Re: Combat Zone (WP)
- From: Snappy <freyfaxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 May 2007 13:13:39 -0700
On May 23, 2:55 pm, Tempo <nob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR200...
Combat Zone
There's No Neutral Ground in War Of Information About Lyme Disease
By Jason Feifer
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; HE01
Maryland Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Montgomery) knows Lyme disease can be a nasty foe: Both she
and her husband have been through bouts of it. But when she introduced a bill in the legislature
to distribute long-established treatment guidelines on the tick-borne infection to doctors
statewide, she ran up against another adversary: Lyme advocacy groups.
Opponents dropped by her office in Annapolis to demand interviews. E-mails and faxes flooded in,
expressing dissatisfaction with what the writers saw as shortcomings in the guidelines. The
president of the Lyme Disease Association -- a group with 24 affiliates in 15 states --
testified against the bill, saying it would stymie treatment for what the group says is a
chronic, painful and largely unrecognized form of the infection. Montgomery's measure was
approved by the House of Delegates, but it died in the Senate last month.
As the incidence of Lyme disease has grown nationwide -- roughly 23,300 cases were recorded by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2005, up from about 17,000 in 2001 -- so has
the political clout of Lyme activist groups, building on some people's frustration with standard
treatments and the belief that many diffuse ailments, from arthritis and headaches to
irritability and poor concentration, are actually symptoms of lingering, active Lyme disease.
The activists have attacked legislation on state and federal levels, protested outside doctors'
offices and lined up powerful allies, including Connecticut's attorney general. Last month they
opened the Lyme Disease Research Center at Columbia University, made possible by $3 million the
groups raised.
Fighting treatment guidelines of the type Montgomery favored has become one of the activists'
primary goals. Those guidelines, crafted by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, a
leading group of disease specialists, recommend against some treatments, such as long-term
courses of antibiotics; the activists say such advice stops doctors from recognizing and
treating "chronic Lyme."
The IDSA and other medical experts say there's no evidence that this chronic condition exists.
Undeterred, the groups have produced their own guidelines -- including treatments that have not
passed standard scientific tests or peer review -- and held conferences and published books
about the disease. Leading health authorities including the CDC say some of the groups are
promoting misleading and potentially dangerous information -- encouraging some doctors to
misdiagnose patients and treat them with bogus remedies.
"We do indeed get calls from patients who are confused -- they hear one thing and then they read
something else, and they don't quite know what to make of it," said Paul Mead, a medical
epidemiologist at the CDC.
Researchers such as Gary Wormser, a Johns Hopkins-trained infectious diseases expert and lead
author of the IDSA guidelines, say the activists have created an atmosphere of intimidation that
inhibits research. "I don't think there has ever been another disease for which I have been
attacked on the Internet like this. . . .They're not just content to just have two schools of
thought, either. They kind of want to wipe out mainstream thinking and only have this school of
thought."
Pat Smith, president of the Lyme Disease Association, said that such charges are unfounded and
that it's mainstream experts who are keeping useful disease information from people who need it.
"We are patients, we are families of patients, and quite frankly we are tired of a small group
of individuals dictating that patients should not be getting treatment for a disease that they
have," she said. After feeling harassed for years, she added, patients were standing up for
their rights and challenging disease experts, who are "getting a dose of their own medicine."
Infectious Debate
Lyme disease, first recognized by researchers in Old Lyme, Conn., in 1975, is a common infection
readily treatable with a two- to four-week course of antibiotics, according to medical
authorities, including the CDC. In 1998 the Food and Drug Administration approved a Lyme
vaccine; the manufacturer withdrew it from the market in 2002, citing low sales.
Caused by the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi, Lyme is typically transmitted through the bite of a
deer tick. A bull's-eye rash often develops around the area of the bite, and a patient may
develop flulike symptoms such as aching and fatigue. "A few patients, particularly those
diagnosed with later stages of disease, may have persistent or recurrent symptoms," says the
CDC, and a second four-week course of antibiotics may be helful. If left untreated, the disease
can spread to joints, the heart and the nervous system, according to the agency.
Symptoms that persist long after treatment do not mean the disease is still active, say
infectious disease experts. But they concede that some questions remain. "Here is where it gets
confusing," wrote Wormser in an e-mail, "because about 10-20 percent of people without Lyme will
have the same types of symptoms at any point in time. So the question arises: Are the symptoms
that are present . . . post-Lyme related to having had Lyme, due to some other identifiable
cause or the same as the symptoms (of unknown cause) found in the healthy population?. . . The
good scientific studies cannot find evidence of residual Borrelia in such patients."
Some advocacy groups disagree, claiming the disease can often become a treatment-resistant
chronic infection marked by painful muscle spasms, memory loss and chronic fatigue. Their ranks
include some people who have never tested positive for the infection on recognized tests and
can't account for their exposure . Some of those convinced they have chronic Lyme search out
physicians that activist groups call "Lyme literate." Some of these doctors prescribe up to a
year or more of antibiotics, claiming the standard short-term dose isn't always sufficient to
kill the Lyme bacteria. Studies have shown that long-term antibiotic treatment is not effective,
can lead to antibiotic resistance and can harm or even kill, according to CDC epidemiologist
Paul Mead.
State medical boards have launched investigations of many so-called Lyme-literate doctors and
have taken disciplinary action against some. In April 2006, for example, the North Carolina
Medical Board charged a doctor with inappropriately diagnosing and treating 10 patients for Lyme
disease. According to Quackwatch, an organization that tracks unscientific medical claims, there
was no evidence for his Lyme diagnosis in any of the cases and no basis for his prescribing
several months' treatment with intravenous antibiotics. He was allowed to continue practicing
medicine, subject to restrictions.
Paul Beals, a family practitioner in the District, treats patients he has diagnosed with chronic
Lyme with up to a year of antibiotics, monitoring them, he said, to make sure the medicine is
not causing harm. He also instructs patients to boost their immune systems by making dietary and
lifestyle changes, including more rest, no alcohol, and taking dietary supplements and fish oils.
"The CDC just doesn't recognize how resilient this bug is to short-term antibiotics," he said.
Beals has been placed on probation in Maryland and the District for performing tests and
prescribing treatments, unrelated to Lyme disease, without medical indication.
Rob Marra, a personal trainer in Baltimore, uses alternative therapies including diet change
(lots of vegetables; no coffee, sugar or grains) and nutritional supplements (including sea
salts and magnesium) for what he said is a case of chronic Lyme that basically immobilized him
for more than two years. He said he doesn't care that most doctors wouldn't approve of this
treatment.
"The medical community has always resisted things that have tons of anecdotal evidence, but if
they don't have a lab result or the research to back up what someone is actually saying, they'll
say that they're crazy," he said.
Desperate Measures
Alternative Lyme therapies promoted on the Internet and elsewhere include:
? Hyperbaric oxygen chamber. The chamber, more commonly used to promote the healing of infected
wounds, delivers oxygen in high doses. Supporters offer multiple reasons for its use, most
notably that increased oxygen levels in the bloodstream will harm the Lyme bacteria and that
oxygen helps stimulate the immune system. Wormser said there's little evidence that this
treatment does anything to fight Lyme disease, but he said it isn't considered harmful, either.
? Rife machine. Proponents say the electromagnetic device, at one time marketed as a cancer
cure, aims energy waves whose specific frequencies shatter the Lyme bacteria, in much the same
way that a singer's voice can shatter glass. Attorneys general in Wisconsin and Minnesota have
taken action against selllers of Rife machines, claiming they offer false promises. Quackwatch
says the device has "no value for diagnosing or treating anything."
? Dietary changes. Some patients take large doses of salt along with vitamin C, believing this
will dehydrate or hurt the Lyme bacteria. "It's one of those therapies that doesn't have
biologic rationale. There's no reason that it should work," said John Bartlett, an infectious
disease specialist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Other patients eat an
alkaline diet because they believe the food can raise the body's pH and make it inhospitable to
the Lyme bacteria. Wormser said that it's extremely difficult to alter the body's pH and that
any serious change could result in death.
? Pulse dosing. Instead of taking a course of antibiotics, some patients take long breaks
between bouts of medication in the belief that it will make the drugs more effective. Wormser
said that has not been proved and that pulse-dosing studies done for HIV showed that it hurt
patients.
The Lyme patient advocacy movement gained momentum in 2006, when the Infectious Diseases Society
of America updated its guidelines for identifying and treating Lyme disease. The society
included a list of alternative therapies not recommended for treatment of Lyme -- including
pulse dosing, use of the hyperbaric oxygen chamber and nutritional management -- and that became
a rallying point for the groups.
They got a boost from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who launched an
investigation into the IDSA to see whether it had unlawfully ignored some information about the
disease. That investigation is ongoing, according to Blumenthal's office.
Wormser, author of the IDSA guidelines, said that throughout medical history, groups of people
have blamed diverse and medically unexplained symptoms on a wide variety of ailments. Instead of
chronic Lyme, he said, it was once chronic Epstein-Barr, and another time it was chronic
candida. The difference now, he said, is that the Lyme groups are so loud.
Jason Feifer last wrote for Health about proposals to give tax breaks to organ donors.
Comments:hea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
Article posted under the Fair Use doctrine.
Hi
Thanks for posting. Hundreds of letters have been sent to the
Washington Post protesting this poorly written and sourced article.
What the article failed to menton was that there is no "mainstream"
view regarding treatment in either the Physician community r in the
research community. 50 % of physicians who treat patients in the
field believe in chronic infection and treat aggressively. Numerous
studies have shown persistence of infection, dating back to 1976, when
military Dr. Jay Stanford published "Relapsing Fever-- Treatment and
Control, in the book "Parasitic Spirochetes." Indeed, the many
intracellular bioweapon organisms such as Tularemia, Q Fever and
brucellosis studied by cash-flush Lyme researchers (who are not
currently studying treatment for chronic Lyme infection) are also
known to require long durations of antibiotic treatment, some with
multiple courses. Why would borrelia be so different from the other
intracellular organisms studied by Lyme researchers? Why have early
scientific observations regarding persistence been ignored?
The article also fails to properly acknowledge the lack of credibility
of current Lyme diagnostic tests and their role in the underestimation
of the epidemic. One study has recently shown that folks who test
seronegative tend to have colonies build up in their collagen tissues,
with low presence in the blood-- hence negative tests.
Some in the Lyme community believe that there is possible colllusion
occurring between science page editors who were former EIS (Epidemic
Intelligence Service) officers. This is not conspiracy theory, since
an attorney general is investigating the IDSA for this type of
nonsense.....and the old boy syndrome is alive and well eveywhere..
The question is: why would a doctor who has taken the oath deny
treatment that could at least stymie the organism?
Never mind, though-- the truth will eventually come out as it always
does.... and perhaps with enough pressure on budgets and
politicians--- more funding will be made avialable to find a way to
uproot the many forms of this stealth spirochete from every tissue in
the body.
.
- References:
- Combat Zone (WP)
- From: Tempo
- Combat Zone (WP)
- Prev by Date: How Borrelia Persists in the Body During Antibiotic Treatment
- Next by Date: Re: Anti-inflammatory properties of antibiotics...right for the wrong reasons?
- Previous by thread: Combat Zone (WP)
- Next by thread: Re: Combat Zone (WP)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
