This definitively deserves a debate: in May of 2008, the Attorney General of Connecticut conducted antitrust investigation into the development of Lyme disease
treatment guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). The thrust of his argument is that the IDSA developed guidelines based on flawed methodology that in turn forced false standard of care, which cannot benefit the patients ( see
http://www.peh-med.com/content/5/1/9).
Lyme disease is one of those diseases that has been politicized leading to a number of conspiracy theories accusing the (US) government of suppression of evidence
, all kinds of conflict of interests, etc, etc. The battle is now taken to the EBM: which methods are right ones and which guidelines are trustworthy? This is a paradigmitic example where science intersects with politics, ethics and public health policy.
I look forward to some interesting and stimulating insights.
thanks
ben d
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Kate Bloor
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 11:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fw: New Standard of Care Guidelines for Treating Lyme and Other Tick-borne Illnesses
I've not seen any discussion on the list on the IDSA/ ILADS divide related to testing, diagnosis and treatment for lyme disease and other TBI's.
One have claimed jurisdiction over the other - on grounds of the evidence base, and professional legitimacy. However some claim that key european research related to european tests, diagnosis and lyme disease clinical presentations, has not often been included,
and that this control of the diagnostic agenda is no more than 'traditional authority'.
Given that lyme infection, is the fastest growing vector borne disease in the Northern Hemisphere, it is perhaps one the most major public health threats of its kind in europe and beyond, this is a worthy debate. Also given its contraversial nature, and the
general climate of tensions between doctors, patients, and health services, it deserves a wider debate amongst a broader range of academic and professional groups, and patients advocacy groups.
I bring this to your attention. See new guidelines from ILADS below.
Kate Bloor
|