Re: CDC funds Lyme disease research

From: A_Weisman (a_weisman_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: 29 Jun 2004 01:02:35 -0700

Greatcod@Yahoo.com (Greatcod) wrote in message news:<caef409e.0406251001.66213a6a@posting.google.com>...
> More Yhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1500&s
lug=Lyme%20Disease%20Study

http://tinyurl.com/2gt35

Thursday, June 24, 2004 · Last updated 9:03 a.m. PT

CDC funds Lyme disease research

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention is
giving a Yale School of Medicine researcher $2.9 million to do a
comprehensive survey of Lyme disease from Maine to Texas.

Epidemiologist Durland Fish will use the four-year grant to develop a
detailed map of the eastern United States, depicting human risk of
infection
from the bacteria that cause Lyme disease.

The research also will compile information about the genetic strains
of
bacteria found during the time of year when the risk of contracting
Lyme
disease is highest.

The CDC and other health agencies will use the map to focus education
and
prevention efforts.

"This is the largest field study ever conducted on Lyme disease," Fish
said.

The disease is caused by spiral-shaped bacteria found in deer ticks.
The
ticks bite people to spread the disease, which can cause fever, joint
pain
and various other symptoms.

The CDC said the number of cases reported annually has more than
doubled
since 1991. Lyme disease was first diagnosed in the 1970s in patients
around
the town of Lyme, Conn.

©1996-2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

>More Yalecrap! Would't it be interesting to count the ruined lives
and
> not just the tick and bacteria dynamics. Of course, if you're a real
> hardnosed
> evidence based researcher, you're better off dealing with ticks and
> bacteria.
> They can't talk, they can't tell you you're a complete ***-up (Sorry,
> just the *** Chenny in me).

Let's see if I have this straight. Lyme patients complain that there
isn't enough research into Lyme Disease. They rabble rouse with their
legislators begging them to "do something." They want a congressional
bill mandating research monies.

When $$$ is awarded for a study though, the same patients instantly
complain and prejudge the research.

This grant is summarilly dismissed as "more yalecrap."

The researcher is dismissed.

Now mr greatfishmancodbrain, do you know anything about Durland Fish?
I'm takng a minute to post some information about him.

But what that information doesn't say, is that he is NOT a medical
doctor. He has done some excellent research about Lyme disease in
terms of ticks. He openly and publicly dissented from the study
recommending two doses of doxycyline.

He has discovered a new borellia which may prove to be very
interesting as an explanation for cases of what has previously been
thought to be Lyme disease. It might even explain why Lyme disease
testing is negative in many people diagnosed with Lyme or Lyme like
illness.

Fish has done some important work in documenting the transmission of
co infections from the same ticks that transmit Lyme disease.

I might note the irony of you, mr greatcod, dissing Mr Fish!

More important is that you do so in a reactionary fashion. Have you
thought this through?

The study described above might produce some important information. We
know that per capita density of tick populations is highly variable.
Even in endemic and hyperendemic regions, the density of tick
population can vary from one county to the next or even within a
county, from one valley to the next.

Producing a detailed map as described above might be important in
targeting preventive measures, including alerting people about certain
areas where they need to be specially vigilant, maybe he'll even
produce a color coded alert system a la homeland security with certain
regions being designated as green blue yellow orange and red? (well
that was a little sarcastic dig at homeland security department). But
seriously, why is this automatically bad?

And the information about genetic diversity of strains seems as if it
might be helpful too. Maybe people test negative because most testing
is tied to the B31 strain? Maybe this information can be combined with
a study of symptoms to help us possibly associate genetic diversity of
strains with specific symptoms and variant virulence?

Maybe information collected will also contribute to our understanding
of issues of coinfection?

I don't get your reactionary response? I know that you don't like
Yale. But is everything associated with Yale to be automatically
rejected? Some people like Dr Katz from Yale. Some even call him an
llmd, whatever that means. Dr Jones' office is across the street. Does
the broad brush of your condemnation include him?

So you whine and complain, stomp around, demand that your legislators
DO SOMETHING and fund more research. As soon as more research is
funded you complain?

And you say the research is biased. Automatically with no analysis.
And before it is done. Not a critique of study design. Just a reaction
"More yalecrap."

Let me ask you something. For all the complaints about biased research
and that the NIH and CDC fund research and researchers that you do NOT
like, whether or not you can articulate a specific reason other than
"more yalecrap" can you show us a proposal that you do like from a
researcher you approve of that was rejected? Can you show us a pattern
of such rejections? Where are the proposals from Burrascano, from
Phillips, from Liegner, from Donta, from ILADS doctors, that have been
rejected? If you can produce them, do you know why they were rejected?

I've seen some of the stuff that was rejected in terms of papers
submitted to the conference a couple of years ago. Not study proposals
or results even. But basically opinion pieces, poorly written, poorly
researched, poorly sourced, inadequately referenced. Worse even than
the ILADS "guidelines." Just not up to snuff from a purely academic
standpoint. No indication that rejections were based on a bias as to
the conclusions or content but the fact that they just don't meet the
criteria for publication in scientific journals.

Which probably explains why ILADS had to pay to have their
"guidelines" published as an advertorial in an obscure vanity
publication rather than any credible peer reviewed publication.

I mean it. I am sincere. This is the kind of thing that I find really
galling greatcodbrain. You asked for it you got it and it still isn't
enough. You don't have any specific points to make. Just a reactionary
prejudgment.

Do you see how absurd this is?

For the record, I'm NOT a "fan" of the doctors at Yale generally and
have specific problems with things said by doctors like Dr Shapiro and
Dr Schoen and of course Dr Steere (who hasn't been at Yale for like
decades now).

But how is the reaction "more yalecrap" helpful? Can you articulate
some specific objection to the study design, objectives, or this
researcher? Something a little more specific than "more yalecrap."

And show us resarch proposals that were submitted that you think
should have been funded that weren't.

Thanks.

http://publichealth.yale.edu/faculty/fish.html

Durland Fish, Ph.D.
Professor,
Division of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases
Laboratory Web page

Phone: (203) 785-3525
Fax: (203) 785-3604
durland.fish@yale.edu

Professor Fish's research interests are in the areas of ecology and
prevention of vector-borne infectious diseases. Recent emphasis has
been on tick-borne pathogens causing Lyme disease and human
ehrlichiosis in the northeastern U.S. Current projects include natural
and artificial regulation of vector populations, vector competence for
viral and bacterial pathogens, co-infection and transmissions of
multiple pathogens, geographic and spatial analysis of epidemiological
data, and the use of satellite imagery to predict vector-borne disease
risk. Professor Fish is the Principal Investigator of the CDC
Fellowship Training Program in vector-borne diseases at Yale which is
designed to improve the nation's capability for addressing and
mitigating human disease threats from vector-borne diseases by
providing highly skilled and broadly trained professionals who will
provide future leadership in health and environmental sciences.

Selected Publications
Nadelman, R.B., Nowakowski, J., Fish, D., Falco, R., Freeman, K.,
McKenna, D., et. al. Single dose doxycycline prophylaxis after Ixodes
scapularis tick bites: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled
study. New England Journal of Medicine 345:79-84, 2001.

Tsao, J.I., Barbour, A.G., Luke, C.J., Fikrig, E. and Fish, D. OspA
immunization decreases transmission of Borrelia burgdorferi from
infected Peromyscus leucopus to larval Ixodes scapularis ticks. Vector
Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 1:65-74, 2001.

Scoles, G.A., Papero, M., Beati, L. and Fish, D. A Relapsing Fever
Group spirochete transmitted by Ixodes scapularis ticks. Vector Borne
and Zoonotic Diseases 1:21-34, 2001.

Des Vignes, F., Piesman, J., Heffernan, R., Schulze, T.L., Stafford,
K.C., and Fish, D. Effect of tick removal upon transmission of
Borrelia burgdorferi and Ehrlichia phagocytophila by Ixodes scapularis
nymphs. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 183:773-8, 2001.

Levin, M.L. and Fish, D. Acquisition of co-infection and simultaneous
transmission of the agents of Lyme disease and human granulocytic
ehrlichiosis by Ixodes scapularis ticks. Infection and Immunity
68(4):2183-2186, 2000.

Falco, R.C., McKenna, D.F., Daniels T.J., Nadelman, R.B., Nowakowski,
J., Fish, D., and Wormser, G.P. The temporal relationship between
Ixodes scapularis abundance and the risk for Lyme disease associated
with erythema migrans. American Journal of Epidemiology
149(8):771-776, 1999.

Levin, M.L., DesVignes F. and Fish, D. Disparity in the natural cycles
of the agents of human granulocytic ehrlichiosis and Lyme disease.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 5(2):204-208, 1999.

Dister, S.W., Fish, D., Bros, W.E., Frank, D.H. and Wood, B.L.
Landscape characterization of peridomestic risk of Lyme disease using
satellite imagery. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
57:687-692, 1997.

Quantcast