Group: sci.med.diseases.lyme
Lyme Disease: patient support, research & information.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
A small committee of degenerates has held the IDSA captive to special
interests in the insurance and biowarfare industries. Persistent
(chronic) infection has been proven scientifically hundreds of times,
yet they continue to lie to Senator Kennedy to protect their own
behinds...
Read their most recent misinformation addressed to Senator Kennedy:
March 21, 2008
The Honorable Edward Kennedy
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and
Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme
disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical
community
about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose
passage of the bill in its current form.
IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases
physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of
individuals
who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed
composition
of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it
likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme
disease
to federal decision-makers.
IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the
treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and
foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care
and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
believe
it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members
of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the
widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community
about
the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical
community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments
for so-called "chronic" Lyme disease that are advocated by a small,
but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N
Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of
chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates
our concerns.
A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated
references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described
inaccurately as "chronic Lyme disease". Lyme disease is a tick-
transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and
joint
pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or
memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-
specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has
killed
the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have
diagnosed
such patients as having "chronic" Lyme disease. Many of these so
called "chronic" Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests
that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and
Administration.
Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose "chronic" Lyme disease
often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses
of
oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than
an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary
use
of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as
well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--
adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and
treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines
(last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease
guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in
2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College
of
Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast
majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in
this country and abroad.
The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the
notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional
treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed
to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically
implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that
support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England
Journal
of Medicine article stated unequivocally "that there is little or no
benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients
who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial
treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease."
As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory
committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and
potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a
review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current
treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease
disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of
its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be
beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and
specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make
recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure
impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the
vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
(w w w .idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(w w w .cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (w w w 3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American
Academy of Neurology (w w w .aan . com ), or the American College of
Physicians (w w w .acponline.org).
I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this
legislation. If you have any questions or need any further
information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA
Government
Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via
e-mail at mo...@idsociety.org.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Poretz
President
A small committee of degenerates has held the IDSA captive to special
interests in the insurance and biowarfare industries. Persistent
(chronic) infection has been proven scientifically hundreds of times,
yet they continue to lie to Senator Kennedy to protect their own
behinds...
Read their most recent misinformation addressed to Senator Kennedy:
March 21, 2008
The Honorable Edward Kennedy
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and
Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme
disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical
community
about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose
passage of the bill in its current form.
IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases
physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of
individuals
who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed
composition
of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it
likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme
disease
to federal decision-makers.
IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the
treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and
foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care
and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
believe
it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members
of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the
widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community
about
the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical
community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments
for so-called "chronic" Lyme disease that are advocated by a small,
but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N
Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of
chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates
our concerns.
A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated
references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described
inaccurately as "chronic Lyme disease". Lyme disease is a tick-
transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and
joint
pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or
memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-
specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has
killed
the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have
diagnosed
such patients as having "chronic" Lyme disease. Many of these so
called "chronic" Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests
that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and
Administration.
Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose "chronic" Lyme disease
often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses
of
oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than
an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary
use
of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as
well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--
adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and
treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines
(last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease
guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in
2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College
of
Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast
majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in
this country and abroad.
The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the
notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional
treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed
to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically
implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that
support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England
Journal
of Medicine article stated unequivocally "that there is little or no
benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients
who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial
treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease."
As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory
committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and
potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a
review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current
treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease
disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of
its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be
beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and
specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make
recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure
impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the
vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
(w w w .idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(w w w .cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (w w w 3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American
Academy of Neurology (w w w .aan . com ), or the American College of
Physicians (w w w .acponline.org).
I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this
legislation. If you have any questions or need any further
information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA
Government
Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via
e-mail at mo...@idsociety.org.
Sincerely,
Donald M. Poretz
President
More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
On Apr 14, 8:08 pm, Chuck Adams- Newsgroup leader since 1997
<chuckadam...@aol . com > wrote:
> On zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
On Apr 14, 8:08 pm, Chuck Adams- Newsgroup leader since 1997
<chuckadam...@aol . com > wrote:
> On zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
On Apr 17, 8:52 pm, Chuck Adams- Newsgroup leader since 1997
<chuckadam...@aol . com > wrote:
> On zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
On Apr 17, 8:52 pm, Chuck Adams- Newsgroup leader since 1997
<chuckadam...@aol . com > wrote:
> On zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re: More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
On Apr 14, 4:55=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wrot=
e:
> A small committee of degenerates has held the IDSA captive to special
> interests in the insurance and biowarfare industries. =EF=BF=BDPersistent
> (chronic) infection has been proven scientifically hundreds of times,
> yet they continue to lie to Senator Kennedy to protect their own
> behinds...
>
> Read their most recent misinformation addressed to Senator Kennedy:
>
> March 21, 2008
>
> The Honorable Edward Kennedy
> United States Senate
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Senator Kennedy:
>
> I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
> regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and
> Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme
> disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical
> community
> about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose
> passage of the bill in its current form.
>
> IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases
> physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of
> individuals
> who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
> Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed
> composition
> of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it
> likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme
> disease
> to federal decision-makers.
>
> IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the
> treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and
> foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care
> and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
> believe
> it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members
> of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the
> widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community
> about
> the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical
> community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments
> for so-called "chronic" Lyme disease that are advocated by a small,
> but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N
> Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England
> Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of
> chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates
> our concerns.
>
> A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated
> references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described
> inaccurately as "chronic Lyme disease". Lyme disease is a tick-
> transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and
> joint
> pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or
> memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-
> specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has
> killed
> the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have
> diagnosed
> such patients as having "chronic" Lyme disease. Many of these so
> called "chronic" Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests
> that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and
> Administration.
>
> Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose "chronic" Lyme disease
> often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses
> of
> oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than
> an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary
> use
> of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as
> well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--
> adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and
> treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines
> (last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease
> guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in
> 2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College
> of
> Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast
> majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in
> this country and abroad.
>
> The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the
> notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional
> treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed
> to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically
> implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that
> support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England
> Journal
> of Medicine article stated unequivocally "that there is little or no
> benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients
> who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial
> treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease."
>
> As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory
> committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and
> potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the
> Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a
> review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
> particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current
> treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease
> disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
> controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of
> its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be
> beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and
> specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make
> recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure
> impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
>
> For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the
> vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
> (w w w .idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> (w w w .cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
> Diseases (w w w 3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American
> Academy of Neurology (w w w .aan . com ), or the American College of
> Physicians (w w w .acponline.org).
>
> I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this
> legislation. If you have any questions or need any further
> information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA
> Government
> Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via
> e-mail at mo...@idsociety.org.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Donald M. Poretz
> President
This ltr. from the IDSA shows a sign of insecurity. And the bragging
about how prestigious they are. Beware of those who blow their own
horn. They seem scared that if any of these bills get passed they
will lose out on their insurance co. payoffs.
On Apr 14, 4:55=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wrot=
e:
> A small committee of degenerates has held the IDSA captive to special
> interests in the insurance and biowarfare industries. =EF=BF=BDPersistent
> (chronic) infection has been proven scientifically hundreds of times,
> yet they continue to lie to Senator Kennedy to protect their own
> behinds...
>
> Read their most recent misinformation addressed to Senator Kennedy:
>
> March 21, 2008
>
> The Honorable Edward Kennedy
> United States Senate
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Senator Kennedy:
>
> I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
> regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and
> Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme
> disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical
> community
> about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose
> passage of the bill in its current form.
>
> IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases
> physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of
> individuals
> who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
> Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed
> composition
> of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it
> likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme
> disease
> to federal decision-makers.
>
> IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the
> treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and
> foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care
> and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
> believe
> it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members
> of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the
> widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community
> about
> the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical
> community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments
> for so-called "chronic" Lyme disease that are advocated by a small,
> but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N
> Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England
> Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of
> chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates
> our concerns.
>
> A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated
> references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described
> inaccurately as "chronic Lyme disease". Lyme disease is a tick-
> transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and
> joint
> pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or
> memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-
> specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has
> killed
> the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have
> diagnosed
> such patients as having "chronic" Lyme disease. Many of these so
> called "chronic" Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests
> that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and
> Administration.
>
> Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose "chronic" Lyme disease
> often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses
> of
> oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than
> an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary
> use
> of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as
> well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--
> adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and
> treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines
> (last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease
> guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in
> 2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and
> Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College
> of
> Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast
> majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in
> this country and abroad.
>
> The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the
> notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional
> treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed
> to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically
> implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that
> support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England
> Journal
> of Medicine article stated unequivocally "that there is little or no
> benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients
> who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial
> treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease."
>
> As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory
> committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and
> potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the
> Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a
> review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
> particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current
> treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease
> disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
> controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of
> its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be
> beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and
> specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make
> recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure
> impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
>
> For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the
> vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
> (w w w .idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> (w w w .cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
> Diseases (w w w 3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American
> Academy of Neurology (w w w .aan . com ), or the American College of
> Physicians (w w w .acponline.org).
>
> I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this
> legislation. If you have any questions or need any further
> information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA
> Government
> Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via
> e-mail at mo...@idsociety.org.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Donald M. Poretz
> President
This ltr. from the IDSA shows a sign of insecurity. And the bragging
about how prestigious they are. Beware of those who blow their own
horn. They seem scared that if any of these bills get passed they
will lose out on their insurance co. payoffs.
Re: More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
On Apr 22, 11:16=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol . com > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 4:55=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wr=
ote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A small committee of degenerates has held the IDSA captive to special
> > interests in the insurance and biowarfare industries. =EF=BF=BDPersisten=
t
> > (chronic) infection has been proven scientifically hundreds of times,
> > yet they continue to lie to Senator Kennedy to protect their own
> > behinds...
>
> > Read their most recent misinformation addressed to Senator Kennedy:
>
> > March 21, 2008
>
> > The Honorable Edward Kennedy
> > United States Senate
> > Washington, DC 20510
>
> > Dear Senator Kennedy:
>
> > I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
> > regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and
> > Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme
> > disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical
> > community
> > about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose
> > passage of the bill in its current form.
>
> > IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases
> > physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of
> > individuals
> > who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
> > Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed
> > composition
> > of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it
> > likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme
> > disease
> > to federal decision-makers.
>
> > IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the
> > treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and
> > foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care
> > and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
> > believe
> > it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members
> > of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the
> > widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community
> > about
> > the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical
> > community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments
> > for so-called "chronic" Lyme disease that are advocated by a small,
> > but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N
> > Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England
> > Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of
> > chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates
> > our concerns.
>
> > A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated
> > references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described
> > inaccurately as "chronic Lyme disease". Lyme disease is a tick-
> > transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and
> > joint
> > pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or
> > memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-
> > specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has
> > killed
> > the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have
> > diagnosed
> > such patients as having "chronic" Lyme disease. Many of these so
> > called "chronic" Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests
> > that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and
> > Administration.
>
> > Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose "chronic" Lyme disease
> > often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses
> > of
> > oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than
> > an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary
> > use
> > of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as
> > well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--
> > adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and
> > treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines
> > (last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease
> > guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in
> > 2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and
> > Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College
> > of
> > Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast
> > majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in
> > this country and abroad.
>
> > The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the
> > notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional
> > treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed
> > to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically
> > implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that
> > support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England
> > Journal
> > of Medicine article stated unequivocally "that there is little or no
> > benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients
> > who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial
> > treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease."
>
> > As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory
> > committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and
> > potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the
> > Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a
> > review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
> > particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current
> > treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease
> > disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
> > controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of
> > its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be
> > beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and
> > specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make
> > recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure
> > impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
>
> > For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the
> > vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
> > (w w w .idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> > (w w w .cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
> > Diseases (w w w 3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American
> > Academy of Neurology (w w w .aan . com ), or the American College of
> > Physicians (w w w .acponline.org).
>
> > I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this
> > legislation. If you have any questions or need any further
> > information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA
> > Government
> > Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via
> > e-mail at mo...@idsociety.org.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > Donald M. Poretz
> > President
>
> This ltr. from the IDSA shows a sign of insecurity. =C2=A0And the bragging=
> about how prestigious they are. Beware of those who blow their own
> horn. =C2=A0 They seem scared that if any of these bills get passed they
> will lose out on their insurance co. payoffs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're absolutely right, Lipanz-- they do seem scared.... Too bad
they LIE so much-- because telling the truth is always the right
thing to do-- a truth teller doesn't have to be afraid that his lies
will be exposed.....
Looks like the IDSA took the easy way out... telling LIES about the
persistence of infection. Actions have consequences ---and they will
be held accountable by our legal system for the damage their lies
have done to lyme patients...
The IDSA has done nothing but cover up and ignore scientific evidence
showing persistence of infection.. it ignores vast evidence about
the multiple forms that borrelia can take on, such as the cystic
state and the intracellular state. Multiple videos and tests have
shown borrelia active in the blood of those who have had multiple
courses of antibiotics.... Mechanisms of persistence are well
documented in the scientific literature...
The IDSA's letter to Ted Kennedy shows the depths to which they will
go to perpetuate their lies for the sake of financial gain... How
pathetic... We, the people must stop this abuse of power in the name
of science.... WE MUST CONTINUE TO EXPOSE THE LIES UNTIL THE LIARS
ARE FIRED....
On Apr 22, 11:16=C2=A0pm, lipanz <lipanzmari...@aol . com > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 4:55=EF=BF=BDpm, ThoughtCriminal <PrinceBernha...@gmail . com > wr=
ote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A small committee of degenerates has held the IDSA captive to special
> > interests in the insurance and biowarfare industries. =EF=BF=BDPersisten=
t
> > (chronic) infection has been proven scientifically hundreds of times,
> > yet they continue to lie to Senator Kennedy to protect their own
> > behinds...
>
> > Read their most recent misinformation addressed to Senator Kennedy:
>
> > March 21, 2008
>
> > The Honorable Edward Kennedy
> > United States Senate
> > Washington, DC 20510
>
> > Dear Senator Kennedy:
>
> > I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
> > regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and
> > Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme
> > disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical
> > community
> > about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose
> > passage of the bill in its current form.
>
> > IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases
> > physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of
> > individuals
> > who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
> > Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed
> > composition
> > of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it
> > likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme
> > disease
> > to federal decision-makers.
>
> > IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the
> > treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and
> > foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care
> > and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
> > believe
> > it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members
> > of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the
> > widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community
> > about
> > the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical
> > community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments
> > for so-called "chronic" Lyme disease that are advocated by a small,
> > but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N
> > Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England
> > Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of
> > chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates
> > our concerns.
>
> > A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated
> > references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described
> > inaccurately as "chronic Lyme disease". Lyme disease is a tick-
> > transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and
> > joint
> > pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or
> > memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-
> > specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has
> > killed
> > the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have
> > diagnosed
> > such patients as having "chronic" Lyme disease. Many of these so
> > called "chronic" Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests
> > that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and
> > Administration.
>
> > Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose "chronic" Lyme disease
> > often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses
> > of
> > oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than
> > an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary
> > use
> > of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as
> > well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--
> > adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and
> > treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines
> > (last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease
> > guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in
> > 2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and
> > Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College
> > of
> > Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast
> > majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in
> > this country and abroad.
>
> > The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the
> > notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional
> > treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed
> > to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically
> > implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that
> > support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England
> > Journal
> > of Medicine article stated unequivocally "that there is little or no
> > benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients
> > who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial
> > treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease."
>
> > As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory
> > committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and
> > potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the
> > Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a
> > review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
> > particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current
> > treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease
> > disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the
> > controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of
> > its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be
> > beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and
> > specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make
> > recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure
> > impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
>
> > For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the
> > vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
> > (w w w .idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
> > (w w w .cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
> > Diseases (w w w 3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American
> > Academy of Neurology (w w w .aan . com ), or the American College of
> > Physicians (w w w .acponline.org).
>
> > I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this
> > legislation. If you have any questions or need any further
> > information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA
> > Government
> > Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via
> > e-mail at mo...@idsociety.org.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > Donald M. Poretz
> > President
>
> This ltr. from the IDSA shows a sign of insecurity. =C2=A0And the bragging=
> about how prestigious they are. Beware of those who blow their own
> horn. =C2=A0 They seem scared that if any of these bills get passed they
> will lose out on their insurance co. payoffs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're absolutely right, Lipanz-- they do seem scared.... Too bad
they LIE so much-- because telling the truth is always the right
thing to do-- a truth teller doesn't have to be afraid that his lies
will be exposed.....
Looks like the IDSA took the easy way out... telling LIES about the
persistence of infection. Actions have consequences ---and they will
be held accountable by our legal system for the damage their lies
have done to lyme patients...
The IDSA has done nothing but cover up and ignore scientific evidence
showing persistence of infection.. it ignores vast evidence about
the multiple forms that borrelia can take on, such as the cystic
state and the intracellular state. Multiple videos and tests have
shown borrelia active in the blood of those who have had multiple
courses of antibiotics.... Mechanisms of persistence are well
documented in the scientific literature...
The IDSA's letter to Ted Kennedy shows the depths to which they will
go to perpetuate their lies for the sake of financial gain... How
pathetic... We, the people must stop this abuse of power in the name
of science.... WE MUST CONTINUE TO EXPOSE THE LIES UNTIL THE LIARS
ARE FIRED....
Next: Answering Heiney Kissinger, who now rears his horned head
Previous: More disinformation coming out of the IDSA
