Nah. You LOST. 8-0, was the final score. No runs, no hits...lots and lots of errors.
Anyway, here is where you can find the entire text of the thing:
You might want to have a look if you are experiencing difficulty getting to sleep recently. This appeared at the Wonksite, and then disappeared:
Nonetheless...it is sort of morbidly curious in some respects, as it seems to give a sense of what the dysfunctional thinking is behind some of the Wonk's antics actually are...so...here are some things that I found curious:LYMEPOLICYWONK: IDSA guidelines: A cautionary tale about development of clinical practice guidelines
Dr. Stricker and I have published a new peer-reviewed article on the flawed IDSA Lyme guidelines development process, the antitrust investigation, and the lack of impartiality in the mandated review process run by the IDSA. (Johnson L, Stricker R. “The Infectious Diseases Society of America Lyme guidelines: A cautionary tale about development of clinical practice guidelines,” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine;5:9 2010.) The article is open access and may be freely distributed. The two lead in quotes set the stage. The first is by one of the nation’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson: ‘Without health, there is no happiness’. The second quote is by Thucydides and speaks to power and its abuse. ‘The strong do what they can; the weak endure what they must’.
Well, no. We don't in the United States, normally use legal process to attack the expression of views of others...or proceed against them on that basis under the antitrust laws. We don't subject "monopolies of opinion" to antitrust scrutiny.Traditionally, there has been no legal remedy for a flawed guideline development process.
However, in October 2007, the Attorney General of Connecticut launched a ground-breaking
antitrust investigation into the development of Lyme disease treatment guidelines by IDSA, one
of the largest medical societies in the United States . As discussed below, antitrust law is
concerned with abuses of power by those who have it. Ultimately, antitrust laws focus on
actions by ‘dominant’ organizations that constrain consumer choice and employ ‘exclusionary
conduct’ to suppress the views of competitors. In medicine, guidelines that limit the access of
patients to treatment options may constrain consumer choice. The emphasis of antitrust law in
the context of treatment guidelines is on the fairness or integrity of the guideline development
And whatever claims of the "unprecedented" nature of the antitrust action or what its "conclusions" were...none of that has ANY legal signifigance, whatever. NONE. None of that was ever judicially sanctioned in open Court. There was never even a judicial opinion that this type of "investigation" was at all appropriate under applicable antitrust laws.
Antitrust laws have evolved as a reaction to MARKETPLACE competition...unfair competition within the economic, capitalist system. They are meant as a legal remedy to a monopolistic ECONOMIC abuse.
Wonkin' on...Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:
1.Prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
2.Banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
2.Supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.
And does that then, somehow implicate the IDSA as a whole? Ridiculous.IDSA guidelines may serve as a proxy for the standard of care applied by medical boards in
unprofessional conduct actions. Before commencing an action, medical boards commonly refer
potential actions out for ‘expert’ review by members of IDSA . In addition, IDSA-affiliated
physicians testify against non-complying physicians in unprofessional conduct actions .
When organizations wield this amount of power, they can run afoul of antitrust law if they
attempt to exclude competing viewpoints, fail to control conflicts of interest, and restrict
Blatantly false.IDSA contends that it does not intend for its guidelines to be applied as mandatory treatment
protocols . However, the guidelines do not provide for treatment options or the exercise of
clinical discretion, and they fail to acknowledge the existence of divergent treatment approaches
ROTFL. Yeah, we are 'just folks', here...not wearing our CALDA hats,now, at all. Oh, no.... But when an IDSA member testifies in a disciplinary hearing? LOL. Nonsense. Absolute blithering hypocrisy.The authors of this article stand on the minority side of this debate, and the first author was
instrumental in developing the antitrust theory with a colleague, Richard Wolfram, a New York based
antitrust attorney, and in presenting that theory to the Connecticut Attorney General. Each
of the authors serves on the board of directors of CALDA and ILADS, although this article has
been written in their individual, rather than organizational capacities. In addition both presented
testimony before the IDSA Lyme guidelines review panel.
(I mean do you, can you, believe that one? LOL...translation: "well, yeah, Dr. Stricker treats patients with longterm antibiotics, the advisability of which is directly at issue, here...and he sits on the board of a business/public advocacy organization that I run and am a salaried employee of, that advocates the longterm use of antibiotics...but we are NOT talking about OUR financial interests, here...no...we have ascended the mountain and are only talking at the highest ethical, philosophical heights of legal-medico type-stuff").
Say what? What do you mean "?According to Richard Wolfram, the antitrust attorney in New York who was involved in the
investigation, ‘Because standard setting by competitors supplants competition, the process must
be fair, open, and not subject to any bias by participants with economic interests in stifling
completion, especially when the standard-setting is done by an association…that is highly
influential or dominant in the relevant market place’.
"...involved in the INVESTIGATION"?
How? In what way? You mean that this pal of the Wonk's was involved, worked on the investigation itself? And by the way...here is what the Wonk had to say about this, some time ago on the Wonksite:
http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/179.htmlIn Fall of 2005, I received a call from my husband who was attending a high school reunion in Texas. He was having coffee with an old high school friend, Richard Wolfram, an antitrust attorney based in New York. My husband set his cell phone on speaker and placed it in the middle of the table, saying, “I think you two need to talk about antitrust and the IDSA.” With that began a collaborative effort between Richard and me to develop the antitrust theory that would become the basis for the investigation.
Three months into the project, my husband died and Richard relentlessly prodded me to continue with the project. With the antitrust legal framework in hand, we needed to capture the interest of an Attorney General who had the vision and intestinal fortitude to launch an investigation. Time for Lyme, which had assisted with the Connecticut Attorney General Lyme hearings in 2004 contacted their office and arranged a meeting for Richard and me to discuss a potential investigation. From developing the theory and working out the factual base to fielding issues in the settlement, including panel selection, presenter selection, timeframes, and even viewing issues for the hearing, we could not have undertaken this effort without Richard’s assistance.
My legal efforts on the project were provided without charge as a CALDA volunteer. Richard donated an enormous amount of time at no charge and his other legal costs were provided at a substantial discount. The legal costs were borne by CALDA,
When she says that the costs of Richard's work were "borne by CALDA"...I assume what she MEANT to say was that the costs were borne by the contributions of Lyme patients.