Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Wed 21 Dec 2011 5:58

"RitaA":
I apologize for misunderstanding you, Spanky,

Well, I don't think that anyone should feel compelled to apologize for "misundertsanding" anyone.

But I do feel that people should apologize when another person objects to something that was said and tells the person saying it that they found it to be offensive. I also think that apologies should be given freely and easily.

As I said, it's up to you whether you find it to be appropriate to apologize or not...but what I found to be offensive wasn't that you 'misunderstood' me...but that you attempted to mischaracterize my remarks in an inappropriate manner...'putting words in my mouth' that very clearly weren't there. That's not appropriate, in my opinion.
"...but this may indeed be a "chronic" condition for which there really is no cure".
Sorry to hear that.

Because if you indeed, cannot differentiate between the speaker...and what they are saying...then you are going to have a lot of trouble on the internet, let alone, here.

There was a well-publicized example of this...just the other day here. A Federal judge dressed down an attorney and publicly blasted a post-trial motion they had filed, referring to it as "hare-brained". Now, kind of embarrassing for the attorney, happened in front of the media and the entire city and state in the post-sentencing conviction of our former governor.

(So, as some have suggested, it probably should have been spelled: "hair-brained". That's a pretty funny joke...if you have a mental image of Illinois' former governor).

But the judge wasn't calling the attorney "hare-brained", you see...just talking about the lack of substance of their motion. (And the judge was certainly correct).

You can call a proposition like the 'tick advisory committee' stupid...without calling the people who think it is a good idea...stupid.

Haven't you EVER heard someone say to you, "that's a STUPID idea"?

And for the record, I wasn't "mocking' my fellow citizens, for crying out loud...or calling them 'dumb' or anything else.

As I believe I said, I think they are being "used and abused".

You might want to look at this, also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Henry » Wed 21 Dec 2011 14:30

RitaA: I agree, Rita. The key is to get your information from reliable sources. I found congressional staffers to be quite well informed and tend to think that the CDC and NIH could be more proactive in getting reliable information to congress.

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Henry » Wed 21 Dec 2011 15:12

RitA: I am especially concerned about the tendency of Lyme disease activists and their organizations to condemn and disparage organizations like the IDSA, CDC, and NIH, as though they are all involved in some worldwide conspiracy; that is ridiculous. Most of the recommendations made by these organizations are based on the results of evidence-based research presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is "rock-solid" research, in many cases supported by NIH funding that is very competitive to obtain. If it -- and the scientists who do such work-- can't be trusted, then where does one go to get reliable information?

However, there are certain conflict of interest issues that promote the status quo. In the case of prolonged antibiotic therapy for the treatment of chronic Lyme disease, where is the financial gain in recommending short-term treatment with an oral generic antibiotic that cost "pennies" to complete? That pales in comparison to the cost involved for long-term intravenous antibiotic therapy, administered by a drug infusion company, that is a major supporter of ILADS. The question to ask is who gains from all of this? Certainly not the patient.

X-member
Posts: 7632
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by X-member » Wed 21 Dec 2011 17:04

Sorry, I changed my mind! I don't have time to discuss this right now, so I removed my post!

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

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Wed 21 Dec 2011 17:22

"Carina":
Sorry, I changed my mind! I don't have time to discuss this right now, so I removed my post!
Yes. And when you did that, my reply could no longer be posted either, because the post that I was replying to disappeared, as did my reply. 'Requested post no longer exists'. Thanks.

So...Carina had asked if these attempts to pass legislation weren't necessary to 'protect' doctors who needed to treat patients in 'special' circumstances...

And I had replied that, no, they are not, in my opinion.

Because, as Carina herself, noted in another post, there is a specific section (some call it a 'disclaimer') within the IDSA Guidelines that specifically states that a physician is to exercise clinical judgment and not rely solely on the GUIDELINES.

And...that Jones had been brought before the disciplinary board in Connecticut in spite of the existence of this type of legislation.

But I also suggested that this type of 'stuff' is the kind of thing that grassroots political organizations do in order to justify their existence...to keep the 'little people' emptying their checkbooks in their direction.

X-member
Posts: 7632
Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 18:18

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by X-member » Wed 21 Dec 2011 17:36

Thank you for your reply Spanky!

I do not agree with you, but I do not have time to discuss this right now, I am sorry!

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

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Wed 21 Dec 2011 17:44

"Carina":
I do not agree with you, but I do not have time to discuss this right now, I am sorry!
That's okay, Carina. I certainly would never be foolish enough to object to the God-given right of every female on this planet to change her mind. (Frequently). :lol:

Or...the right of every American citizen under the 1st Amendment to 'mock' his fellow citizens, for that matter, either.

I wasn't saying that I never do that...I do it all the time. I was just saying that I wasn't doing it in that instance.

And I enjoy it.

Favorite targets: Republicans. Green Bay Packer fans. University of Michigan fans. People from Wisconsisn. (It's not serious, just good-natured fun). People who think green bean casserole is a side-dish. LymeNUTS. ILADS. Judges. The list goes on...and on...

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

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Wed 21 Dec 2011 18:08

RR raised a very good point in his blog today. Ironically enough, I was noting the very same thing last night and actually kept a cut-and-paste on my desktop for posting today:

http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/faq/index.html#whattodo
What is CDC doing about Lyme disease?

CDC has a program of service, research, and education focusing on the prevention and control of Lyme disease. Activities of this program include:
  • Maintaining and analyzing national surveillance data for Lyme disease
    Conducting epidemiologic investigations
    Offering diagnostic and reference laboratory services
    Developing and testing strategies for the control and prevention of this disease in humans
    Supporting education of the public and health care providers

Page last reviewed: May 19, 2011 Page last updated: November 28, 2011
Here's only part of the RR blog entry I'm referring to:

http://relative-risk.blogspot.com/2011/ ... sease.html
“Northern Virginia and Loudoun County, in particular, are at the center of a Lyme epidemic,” Wolf said. “I know how devastating this disease can be and will continue to push for a cure and raise awareness to help people from getting it in the first place.”

Well, not exactly ground-breaking legislation. CDC is pretty much doing everything that Wolf’s bill urges CDC to do. The problem is not what federal agencies are doing, but rather what people like Wolf think they should be doing.

[snip]

Perhaps the thing to do in the future is to work with Wolf’s staff and ignore the congressman altogether. Twenty-thousand staffers out-number, out-read and out-reason 545 congressional members.
Rita A

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

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Wed 21 Dec 2011 18:21

Henry,

You wrote:
The question to ask is who gains from all of this? Certainly not the patient.
Unfortunately, Lyme disease patients are the ones who get stuck in the middle of all the controversy. That point often gets missed.

Rita A

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

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Wed 21 Dec 2011 18:22

"RitaA":
Perhaps the thing to do in the future is to work with Wolf’s staff and ignore the congressman altogether. Twenty-thousand staffers out-number, out-read and out-reason 545 congressional members.
That's basically true at all levels of American government. It's a very complex system, even at the local levels.

The elected officials make speeches...and the basic time demands of the job don't allow them to master all the details of complicated issues. They rely on staffers to digest and analyze the issues for them at times.

The staffers do the work and can even control policy positions taken by the elected official, because they have control over what information, control the flow of information, that reaches the elected official.

"Inside baseball", as this kind of thing is known , sometimes, the down-n-dirty day-to-day mechanics of the art of politics...how things actually get done, but not necessarily a digression, here, either, because when you are talking about trying to pass legislation, the art of politics and the sophistication of the 'player' is certainly a consideration.

And...(I am 'mocking', now)...the LDA/CALDA batting average is about .100 or so...and it's a wonder they can even find the batter's box.
Last edited by Spanky on Wed 21 Dec 2011 18:41, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply