Quantcast The Daily Campus
College Media Network

The Daily Campus

Prof: Chronic Lyme Disease A Lemon

Abstract:
A UConn Health Center professor recently created controversy voicing his conclusion that the condition known as Chronic Lyme disease has no scientific basis and medication should not be prescribed to treat it.

Dr. Henry Feder's argument upset chronic Lyme patient advocates, who believe the disease is legitimate....

  • Displaying 1 - 16 of 16

Gordon Sell

posted 11/27/07 @ 6:36 PM EST

Feder ignores the fact that Lyme bacteria often persist after the initial antibiotic treatment, especially when there has been a late diagnosis. This is the tradgedy of chronic lyme. My daughter still tests positive for lyme bacteria even after several rounds of antibiotics. While Feder's study must bring fiscal joy to the insurance industry in Hartford, it is doing great harm to thousands of chronic lyme sufferers seeking relief. I challenge him to find a cure instead of sabotaging the only treatments that have shown any benefit from this nasty and debilitating disease.
Post a reply to this comment

John

posted 11/27/07 @ 7:11 PM EST

Interesting article but yet once again fails to outline what infact medical science has done to prove there right and we're wrong. I would ask that Feder provide the general public with his so called findings, what tests has he done to come to such a conclusion?. Yes the etology of Lyme is complex but it is real. I have a wife that wasn't treated until 1.5 years after the bite. She has been on a cocktail of antiobitics for the past year and has made a significant improvement, explain that to me? if not Lyme than why can't any of the Doctors she visited come up with something better other than a head case (The most told diagnosis) for any female.

ILADS has proven research that is avaliable to anyone who chooses to view there site. I have focused the better part of my free time understanding Lyme and to this date, no one knows it better than the ILAD medical professionals.
Post a reply to this comment

Common Sense

posted 11/27/07 @ 10:42 PM EST

Professors like this aren't doctors, they're people trying to gain intellectiual superiority for egos sake. Doctors try to help!

This yahoo should find a microscope and keep his mouth shut!
Post a reply to this comment

AJL

posted 11/27/07 @ 11:21 PM EST

What is strange about this particular disinformation campaign is that it is so very, very easily checked. There is PLENTY of scientific evidence that Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, survives several weeks of antibiotic treatment. Here are just a few papers to that point:

14.Straubinger RK, Summers BA, Chang YF, Appel MJ. Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in experimentally infected dogs after antibiotic treatment. J. Clin. Microbiol. 35, 111–116 (1997).

15. Preac-Mursic V, Weber K, Pfister HW et al. Survival of Borrelia burgdorferi in antibiotically treated patients with Lyme borreliosis. Infection 17, 355–359 (1989).

16. Lawrence C, Lipton RB, Lowy FD, Coyle PK. Seronegative chronic relapsing
What we have to ask ourselves is why did the writer of this generally well balanced article fail to point this out. It's not difficult to check, just go to PubMed and type in "Lyme" and "Persistence".


In fact, the Connecticut Lyme Disease Association has a $20,000 reward posted to any scientist who is able to prove in any way that Borrelia burgdorferi is eliminated from the body after 3 weeks of antibiotics. (http://www.ctlymedisease.org/reward.htm)

Another question that comes to mind is why is doctor Feder and his gang ignoring the obvious evidence? Who is paying these guys to say this stuff? What do they have to gain? What conflicts of interest are there here? That would make a much, much more interesting article.
Post a reply to this comment

Randy Sykes

posted 11/28/07 @ 11:22 AM EST

The Greater Hartford Lyme Disease Support And Action Group has posted a $20,000 reward to any MD that can prove that the Bb infection is cured in 42 days, not 21 days of treatment. For details go to www.ctlymedisease.org.
With over 100 papers to back up persistant infection we would be more than happy to teach the MDs at Yale and Uconn who don't understand this medical research
Post a reply to this comment

Dr. Feder is the Lemon

posted 11/28/07 @ 11:47 AM EST

This letter to the editor (written by me) which was published in the Oct. 11, 2007 Hartford Courant suggests that Dr. Feder's claims about the lack of hard science supporting chronic Lyme disease are dishonest:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets1011.artoct11,0,4622314.story

Evidence Of Chronic Lyme
October 11, 2007

In the Oct. 4 Courant article "Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged" [Page 1], Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr. is quoted as saying that "the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist." Dr. Feder seems to have a unique definition of "hard science," one that ignores the wealth of peer-reviewed science whose conclusions disagree with his entrenched ideology.

For example, in 1995, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences published a study rooted in hard science titled "Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease." To summarize, a seriously ill man was diagnosed with Lyme disease and treated with the recommended course of antibiotics. He improved during treatment but rapidly deteriorated afterward. He was re-diagnosed with incurable progressive dementia and institutionalized. He soon died. An autopsy found his brain to be inhabited by the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, the same bacteria that Dr. Feder insists could not possibly have survived the amount of antibiotics given that patient.

In the real world, autopsies, cultures and biopsies are considered hard science. Apparently, in Dr. Feder's alternate universe, that of the chronic-Lyme denialists, such studies can simply be dismissed. And as you can see, the consequences to patients are potentially quite deadly.

(signature/address removed)

--------
Post a reply to this comment

CH

posted 11/28/07 @ 2:49 PM EST

Originally posted by

Dr. Feder is the Lemon

 This letter to the editor (written by me) which was published in the Oct. 11, 2007 Hartford Courant suggests that Dr. Feder's claims about the lack of hard science supporting chronic Lyme disease are dishonest:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets1011.artoct11,0,4622314.story

Evidence Of Chronic Lyme
October 11, 2007

In the Oct. 4 Courant article "Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged" [Page 1], Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr. is quoted as saying that "the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist." Dr. Feder seems to have a unique definition of "hard science," one that ignores the wealth of peer-reviewed science whose conclusions disagree with his entrenched ideology.

For example, in 1995, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences published a study rooted in hard science titled "Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease." To summarize, a seriously ill man was diagnosed with Lyme disease and treated with the recommended course of antibiotics. He improved during treatment but rapidly deteriorated afterward. He was re-diagnosed with incurable progressive dementia and institutionalized. He soon died. An autopsy found his brain to be inhabited by the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, the same bacteria that Dr. Feder insists could not possibly have survived the amount of antibiotics given that patient.

In the real world, autopsies, cultures and biopsies are considered hard science. Apparently, in Dr. Feder's alternate universe, that of the chronic-Lyme denialists, such studies can simply be dismissed. And as you can see, the consequences to patients are potentially quite deadly.

(signature/address removed)

--------

Listen I'm on ILADS side, but the article article you're using as a reference does not mention an autopsy was done that proved spirochete were found in the brain. I was excited to read this article because someone else had said the same thing you did, but I cannot find that info in there. In the discussion part of the article, the authors state, "Although the diagnosis cannot be made with absolute certainty, we must proceed on the assumption that the brain damage was due to LD." So, clearly the authors indicate they do not have any definitive proof of Lyme in this case. The authors even did a right front brain biopsy but found it "unrevealing." Again, I believe Lyme persists, but this article isn't concrete proof that it does.
Post a reply to this comment

Re: CH

posted 11/28/07 @ 3:48 PM EST

Originally posted by

Dr. Feder is the Lemon

 Listen I'm on ILADS side, but the article article you're using as a reference does not mention an autopsy was done that proved spirochete were found in the brain. I was excited to read this article because someone else had said the same thing you did, but I cannot find that info in there. In the discussion part of the article, the authors state, "Although the diagnosis cannot be made with absolute certainty, we must proceed on the assumption that the brain damage was due to LD." So, clearly the authors indicate they do not have any definitive proof of Lyme in this case. The authors even did a right front brain biopsy but found it "unrevealing." Again, I believe Lyme persists, but this article isn't concrete proof that it does.

--------


Not only does it state in black and white that spirochetes were biopsied from the patient's brain, but it also includes an image from the Dieterle stain which revealed them. Here is the relevant quote from page 346:

"Dieterle staining revealed occasional loosely coiled spirochetes in the affected region of the thalamus (figure 1)."

Additionally, the article goes on to state (pg 346):

"This is a postmortem report of a case of rapidly progressive dementia and marked subcortical degeneration attributable to the Lyme Spirochete. Although the diagnosis cannot be made with absolute certainty, we must proceed on the assumption that the brain damage was due to LD. The morphology of the spirochetes was consistent with Borrelia burgdorferi, and this finding is also consistent with the previously positive serological test for LD."

Obviously you read this since you managed to pluck the most doubt-filled sentence while conveniently leaving out the surrounding sentences which plainly indicated the presence of spirochetes in the brain. Perhaps I used the wrong terminology when I said "autopsy", but my understanding is that a postmortem report along with postmortem biopsies of the brain would be part of an autopsy.

Regardless, that is a semantics issue. The important point is that spirochetes WERE found in the patient's brain postmortem and they were consistent with the spirochete that causes Lyme disease.

Were this article produced in a vacuum, I would join the doubting Thomas's both as to its conclusions and as to the existence of chronic Lyme disease. However, as an earlier commenter illustrated, there are many more peer reviewed journal articles which document the Lyme spirochete's ability to persist (for example, the Straubinger dog studies).
Post a reply to this comment

CH

posted 11/28/07 @ 5:52 PM EST

Originally posted by

Dr. Feder is the Lemon

 This letter to the editor (written by me) which was published in the Oct. 11, 2007 Hartford Courant suggests that Dr. Feder's claims about the lack of hard science supporting chronic Lyme disease are dishonest:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets1011.artoct11,0,4622314.story

Evidence Of Chronic Lyme
October 11, 2007

In the Oct. 4 Courant article "Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged" [Page 1], Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr. is quoted as saying that "the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist." Dr. Feder seems to have a unique definition of "hard science," one that ignores the wealth of peer-reviewed science whose conclusions disagree with his entrenched ideology.

For example, in 1995, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences published a study rooted in hard science titled "Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease." To summarize, a seriously ill man was diagnosed with Lyme disease and treated with the recommended course of antibiotics. He improved during treatment but rapidly deteriorated afterward. He was re-diagnosed with incurable progressive dementia and institutionalized. He soon died. An autopsy found his brain to be inhabited by the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, the same bacteria that Dr. Feder insists could not possibly have survived the amount of antibiotics given that patient.

In the real world, autopsies, cultures and biopsies are considered hard science. Apparently, in Dr. Feder's alternate universe, that of the chronic-Lyme denialists, such studies can simply be dismissed. And as you can see, the consequences to patients are potentially quite deadly.

(signature/address removed)

--------


My bad! You're right. I interpreted the article wrong. I'm so glad I'm wrong! Truly! Thank You!
Post a reply to this comment

Theresa Denham

posted 11/29/07 @ 12:11 AM EST

Originally posted by

Dr. Feder is the Lemon

 This letter to the editor (written by me) which was published in the Oct. 11, 2007 Hartford Courant suggests that Dr. Feder's claims about the lack of hard science supporting chronic Lyme disease are dishonest:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets1011.artoct11,0,4622314.story

Evidence Of Chronic Lyme
October 11, 2007

In the Oct. 4 Courant article "Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged" [Page 1], Dr. Henry M. Feder Jr. is quoted as saying that "the hard science says chronic Lyme does not exist." Dr. Feder seems to have a unique definition of "hard science," one that ignores the wealth of peer-reviewed science whose conclusions disagree with his entrenched ideology.

For example, in 1995, the Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences published a study rooted in hard science titled "Rapidly progressive frontal-type dementia associated with Lyme disease." To summarize, a seriously ill man was diagnosed with Lyme disease and treated with the recommended course of antibiotics. He improved during treatment but rapidly deteriorated afterward. He was re-diagnosed with incurable progressive dementia and institutionalized. He soon died. An autopsy found his brain to be inhabited by the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, the same bacteria that Dr. Feder insists could not possibly have survived the amount of antibiotics given that patient.

In the real world, autopsies, cultures and biopsies are considered hard science. Apparently, in Dr. Feder's alternate universe, that of the chronic-Lyme denialists, such studies can simply be dismissed. And as you can see, the consequences to patients are potentially quite deadly.

(signature/address removed)

--------



Here is the study that had the death, followed by autopsy. It was a Dr. Steere et al study.

Shadick NA; Phillips 1994 The long-term clinical outcomes of Lyme disease. A population-based Annals of Internal Medicine, 121(8): 560-7.
CB; Logigian EL; retrospective cohort study.
Steere AC; Kaplan RF;
Berardi AB; Duray PH; "Ten of the 38 patients with Lyme disease reported relapses within 1 year of treatment... and had had repeated antibiotic treatment (5 patients with intravenous
Larson MG; Wright EA; ceftriaxone). ...Patient 4, in addition, had had second degree atrioventricular block with acute Lyme disease that resolved with penicillin treatment. Her irregular
Ginsburg KS; Katz JN; rhythm recurred 2 years later, resolved temporarily with ceftriaxone treatment, but progressed to complete heart block requiring a pacemaker. ...Patient 12...
Liang MH. was treated with 2 weeks of parenteral penicillin. She later developed a progressive speech disorder, bradykinesia, and abnormal ocular motor function. Magnetic
resonance imaging of the brain showed scattered white matter lesions in the hemispheres and pons... she was re-treated with 2 weeks of parenteral ceftriaxone in
1989 that had no effect on her neurologic symptoms. During the time of observation, this patient died. At autopsy... [using] Dieterle silver stain, a spirochete was
present in the cortex and another was exterior to a leptomeningeal vessel."
Post a reply to this comment

Lorraine Thompson

posted 11/28/07 @ 12:15 PM EST

[Continuing to show symptoms] does not mean you're still infected," Feder said. "That's part of this controversy."



How about getting worse, with the presentation of new symptoms? That suggests an ongoing infection. Dr. Feder, in light of all the research and proof, sounds much like those ancient scientists who insisted the world was flat as explorers were proving them wrong. There's mountains of evidence supporting ILADS claims now and the IDSA is beginning to look just a little desperate and foolish.

We nearly lost my daughter, thanks to IDSA guidelines and a pile of emotional abuse by Infectious Disease doctors...and now, eighteen months into treatment we have kept daily records and charts of her PROGRESS. Progress it definitely has been and we have proof in her, smiling and talking and remembering and writing...instead of laying paralyzed, unable to understand words or make them, lost to us and constantly in pain.

If Dr. Feder had a daughter in this condition, I'm willing to bet he would end up checking to see if this world might be round after all.
Post a reply to this comment

Theresa Denham

posted 11/29/07 @ 12:04 AM EST

While Feder claims that ILADS is "junk science" he fails to recognize that published in prestigous journals is science in line with ILADS and out of line with his propaganda. Feder, on top of this science I have personal experience with my own child, who recovered from being wheelchair-bound, autistic spectrum and seizure disorders,and congestive heart. She was PCR positive by CSF and blood after 12 weeks of IV Ceftriaxone, however after 14 months of IV she has become fully functional and rock climbs and is in pre med program.

Note that the first study shown is by his own colleague, Dr. Steere.


Shadick NA; Phillips 1994 The long-term clinical outcomes of Lyme disease. A population-based Annals of Internal Medicine, 121(8): 560-7.
CB; Logigian EL; retrospective cohort study.
Steere AC; Kaplan RF;
Berardi AB; Duray PH; "Ten of the 38 patients with Lyme disease reported relapses within 1 year of treatment... and had had repeated antibiotic treatment (5 patients with intravenous
Larson MG; Wright EA; ceftriaxone). ...Patient 4, in addition, had had second degree atrioventricular block with acute Lyme disease that resolved with penicillin treatment. Her irregular
Ginsburg KS; Katz JN; rhythm recurred 2 years later, resolved temporarily with ceftriaxone treatment, but progressed to complete heart block requiring a pacemaker. ...Patient 12...
Liang MH. was treated with 2 weeks of parenteral penicillin. She later developed a progressive speech disorder, bradykinesia, and abnormal ocular motor function. Magnetic
resonance imaging of the brain showed scattered white matter lesions in the hemispheres and pons... she was re-treated with 2 weeks of parenteral ceftriaxone in
1989 that had no effect on her neurologic symptoms. During the time of observation, this patient died. At autopsy... [using] Dieterle silver stain, a spirochete was
present in the cortex and another was exterior to a leptomeningeal vessel."



***************
Straubinger RK; 2000 Status of Borrelia burgdorferi Infection after antibiotic treatment and the effects of Journal of Infectious Diseases, 181(3):1069-1081
Straubinger AF; corticosteroids: an e xperimental study.
Summers BA;
Jacobson RH.
16 dogs were infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. 120 days after tick exposure, 12 dogs were treated with antibiotics for 30 days; 4 control dogs were not
treated. "At euthanasia, single tissues of the antibiotic-treated dogs and multiple tissues of all control dogs were Borrelia-positive by polymerase chain
reaction."
[Persistence:] "Do the data indicate an ongoing persistent infection in these animals or only the presence of DNA remnants of dead Borrelia...? From this
study and our previous investigations (20), it appears likely that B. burgdorferi maintains a persistent infection with live organisms albeit at a very low level."
*************
Hudson BJ; Stewart M; 1998 Culture-positive Lyme borreliosis. Med J Aust, May 18;168(10):500-2
Lennox VA; Fukunaga
M; Yabuki M; et al. "We report a case of Lyme borreliosis. Culture of skin biopsy was positive for Borrelia garinii, despite repeated prior treatment with antibiotics."

**********************
Straubinger RK; 1997 Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in experimentally infected dogs after antibiotic Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 35(1):111-6
Summers BA; treatment.
Chang YF;
Appel MJ. [From the abstract:] "In specific-pathogen-free dogs experimentally infected with Borrelia burgdorferi by tick exposure, treatment with high doses of
amoxicillin or dox ycycline for 30 days diminished but failed to eliminate persistent infection. Although joint disease was prevented or cured in five of five
amoxicillin- and five of six doxycycline-treated dogs, skin punch biopsies and multiple tissues from necropsy samples remained PCR positive and B. burgdorferi
was isolated from one amoxicillin- and two doxycycline-treated dogs following antibiotic treatment. ...[In] dogs that were kept in isolation for 6 months
after antibiotic treatment was discontinued, antibody levels began to rise again, presumably in response to proliferation of the surviving pool of spirochetes."

**************************

Branigan P; Rao J; 1997 PCR evidence for Borrelia burgdorferi DNA in synovium in absence of positive serology. American College of Rheumatology, Vol 40(9) Suppl,
Rao J; Gerard H; Sept, p.S270
Hudson A; Williams
W; Arayssi T; Pando
J; Bayer M; Rothfuss S; "PCR evidence for Borrelia has been identified in synovial biopsies of patients with clinical pictures that had not initially suggested Lyme disease.
Clayburne G; Sieck M; All [6 PCR-positive] patients were negative for antibodies to Borrelia and some were PCR positive in synovium despite previous treatment with antibiotics."
Schumacher HR.

*********************
Post a reply to this comment

Angela Stone

posted 11/29/07 @ 7:58 PM EST

If the use of prolonged antibiotics is "not warranted", then why, exactly could doctors not figure out why I was so sick until one of them (Dr Charles Ray Jones, a LIFESAVER) tested me for Lyme? And why did I make significant progress after being put on many coctails of antibiotics?

In elementary and middle school, it was common for me to miss almost half of the year. Now, as a Junior, and seeing Dr Richard Horowitz, I rarely miss more than three weeks out of the year. If people like you were treating me, I'd still be bedridden every other week and you'd have no clue as to why.

I'm pleased to see that the people posting here are supporting our cause. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post a reply to this comment

Dr. Steere Violates IDSA/NEJM Protocols

posted 11/30/07 @ 2:41 AM EST

Dr. Steere has yet again published research and made statements which contradict the short-term treatment protocols mandated by the IDSA guidelines, of which he is an author. Here are a couple of choice excerpts:

'In patients afflicted with antibiotic-refractory arthritis, the level of antibody titers to Borrelia burgdorferi and most outer-surface antigens increased slightly during the first 1 to 3 months of treatment. These patients suffered from persistent joint swelling for a median duration of 10 months, despite 2 to 3 months of oral or intravenous antibiotics. However, by 4 to 6 months after starting antibiotic therapy, antibody titers declined to similar levels in both antibiotic-treated groups, regardless of their differences in arthritis symptoms.'

Three months of treatment, eh? Funny, I don't recall the IDSA guidelines allowing for that. Seems to me that Dr. Steere and his colleagues, despite all the research, some of which came from their own efforts, suggesting that chronic Lyme disease exists and that lengthy courses of antibiotics can be helpful, continue to apply a completely different standard of care to us and the doctors who treat us.

And then there is this gem from Dr. Steere:

'"In Lyme disease, there is a great need for a test that could be used in clinical practice as a marker for spirochetal eradication," observes Dr. Allen C. Steere, the senior author of the study.'

Well Duh!!!!!!!!!! And since Steere admits that there is no test to prove that the spirochete has been eradicated, certainly not a new revelation to him, how in the hell can he and his colleagues claim so unequivocally that chronic Lyme doesn't exist? The answer is that they can't. And if they continue to do so, they are LYING.

Regardless of the speculative nature of this latest study, I consider it highly important that Steere has yet again admitted to the possibility that the Lyme bacteria can persist, and admitted to finding benefit in using greater treatment durations than IDSA guidelines allow.

You can read more about the new study from Dr. Steere at this link: Antibody responses in patients with Lyme arthritis - Study sheds light on antibiotic resistance and persistent joint inflammation
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/w-ari112607.php
Post a reply to this comment

Stop Lyme Cryme!

posted 1/06/08 @ 1:54 PM EST

It is common practice for medical journal articles to include a disclosure statement describing the potential conflicts of interest of each author. But there is never any guarantee that all relevant conflicts will be included in that disclosure. According to ILADS, there was one one very important omission from the NEJM article's conflict disclosure (my emphasis):

The article was written by a group of researchers who have consistently voiced a narrow viewpoint on the existence of chronic Lyme disease and appropriate treatment. Eleven of the authors were members of the panel that formulated the 2006 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Lyme guidelines. The panel is currently under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for exclusionary practices in formulating the IDSA guidelines.
The authors of the article failed to disclose that they are under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General. This omission violates the "full disclosure" policy of the journal and creates a conflict of interest by calling into question the authors' motives for writing the article.
Several authors of the current article also participated in formulation of copycat Lyme guidelines for the American Academy of Neurology. Those guidelines were presented as "independent corroboration" of the IDSA Lyme guidelines, when in fact the same individuals were involved with both guidelines and employed the same exclusionary tactics that prompted the Connecticut Attorney General's investigation.
And if that's not serious enough, NEJM also neglected to mention the fact that IDSA guideline author Dr. Mark Klempner not only served as an ad-hoc committee member for the NEJM article but at the very same time served as an associate editor at NEJM, a position which may well have afforded him undue influence over the publication of an article whose conclusions stood to greatly benefit both himself and his IDSA colleagues.

Equally noteworthy are the conflicts of interest that did get mentioned:


Dr. Feder reports receiving lecture fees from Merck and serving as an expert witness in medical-malpractice cases related to Lyme disease. Dr. Johnson reports holding patents on diagnostic antigens for Lyme disease. Dr. O'Connell reports serving as an expert witness related to Lyme disease issues in civil and criminal cases in England. Dr. Shapiro reports serving as an expert witness in medical-malpractice cases related to Lyme disease, reviewing claims of disability related to Lyme disease for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and receiving speaker's fees from Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Steere reports receiving a research grant from Viramed and fees from Novartis. Dr. Wormser reports receiving research grants related to Lyme disease from Immunetics, Bio-Rad, and Biopeptides and education grants from Merck and AstraZeneca to New York Medical College for visiting lecturers for infectious-disease grand rounds, being part owner of Diaspex (a company that is now inactive with no products or services), owning equity in Abbott, serving as an expert witness in a medical-malpractice case, and being retained in other medical-malpractice cases involving Lyme disease. He may become a consultant to Biopeptides. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Extracurricular activities of the type listed above, most notably those related to the insurance industry, are quite common among university-based Lyme disease experts. With the quest for ever greater profits motivating insurers to deny payment wherever possible, it is only natural that they would seek out Lyme related medical opinions from those experts most willing to deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The chronic Lyme denialists have been only too happy to oblige, and their cooperation has proven to be highly lucrative (ten years ago the going rate for expert witness testimony by chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Lenny Sigal was $650/hr.*, and the going rate for a case review by chronic Lyme denialist Dr. Robert Schoen was $350/hr. for 2 hours work*). *documents on file.


No doubt, similar conflicts of interest are shared by other members of NEJM's ad-hoc panel, which reads like a veritable who's who of chronic Lyme denialists:


The following were members of the Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease Group: Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI -- W.A. Agger; National Microbiology Laboratory, Health Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada -- H. Artsob; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore -- P. Auwaerter, J.S. Dumler; St. Luke's Hospital, Duluth, MN -- J.S. Bakken; Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT -- L.K. Bockenstedt, J. Green; New York Medical College, Valhalla -- R.J. Dattwyler, J. Munoz, R.B. Nadelman, I. Schwartz; Danbury Hospital, Danbury, CT -- T. Draper; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Crofton, MD -- E. McSweegan; Atlantic Neuroscience Institute, Summit, NJ, and the New York University School of Medicine, New York -- J.J. Halperin; Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston -- M.S. Klempner; University of Connecticut School of Medicine and Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Farmington -- P.J. Krause; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO -- P. Mead; University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada -- M. Morshed; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway -- R. Porwancher; University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington -- J.D. Radolf; Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME -- R.P. Smith, Jr.; Schneider Children's Hospital at North Shore, Manhasset, NY -- S. Sood; Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC -- A. Weinstein; Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany -- S.J. Wong; and Connecticut Children's Medical Center, University of Connecticut, Hartford -- L. Zemel.
Post a reply to this comment

Joe the Tick

posted 1/30/08 @ 7:28 AM EST

LYME DISEASE EVIDENCE REWARD $20,000

The Greater Hartford Lyme Disease Support and Action Group post a $ 20,000 REWARD to any Physician that can prove that the Lyme bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi is eradicated after 42 days of antibiotic treatment in all cases. Medical research and lab tests show otherwise(1,2,3). Furthermore, we challenge any MD who claims all Lyme disease is cured with 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment, to post $20,000 to prove our statement is false and misleading.

Due to lack of knowledge, mis-education and physician ignorance of the flawed Elisa and Western Blot, early diagnosis is often overlooked which leads to misdiagnosis and subsequent late state chronic Lyme disease. Most doctors are respectable and care about their patients but are being misled by a handful of selfproclaimed Lyme disease experts along with many of our own government health agencies esulting in gross misdiagnosis. We have to wonder how many people have been sent to their grave unaware they suffered from Lyme disease. Most doctors are mistakenly using the CDC's surveillance riteria as a diagnostic tool. The CDC itself states "that these narrow criteria are for reporting purposes only and not to be used for diagnostic treatment decisions." The CDC also acknowledges that Lyme is a clinical diagnosis and should not be ruled out by a negative lood test and it is often appropriate to treat the patient solely on the basis of objective signs and known exposure to an endemic area.

Chris Montes 860-673-8759
Randy Sykes 860-658-9938
Mark Leavitt
Steve Arndt

Read more...
http://www.ctlymedisease.org/pdf/reward.pdf

1. Haupl, T., A. Krause, M. Rittig, C. Schoerner, J.R. Kalden, M. Simon, R. Wallich, and G. R. Burmester. 1992. Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in chronic Lyme disease: altered immune regulation or evasion into immunologically privileged sites?, abstr. 149, p. A26. Program Abstr. 5th Int. Conf. Lyme Borreliosis, 1992.

2. Liegner, K.B., C.E. Rosenkilde, G.L. Campbell, T.J. Quan, and D.T. Dennis. 1992, Culture-confirmed treatment failure of cefotaxime and inocycline in a case of Lyme meningeoncephalomyelitis in the United States, abstr. 63, p. A10. Program Abstr. 5th Int. Conf. Lyme Borreliosis, 1992.

3. Liegner KB, Ziska M, Agricola MD, Hubbard JD, Klempner MS. Coyle PK, Bayer ME, Duray PH. Fatal chronic enigoencephalomyelitis (CMEM) with massive hydrocephalus, in a New York state patient with evidence of Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) exposure. In Program and Abstracts of the 6th Int. Conf. On Lyme Borreliosis, Bologna, Italy, Abstract P041T. June 19-22, 1994.
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 16 of 16

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Advertisements

Poll

Do you feel safe on campus?
Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement