A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
User avatar
LymeEnigma
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 18:26
Location: The Nevada Desert, USA
Contact:

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by LymeEnigma » Thu 22 Nov 2007 5:07

cave76 wrote:The word that came up in that discussion was "top-tier' llmds.

I had an 'A HA' moment and it became clear----- ILADS is in sore need of money. Almost anyone can become an ILADS member. Some of the new members will go through a mentoring week with another established ILADS doc.

But that doesn't mean that the new member won't go back to his/her practice and revert back to previous training and/or beliefs; as in----herbs and supplements ---- if he had been trained as an ND or works under the aegis of an MD who is alternative minded and calls the shots in that practice. :(

And that has happened, I know for a fact.
That's a good point....
cave76 wrote:To touch lightly on the 'sins' of Stricker------I can't say much for sure except that I imagine that the same flaw can probably be found in almost any M.D. who walks this earth.

Assuming that he DID do what his detractors say he did---- I don't know who those detractors are or their motives behind sussing out his infraction: I've been around the block too many times to not be aware that there is always another side.
No assuming necessary; I have a couple of press releases on the matter right here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A967958260
http://www.aegis.org/news/sc/1991/SC911114.html

One can belittle these "sins" as much as one wants, but the fact of the matter remains that Stricker has been caught lying in the past -- specifically for further NIH funding -- and this is okay because he is a beloved LLMD? NO, it is NOT okay. I don't care who the hell he is. He lied. He altered statistics so that his conclusion would fit his faulty hypothesis. That is not good medicine in my book, no matter who the researcher is.
cave76 wrote:And if he DID do it---then---- I'm seeing him for his ability to think clearly and to stick to science (our best bet so far), not to fall in love with him. :)

I'd see the Devil Himself if he could do everything Dr. Stricker has done for me and for others.
That's what is most sad, that we live in a world where the sickest of the sick must resort to such lows in order to get treatment....

NellyP
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 18:22

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by NellyP » Thu 22 Nov 2007 12:27

One can belittle these "sins" as much as one wants, but the fact of the matter remains that Stricker has been caught lying in the past -- specifically for further NIH funding -- and this is okay because he is a beloved LLMD? NO, it is NOT okay. I don't care who the hell he is. He lied. He altered statistics so that his conclusion would fit his faulty hypothesis. That is not good medicine in my book, no matter who the researcher is.
Most researchers give their data the twist that will make them match, somehow.

When I was a young, naive budding academic (in the field of linguistics not medicine) I was outraged at what I saw being done! You had to take sides and then you had to stick to it no matter what. Nobody cares about "the truth", people care about publishing something that will give them the degree, the PhD, the fundings, the fame, the reputation, the power etc.

I suffered horribly in the early days of my "career" from such behaviour, it stopped me dead in my tracks as I could not function like that. I decided to leave and go cycling! I got Lyme Disease from the cycling/camping lifestyle which I embraced after I left the University. So in fact I can say "bad researchers gave me Lyme Disease" I don't mind if the same kind of researchers help me get my life back!!

Nelly

kelmo
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 21:31
Location: Valley of the Sun

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by kelmo » Thu 22 Nov 2007 16:41

My LLMD is fairly new to the game compared to some of the docs. He started really looking into it about ten years ago. Since then, it's become 90% of his practice. He, too, refers to the Burrascano guidelines as a cookbook to refer to, but you can take or add what you need in any specific case.

What amazes me is the vast array of reactions people have to different abx and treatments. There CAN'T be ONE way to treat!

I've heard "hit hard", and I've seen great results with some people in our support group...then their livers blow up, and their treatment comes to a halt. I've seen great results with those who start small and work up, preventing the mind blowing herx.

What I appreciate in any of the Lyme docs is their willingness to listen and learn. I think their willingness to be vulnerable makes them more precious. It's 180 degress different from anything we were exposed to in our search for answers with ducks.

This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for our doc.

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

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by LymeEnigma » Thu 22 Nov 2007 18:05

Nelly P said: "Most researchers give their data the twist that will make them match, somehow.

When I was a young, naive budding academic (in the field of linguistics not medicine) I was outraged at what I saw being done! You had to take sides and then you had to stick to it no matter what. Nobody cares about "the truth", people care about publishing something that will give them the degree, the PhD, the fundings, the fame, the reputation, the power etc."
1) Everyone does it so it's okay? Is that what you're saying?

2) If he lied about AIDS, what makes one so certain that he would not also lie about Lyme?

3) I'd like to see how quickly the people who are blowing off the significance of this issue would have jumped on the bandwagon, should I have dug up Wormser's or Steere's pasts, instead ... I'd have put money down that such acts would definitely not have been deemed acceptable by any means.

Nick
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 19:10
Location: Zeeland, Netherlands

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by Nick » Thu 22 Nov 2007 23:10

LymeEnigma wrote:3) I'd like to see how quickly the people who are blowing off the significance of this issue would have jumped on the bandwagon, should I have dug up Wormser's or Steere's pasts, instead ... I'd have put money down that such acts would definitely not have been deemed acceptable by any means.
difference being that those two still have their nasty habits ...

NellyP
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 18:22

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by NellyP » Thu 22 Nov 2007 23:52

1) Everyone does it so it's okay? Is that what you're saying?
I didn't say it was OK, I said it just IS/WAS/WILL BE (probably?).

And from what I have seen, the bad ones do it and the good ones do it too, that's all I am saying. I obviously don't think it's OK, I left my job over it (among other things related to the same issue of intellectual honesty and true real interest in one's research)

Nelly

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

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by LymeEnigma » Fri 23 Nov 2007 17:02

Nick wrote:
LymeEnigma wrote:3) I'd like to see how quickly the people who are blowing off the significance of this issue would have jumped on the bandwagon, should I have dug up Wormser's or Steere's pasts, instead ... I'd have put money down that such acts would definitely not have been deemed acceptable by any means.
difference being that those two still have their nasty habits ...
How do we really know that difference lies between them? How do we know that Stricker's not playing the same games now as in the past, only instead of messing with AIDS patients, he's now messing with chronic Lyme patients? How do we know that the "Stricker Panel" really isn't the joke the rest of the medical community sees it to be? What if the joke is on us?

You are entitled to your opinion; I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from in mine.
Last edited by LymeEnigma on Fri 23 Nov 2007 18:19, edited 1 time in total.

kelmo
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun 28 Oct 2007 21:31
Location: Valley of the Sun

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by kelmo » Fri 23 Nov 2007 17:17

Isn't Stricker the doc who came up with the CD57 test?

Some docs swear by it, some think it's manure.

Will we know what became of the AIDS study? That was 1991. Was it validated? Was it shown to be false reporting? I noticed he said the false reporting wasn't his fault. What is his remission rate with regard to Lyme....Cave?

I don't know how the funding works for doc research. Do they have to do the research, then file for funding? Do they make a proposal based on theory, then ask for funding?

In my opinion, the guy who has the website and prominent photo with the tanned face, coiffed hair, and brilliantine teeth, and pumps out a book a year with all new amazing facts, is the one to question.

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

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by LymeEnigma » Fri 23 Nov 2007 18:19

Yes ... ILADS calls the CD-57 test the "Stricker Panel;" the test is considered a worthless waste of money to most of the rest of the medical community.

NellyP
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 18:22

Re: A critical appraisal of the ILADS and the so-called LLMDs

Post by NellyP » Fri 23 Nov 2007 18:48

LymeEnigma wrote:Yes ... ILADS calls the CD-57 test the "Stricker Panel;" the test is considered a worthless waste of money to most of the rest of the medical community.
From what i have been able to assess from what people have posted over the years, the CD57 test does not give clear-cut answers re: how Lyme patients are doing, but I have no idea whether it gives some answers if one knows how to do the test and read the test.

The fact that the rest of the medical community think it's crap is neither here nor there AFAIC.

I agree with you, LymeEnigma, we should be able and allowed to be critical of LLMDs too when they don't behave right, but we are aware that they are more vulnerable than other more mainstream docs, so we have to do it only when we have first-hand experience of misbehaviour on their part, not hearsay, don't you think?

I have been critical of an ILADS member once bacause I thought the bills for services rendered were outrageously high and I stopped seeing the said doctor (couldn't have afforded it anyway).

I don't know Stricker, but I know my ID doctor and I know that he is very kind, intelligent and an intellectually honest individual yet I suspect/know that the way he treats people with our kinds of chronic infections has made him lose a lot of credibility among his peers. In medical circles you lose your reputation more easily if you REALLY try to treat patients rather than merely do what others do.

Nelly

Post Reply