trials to date have not shown that the use of long term antibiotics has been effective for the treatment of chronic Lyme disease (or what the CDC and other organizations call "Post Lyme Disease Syndrome")?

But I digress...

On to eviscerating the Slate...

"Let’s play doctor. A patient comes to you with joint pain, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, poor attention, and mood swings. You might run a series of tests to rule out a persistent infection or other disorder. If your patient lives in a tick- and Lyme-disease-infested area, you would be wise to test for the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi and, if detected, prescribe a course of antibiotics. But suppose the tests come back negative and there is little evidence that your patient was bitten by a tick or was infected with the Lyme disease bacterium. If you are a good doctor, and you are, you might explore a diagnosis of depression, a disease that afflicts almost 10 percent of the population at any given time."

Okay, I'm going to respond to this with, "let's NOT play doctor", because it's not within our training and expertise to give medical advice if we are blogging or writing for online magazines and we are not doctors - or even if we are doctors, and have not actually seen the patient in question before making a diagnosis.

But as we are talking about some hypothetical case here - patient X - and not a real person, then I'm going to use patient X to discuss hypotheticals.

First, joint pain, difficulty concentrating, anxiety, poor attention, and mood swings can be indicative of any of a number of disorders. The doctor is correct to consider different diagnoses, and rule out or rule in anything which may be causing these symptoms. They can be related to some rheumatoid or autoimmune disorder, exposure to certain toxic substances, stress, immunological problems, and other conditions. Patient X may even have more than one condition which is producing these symptoms and need proper diagnosis and treatment.

I would not automatically leap to the conclusion that depression is the disease that is happening - and even so, depression can be a symptom of another underlying condition such as hypothyroidism, hormonal imbalance, or serious vitamin deficiency.

Let's reexamine this portion, and part of the succeeding paragraph:

"But suppose the tests come back negative and there is little evidence that your patient was bitten by a tick or was infected with the Lyme disease bacterium. [...] If you are a doctor who believes that the CDC and NIH have misrepresented carefully vetted clinical trial data about the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease, however, you might diagnose your patient with chronic Lyme disease and prescribe an intensive, long-term, side-effect-laden, mega-dose of antibiotics."

First of all, is clinical trial data about the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease the only data on which a medical practitioner should base their diagnosis and treatment of tickborne diseases in a particular individual patient?

The problem is this soundbite doesn't even begin to offer an overview of why a medical practitioner would think that maybe - just maybe - someone with a negative test for Lyme disease might still have Lyme disease. Or how it is that diagnosing Lyme disease can be a difficult task at times for any doctor.

The words chosen that follow - "prescribe an intensive, long-term, side-effect-laden, mega-dose of antibiotics" - reflect the judgment of the writer on how people with Lyme disease are treated without the writer actually investigating which antibiotics are used at which dosage for how long, nor how long-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease compares with long-term antibiotic treatment for other conditions, nor even what happens to those who have Lyme disease who do not receive long-term antibiotic treatment.

The costs and benefits of antibiotic treatment in general are not weighed and shared, so all it can be is a negative description of this treatment without investigating the long term outcomes of case-by-case studies of those patients who are either receiving it or where such treatment has been withheld.

On to another part of the article...

"As a Slate story pointed out years ago, chronic Lyme disease—not the persistent effects of a long-term bacterial infection but a collection of mysterious symptoms—has powerful supporters. Advocates for the diagnosis tend to blame the medical establishment for not taking them seriously enough."

Here I have a problem with this description of the condition, because it's not reflecting reality.

No one seems to really understand entirely what chronic Lyme disease is and what causes it. No one.

The CDC and IDSA have said that Lyme disease cannot become a chronic and persisting infection after a certain minimum allotment of antibiotic treatment, and offer up the hypothesis that any symptoms beyond this treatment are a (potentially autoimmune) condition known as Post Lyme Disease Syndrome (PLDS). However, this is a hypothesis, and thus far there are no treatment trials which put this hypothesis to the test.

If this hypothesis is so strongly supported, then why are federally funded treatment trials currently being conducted which are about providing evidence for Lyme disease as a persisting infection? Why is there a study currently recruiting which is entitled, "Searching For Persistence In Infection In Lyme Disease"? And why has another study been conducted in Europe, known as the "Persistent Lyme Empiric Antibiotic Study Europe (PLEASE)"?

This doesn't sound like the issue of what causes chronic Lyme disease's persisting symptoms is settled. If so, treatment trials which address this devastating autoimmune condition would outweigh clinical trials on Lyme disease. If one searches for clinical trials for treating Post Lyme Disease Syndrome, the total sum is zero.

To add to this, why is it that the researchers who completed the most recent research on persisting Lyme disease infection in non-human primates concluded this at the end of their recent publication, "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection"?:

"Our studies do however offer proof of the principle that intact spirochetes can persist in an incidental host comparable to humans, following antibiotic therapy. Additionally, our experiments uncover residual antigen associated with inflammatory foci. Whether persistent spirochetes or spirochetal antigen can cause PTLDS remains unanswered."

That chronic Lyme disease is a mystery is true. That one can readily come to the conclusion that it is not a persistent infection under any circumstances, in any situation, has yet to be established - just as these symptoms being caused an autoimmune condition has yet to be established.

But the content of Slate's article and that of others is very negative about the hypothesis of persisting infection without any specific evidence to strongly back an alternative explanation - or refute the evidence provided in a study such as Embers et al, above.

To continue...

"In 2008, the attorney general of Connecticut investigated the Infectious Diseases Society of America, a 50-year-old organization with more than 9,000 physician and scientist members, for misrepresenting the science of Lyme disease. Not to be outdone, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell assembled a governor’s task force on Lyme disease. He appointed Michael Farris as its chair. Farris is a lawyer and the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, aka God’s Harvard, whose motto is “For Christ and for Liberty” and whose “Statement of Faith” holds that the “Bible in its entirety” is “inerrant.” The school isn’t known for its biology department"

You know, we can argue this one until the cows come home. I honestly am not too keen that politicians are getting involved with medical debates - even though I as a patient want more recognition for my condition and more research for it.

What I want is more recognition from the medical profession, and for there to be programs put in place to help those of us with chronic Lyme disease. And what I really want is for someone with an understanding of the disease who has researched it extensively - and has suffered with it long term themselves - to come forward and represent me and other patients; to work from a desire to find the truth about what is causing our symptoms.

I do not need to see another advisory board, appointed chair, or politician try to defend my condition without a more intimate and thorough understanding of it. And I definitely do not need to see my condition being used in a political free-for-all from any side, from any party or special interest group, in order to try to gain more votes.

I find Slate's use of pulling out an appointed chair who is not big on science and who oversees a college with a statement of faith which holds the Bible as being infallible as being a diversion from the issue at hand: the issue of whether or not Borrelia burgdorferi can be a persistent infection.

All we see is an obvious character to take issue with if one is on the side of science and skepticism and wants an easy target to use to rail against the chronic Lyme disease issue... Of course those who are scientifically minded and skeptics are not going to take the word of an evangelical young earth creationist as being one educated about Lyme disease.

On the other hand, if we take one governor and one evangelical chair out of the picture, who do we have left that could have been interviewed instead? How about some scientists, for example? What about Dr. John Aucott of John Hopkins University, Dr. Stephen Barthold of UC Davis, Dr. Monica Embers of Tulane University, Dr. Straubinger, Dr. Brian Fallon of Columbia University, and others who have been studying Borrelia burgdorferi? They have nothing to lose by being asked for their opinion, being neither in politics, nor making money directly off treating patients, or nor working directly for the IDSA. Why doesn't Slate ask them about their scientific opinion on the cause of chronic Lyme disease?

But Slate doesn't do this. Slate goes for low-hanging fruit to support its diatribe against chronic Lyme disease - with the primary goal of denigrating Romney's attempts to appeal to voter subgroups and to support their characterization of Romney as being anti-science.

The mistake Slate makes is in conflating Romney's anti-science leanings with chronic Lyme disease as a condition which does not have enough evidence to support it. The two topics are issues which deserve independent examination.

Onward and upward...

"But the task force seems to have bought into the conspiracy theory that the infectious disease establishment is maliciously interfering with proper treatment. It states: “There is no scientific basis for concluding that 30 days or less of antibiotics is sufficient treatment for every case of Lyme disease.” Again, tell it to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

I am not one of those people who will sit here and spout conspiracy theories. Refer to my page, What To Expect Here, if you have any questions. But there is the issue of oversimplifying and dumbing down the issues involved with properly treating Lyme disease - which is exactly what this article is doing.

It is not true that every case of Lyme disease is sufficiently treated with 30 days or less of antibiotics. Most acute cases are sufficiently treated with 30 days or less, but even when looking at the IDSA's guidelines themselves, they state that up to 10% of all acute Lyme disease patients experience treatment failures. These patients must be retreated and investigated for presence of tickborne coinfections. Also, a certain percentage of patients will have Lyme arthritis, which even Allen Steere treats with two months of oral antibiotics - and if symptoms are still present, a third month of IV antibiotics as well.

I can offer a number of cases where IDSA infectious disease doctors themselves have given individual patients with Lyme disease more than 30 days of antibiotics without thinking too hard, but cannot do so in detail because it would violate HIPAA practices. But these patients are out there, and have been helped by more than 30 days of antibiotics by patients treated by the IDSA's own specialists.

To add to this, there are those outliers with late stage Lyme disease and chronic Lyme disease who do not respond as well to treatment as early acute cases do. These patients have not been studied anywhere nearly enough, in part because fewer cases in these categories are diagnosed - but also because these patients' conditions are not as well understood or always as easily diagnosed to begin with because the obvious, early acute symptoms like a bull's eye rash are missing.

The Slate article continues...

"Another treatment point is telling: “We received substantial testimony from lay witnesses that they had been successfully treated with long-term antibiotics.” Pro tip: the plural of anecdote is not data. Just because someone signed up to address a public portion of the task force meeting does not mean their understanding or explanation of their own medical care is accurate or relevant."

I've said before that I know that the plural of anecdote is not data. And I understand that someone's own experience of their own medical care is not admissible as treatment for everyone.

But then, I've never made the claim that it was, anywhere... I've only made the statement that I think it is possible some people might need longer courses of antibiotics than the guidelines suggest are needed. How long, I think depends on the patient and their condition (genetics, underlying conditions, coinfections, etc).

But that is not for me to judge. I'm not a doctor, and we're talking about individual cases here... If IDSA doctors have the clinical leeway to make decisions to treat individual patients with more than 30 days worth of antibiotics and have it be covered by insurance, well, so then do other doctors - including my own primary care physician and someone who calls themselves an LLMD. The keyword in the document they published, after all, is guidelines.

If that's not happening and insurers are not covering additional treatment for patients when doctors authorize it, then that's an issue that Slate and other publications should be investigating.

To continue...

"I don’t mean to make fun of people who are suffering from what they think is chronic Lyme disease. Their symptoms are real, and they deserve help. But giving them a phantom diagnosis and making them part of a crusade to bring truth to medicine just perpetuates the idea that the symptoms they describe must be part of a complex, classic disease."

Look, this is all fine and good to hold this opinion. However, consider that I don't see enough evidence supporting an alternative diagnosis. The CDC, as you've cited, mentions Post Lyme Disease Syndrome. And yet, this is just a hypothesis and it has yet to graduate to being theory.

Just because the outcome of three clinical trials for long term antibiotic treatment on some patients with chronic Lyme disease showed that continued treatment did not permanently alleviate symptoms once treatment stopped does not mean that there isn't a persistent infection present.

And if Post Lyme Disease Syndrome is a genuine condition, with what may very well be its own genuine biomarkers for it - then as its own separate disease complex, it requires its own research arm and treatment for it.

Now Slate, are you saying PLDS doesn't exist, either, and you're going to flake on this illness which has scientific evidence to back its existence and call it depression?

Of course - because the next thing out of Slate's mouth is this:

"It’s much more likely to be depression, and depression is treatable."

Here we go with the depression, again.

Funny you should say this. Because I have had episodic depression. And I will tell you: Episodic depression was a fucking walk in the park compared to Lyme disease.

There simply is no comparison between the two, other than, well, having Lyme disease has made me feel depressed because it totally changed my life and not for the better.

Why would someone who could work full time at a high paying salary who had lots of friends and opportunity to travel the world a lot give that up to stay at home on the sofa with constant headaches and fatigue and hardly see anyone or go anywhere? To be seriously broke and give up on one's dream of owning a home?

The Lyme disease made me depressed. I don't have depression here as a separate clinical entity all on its own.

And depression, in my experience, never gave me a tick bite, an EM rash, high fevers, swollen lymph nodes, visible joint swelling, paresthesias, and a stocking and glove pattern of neuropathy on my feet.

I challenge you to ask any therapist if they think these symptoms are signs of depression. They'll tell you what they told me: "Your illness is not in your head; you have a genuine physical illness. See a doctor, but see me to deal with the depression that being ill can bring on if you need it."

And seriously... While taking antidepressants can help people with depression, if there is an organic cause for one's depression, such as infection, that needs to be treated first. One only needs to look at cases of psychiatric presentations of Lyme disease - however controversial they are - to at least ask if it isn't a possibility based on the patient's clinical history and limited response to common antidepressants.

Ask those chronic Lyme disease patients who have already taken antidepressants and have seen therapists just how well they have done. Ask. Quite a number of us have already tried exactly what some doctors suggested we do, when they thought we had depression and that is why we felt as crappy as we have. Either they're wrong, or partly wrong, or the drugs they prescribe us just aren't doing the trick.

Depression. Ha. If it is depression, well, then where are the clinical trials where antidepressants and long term antibiotics are used to treat chronic Lyme disease, so we can see the outcome? How about a third treatment arm with therapy alone? At least you'll give us patients a space of our own to swear at and curse modern medicine for not doing more for us.

There's more...

"As the CDC gently points out, mentioning other diagnoses that have been favorite catch-alls, “Your doctor may want to treat you in ways similar to patients who have fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome. This does not mean that your doctor is dismissing your pain or saying that you have these conditions. It simply means that the doctor is trying to help you cope with your symptoms using the best tools available."

And no one knows what exactly causes fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome. Obviously XMRV has been taken off the table as a cause for chronic fatigue syndrome - but some other virus or another agent may be the cause of this condition.

In any case, neither of these conditions have clear etiology, so you could be trading one mystery for another. None of which are well understood. And all of which are treated symptomatically, and all of which the drugs prescribed (with the exception drugs such as Lyrica, which is the first drug specifcally prescribed to treat fibromyalgia - which also has the unfortunate side effect of potentially causing suicidal behavior) are being offered based on an educated guess that they might work and, well, patient anecdote. They're prescribed off-label for these mysterious conditions of unknown etiology.

So how is treating chronic Lyme disease with antibiotics any different in this respect, until more research comes in on how to better treat it? Until we better understand the cause?

It may be that while long term antibiotic use for everyone with persisting symptoms may not hold up in small scale clinical trials that it may hold up in individual situations for particular patients with specific backgrounds - backgrounds which may not have been widely represented in the trials which have been held to date. Often it takes years for a wider population using a given drug or treatment regimen to expose its side effects and benefits - the outcomes are not always obvious at first.

And the last bit from the Slate:

"Disregarding my own advice about not taking an anecdote as data, I have my own story about chronic Lyme disease. A friend of one of my brothers had been suffering for years from headaches, fatigue, a sense of despair, a belief that she wasn’t worthy of her job or her boyfriend. She was diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease and was treated with antibiotics, which were ineffective. What she wasn’t treated for, and could have been, was severe depression. She killed herself."

I am very sorry for your loss, no matter what the cause. This is the tragic loss of one woman's life, and it may have been prevented.

I don't know, though, and I don't know the full story either way. I only have your anecdote.

She could have had undiagnosed Lyme disease. She could have had depression. She could have had something else entirely. She could have had more than one problem which included depression.

If depression is a concern, I recommend anyone with any illness see a therapist because in many cases therapy is equally as effective as antidepressants. And if that doesn't help, cautiously try out an antidepressant that is neuroprotective if no other biological or organic cause can be found for the depression. But certainly, if one continues to have the same symptoms while on antidepressants and begins an empiric course of antibiotics later and finds those symptoms begin to lift, well, then go with what works and maybe science does not immediately have all the answers. Sometimes symptoms which appear psychiatric in nature can have an infection as their cause.

So, anyway...

Whether or not persistent bacteria is the cause of all or some patients' symptoms, in my opinion, is still up for grabs. And at this point, many patients have either made the decision to ignore the results of the three small clinical trials which have been completed, or beg for more research on treatment to help us, or both.

I am a pro-science, pro-research person with a history of skepticism. I am skeptical about my own damn disease. And yet, no one has given me any particular advice in mainstream medicine or science as to what to do about it.

You might want to send your money directly to UC Davis or Tulane University for private research instead. But don't come kvetching to me that I'm running off to an LLMD because my primary care provider referred me to one.*

That's just more complaining - rather than addressing the root of the problem in the first place. Those of us in pain can only wait so long and do nothing for so long...

* True story.

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

Read More

0 Mitt Romney, Lyme Disease, And The Media

Well, I guess I had to come out of the woodwork to comment on this recent turn of events... If life wasn't so hectic lately, I could have blogged sooner, and written about David Suzuki's observations on how changes in the environment have led to increased incidence of Lyme disease, or Senator Blumenthal's request for personal stories of patients who have been affected by Lyme disease, or the discovery of a new, serious  tickborne phlebovirus in Missouri.

But no, that didn't happen...

The first opportunity I really have to sit down and write here, the news that is crossing my desk and getting a lot of airtime is about Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the media's commentary on how his support for greater awareness of chronic Lyme disease has been used to ignite interest in Virginia voters who have been struggling with the disease.

And the media has not stopped there, with its opinion pieces focused on how any candidate for office can and will try to influence the vote of certain subgroups of people affected by issue x or issue y... No, after initial criticism was volleyed at Romney, a number of journalists posted articles on chronic Lyme disease and how it is not a real medical condition.

Well, here we go again. It is the same story told by some newspapers and writers, over and over again, about how chronic Lyme disease doesn't exist and how doctors who treat it are taking unfair advantage of patients who are suffering and how patients are naive dupes for a disease based on pseudoscience.

I honestly think at this point that many of you who are writing these pieces for publication have a template for about five boilerplate articles on chronic Lyme disease that you have slight variations on, and publish each article just far apart from each other that the busy, overworked, and exhausted public won't notice that you essentially wrote the same damn thing again - but perhaps with a little twist.

When I first began this blog, it was because of an article written in the Chicago Tribune which was supposed to be about how chronic Lyme disease is a dubious diagnosis - when the content of the article itself had no relationship to the title, and did not examine the issue of whether or not Borrelia burgdorferi - the bacteria which causes Lyme disease - could potentially cause a persistent infection in some people.

What the article in the Chicago Tribune did was look at two doctors who were said to have treated chronic Lyme disease who were reported for disciplinary action to their medical boards for various reasons unrelated to Lyme disease and one charlatan who - like many who promise to offer a cure for cancer - has no cure and no credentials whatsoever.

What a brave and insightful piece of literature it was, to move beyond the carefully crafted soundbites of a puffed-up opinion piece, by closely examining all the issues behind why some doctors, researchers, and patients may think that Lyme disease could persist - and why and why that isn't supported by existing evidence.

Not.

The article did not in any way, shape, or form discuss the scientific complexity involved in Borrelia infections, and the difficulty that doctors can have in properly diagnosing it as its symptoms mimic other conditions. It did not look at the state of the science on Borrelia burgdorferi sensu latu, and how a broad range of strains have different effects and disseminate at different rates.

Anyone reading it would have walked away not with the message that Lyme disease and other tickborne infections can produce a complex symptom presentation. Anyone reading it would not have learned how to prevent such illnesses or to even learn if there are differential diagnoses which one should look at which may be confused with chronic Lyme disease. It wasn't a helpful article that way. What they would have walked away with is the message that there are some doctors out there who have been disciplined for various reasons who happen to treat people with persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease, and some misinformation online about what Lyme disease is and is not.

The recent spate of articles which spend time criticizing Mitt Romney's move to spread awareness of Lyme disease as part of his future goals if elected have also had pretty much the same kind of content, and as opinion pieces are intended to persuade the audience and win them over to the writer's view. However, it should be noted that in no way should these opinion pieces be taken as the final word or even current word in science on what Lyme disease is all about - because as opinion pieces, they are neglecting mention of the scientific evidence needed to support their assertions.

The New Yorker's  recent article, "Mitt Romney Versus Lyme Disease And Science", states that:

"...If left untreated, Lyme disease can be crippling, yet it is a difficult illness to contract: a tick needs to attach itself to your body for at least twenty-four hours. Even then, two weeks worth of commonly prescribed antibiotics will kill the bacterium."

Yes, indeed, if left untreated Lyme disease can be crippling. This much is true: late stage, untreated Lyme disease can lead to cardiac, neurological, and arthritic complications. However, there is more to the rest of the story when it comes to the remainder of this passage: If a tick is on your body for fewer than twenty-four hours, there are circumstances under which transmission of Lyme disease (as well as other tickborne infections) may occur - including if the tick is improperly removed. Also, even the most conservative reading of the IDSA's 2006 guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease would state that given certain objective and clinical signs, some patients may need retreatment or more than two weeks' worth of antibiotics - particularly if there are certain cardiac, neurological, and arthritic symptoms present.

The New Yorker article simplifies the nature of Lyme disease and makes sweeping statements here. What it could have said - and still be true to mainstream infectious disease canon - could have been this:

"...If left untreated, Lyme disease can be crippling. In American scientific research to date, it has been shown that in most cases, an Ixodes scapularis or pacificus tick needs to attach itself to your body for at least twenty-four hours before Lyme disease can be contracted. Improper tick removal and other factors may, however, contribute to earlier contraction of disease. One might note that there is some evidence that in Europe, Ixodes ricinus ticks have a shorter transmission time for passing on Lyme disease bacteria than American ticks. But even then, in acute cases, the immediate treatment of two weeks' worth of commonly prescribed antibiotics will kill the bacterium in most cases. If symptoms continue, further evaluation for more severe infection and tickborne coinfections is needed."

I think some more qualifiers are needed there. And I know - this is, perhaps, a less targeted passage in that it steps outside of American research and points at what's happening in Europe. But the point is, Lyme disease is a global issue and a global problem, due to global warming and climate change. It's not just Virginia's. Or even the eastern seaboard's problem.

People travel. People get sick overseas. Lyme disease is overseas. And perhaps it helps to raise the question of how much scientific research on Borrelia may be applicable in different locations the more that is learned about the bacteria as a whole... More research here is really the key to better understanding this bug.

I will, however, give The New Yorker's Michael Specter credit for this mention:

"In fact, there is a clear scientific issue that can only make Lyme disease worse—but it is a problem that Romney and the Republicans have ignored. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted that increasing temperature helps keep ticks alive. More ticks means more Lyme disease. This is a connection, as Mother Jones first noted, that Romney has failed to consider. Instead, he has said that spending huge sums trying to reduce CO2 emissions is “not the right course for us."

Climate change is a huge player in the tickborne illness game, and I don't need Al Gore or the IPCC or even David Suzuki to point this out for me. Look outside every year, and tell me what I don't see with my own eyes: The ticks are out there earlier, and out there for longer periods of time than they've been in the past. Ask the epidemiologists and entomologists, too, if you need confirmation... Sure populations will wax and wane to a degree - but what's the trend over time?

The Business Insider's article, "Why Romney's Statements About Chronic Lyme Disease Are Dangerous", does tend to give the topic a somewhat more balanced approach by acknowledging that there is a debate within the medical and scientific community by stating, "Many doctors and researchers don't believe in this syndrome, which lasts much longer than your run-of-the-mill Lyme disease infection. The CDC, NIAID, and leading medical professionals agree that the syndrome doesn't exist. There are others within the scientific community, and especially outside of it, that debate these experts."

This, at least, is an opening gambit which sets the tone for the rest of the article by acknowledging there is a debate - with the primary focus being that politicians such as Mitt Romney should steer clear of medical debates and leave such debates to science, where they belong. Politicians are not qualified to participate in such debates.

One notable passage for me was this one:

"The symptoms of chronic Lyme disease could also be caused by an auto-immune reaction to the infection, or lasting damage from the bacterial invasion. Either way, these symptoms aren't helped by additional long-term antibiotic treatment, which has side effects and dangers of its own."

This is perhaps the first and only statement in the entire article which focuses on what some potential causes are of chronic Lyme disease, giving it some acknowledgement that yes, in fact, this condition does exist - even if its cause has been greatly debated. But there are no citations and there is no supporting evidence given to back this passage - nor a good percentage of other statements made in the article. There is no mention, either, of Dr. Monica Embers' "Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques" study or other research which present the possibility that Borrelia burgdorferi might persist after antibiotic treatment.

In Slate magazine, Laura Helmuth reports this personal story:

"A friend of one of my brothers had been suffering for years from headaches, fatigue, a sense of despair, a belief that she wasn’t worthy of her job or her boyfriend. She was diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease and was treated with antibiotics, which were ineffective. What she wasn’t treated for, and could have been, was severe depression. She killed herself."

While I am very saddened to hear of this woman's death, there isn't enough information here to know exactly what happened. She may have had severe depression, she may have had Lyme disease, and/or she may have had a completely different medical issue. I simply don't know - there's no way to verify this story - it is also possible the woman in question had both Lyme disease and depression, because it happens to a number of people. It happened to me, too... I was in so much pain in the past, I was begging for God to take me.

If you are depressed, I hope you will seek treatment for it, and see a qualified licensed therapist for help. But it has been said by many in the medical profession to seek alternative causes for depression and fatigue, as hypothyroidism and other conditions may give rise to these symptoms. There can be underlying medical reasons for one's depression, and it may be that antidepressants are not the primary tool for healing.

In any piece of writing, it is important to consider the following questions:

• What is the expertise and education of the person writing?
• What is the agenda of the writer? Are they trying to promote an idea, sell a product, evoke a strong emotional response to gain readership, present different sides of a contested issue, or educate the public on an important matter?
• What is the outcome that can be achieved by publishing this specific piece in this particular publication?
• What references and citations has the writer given to support their assertions and statements?
• Does a thorough survey of the information provided and research completed from different sources provide evidence which support the writer's position? 
• Is there information and research which supports an alternative position? What is the strength of the evidence supporting these positions?

I encourage anyone reading these articles about Mitt Romney and chronic Lyme disease to ask themselves the same questions above, and to do your own research on whether or not Lyme disease can lead to persisting symptoms after initial (especially delayed) treatment with antibiotics.

The entire Internet is out there at your disposal to use, and scientific journals, books, PubMed, and other reliable sources from which to get your information on Lyme disease - all free of spin.

Of course, you yourself will end up walking away from all the research required to even begin to understand Borrelia burgdorferi with your own personal spin - but at least you will know more than you can learn from reading a random article which gets published in an online newspaper or magazine.

And write to researchers if you want to better understand their research. It's the honest way to understand what their position is on their own work, rather than assume their position based on others' interpretations of their work. They will likely be touched that you made the effort to ask questions than assume someone else's interpretation (which may or may not be correct), and be pleased that you took the attitude that no question is a stupid question.

As for your vote: vote with your conscience. I can't tell anyone how to vote and it's not my job to tell you how to vote. I can only tell you that after seeing George W. Bush in office and how little attention and assistance he gave the Lyme disease patient community after his own battle with the disease that I have little faith in any politician delivering the much needed funds for translational medicine and treatment research that will help me and my fellow patients.

I feel pretty much the same about anyone else running for office, and anyone trying to stay in office: Show me you can make my life better, either directly or indirectly through concrete and substantial action - or hire someone working for you who will.

I don't want someone to discuss synergy (some vague assertion with no concrete plan), creating another task force or Lyme disease committee, or official state day in observance of Lyme disease. No. What I want to see is money going directly towards treatment and testing research - towards something tangible that has clear actionable goals and benchmarks to be met. What I want to see is concerted effort towards directly supporting those who are ill, with access to a wider range of treatment options, home health care aides, transportation, and supportive services (therapy to help patients physically and emotionally) during the darkest times of our lives.

I also am not a "single issue voter", either. If you are running for office and you make campaign promises that are about promoting awareness of Lyme disease - but slash support for medicare and disability, and make it harder for those of us who are ill and dysfunctional to get the help we need on a broad scale - I can't in my good conscience vote for you. I have to vote for someone who supports all of us who are dealing with disabilities - my fellow humans who are suffering - and those who are currently well who, unfortunately, may one day join our ranks.

In closing, I leave you with one passage from The Business Insider:

"Romney should pledge to funnel money into research organizations that could find the actual cause of this disease, and he could help stop its spread by addressing the causes of global climate change, the main reason the disease has reached so far and wide and continues to spread."

I wouldn't stop there. EVERYONE should pledge to funnel money into research organizations that could find the actual cause of this disease - and more importantly, effective treatment and testing for it.


Image Credit: Former Governor Mitt Romney giving an interview at a supporters rally in Paradise Valley, Arizona. December 6, 2011. Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6468744615/. Taken by Gage Skidmore. This image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

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

Read More

0 Commentary: 20/20 And Needing A New Focus For Lyme Disease

This past Friday, the ABC program, 20/20, aired a show on medical mysteries. Included in this show were segments on people who fly into a rage at certain sounds (misophonia), eat rocks or other unusual non-food items (pica), and one on a girl with Lyme disease who is speculated by doctors to have developed a condition known as foreign accent syndrome (FAS) due to being coinfected with Bartonella.

While I have sympathy for everyone dealing with such conditions and hope everyone who was interviewed for the show gets better, what I'm about to write isn't about their personal interest stories.

Instead, I want to discuss how the media portrays the strange and unusual case to get higher ratings while other stories and information about tickborne infections are either downplayed or avoided.

On Dr. Phil's show several weeks ago, a young model was interviewed - a photogenic young woman who was having partial seizures and self-medicating to treat her pain. While there is evidence that people with Lyme disease can experience seizures, these cases are considered to be in the minority. In Friday night's 20/20 show, a teenager in high school who contracted Lyme disease and Bartonella was speculated to have developed a condition known as foreign accent syndrome (FAS). This is a documented condition, and while I think more evidence is needed to provide a link between Bartonella as its cause in this instance - FAS is even rarer than seizures are.

These stories are getting aired because the media tends to want to focus on the strange and unusual in order to grab viewers' interest and get ratings. The delivery must generate buzz and be sensational in approach in order to get traffic and fixed stares. And this is exactly what the promos for Dr. Phil's show on the young model, Stephanie, tried to achieve - as well as promos by 20/20's on Elaina, the teenager with FAS.

Most viewers at home seeing these shows are watching it because of the weird factor. They see the promo and want to know more, perhaps with their own internal dialogue of, "Wow, that's weird, I wonder how that happens - and does this really happen or is it just made up?" or, "Gee, that's messed up - glad it's not me. But I'm curious, so I'll watch." Some people just have a thing for watching other people's problems in general, and segments like these appeal to their nature.

For those of us who suffer from a disease that is portrayed on television, the first thing that happens is praise. The initial comments from the Lyme disease patient community are congratulatory. They contain the good cheer of finally getting more recognition for what ails us, those of us who have been suffering with chronic Lyme disease and/or coinfections.

And then, the next round of responses trickle in from other patients - a second wave which is not as cheery as the first and criticizes the shows for picking out one narrow and possibly rare symptom and putting it in the spotlight while the rest remain in the darkness.

Then the real, serious criticism gets rolling in the third wave, which is about how these shows will question the afflicted about the true nature of their condition and whether or not they are "faking it". From the perspective of a number of Lyme disease patients, this criticism could be heard regarding the exchanges about Dr. Phil asking the model if she was faking her condition, and in his not arguing against Dr. Auerwater's position that chronic Lyme disease is not a verifiable condition.

Indignant responses fly. Suddenly, what began as a great show for spreading awareness has become a show where a number of people see the value of airing it - yet admit it fell short of their hopes for letting people know what Lyme disease and coinfections are really like and what impact persisting symptoms have had on people's lives.

People just like them. People just like the guy next door, who was mowing the lawn one week and playing soccer afterwards - and now can't make the walk to his mailbox, let alone get to work.

As I see it, there has to be more of an effort in the media to offer education about what Lyme disease and coinfections are from a scientific perspective, and educate people on the most common symptoms which people will experience. From a personal interest perspective, more people need to see how these conditions affect middle class working adults with children of their own.

With this education, more people would be able to relate to the people on the screen and be willing to look into the possibility that they might have a tickborne infection and seek medical advice and testing. They would at least be alerted to the possibility.

With the edutainment of the strange and unusual offered, there isn't enough there for the viewer to grasp the possibility that they, too, may be suffering from this disease - or to know what signs to look for in the future if they do come down ill with tickborne infections.

If someone sees the story of a patient with partial seizures or FAS, they may shrug off the story and not apply it to their own experience of having joint aches, muscle pain, headaches, and blurred vision, and say to themselves, "Thank god I have fibromyalgia and eye problems and not Lyme disease or Bartonella - this stuff is weird". And maybe their current diagnosis is correct. However, there's a chance it's not. In which case, they are better off having the knowledge so they can decide to investigate another diagnosis.

The strange and unusual won't help viewers relate what they see on the screen to their own situation. Truly spreading awareness means educating people on the symptoms for conditions one is most likely to see. It doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions or that unusual symptoms can't occur. It just means that what most people with a given condition experience what one expects to see and to get based on the majority of cases which have occurred.

One more point about the media's focus and where I think it should be - then I'll go:

Why is it that we can easily find these sensationalized stories about unusual symptoms about Lyme disease - but there's seemingly little television coverage of what seems to be the most costly case of Lyme disease in the country - the Lyme disease contracted by senior banker Ina Drew, who worked at JP Morgan Chase, whose absence from work due to Lyme disease led to those remaining in the office making decisions leading to a $3 billion trading loss?

Yes, you did not misread that. $3 BILLION.

You would think this story would be pretty sensational and the media would put this on 20/20 and other shows right away.

There is the personal cost of Lyme disease to the individual. This the media does well to portray to a certain degree. But then there is the cost to their family, their job, and society as a whole. This has not been portrayed that well. It needs to be.

 Image Credit: Peter Wolber

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

Read More

10 Commentary On Chronic Lyme Disease and Skepticism

When I began writing this blog, I originally wrote it to give a point-by-point analysis of how one article in the Chicago Tribune, "Chronic Lyme: A dubious diagnosis", did not address the issue of whether or not Lyme disease could be a chronic and persistent infection after initial or delayed antibiotic treatment. I wrote the analysis using Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, because I thought it was a good framework for deconstruction of the article.

I thought this analysis would attract the attention of a number of skeptics, and from there, we'd engage in a lively discussion about how the article skirted the issue of whether or not chronic Lyme disease is possible and dive into the evidence for and against chronic Lyme disease being a persistent - if only subclinical - infection.

It never happened. 

Over a year later, and it still didn't happen.

And, to this day, only one person has ever left me a comment which directly challenged what I was writing about and judged the content of this blog - at least as far as the idea of persistent infection is involved.

That comment was this:

You error in giving any credit to the "chronic lyme disease" movement.

I recommend this paper in the current issue of The Lancet (Sep 2011;11:713-719) :

Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with advocacy of Lyme disease

Abstract: Advocacy for Lyme disease has become an increasingly important part of an antiscience movement that denies both the viral cause of AIDS and the benefits of vaccines and that supports unproven (sometimes dangerous) alternative medical treatments. Some activists portray Lyme disease, a geographically limited tick-borne infection, as a disease that is insidious, ubiquitous, difficult to diagnose, and almost incurable; they also propose that the disease causes mainly non-specific symptoms that can be treated only with long-term antibiotics and other unorthodox and unvalidated treatments. Similar to other antiscience groups, these advocates have created a pseudoscientific and alternative selection of practitioners, research, and publications and have coordinated public protests, accused opponents of both corruption and conspiracy, and spurred legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science. The relations and actions of some activists, medical practitioners, and commercial bodies involved in Lyme disease advocacy pose a threat to public health.

And pertinent to this blog, the authors conclude, in part:

"This situation is not likely to end anytime soon. As with other antiscience groups, many Lyme disease activists are well funded and often connected to influential political and media sources. Treatment of Lyme disease with long-term antibiotics is profitable for LLMDs and can be falsely reassuring to patients, who believe that they have a debilitating chronic infection and thus do not seek diagnosis and treatment for other disorders. There is no deficiency of either new patients or activists. The medical anthropologist Sharon Kaufman wrote that “Information technology has transformed the way trust and knowledge are produced”.67 Most people now find medical information on the internet, and the websites of LLMDs and activists are often viewed as legitimate and reliable sources of information, which they may not be."

         - LindaRosaRN


I responded to her, asked her a few questions, and she never responded in return. A drive by. 

She obviously wanted to be heard but did not want to engage. Her comment was on a post about the Huffington Post and Under Our Skin; it wasn't even related to the antiscience letter to which she referred.

And since then, it's been crickets all around when it comes to skeptics  - even though I get visits from Spirochetes Unwound (of Research Blogging), and other web sites which are science and skeptic-oriented on a number of levels.

It's almost as if someone gets to the front door of this site and decides it's not for them just because it mentions the words, "chronic Lyme disease".

I'm guessing the skeptical person who stumbles upon this page with that first glance thinks, "Oh, well, it's another one of those chronic Lyme activists. Why are they ignoring all the evidence that after antibiotic treatment, those with persisting symptoms develop an autoimmune disorder? I'm getting out of here. I'm not wasting my time on this..."

If they're thinking that, then perhaps an overhaul is in order for this blog because I'm not trying to ignore the evidence about autoimmunity or immune dysregulation related to persisting symptoms.

I'm trying to look at a number of different hypotheses - including chronic infection - because these topics are of interest to other patients and I think they all deserve discussion. And there are other hypotheses outside of chronic infection and autoimmunity which are being researched such as chronic Lyme disease as a metabolic disorder, and I give them exposure.

Because I enjoy science, I look at research and science news related to tickborne infections and their reservoir hosts in general, without any particular goal in mind other than to say, "Hey, look at this - isn't this weird/interesting/informative?" I want to inspire the curiosity of the world I have in others.

At first glance, this blog has been primarily written for other patients with persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease infection. But it has also been written to open the floor to anyone for discussion about different causes for persisting symptoms.

This includes skeptics. They are welcome to comment here and share their perspective, as long as they aren't rude and can state their position while providing supporting evidence.

After all - I have a history of being a skeptic myself, and at times don't just want the cheering section behind me saying they support me as a fellow patient. I also want someone to occasionally shake me out of my complacency if I've been stuck in it. I occasionally want someone to present me with a different point of view or new evidence if they have it so I can consider other lines of inquiry in trying to understand my condition.

I have to wonder sometimes if I need a colorful banner or animated message on the top left corner of the homepage which states, "I am a skeptic and a patient with persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease".

Or maybe I need a paragraph at the top of one of my sidebars in order to say more about who I am.

Something like this:

Side note to all scientists and skeptics, in case you missed it: 

This blog is written from the perspective of one person who has been in the unfortunate position of being a skeptic who is suffering from persisting symptoms after receiving an infected tick bite.  

I want answers to questions such as, "What on earth does someone in my position do?" and "What kind of pragmatic approach can I have to dealing with my illness when I am a skeptic and want evidence to support my position and the decisions I make?" and "What research is out there which supports one or another position as to the cause for my condition?"

This has to be done carefully, though, for the sake of my audience.

While I want skeptics to feel welcome here,  I don't want to scare other patients away who are dealing with the same struggles. And I want everyone to feel welcome here and not like they have to constantly defend their illness to others who may not only be skeptical - but who have the potential to engage in less than civil behavior online.

My concern here is not unwarranted. I have read skeptic sites for a number of years, and while I can read sites where issues concerning chronic Lyme disease are debated by infectious disease specialists, researchers, doctors, and patients - such as this BMJ series of Rapid Responses - I practically choke on some of the comments on this chronic Lyme disease post on Respectful Insolence blog, because some of the exchanges are insulting and do little to advance serious discussion about Lyme disease. (Some of them are thoughtful and intelligent, too, though, so I don't avoid reading the thread entirely just because there are insults.)

And I have to remind myself that any blog on the internet has the potential for ill-informed comments, regardless of the original content.

One response on the above linked blog betrays a certain basic ignorance about Lyme disease:

"Yikes, always knew Chronic Lyme disease was complete woo. It's called an anxiety disorder, get your meds. Even acute Lyme disease is looking to be a bit far fetched, now I am far from an expert but it seems a little bit out of a sci fi novel for a tick to harbor some strange virus, who proved this and what experimental data did they have? What were the experiments that prove that some tick borned virus is the cause of a human disease in the first place?"

What the... 

Acute Lyme disease looks far fetched and it must be sci fi that a tick harbors a strange virus?

Far from expert?

Indeed. 


And some comments are thoughtful and the response is respectfully delivered even if the content is something a number of patients would find disagreeable:

"...I don't doubt your story, but given how common tick bites are, it seems likely that an association could be found regardless of whether or not the tick bite actually caused the condition. Thus, anecdotes are not that useful in understanding the disease. Anecdotes don't tell us cause and effect. They show us why we should care, and they are important for that reason, but they do not tell us what is true. It takes a lot of carefully collected data to do that. 

How do you know the antibiotics are really responsible for your improved state of health? Remember, coincidences do happen -- during the summers I take Pulmicort, but is it really making my asthma better, or is the variable course of my asthma just being kind to me right now? I have anecdotes galore, but it's the clinical trial data that convinces me the Pulmicort really is working and it's not just my own desire for it to work making it seem as though it is.

Indeed, one day the truth may come out. But it'll have a hard time coming out when the science of Lyme disease is decided by politicians, and when those most invested in chronic Lyme disease would rather spend their effort treating patients than finding out whether or not they're actually doing the right thing for their patients. Too many of the positive studies I have seen have been enterprises in proving a point rather than testing an hypothesis; science can't be fair or unbiased or *truthful* if it does not entertain equally the possibility of being wrong."

They have a valid point. I can see that.

The problem is, when is this "one day where the truth may come out"?

I have to make decisions about what to do about my health TODAY.

That's the one truth which few of these exchanges seem to address:

How does one make an informed decision as to how to approach and treat one's condition when there is a medical controversy over how to treat it where one of the two options is not to treat it at all - and doing nothing leads to more suffering?

While the author takes the time to explain that anecdotes are not data (with which I agree) and that tick bites in and of themselves are common, there is plenty of medical research and documentation which provides evidence that a subset of infected Lyme disease patients go on to have persisting symptoms after initial treatment. For some of these patients, these symptoms are severe. For a number of them, symptoms persist not for months but for years.

The IDSA and other medical institutions and researchers acknowledge this condition. It's not well understood - but this phenomenon has been documented and is not the creation of a handful of woo charlatans looking to cash in on me.

And I am, for whatever unfortunate reason, the poor bastard who has this condition. And I:
- had a documented tick bite,
- developed an EM rash,
- received a positive blood test later on,
- developed all these symptoms which were clinically diagnosed as Lyme disease.

Unlike the claim made by Ms. Rosa above, no one has tried to con me into this diagnosis. I had a textbook case of Lyme disease. The evidence was there.

If anything, when I first contracted Lyme disease, I thought I was getting it taken care of early enough and would not have to touch the "Lyme controversy" with a twenty foot pole.

Unfortunately, life had other plans for me.

I ended up not being able to work, got sicker than I'd ever been in my life for months on end, then finally got better and off antibiotics and return to work... only to relapse, have to leave my job, and try to figure out what to do next.


Why me? I didn't ask for this. As someone who reads Free Inquiry on occasion, worked as a researcher, lived in a dorm full of physics and chemistry geeks, and thought Carl Sagan was one of the most brilliant and compassionate minds on Earth, I really did ask "Why me?".

But you know, the answer to a pathetic "Why me?" really is "Why not me?". No one asks for this. No one asks to be hit by a car, abused as a child, diagnosed with breast cancer, or to watch a parent die. We are all subject to things which happen beyond our control. It was just the random luck of the draw that someone who happened to be a skeptic would get a condition of which others are skeptical.

Ticks don't care if you like Sagan or vote for Romney. They just want lunch.

For better or worse, here I am. Now, how can I make the best of this? What can I make of this situation now that I'm smack in the middle of it?

I've thought that all I can do is write, research, and encourage others to do research. Learn and encourage others to learn more about tickborne illnesses. Encourage those who are out there who are working in microbiology and biology to engage in education and outreach which helps patients and sidesteps the politics. Educate one doctor at a time that someone with my condition exists, and that a tickborne infection can lead to chronic symptoms. Warn others and tell them to protect themselves when they go hiking and camping so they can avoid my fate.

Mainly what I want to do is get better and get back to living life as I was before - but this time, perhaps a little humbler, a little wiser, and with more compassion for others and more gratitude for myself.

In meantime, I keep hoping I'll meet others here who came from a similar background.

So far, in terms of scientists, I have had a few other Lyme disease patients with science degrees and research positions (or friends and partners of patients with science backgrounds) comment on this blog. Outside of these patients, researchers have commented less often and anonymously.

And I keep hoping someone who is a skeptic and also struggling with chronic Lyme disease or perhaps CFS/ME will come forward and we can review research together and try to make sense of it and figure out what the best course of action is. Even better? I keep hoping to see a microbiologist who researches Borrelia burgdorferi and has had persisting symptoms from Lyme disease take up blogging on their own and publish more insights of which are but a faint glimmer in my own head.

But so far? Crickets.

Surely we can do better than this. Surely one can light more candles against the darkness?

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

Read More