When did this conflict start?

For everything that is related to Lyme and/or Lymeland, but doesn't fit in the other forums. Speak your mind, connect, ask help, etc.
Post Reply
X-member
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

When did this conflict start?

Post by X-member » Mon 6 Aug 2012 18:48

"25 years of experience with Lyme Borreliosis"

http://www.lyme.no/25-years-of-experien ... orreliosis

A quote (more to read on the link):
We know that a bitter conflict has developed between wings, where physicians at either side have very different opinions on Lyme borreliosis. This has been very expressed in the USA. Unfortunately we have also found this conflict to be present in Europe.

How was the situation initially, when did this conflict start? During the first years there were open- hearted and good conditions for work, and there was a friendly attitude at the international congresses. The scientists wished to share experiences and develop new knowledge. In short words; we fought with Lyme borreliosis and not with our Colleagues. In 1990, at the international conference in Stockholm, the conflict came to the surface. It was during a round-table discussion that developed to a fierce debate. It almost ended in a physical fight! At the time professor Klaus Weber from Munich, the president of the round-table discussion, closed the debate by saying “We are here to help patients suffering by Lyme borreliosis, not to fight each other”. The disagreement arose from the different opinions among the experts regarding what was the most efficient antibiotic for treatment of Lyme borreliosis.

RitaA
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu 1 Jul 2010 8:33

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by RitaA » Mon 6 Aug 2012 21:36

Carina,

Thanks very much for posting this link. I think this is an important reminder for everyone – regardless of anyone’s scientific findings/hypotheses and/or personal beliefs:
“We are here to help patients suffering by Lyme borreliosis, not to fight each other”.
I also found some of the statements by Dr. Bela P. Bozsik interesting:
In our practice we saw that the patients had cyclic variation in their symptoms in periods of 3-4 weeks. The treatment period should last for 2-3 times the duration of the individual cycle for the patient; that is approximately 8 weeks. We experienced that clinical improvement could continue for a long time after ending the treatment, 2-4 moths even 6 monthes after. However, if the symptoms continue or flare up, the patient may need repeated treatment with a different antibiotic. It is important to know what strain of Borrelia the patient is infected with, in order to choose the best antibiotic for the treatment schedule.

[snip]

It was of course important to investigate the effect of the combined antibiotic treatment in a clinical practice, and not only in the laboratory. Initially I had contact with a Hungarian group of physicians who wanted to try this treatment schedule for some of their patients. Gradually we collected comprehensive data from a group of 250 patients suffering from chronic Lyme borreliosis here in Hungary. We followed these patients for 5 years, on average, and half of them were cured after one round of treatment, while others needed one or more repeated treatments. Nearly all of them were cured, not seeing the definitive pathoanatomic lesions. I have also realized that it is very important to strengthen the immune defense at the same time as giving the patient antibiotic treatment.
Clinical improvement even after the discontinuation of treatment is consistent with the findings of other medical professionals and researchers, so this is at least one thing that everyone can agree on. :)

It seems that strain variation and any given person's immune system DO make a difference -- and I don't think too many people would argue with that either.

Dr. Bozsik does a good job of explaining the reasons for treating longer than the standard 2 to 4 weeks of antibiotics in those patients who experience a flare in symptoms every 3 to 4 weeks. I don't believe this phenomenon has been studied enough -- but it is something that many people with late Lyme borreliosis do notice and comment on.

One last thing to note is that "nearly all of [the patients treated] recovered", which means that some did not -- despite a combination of antibiotics and even repeated courses of treatment. Understanding what differences exist between treatment successes and treatment failures is just one reason for continued research.

X-member
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by X-member » Sun 12 Aug 2012 4:22

Maybe this could/should be posted in some other place in this forum, too?

But since this is about this conflict, I post this in this topic.

"Cure unwanted? Exploring the chronic lyme disease controversy and why conflicts of interest in practice guidelines may be guiding us down the wrong path.
Article from: American Journal of Law & Medicine | March 22, 2012 | Ferguson, Johanna"


http://business.highbeam.com/42/article ... ontroversy

I only give you a short quote (much more to read on the link):
"We can't treat conflicts of interest like some family secret no one talks about. We must become more comfortable asking and answering pertinent questions about the sources and substance of industry funding that might influence individuals, institutions, and organizations." (1)

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by Spanky » Sun 12 Aug 2012 15:35

"Carina":
"We can't treat conflicts of interest like some family secret no one talks about. We must become more comfortable asking and answering pertinent questions about the sources and substance of industry funding that might influence individuals, institutions, and organizations." (1)
No, Carina.

From what I can see of this article, though...it actually is, probably, itself, a good example of how the 'controversy' arose...

...in that the author doesn't present EVIDENCE to support her claims.

Two basic problems with the 'conflict' claims as they pertain to the IDSA guideline authors:

1. They never link the alleged conflicts to some purported profit that could have been dervied by the guideline authors. They just assert that this 'profit' could have happened. And by the recommendation of short courses of generic drugs? Nonsense. More basic than that, even, is the problem of people claiming conflicts of interest without understanding what the terms mean.

2. Similarly, the article refers to conflicts uncovered by the 'investigation' of AG Blumenthal. Blumenthal made such a claim at a press conference, but so far as I am aware, there was NEVER any indication of what these conflicts were. Blumenthal later even appeared to backtrack from that claim, saying that he had forced disclosures which would not have been made, otherwise. The results of Blumenthal's "investigation" have NO legally operative meaning or effect and his position is as an adversarial party, same as any other litigant. Meaning: what he says in public concerning this "investigation" has no relevancy UNTIL proven in a court of law. No filing was ever entered.

Again, nonsense.

There has been considerable discussion on the claims of alleged conflict of interest on this board. You might try reading those discussions.

X-member
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by X-member » Sun 12 Aug 2012 17:16

"The problem in Sweden"

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... 634#p26695

Carina:
I have to add that I am NOT involved in what is going on in US at all!

But sometimes I try to help BOTH SIDES with info that MIGHT help everyone.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by Spanky » Sun 12 Aug 2012 18:17

"Carina":
But sometimes I try to help BOTH SIDES with info that MIGHT help everyone.
Yeah. I have noticed your attempts to "help" everyone.

I don't think this "info" is at all helpful, and looks more like raw opinion, posing as a 'scholarly' article.

As to the "controversy"... my impression is that the controversy may have more to do with the psychological make-up of some of the proponents, than fact.

I feel that it is critically important, when trying to make sense of complex disputes, to analyze the evidence as coldly and objectively as is humanly possible.

But what I have noticed with the Lyme controversy, is that some seem to want to believe...

...and often react very emotionally when told that the evidence does not support what they want to believe... often lashing out at those that would point out the lack of support of their arguments and accusing them of participation in some nonsensical conspiracy.

I think that you also have to ask yourself if the continuation of the 'controversy' benefits anyone.

And it looks to me that given the FACT that the available evidence from RCTs strongly suggests that extended antibiotic therapy is not beneficial...

...then, I think that you have to understand that those that favor the continuation of that (very profitable) practice...must come up with some sort of counter-argument that allows some appearance of legitimacy or doubt.

In other words, the continuation of the 'controversy' benefits the ILADS/LDA/CALDA/IgeneX cartel or combine*.

*(Or, "Lyme, Inc,. if you prefer).

X-member
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by X-member » Sun 12 Aug 2012 18:22

Spanky, if you think that "some info" should not be posted in this forum, then contact admin.

Thank you!

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by Spanky » Sun 12 Aug 2012 18:29

"Carina":
Spanky, if you think that "some info" should not be posted in this forum, then contact admin.
I didn't say that the "info" shouldn't be posted...I said that I didn't think that it was HELPFUL.

Please stop wasting people's time with this and the "no comment" nonsense...and maybe consider the possibility that it is YOU that needs help understanding.

X-member
Posts: 5232
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by X-member » Sun 12 Aug 2012 18:38

Spanky:
maybe consider the possibility that it is YOU that needs help understanding.
I said (earlier):
I have to add that I am NOT involved in what is going on in US at all!

But sometimes I try to help BOTH SIDES with info that MIGHT help everyone.
Such info can be, what the medical term chronic stands for (Martian has started a topic about it), or what chronic Lyme borreliosis is.

I have noticed that at least one member in this forum, have used those defintions in the wrong way.

I can copy and past an example of this, if you think that it is (only?) me that need help, and not other people in this forum.

Edit to add:

I often use the words "no comments" when someone is rude or when I don't want to answer stupid posts.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: When did this conflict start?

Post by Spanky » Sun 12 Aug 2012 18:49

"Carina":
I often use the words "no comments" when someone is rude or when I don't want to answer stupid posts.
Then you don't need to say ANYTHING. Just ignore the post.

I don't like clicking on some damned message only to read "no comment". You're wasting my time...and that of others, as well.

And BTW...considering the lengths of patience that some have gone to on this board to try to help YOU understand...almost to the limits of human endurance...

...I think that it in just incredible for you to now talk about "rude and stupid" posts.

Post Reply