IDSA has announced its list of panelists

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
savieria
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 4 Nov 2007 18:09

IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by savieria » Wed 28 Jan 2009 2:39

http://www.idsociety.org/
http://www.idsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=13310

Statement from IDSA on Selection of Panelists for Review

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) announces the selection of a special review panel to examine whether the Society’s Lyme disease guidelines, published in 2006, should be revised or updated based on a rigorous review of the medical and scientific evidence.

IDSA is conducting this review as part of its voluntary agreement with the Attorney General of Connecticut, who had questioned the process used by IDSA’s previous guidelines panel. It is important to note that at no point were the medical findings of IDSA’s Lyme disease guidelines panel questioned by the Connecticut investigation. All recommendations from IDSA’s 2006 practice guidelines remain in effect.

Members of the review panel were selected through an open application process to ensure that the panel as a group reflects a balanced variety of perspectives and experience. Panel members come from a broad range of relevant disciplines, including clinical experience in treating patients with Lyme disease and experience in investigating the best methods to diagnose and treat Lyme disease and other infectious diseases. In addition to conducting a thorough literature review, the panel will hold a public hearing that will be available online and will solicit additional input.

As agreed by all parties, all review panel members, including the chairperson, were screened for potential conflicts of interest and were deemed eligible by ombudsman and medical ethicist Howard Brody, MD, PhD, author of “Hooked: Ethics, the Medical Profession, and the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Dr. Brody was jointly selected by IDSA and the Office of the Attorney General.

The chairperson of the review panel is Carol J. Baker, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and pediatrician with Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. Dr. Baker has more than three decades of experience treating patients and is professor of pediatrics, molecular virology and microbiology, and head of the section of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine. She is a past president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID) and IDSA.

Following is a list of selected panelists:

Carol J. Baker, MD, Chair Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
William A. Charini, MD, Peabody, MA
Paul H. Duray, MD, (Retired), Westwood, MA
Paul M. Lantos, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Gerald Medoff, MD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
Manuel H. Moro, DVM, MPH, PhD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
David M. Mushatt, MD, MPH & TM, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
Jeffrey Parsonnet, MD, Dartmouth‐Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
Cmdr. John W. Sanders, MD, U.S. Navy, Naval Medical Research Center Detachment, Peru
Arthur Weinstein, MD, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC

ahhclem
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat 29 Sep 2007 21:51

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by ahhclem » Wed 28 Jan 2009 14:24

Does anyone know if this good news or bad news?

User avatar
LymeEnigma
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 18:26
Location: The Nevada Desert, USA
Contact:

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by LymeEnigma » Thu 29 Jan 2009 2:08

I'm not familiar with any of those names. Maybe someone else here is....

lou
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri 2 Nov 2007 0:41

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by lou » Thu 29 Jan 2009 2:13

Bad news. And predictable.

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by rlstanley » Thu 29 Jan 2009 2:41

Bad news. And predictable.
Why is that?

Give details.

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by OneGuest » Thu 29 Jan 2009 15:40

Info is from canlyme.com discussion forum.
subject title:New IDSA Guidelines Panel
(there is not a specific link to their topics, on my computer)

http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lyme_blog_2/25.html
IDSA Announces New Guidelines Panel--Balanced or Biased?

The IDSA panel list for the Lyme disease guidelines review panel were announced on Monday. The IDSA has a history of stacking its guidelines panels with like-minded experts and excluding divergent points of view. For patients this has meant limited or no treatment options. Imagine a prostate cancer panel of surgeons only—radiation, hormone treatment and watchful waiting might no longer be viable treatment options.

How well-informed would surgeons be of alternatives to surgery? After the antitrust investigation launched by the Connecticut Attorney General, the IDSA was forced, as part of its settlement agreement, to have its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines reviewed by a new panel.

The 2006 panel was riddled with conflicts of interest, exclusion of divergent viewpoints, and suppression of scientific evidence.

The settlement agreement requires that the IDSA establish a panel of 8-12 members (including the chair) “who, as a group, reflect a balanced variety of perspectives and experience across a broad range of relevant disciplines, ranging from clinical experience in treating patients with Lyme disease to experience in investigating the best methods to diagnose and treat Lyme disease or other infectious diseases” to review the recommendations in its guidelines.

A medical-ethicist, Dr. Howard Brody, was selected by the Attorney General and the IDSA to ensure that panel members were free of conflicts of interest.

The IDSA panel list:

Carol J. Baker
Houston, Tx

William A. Charina, MD
Peabody, MA

Paul H. Duray, MD (retired)
Westwood, MA

Paul M. Lantos, MD
Duke University Medical Center
Durham, NC

Gerald Medoff, MD
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, MO

Manuel H. Moro, DVM, MPH, PhD
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, MD

David M. Mushatt, MD, MPH & TM
Tulane University School of Medicine
New Orleans, LA

Jeffrey Parsonnet, MD
Dartmouth ]Hitchcock Medical Center
Lebanon, NH

Cmdr. John W. Sanders, MD
U.S. Navy
Naval Medical Research Center Detachment, Peru

Arthur Weinstein, MD
Washington Hospital Center
Washington, DC

A number of the panel members have known biases.

Carol Baker, the chairperson, is the past president of the IDSA and her ability to be impartial is compromised by this.

Arthur Weinstein was involved in the vaccine trials and was sued by patients who were injured because of those trials. He was also involved in development of three Lyme disease guidelines and the flawed western blot criteria. (The settlement agreement precludes members of prior Lyme disease guidelines from sitting on the new panel.)

Jeffrey Parsonett has expressed his pro-IDSA bias on public radio.

William Charini has been affiliated with the Lahey Clinic, which routinely denies care to Lyme patients and is reported to have been personally been dismissive of Lyme patients.

Even more distressing, in a misguided stab at conflicts of interest control by the ethicist, all physicians who treat Lyme disease and receive income of more than $10,000 per year were excluded from the panel. To put this in perspective, if a physician saw more than one patient per week, he would be excluded for bias.

This means the panel will have no expertise on the treatment of chronic Lyme disease. Excluding treating physicians from serving on this panel is as absurd as excluding cardiologists from serving on a cardiology panel.

Beyond this, open-minded physicians who do not treat Lyme disease were excluded by the IDSA because of their lack of experience. This included highly qualified physicians who were well-published in the research arena, had editing experience, and taught at leading academic institutions.

We are watching this closely, monitoring the situation, and voicing patient concerns. If you have information on any of the proposed panelists that you believe impairs their ability to serve on the panel impartially, please email me privately at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org
http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lyme_blog_2/26.html
Weinstein Off the IDSA Guidelines Review Panel!

Arthur Weinstein's role on the IDSA's Lyme guidelines review panel was short lived. Today's list of panel members posted on the IDSA website excludes him. Patient groups were alarmed when he was included in the IDSA's panel list posted by the IDSA on Monday. Weinstein was at NYMC with Dr. Gary Wormser, who was the chair of the 2006 IDSA guidelines panel, which the Connecticut Attorney General investigated and found had been riddled with conflicts of interest , excluded divergent points of view and suppressed scientific evidence. Weinstein was a co-author on the Klempner study, on the safety monitoring board for the vaccines, and involved in the flawed western blot testing (Dearborn Conference). His removal from the panel is a step in the right direction for Lyme patients.
KellyP has added another background check:
Here is Dr. Brody's blog for a little light reading:

http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/

AND here is his Bio. at the University of Texas including his e-mail address:

http://www.utmb.edu/imh/faculty.asp?FacID=53
OG

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by OneGuest » Thu 29 Jan 2009 20:41

http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb ... 820#000074
some posters on LN have done some background checks on review panel members, and
this info is available at end of the thread.

OG

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

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by Spanky » Thu 29 Jan 2009 21:30

OneGuest wrote:http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb ... 820#000074
some posters on LN have done some background checks on review panel members, and
this info is available at end of the thread.

OG

(Well, for starters, it is sort of baffling to me why a prior association with the IDSA might be considered to be some sort of a problem when it is the Guidelines of the IDSA we are talking about...but I guess that if you have some sort of good guy v. bad guy religious view of this, then)...

At the time that the "great victory" was proclaimed by CALDA spokespersons, as I recall, the standards and rules of review were posted at numerous places on the internet. As well as the qualifications of the panel members.

If I am not mistaken, those rules leave undisturbed and in place, the current Guideline recommendations UNLESS there is a 3/4 vote of the panel to override...according to the rules as established by the agreement with Blumenthal's office.

Now, aside from the obvious question of how could anything that contains a provision like that be considered to be a "great victory" ...

...the other obvious question is why does the composition of the panel really matter?

Does anyone seriously think that a 3/4 vote is going to occur on any major recommendation?

rlstanley
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2007 2:53

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by rlstanley » Thu 29 Jan 2009 23:41

SR wrote:
If I am not mistaken, those rules leave undisturbed and in place, the current Guideline recommendations UNLESS there is a 3/4 vote of the panel to override...according to the rules as established by the agreement with Blumenthal's office.
Correct. See the agreement between the Attorney General and the IDSA:

http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/health/idsaagreement.pdf
Now, aside from the obvious question of how could anything that contains a provision like that be considered to be a "great victory" ...

According to news articles and a press release http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/N ... 80501.html, Lyme Disease Association, (LDA), CALDA, and Time for Lyme and some patients declared that the settlement by CT AG Blumenthal was a victory. Quote from the PR: 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.
Does anyone seriously think that a 3/4 vote is going to occur on any major recommendation?
LNE didn't think it was a victory, predicting no or minor revisions; 'partial revision' was a distant second. See: http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/view ... =14&t=1235

Nothing has changed since that time except declaring the people on the committee. Who did these people who declared 'victory' think WOULD or SHOULD be placed on the roster? Who could meet the selection criteria (see page 2 of the Exhibit 1 Action plan in PDF file cited)? I suspect associations with LymeLand uncredentialed gurus or self-proclaimed experts might work against inclusion....

Is the composition of the panel going to be the excuse used when the 'victory' is ultimately declared not to be?

Hey, maybe the idea of adding a disclaimer to the IDSA guidelines--like you see on ILADS 'guidelines'-could be thrown past the committee. Curious to hear what they think about THAT one.
.

.
Last edited by rlstanley on Sat 31 Jan 2009 18:29, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: IDSA has announced its list of panelists

Post by Spanky » Fri 30 Jan 2009 5:37

Rita said: "Is the composition of the panel going to be the excuse used when the 'victory' is ultimately declared not to be"?

You've got me...yes, at some point, it would seem that the "victory" will be shown to be nothing at all. No clothes on that sucker, emperor-wise.

It would seem that we are just trying to delay or hide the announcement, the recognition of the real state of non-clothed affairs. And here, take a look at this, from:

http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lyme_blog_2/31.html
===========================================================================================
Q:"Why were treating physicians excluded from the panel"?

A: "The ethicist rejected physicians who derived more than $10,000 per year from treating Lyme patients from the panel on the basis of a conflict of interest. Normally, a conflict of interest occurs when a competing secondary interest may interfere with the physician's ability to place the concerns of the patient paramount. While physicians are incentivized to treat patients under common fee for service arrangements, these interests are generally regarded as being aligned with those of the patient care. Marc Rodwin, the author of Medicine, Money, and Morals, and an expert on physician conflicts, lists 7 potential conflicts of interest physicians may have in treating a patient. Notably, fee for service is not among those listed. We strongly disagree with the ethicists interpretation of this".

Q: "Wasn't there a requirement that the panel be balanced"?

A: "The settlement agreement does require that the panel be balanced. We believe that the panel cannot be balanced unless treating physicians are included in the panel and that the concept of bias (beliefs, opinions, predispositions) matters in this context". (My emphasis).
============================================================================================

Of course, and obviously, that does not exclude "treating physicians". It excludes physicians who have the treatment of Lyme as a major part of their practice, especially, "LLMD"s. And they should be excluded, in fairness, as anyone whose practice involves this to a major extent has a high probability of being biased. The opposite interpretation would allow LLMDs while not allowing IDSA members. And that,CALDA disagrees with? Sounds like they want to stack the deck to me.

So, yes, it would appear that CALDA is lining up an excuse.

This whole deal has to be one of the strangest misadventures ever in Lymeland...and what I find personally disturbing is this proclamation of "victory" coming from CALDA, whose executive director is an attorney and who, one would think, should certainly know better.

The whole damn thing was never "real' in the first place, in my opinion. More of a show, bizarre political theater, than anything. And it sure looks like the "agreement" was a convenient way for Blumenthal to dump the whole messy thing and still allow some sort of face-saving for himself and his LDA "friends" politically.
And the IDSA attorneys were very shrewd in allowing this "agreement".

But it has to stand, for me, at least, for what is absolutely wrong with the current confrontational approach.

You simply cannot force a resolution of a question of scientific fact through muscled legal or political intervention...and it is, in my opinion, horribly inept political judgment to have even tried this in the first place. (The underlying basis for the claim of intervention; the claimed antitrust issue, was, at best, wishful thinking, an extraordinary stretch of interpretation of applicable law).

So far as I am aware, there was no lawsuit ever filed, (as has been frequently mis-stated), but the investigation was undertaken pursuant to a general power to investigate an alleged civil antitrust situation.

But this involves the request of a state law enforcement official, using the full pwowers of government, to investigate private, individual, personal records, based, I guess, upon the mere suspicions of a few politically-connected "activists". Friends of his. And for all of those who think this was such a damned good thing to do, I would simply ask how you would feel if the attorney general was going through your records based upon the suspicions of a neighbor who doesn't like you and has friends in high places?

And did they really expect that such an "investigation" was going to produce anything? Anything at all? Really? Was there really an "investigation"? How much of one? Was is really just a facade? Paper tiger? How many hours were expended?

Did the LDA get dropped off and left on the side of the road?

Sure looks like it.

And certainly, it was blatantly deceptive to have so falsely raised expectations as if the damn thing had any hope whatever of being "real" or producing anything of substance.

I would have to think that this sort of thing...arguably an attempt to bully or leverage the medical/scientific community through political/legal pressure exerted by laypersons...would cause the scientific community to just become infuriated, disgusted and feel that the very integrity of the scientific process is under assault. Barbarians at the gate. That sort of thing.

And is this what we really want?

So, the question becomes (as it sometimes is in these things) are the LDA/CALDA types being manipulative and intentionally deceptive in what they have reported to the patient community?

Or...are they being just incredibly clueless and extremely bumblingly politically naive?

And which is really worse?

Post Reply