For "Minitails"--from 3rd

For "Minitails"--from 3rd

These quotes are mine.

They were lifted from this board and pasted over at LNE. Out of my
personal respect for the Administrator (and recognizing that I can be
extremely opinionated and quarrelsome, at times)...I do not post over
there. I think the administrator is providing a very good outlet and
forum.

(Besides, I am not interested in the back-stabbing chick-fights that
are leftovers from girls booted from LymeNUT. Go to it, girls...if it
makes you feel better...there is enough back-biting in Lymeland, as it
is).

You are more than welcome to reply here. As you say, these are largely
my OPINIONS...and I will be more than happy to discuss them with you
if you wish.
=========================================================================


MT: "I wonder if anybody remembers how successful AIDS activists have
been"?

Lyme disease ain't AIDS!!! Two different diseases with different
causes. Yes, it makes a difference how you address it politically.
AIDS activists tend to be what the pol-pros call "one-button voters".
Lyme patients are not.

Two separate diseases...and the victims of AIDS were identifiable as a
group and suffering social discrimination because of their lifestyle
choices.

All you have to do to contract Lyme is go for a walk in the woods.
Even Republicans can get it...(golfing, I think, probably...or cutting
down trees).


3rd quote:

"The so-called "leadership" here (LDA) decided that a little payback
was in order, (I am guessing, Ms. Smith as much as said so, once, if I
recall) for the "harrassment" of so-called "LLMD"s. And so, they used
their political connections to have an elected official search private
records under the pretense of an "antitrust" investigation".


MT: "So, if this person recalls, Ms. Smith so much as said once if the
poster recalls correctly, that there was "payback in order" (but only
in so much as the poster recalls). Also, this poster claims that the
LDA used their "political connections" which caused the AG of
Connecticut to apparently break the law by searching "private records"
while only pretending to pursue "an "antitrust" investigation."

I will see, if I can find what I was referring to...I remember it
because it was fairly explicit. She tied the two together. Might be
around the time of the Jones thing.

But I do NOT recall if those were the exact words. By using quotes
there...I did not mean to quote her directly. My bad...but I am fairly
sure there was a statement to that effect. (Did you notice where I
said, "I am guessing")? See, that means I am trying to read the tea
leaves and figure out what on earth kind of "thinking" was behind this
thing in the first place. Because it certainly never made any sense
whatever. And you can search the archives here and see myself and
other lawyers commenting on the LACK of a justifiable basis under
antitrust concepts for such an investigation.

But...NO!!!

I am NOT saying that the AG "broke the law" by only pretending to
pursue an antitrust investigation.

What I am saying, is that, in my OPINION...the AG abused his
prosecutorial discretion...improperly launched a civil investigation
of a private organization undwer the pretense, the ruse, of an
antitrust issue that had little validity under ANY ecognized
construction of the applicable law.

PLEASE do NOT put words in my mouth.

While this isn't particularly ethical, in my opinion, it is NOT
"illegal"...and NOT a "serious charge".

MT: "That is an extremely serious charge".

LOL. No, it is NOT. I am just saying that that isn't the way an AG
should conduct his office, in my opinion.

MT: "This person is claiming that the AG acted, not on legal grounds,
but on the say so of the LDA, and engaged in a mission to help the LDA
"get back" at a medical organization. Is there any evidence of this"?

LOL. Well, what do YOU think this was about? Come on, people..try some
of that Pepsi stuff that wakes you up...

And as to the LDA's lack of political pull...your comment is
misplaced. Whatever the LDA's problems may be getting Fed legislation
passed...their special realtionship with Blumenthal is acknowledged.


MT..."and finally "Nice" by LE".

Yeah...well, please don't point your attacks at me because LE happened
to agree...or did she? "Nice" might be sarcastic.

You two need a "timeout"...or just go outside and pull each other's
hair...

Re: For "Minitails"--from 3rd

On May 6, 9:47 am, the 3rd Man <sir de...@yahoo . com > wrote:

And...in terms of the schizophrenic identification of Ms. Smith and
the LDA toward DOCTORS...please look carefully at the following quoted
response to the Forbes article. (the standard directions for mounting
the usual e-mail blitzkrieg have been edited out).

Notice that Ms. Smith's entire spiel here is a defense of
DOCTORS...until the last paragraph, where, almost as an afterthought,
the word "patients" is thrown in.

Anyone who has been around and observed the situation for the past
several years, I think, understands that Lymenet (affiliated with the
LDA, isn't it)? channels, steers patients to ILADS physicians and
Igenex labs.

Ms. Smith, was, until recently, a board member of ILADS, as was Nick
Harris, president of Igenex, I believe. Clearly this "arrangement" has
economic benefit to ILADS memebers and Igenex.

So...in terms of antitrust analysis and "anti-competitive" behavior,
there is possibly a much more direct case to be made against those
pointing the finger, than against those at whom the finger was
pointed.

==========================
==========================
==========================
=========================
CALL TO ACTION 2007 #2 (Feb. 25)
from Pat Smith, President, Lyme Disease Association, Inc. (LDA)

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED Lyme Physicians Defamed!


WHO: Everyone! We need 1,000 email letters to go to Forbes now!


WHAT: Contact Forbes . com


WHEN: As soon as possible


WHY: A serious personal attack has been made on our Lyme treating
physicians. The Forbes . com article Ticks aren't the only parasites
living
off patientsin borreliosis-in borreliosis-prone areas, presents a
biased v
condemnation of Lyme treating physicians as profiteers and worse. We
cannot
allow
these charges to go unanswered.


The physicians who have the courage to treat
patients despite the obstacles they face from medical boards and
insurers,
jeopardizing their careers, do not deserve to be portrayed in this
manner.


The article also places them at greater risk from those quoting this
article
or those believing it to be true. Bottom line, we need our physicians
to be
able to treat without this kind of unwarranted, unsubstantiated
attack
from
a
supposedly reputable publication.


I am deeply disturbed that Forbes magazine would purposely print a
one-sided and inaccurate article which tries to paint a picture of
doctors
who treat
chronically ill Lyme disease patients as individuals whose main goal
is to
make a profit.


My experiences with Lyme treating physicians do not reflect that
picture.
These doctors often see patients for two hours or more on the initial
visit
and
a `½ hour or more otherwise. The reason for this visit length is the
complex
nature of Lyme disease which is often accompanied by one or more
additional
tick-borne diseases such as babesiosis and anaplasmosis. The prices
they
charge are not any different and are often less than any other
specialist
charges
on an hourly basis.


The number of patients they can see in a day is often
less than conventional physicians who see their patients at 10-15
minute
intervals.


These same dedicated physicians spend much of their free time
attending
conferences and providing programs for the public and other
physicians
on
Lyme
disease since there is very little accurate information in mainstream
medicine.


Additionally, they are burdened with helping patients fight the
bureaucracy
of treatment reimbursement for a disease where biased science is the
accepted
"standard of care."


They also have a long history of helping patients regain
their health or they wouldn't be in such demand and have long waiting
lists.


The worst insult is the fact that on a daily basis, many of these
doctors
are dealing with medical board harassment because a handful of their
peers
have
decided that chronic Lyme patients should not be treated for their
ongoing
infections and all treatment should be stopped at an arbitrary cut
off
point,
whether the patient is well or not. Research studies have proven Lyme
disease
to be a chronic, disabling disease if not properly treated.


Something is wrong when very sick people are abandoned by the medical
profession and when infectious diseases specialists deny medical
treatment,
insurance companies deny reimbursement, and medical boards harass our
treating
doctors.


Something is terribly wrong when Forbes prints an article without
exploring the entire picture and learning where the real vested
interests
lie.


When
the interests of insurers drive medical societies, the health care of
our
citizens is being sold to the highest bidder. When a major medical
society
sides against patients, Forbes should be asking why, not joining in
against
the
patients.


Name, Address, Email


Pat Smith
President
Lyme Disease Association, Inc.
PO Box 1438
Jackson, NJ 08527
888-366-6611 Toll free info line
732-938-7215 (F)
LymeDiseaseAssociatLymeDis

==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
=