| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Lyme Forum » Hallelujah! Have a look at the Emperor's new clothes!
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| the 3rd Man |
 Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Can ANYONE explain to me how a review panel looking over the IDSA
Guidelines is a great "victory"?
How this could possibly be "promising news for patients"?
What if, (and this seems entirely likely to me), thay just have a look
and say,
"Yep. Looks just fine and dandy to me, where do I rubber-stamp this
puppy"?
Wow. Hoo-bleeping-ray for our side. Hey...what happened to the BIG
ANTITRUST deal? No RICO for Kathleen?
Let's put a big, BIG smiley face on this... (and hope no one
notices)...
This sounds like complete and utter bombastic BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA to
me...(A deliberate distortion of reality to a degree that approaches
outright falsehood)...
Gee, it sort of sounds like we accomplished nothing whatever of any
tangible value...
...but we certainly want YOU to think we did...as the TRUTH tends to
negatively impact our fund-raising activities.
(Hopefully this is just BS spin...it would actually be more worrisome
if they BELIEVE their own CRAP).
========================================================================CONTACT: Melissa Chefec, 203-968-6625 or Nicole Rodgers, 202-822-5200,
ext. 249/226
Settlement Announced in Landmark Investigation of Lyme Disease
Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines
Patients’ Rights Groups Applaud Connecticut Attorney General
Blumenthal’s Settlement in Anti-trust Case Against Powerful Medical
Society
Hartford, CT, May 1, 2008 – Patients’ rights groups today hailed
Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal’s announcement of a settlement
in a landmark antitrust investigation into the Lyme treatment
guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
“My office uncovered undisclosed financial interests held by several
of the most powerful IDSA panelists,” said Blumenthal. “The IDSA’s
guideline panel improperly ignored, or minimized, consideration of
alternative medical opinion and evidence regarding chronic Lyme
disease, potentially raising serious questions about whether the
recommendations reflected all relevant science.”
The groundbreaking settlement announced today forces a complete review
of the IDSA guidelines by a new panel free from conflicts of interest,
specifically excluding previous panel members. This panel will
consider a range of scientific evidence in a public forum broadcast
live over the internet and will be overseen by a specialist in
financial conflicts of interest in medicine.
“This settlement makes it clear that the IDSA guideline development
process was corrupted by a commercially driven panel that excluded
evidence supporting longer term treatment of Lyme disease,” said
attorney Lorraine Johnson, Executive Director of the California Lyme
Disease Association (CALDA). “This settlement allows suppressed
scientific viewpoints and evidence to be heard, and it is promising
news for patients.”
This is the first-ever antitrust investigation against a medical
society’s guidelines development process.
“We congratulate Attorney General Blumenthal for exposing the IDSA’s
conflicts of interest and helping reduce the suffering of Lyme
patients everywhere,” said Pat Smith, president of the national Lyme
Disease Association (LDA). Diane Blanchard, co-president of Time for
Lyme adds, “The IDSA guidelines are dangerous for patients who suffer
longer-term Lyme symptoms that do not fall within the IDSA’s narrow
disease definition.”
The IDSA guidelines are treated as mandatory within the medical
community. More than 50 physicians who use longer-term treatment
approaches have been investigated or sanctioned by state medical
boards. The guidelines can also result in financial problems for
patients, since insurance companies refuse to reimburse for longer-
term treatment and pharmacies may refuse to fill prescriptions.
The majority of individuals involved in the IDSA guidelines
development process held direct or indirect commercial interests
related to Lyme vaccines, patents, and/or test kits, and did not take
the opinions or experiences of the competing Lyme groups into account.
While the announcement of a settlement comes as a huge relief to
suffering Lyme patients, the case has much broader implications for a
health care system that often contends with conflicts-of-interest in
guideline processes – guidelines which are often used by insurance
companies to limit diagnosis and treatment options.
“Today’s settlement marks an important victory for all patients who
suffer Lyme disease, but it is also a victory for anyone concerned
about health care,” said Johnson. “Commercially driven guidelines that
limit patient treatment options are a major issue today in healthcare,
and this decision marks an important step towards addressing it.”
The national Lyme Disease Association, (LDA), CALDA, and Time for Lyme
are non-profit organizations that were founded by individuals who had
personal experience with Lyme disease, in order to address the lack of
education and support services available for this newly emerging
infection.
Last Modified: May 01, 2008 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lipanz |
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 3, 12:09�pm, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
Can ANYONE explain to me how a review panel looking over the IDSA
Guidelines is a great "victory"?
How this could possibly be "promising news for patients"?
What if, (and this seems entirely likely to me), thay just have a look
and say,
"Yep. Looks just fine and dandy to me, where do I rubber-stamp this
puppy"?
Wow. Hoo-bleeping-ray for our side. Hey...what happened to the BIG
ANTITRUST deal? No RICO for Kathleen?
Isn't this negative thinking? I thought you considered yourself having
faith in humanity. These comments of yours sounds a bit like mockery
as tho you are afraid something may come out of this for the helping
of Lyme patients treatment......
Now if this isn't negative I don't know what is ----I think I may have
read you incorectly. Who's side are you really on...... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 3, 10:19 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Quote: Wow. Hoo-bleeping-ray for our side. Hey...what happened to the BIG
ANTITRUST deal? No RICO for Kathleen?
Isn't this negative thinking?
I don't think so...I think it is being entirely REALISTIC.
And I am really, REALLY angry right now...at the so-called
"leadership". Yes, CALDA, in particular, for leading the charge on
this disaster. And If you search the files here ("Blumenthal,
antitrust") ...you will see that I expressed a negative opinion as
soon as this nonsense was launched. I am not coming in here and
denouncing this because it failed. It had stupidity and nonsense
written all over it from the beginning. . Nonetheless, I counselled
everyone to hold fire until the end result was known...and now you see
it. Nothing. Did I tell you so? Yes. Do I get any satisfaction out of
pointing that out, now...yes.
They are distorting, spinning, this thing to the point of LYING, in
my opinion.
This is a SETTLEMENT agreement. Understand? No one is admitting or
denying. Blumenthal can say whatever he wants about 'conflicts'...but
it has NO legal signifigance. That stuff is just for the dedicated
followers of Ms. Smith. (Who are on their way to achieving cult
status).
LOOK...they, the "so-called" leadership has a duty and an obligation
to be truthful and not deliberately "spin" and mislead the very people
thay claim to represent...just so they can maintain their image of
themselves.
This was a bad idea...a bad move from square one...with an entirely
predictable ending.
I thought you considered yourself having
Quote: faith in humanity. These comments of yours sounds a bit like mockery
as tho you are afraid something may come out of this for the helping
of Lyme patients treatment......
It's called bitterness, I think. Cynicism. Yes, guilty, there. And
anger, too. Yes, sarcasm is a release.
Quote: Now if this isn't negative I don't know what is ----I think I may have
read you incorectly. Who's side are you really on......
I would like to think that I am on the side of the PATIENTS...and
hopefully...the TRUTH.
When the "so-called" leaders start to mislead their own "constituents"
to cover their own political behinds...that's NOT "leadership". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 3, 10:19 pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Quote: These comments of yours sounds a bit like mockery
as tho you are afraid something may come out of this for the helping
of Lyme patients treatment......
Not at all.
I personally wish that the IDSA had included a more balanced
presentation of the persistence debate. But I am not a member of the
IDSA, and lack the applicable professional qualifications to really
even have an opinion. I don't get to vote. (And I am smart enough not
to try to bully my way into a profesional organization through
threatening, thug-like tactics and abuse of the prosecutorial system
in this country).
I think the IDSA actually hurt themselves, and the perception of the
bias of the panel mambers in the way in which they dealt with the
issue.
What they said, if I remember correctly, was that there wasn't
currently "PERSUASIVE" evidence of chronicity, and remarked that the
cyst issue..."had no proven clincial signifigance".
For individual, busy, physicians to get a better understanding, a
better picture of the debate, it probably would have been better for
everyone to have had a more balanced presentation of what is
known...versus what is not known...and what is mere hypothesis.
Perhaps, that will now be accomplished through this review process.
Who knows?
Maybe.
But it is really highly irresponsible, in my opinion, to play politics
with this and lead people astray. If you look over at the postings now
over at Lymenet, they seem to think something has been achieved and
that Blumenthal's posturing on this amounts to something other than a
soundbite.
Question: Did Blumenthal use the LDA? Or...did the LDA use Blumenthal?
Either way...I know who is really getting "used" and abused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lipanz... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 4, 11:18�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
In ref to the following of your statements. Yea, I sort of get the
message on that. You do have a point there.......not only inref to
Lyme but in the other situation I went thru............Yup
But it is really highly irresponsible, in my opinion, to play
politics
with this and lead people astray. If you look over at the postings
now
over at Lymenet, they seem to think something has been achieved and
that Blumenthal's posturing on this amounts to something other than a
soundbite.
Question: Did Blumenthal use the LDA? Or...did the LDA use
Blumenthal?
Either way...I know who is really getting "used" and abused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lipanz... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 8:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 5, 2:12Â pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
In ref to the following of your statements. Â Yea, I sort of get the
message on that. Â Â You do have a point there.......not only inref to
Lyme but in the other situation I went thru............Yup
On May 4, 11:18�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: But it is really highly irresponsible, in my opinion, to play
politics
with this and lead people astray. If you look over at the postings
now
over at Lymenet, they seem to think something has been achieved and
that Blumenthal's posturing on this amounts to something other than a
soundbite.
Question: Did Blumenthal use the LDA? Or...did the LDA use
Blumenthal?
Either way...I know who is really getting "used" and abused. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 5, 1:17Â pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 5, 2:12Â pm, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
In ref to the following of your statements. Â Yea, I sort of get the
 message on that.   You do have a point there.......not only inref to
 Lyme but in the other situation I went thru............Yup
 On May 4, 11:18�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
But it is really highly irresponsible, in my opinion, to play
politics
with this and lead people astray. If you look over at the postings
now
over at Lymenet, they seem to think something has been achieved and
that Blumenthal's posturing on this amounts to something other than a
soundbite.
Question: Did Blumenthal use the LDA? Or...did the LDA use
Blumenthal?
Either way...I know who is really getting "used" and abused.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks, "L"...again, nice of you, and appreciated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 20, 2:57 pm, Sewer Rat <ratfromthese... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
It the settlement itself not even a small victory? Is there not even a
tiny victory? For example because of this:
Not that I can see.
I think that you have to look at the spin of what is said in a press
conference (which has NO legal signifigance, whatever)...and then
compare that to what the terms of the Agreement that was reached,
actually specify.
The perception problem here seems to have been perhaps created by the
glowing language used by the AG and CALDA/ LDA reps...in contrast to
what the Agrement terms actually seem to indicate.
The "spin" versus the reality...if you will. Basically...look to what
the Agreement holds the IDSA to...what they admitted. They admitted
nothing. Not even the power of the AG to look into the matter. They
agreed to an independent review that requires a 3/4 majority vote to
overturn previous recommendations.
In regard to the previously "undisclosed conflicts"...well, how can
anyone address this? Blumenthal doesn't say what they were.
In regard to excluding "alternative medical opinion"...I am not at all
sure that this is something that the AG should be concerned with, or
has any legal basis to investigate.
If you look at the terms of the actual Agreement, it merely "contends"
that there were "procedural deficiencies". That's an unsubstantiated
allegation.
Many in the online patient community now seem to be under the false
impression that this statement reflects some sort of "finding" or
"ruling".
It does not.
The review aspect...I suppose there is a remote possibility that a
review panel could now vote to include some language concerning the
staus of what is known versus what is not known in regard to "chronic
Lyme".
But remember, that these are TREATMENT GUIDELINES...and the real
thrust here is on what meds to provide for what duration.
ALSO...the provision in the Agreement that specifies that a 3/4
supermajority is needed to over-turn the panel
recommendations...virtually guarantees that no changes will take
place. (Robert's Rules usually require only a 2/3 majority to effect
rule changes, even).
Honestly...from a political perspective...it looks like a semi-clever
way of face-saving, perception-massaging, while dumping the thing
entirely, to me.
Effective, if you don't bother to read the details. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sewer Rat... |
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
the 3rd Man wrote:
Quote: Can ANYONE explain to me how a review panel looking over the IDSA
Guidelines is a great "victory"?
How this could possibly be "promising news for patients"?
<snip>
Quote: (Hopefully this is just BS spin...it would actually be more worrisome
if they BELIEVE their own CRAP).
=========================================================================
CONTACT: Melissa Chefec, 203-968-6625 or Nicole Rodgers, 202-822-5200,
ext. 249/226
Settlement Announced in Landmark Investigation of Lyme Disease
Diagnosis and Treatment Guidelines
Patients’ Rights Groups Applaud Connecticut Attorney General
Blumenthal’s Settlement in Anti-trust Case Against Powerful Medical
Society
It the settlement itself not even a small victory? Is there not even a
tiny victory? For example because of this:
" “My office uncovered undisclosed financial interests held by several
of the most powerful IDSA panelists,” said Blumenthal. “The IDSA’s
guideline panel improperly ignored, or minimized, considerationof
alternative medical opinion and evidence regarding chronic Lyme disease,
potentially raising serious questions about whether the recommendations
reflected all relevant science.”
The groundbreaking settlement announced today forces a complete review
of the IDSA guidelines by a new panel free from conflicts of interest,
specifically excluding previous panel members. This panel will consider
a range of scientific evidence in a public forum broadcast live over the
internet and will be overseen by a specialist in financial conflicts of
interest in medicine.
“This settlement makes it clear that the IDSA guideline development
process was corrupted by a commercially driven panel that excluded
evidence supporting longer termtreatment of Lyme disease,” said attorney
Lorraine Johnson, Executive Director of the California Lyme Disease
Association (CALDA). “This settlement allows suppressed scientific
viewpoints and evidence to be heard, and it is promising news for
patients.” " |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:08 am
|
|
