| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Lyme Forum » "Panel members do not stand to profit from any...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| the 3rd Man... |
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yeah.
Sorry. I STILL don't get it.
"Panel members do not stand to profit from any recommendation in the
guidelines," the group said in statement. "In fact, the panel members
denied themselves and their colleagues an opportunity to generate a
significant amount of revenue when they recommended against expensive,
repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy."
========================================================================Patients who believe they suffer long-term problems from Lyme disease
are claiming victory over a national doctors group. The Infectious
Diseases Society of America has agreed to review its guidelines, which
say there's no evidence long-term antibiotics can cure "chronic Lyme"
disease — or even that such a condition exists.
The agreement settles an unprecedented antitrust investigation by
Connecticut's attorney general over the matter. The doctors group
makes clear that current guidance for treating Lyme disease remains in
place.
But that didn't stop claims of success by the attorney general and
people who believe they suffer long-term effects of the tick-borne
disease.
"It's a great victory for patients," said Pat Smith, president of the
Lyme Disease Association, a national nonprofit group based in New
Jersey. "It's time that Lyme patients got the respect they deserve."
The agreement, announced Thursday, calls for the doctors group to form
a new panel of experts to review standards for treating Lyme disease.
The Infectious Diseases Society says it agreed to the deal in part
because the panel must be made up of doctors and scientists.
Lyme disease can be hard to diagnose with its vague, flu-like
symptoms; the most obvious sign is its trademark round red rash.
Usually, it's easily cured with a few weeks of antibiotics. Those not
promptly treated can develop arthritis, meningitis and other serious
illnesses.
About 20,000 new cases of Lyme disease are reported every year, but
experts believe the annual total may be five times higher.
Connecticut leads the nation in reported cases and has been a
battleground in the national debate over treatment. Lyme disease is
named after the Connecticut town of Lyme, where the illness was first
discovered in 1975. And the state is home to a number of people who
claim they suffer long-term problems from Lyme disease — problems that
many doctors are unable to confirm or treat.
The Infectious Diseases Society says it's never been proven whether
these patients still have Lyme disease or something else. The group
continues to defend its standards, which say short-term antibiotics
are effective for nearly all patients. Long-term antibiotics are
unproven and potentially dangerous, because overuse of the drugs can
lead to drug-resistant infections, the society says.
"We are confident that our guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment
of Lyme disease represent the best advice that medicine currently has
to offer ... and we look forward to the opportunity to put to rest any
questions about them," said Dr. Donald Poretz, the society's
president.
The society will consider a variety of scientific evidence and
determine whether the 2006 guidelines are justified or need revision.
The guidelines are important because they discourage adequate
treatment, advocates of chronic Lyme sufferers say. Perhaps just as
significant is that insurance companies refuse to pay for long-term
antibiotics to treat chronic Lyme.
"We are delighted with this settlement," said Diane Blanchard of
Greenwich, who said she was sick with Lyme disease for 10 years before
a long-term antibiotic treatment relieved her symptoms in the late
1990s.
"The IDSA guidelines are now clouded by this decision. My greatest
hope is that patients will regain their right to treatment," said
Blanchard, now co-president of the advocacy group Time for Lyme.
Philadelphia-based health insurer Cigna Corp. said it is reviewing the
agreement to see if any changes in policies are needed. Cigna covers
up to 28 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease and,
like many insurers, cites the Infectious Diseases Society's guidelines
in its coverage plan.
Cigna does not pay for "repeated or prolonged" courses of antibiotics,
saying they are "experimental, investigational or unproven."
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and advocates say the
agreement is the first time the medical establishment has bowed to the
pressure of a potential court fight and agreed to re-evaluate care
standards.
"My main goal all along has been a process that is fair, open and free
of conflicts of interest," Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal said his investigation found that some of the 14 experts
who approved the 2006 guidelines got consulting fees, research grants
and stock ownership from drug companies and other businesses that have
a stake in the treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease.
He would not name the panel members or the companies. He said the
backgrounds of the new experts looking at the guidelines will be
checked for any potential conflicts.
The issue involves antitrust law, Blumenthal said, because the panel
excluded some opinions and evidence that may have supported other
treatments in development, including vaccines.
Blumenthal's office did not take a position on the proper treatment of
the disease or whether chronic Lyme disease exists.
The Infectious Diseases Society denied any conflict of interest.
Patients who believe they suffer long-term problems from Lyme disease
are claiming victory over a national doctors group. The Infectious
Diseases Society of America has agreed to review its guidelines, which
say there's no evidence long-term antibiotics can cure "chronic Lyme"
disease — or even that such a condition exists.
The agreement settles an unprecedented antitrust investigation by
Connecticut's attorney general over the matter. The doctors group
makes clear that current guidance for treating Lyme disease remains in
place.
But that didn't stop claims of success by the attorney general and
people who believe they suffer long-term effects of the tick-borne
disease.
"It's a great victory for patients," said Pat Smith, president of the
Lyme Disease Association, a national nonprofit group based in New
Jersey. "It's time that Lyme patients got the respect they deserve."
The agreement, announced Thursday, calls for the doctors group to form
a new panel of experts to review standards for treating Lyme disease.
The Infectious Diseases Society says it agreed to the deal in part
because the panel must be made up of doctors and scientists.
Lyme disease can be hard to diagnose with its vague, flu-like
symptoms; the most obvious sign is its trademark round red rash.
Usually, it's easily cured with a few weeks of antibiotics. Those not
promptly treated can develop arthritis, meningitis and other serious
illnesses.
About 20,000 new cases of Lyme disease are reported every year, but
experts believe the annual total may be five times higher.
Connecticut leads the nation in reported cases and has been a
battleground in the national debate over treatment. Lyme disease is
named after the Connecticut town of Lyme, where the illness was first
discovered in 1975. And the state is home to a number of people who
claim they suffer long-term problems from Lyme disease — problems that
many doctors are unable to confirm or treat.
The Infectious Diseases Society says it's never been proven whether
these patients still have Lyme disease or something else. The group
continues to defend its standards, which say short-term antibiotics
are effective for nearly all patients. Long-term antibiotics are
unproven and potentially dangerous, because overuse of the drugs can
lead to drug-resistant infections, the society says.
"We are confident that our guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment
of Lyme disease represent the best advice that medicine currently has
to offer ... and we look forward to the opportunity to put to rest any
questions about them," said Dr. Donald Poretz, the society's
president.
The society will consider a variety of scientific evidence and
determine whether the 2006 guidelines are justified or need revision.
The guidelines are important because they discourage adequate
treatment, advocates of chronic Lyme sufferers say. Perhaps just as
significant is that insurance companies refuse to pay for long-term
antibiotics to treat chronic Lyme.
"We are delighted with this settlement," said Diane Blanchard of
Greenwich, who said she was sick with Lyme disease for 10 years before
a long-term antibiotic treatment relieved her symptoms in the late
1990s.
"The IDSA guidelines are now clouded by this decision. My greatest
hope is that patients will regain their right to treatment," said
Blanchard, now co-president of the advocacy group Time for Lyme.
Philadelphia-based health insurer Cigna Corp. said it is reviewing the
agreement to see if any changes in policies are needed. Cigna covers
up to 28 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease and,
like many insurers, cites the Infectious Diseases Society's guidelines
in its coverage plan.
Cigna does not pay for "repeated or prolonged" courses of antibiotics,
saying they are "experimental, investigational or unproven."
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and advocates say the
agreement is the first time the medical establishment has bowed to the
pressure of a potential court fight and agreed to re-evaluate care
standards.
"My main goal all along has been a process that is fair, open and free
of conflicts of interest," Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal said his investigation found that some of the 14 experts
who approved the 2006 guidelines got consulting fees, research grants
and stock ownership from drug companies and other businesses that have
a stake in the treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease.
He would not name the panel members or the companies. He said the
backgrounds of the new experts looking at the guidelines will be
checked for any potential conflicts.
The issue involves antitrust law, Blumenthal said, because the panel
excluded some opinions and evidence that may have supported other
treatments in development, including vaccines.
Blumenthal's office did not take a position on the proper treatment of
the disease or whether chronic Lyme disease exists.
The Infectious Diseases Society denied any conflict of interest.
"Panel members do not stand to profit from any recommendation in the
guidelines," the group said in statement. "In fact, the panel members
denied themselves and their colleagues an opportunity to generate a
significant amount of revenue when they recommended against expensive,
repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy."
," the group said in statement. "In fact, the panel members denied
themselves and their colleagues an opportunity to generate a
significant amount of revenue when they recommended against expensive,
repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lipanz... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 6, 9:50�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Yeah.
Sorry. I STILL don't get it.
Blumenthal said his investigation found that some of the 14 experts
who approved the 2006 guidelines got consulting fees, research grants
and stock ownership from drug companies and other businesses that have
a stake in the treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease. He is probably correct on this. I believe it.
He would not name the panel members or the companies. He said the
backgrounds of the new experts looking at the guidelines will be
checked for any potential conflicts. Yea , what new experts--------------I don't get it either.
The issue involves antitrust law, Blumenthal said, because the panel
excluded some opinions and evidence that may have supported other
treatments in development, including vaccines.
Blumenthal's office did not take a position on the proper treatment of
the disease or whether chronic Lyme disease exists.
The Infectious Diseases Society denied any conflict of interest.
"Panel members do not stand to profit from any recommendation in the
guidelines," the group said in statement. "In fact, the panel members
denied themselves and their colleagues an opportunity to generate a
significant amount of revenue when they recommended against expensive,
repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy."
," the group said in statement. "In fact, the panel members denied
themselves and their colleagues an opportunity to generate a
significant amount of revenue when they recommended against expensive,
repeated, long-term antibiotic therapy."
Of course they will never admit to it - and Blumenthal has to get
absolute physical proof even then it is very difficult. As ones can't
fight city hall. Evil if he had absolute proof it would be somehow
twisted around by ISDA's defense. Or some kind of in between pay
offs with judge & jury if there is one. I guess Lennie Sigal was
a doe doe in admitting he gets consulting fees from insurance cos. I
think he got the ax - now with Bristol Myers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| the 3rd Man... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 7:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 6, 11:39Â am, lipanz <lipanzmari... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On May 6, 9:50�am, the 3rd Man <sir_de... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah.
Sorry. I STILL don't get it.
Of course they will never admit to it -
Admit to what?
Blumenthal, HIMSELF said that there not only had to be "conflict" but
that this conflict had to be demonstrated to be WHY competing opinions
were supposedly suppressed!
And has Blumenthal said that this is what happened?
How could it?
Look...if the panel members have financial interests in pharms...the
Guidelines actually suggest SHORT courses of drugs, don't they?
Much shorter than the ILADS and LDA want?
SOOOO...if they were "voting their wallets"...they would side with the
extended therapy, right? And they're NOT, right?
And there were conflict disclosures by panel members. Just look at the
published Guidelines and you will see them. So what were these
additional "undisclosed" conflicts?
Well, if they were so serious as to potentially influnence the
process...why aren't we being told about them? Patent ownership of
medical/biological innovations are fairly routine, these days...and as
the recognized experts in a fairly small field...I would expect that
consulting and witness fees are a part of that, also.
In other words, were any of these alleged previously undisclosed
conflicts anything different than the usual stuff that attaches to
research medicine these days?
I think you have to distinguish between an "undisclosed conflict" and
a showing that this actually potentially influenced decision-making.
I don't think anyone who undersatnds anything about the insurance
industry seriously thinks that any of these people are being offered
consulting or witness contracts in order to influence their opinions.
That is a topsy-turvy view of how insurnace companies really operate.
Insurance companies simply hire those whose opinions help them limit
their exposure.
But, look...a lot of this is really the "pot calling the kettle
black".
Come on...it is the so-called "LLMD"s that only accept cash...and
seemingly are able to charge horrendous fees...according to tales that
are occasionally posted at LymeNUT before they are swiftly removed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:49 am
|
|