I leave to go off and do other things, and come back to all this excitement...
Problem with you and many others is you're not going to believe anyone until you've experienced it firsthand.
You are either misunderstanding everything Henry and others before him have ever so patiently explained, or you are indeed turning up your nose to science. Scientists and physicians don't need to experience everything first hand, although granted, it would perhaps give some a bit more compassion towards the suffering of others. This would especially apply to rare diseases that are not easily diagnosed or those with symptoms not readily visible, the 'hidden illnesses'. It would also possibly give them more tolerance against patient-activists that do stupid human tricks - things like publicly accuse them of committing federal offenses without any apparent evidence.
I think more compassion towards the suffering of others would go a long way, personally. It would help - even if doctors do not agree with their patient's own self-diagnosis or test results come back inconclusive.
Given that we now have evidence that some people get ill with Borrelia miyamotoi and it is harder to diagnose than Lyme disease due to few people getting EM rashes and having tests which are negative for Lyme disease, it is important that doctors believe their patients when they say they got a tick bite and think they might have Lyme disease even if they have no rash. Treating the infection as soon as possible is more important than the patient getting the name of the disease right - the doctor can tell them they call it relapsing fever if they want or just say "Borreliosis".
Re the federal offenses: If any are committed, that's for a court of law to determine. I am still not completely clear on what all the accusations are/were. If you are talking about the anti-trust investigation, I was particularly ill when that was going on and not blogging or looking into all of this Lyme controversy as much yet.
Now, what does (not) need to happen is certain 'LLMDs' need to muster up enough support from people who either don't know better or refuse to learn, and then pit them against scientists and physicians who disagree with their opinions as to diagnostic and treatment protocols.
(not)? Why did you phrase it this way?
Bagge wrote: If ILADS and those doctors under who allege they are being unfairly persecuted by the medical boards want to stay in business, they need to keep the masses dumbed down about the patient injustices they've committed. That's fairly easy. They can do that.
Well, there are individual doctors and there is ILADS. I think that some individual LLMDs are pretty good doctors, and I don't see them making weak or unsupported claims - they try to treat patients as best as they can; they look for evidence to support their decisions such as clinical history, serology, symptom presentation; they rule out other conditions.
On the other hand, there are a few bad apples in the bunch (both ILADS and not ILADS) who have been involved and they need(ed) to go - or in my opinion, should not have become an LLMD in the first place. I've already written about one such doctor in my blog and also here (the doctor you seem so keen to bring up over and over is someone I wrote extensively about a while ago - thus my desire to move on, plus it was off topic for the thread).
I support doctors who are doing a good job and treating patients well, and who are professional and recognize when there's a need to refer out to other specialists in the patient's best interest. I do not support doctors who are engaged in egregious behavior and not doing their homework. But that's not just an ILADS thing
- I support ANY doctor who is doing a good job and treats patients well and do not support doctors who engage in egregious behavior and don't do their homework.
I disagree with your statement that "the masses are being dumbed down about patient injustices". If any doctor has done something egregious, patients know about it - they compare notes; they offer references to see certain doctors and avoid others. They will vote with their feet and go elsewhere.
There are activists who want to avoid calling attention to doctors who have allegations made against them, and I think someone like you asks why that is. I think it's obvious:
First, if they are only allegations, the doctor may be completely innocent and any charges may be unfounded. Should one drag the name of someone else through the mud before they are even proven to be guilty of the charges?
Second, the allegations may only be minor and get dismissed - but you can still damage someone's reputation by spreading discussion about them widely.
Third (and this is number one on an activist's list) if a doctor loses his ability to practice or has to change the way he practices medicine due to some minor charge, they may not be able to treat Lyme disease patients at all (some of the board decisions boiled down to this, depending on where it happened). Patients do not want to lose their doctors.
It really boils down to that last sentence: Patients do not want to lose their doctors.
In my opinion, given this is the case - doctors should do the best job they can and treat patients well; avoid causing harm or at least take risks where the benefits:risk is high. I get upset when I hear about allegations towards an LLMD, and it's even worse when it's something serious and it turns out that those allegations were correct and weren't just about giving someone extra antibiotics but about someone really blowing it (e.g. harassing or raping a patient; injecting them with bismuth and killing them).
These are known issues. Any patient I know knows these individuals exist. But just because they exist doesn't mean there are not good LLMDs out there who are ethical, helpful, and try to keep treatment evidence-based and inexpensive for their patients. There are, and patients will continue to see them.
It's always easier to get someone who is suffering from one thing or another and provoke them with misleading propaganda in order to stir hate, fear, controversy and doubt. On a lesser level, most people master this approach in kindergarten - "Your mommy is a .... and your daddy said ....., so I'm gonna .... you..... Na, na, na na, na!"
If your concern is that patients are being stirred up by misleading propaganda in order to stir hate, fear, controversy, and doubt, what do you think is the best way to change that?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are people here who call Dr. MacDonald a troglodyte or tell him to go back to his basement in order to insult and mock him. So glad to know they've mastered this approach. But it doesn't strengthen their arguments/position or encourage respect for them in terms of their character.
So why do it? Why resort to ad hominem attacks and insults to make a point? You can disagree with someone else or think their research is flawed - whatever - without having to insult them.
An ILADS doctor of the past, or perhaps still a member, claims that wearing rainbow colored fingernail polish will boost your immune system or something about building T-cells or whatever. The reference is documented elsewhere on this forum. Try looking it up for yourself this time. Do you think it's appropriate, or even standard of care in the treatment of an infectious disease, for a licensed medical doctor practicing medicine in the United States (Washington state in case the FBI, medical boards or news outlets are reading this) to be telling patients that their choice of nail polish will have any significant effect upon their immune system? Yes, indeed, one can only hope that physician will come under 'persecution' from his respective medical board, and soon.
How about you Camp Other**? Do you paint your fingernails, or leave them natural? Would you suggest that low-income patients spend their money toward physician's fees and medical 'products', such as nail polish and similar treatments?
Um. No, no nail polish here. I wouldn't wear nail polish under any circumstances I can think of, either.
And actually, I think wearing and inhaling nail polish can have a bad effect on one's health - particularly if one is allergic to the components in it, has asthma, or for whatever reason is sensitive to chemicals in it. Even the NIH agrees with me:
Nail polish poisoning: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0003277/
You can also develop contact dermatitis from wearing it.
And no, I do NOT support this individual's claim that nail polish boosts T-cell production. He would have to provide evidence - and I haven't seen any.
Just because I said I was agnostic on alternative medicine elsewhere doesn't mean I'm in support of all of it or in support of spending money on products or practices which are tied to weakly supported claims.
If you are not sensitive or allergic to nail polish and wearing it simply cheers you up and you don't mind spending money on it - go for it. Just don't make the claim that it's boosting your T-cells because of it.
About the only argument you can make there in terms of your immune system is that because you're happier your immune system may be better off - but even then, you can also take a walk or sit out in the sun and the effect can be the same; both are shown to elevate mood.
The physician was featured in Under Our Skin, surely he must be good if he was in a "documentary" sanctioned by ILADS and their many Lyme disease associations, including the group out of Columbia Hospital.
I've written in a review of that film that while I thought it was great in sharing the issues patients face and the problems they have with treatment and diagnosis that the film lacked discussion about the science involved in Lyme disease in terms of pathogenesis, serological testing, and related issues.
I didn't really get into the doctors chosen for portrayal in that film. I am somewhat mystified by the choice of that particular doctor in the film.
I don't think everything that physician does is a bad thing. But I do think a number of his practices and claims are questionable, and they should NOT be part of any set of treatment guidelines.
Read the posts by Henry and the journal articles by others.
All they want is some real evidence that is not presented by a bunch of quacks and activists. Many of whom seem to have difficulty distinguishing truth from fiction.
All I want is evidence that Borrelia infections either do or do not persist in their human host, and that better treatments are being developed for someone like me.
I basically want the debate settled. It isn't.
By such assertions, only people who have had any particular disease are sufficiently qualified to to diagnose it, regardless of their education and experience. What rubbish! Must all oncologists be cancer survivors in order to be a competent physician?
I understand your position, but I will say one thing: Oncologists who are cancer survivors are definitely more likely to show compassion for their patients and intimately know the kind of suffering they are going through. It may not be the same kind of cancer or chemotherapy, but the impact on one's life of receiving that cancer diagnosis and side effects from treatment and worries involved are very much the same.
Same goes for anyone suffering for persisting symptoms related to Lyme disease. Anyone suffering from it would rather be treated by someone who has experienced its profoundly debilitating effects firsthand.
Camp Other, you seem to not appreciate my questioning why doctors who have raped their patients are being seemingly protected by the Lyme activists, seemingly covered in attempts to thwart investigations and charges. It's been discussed before, so why bother discussing it again, you implied. True, but WHY are such physicians who are indeed being currently investigated for such horrific crimes still on the Lyme Disease Association's list of referral practitioners. Who is protecting who? Don't even try to tell me that they aren't aware of the situation.
I am aware of it, just as many patients are also aware of it. I think I answered your question here fairly thoroughly earlier in my response here.
Keep them dumb and confused, ILADS.
Character assassination. Unfounded allegation. +2
That's the way to win this, not through science.
(I have to wonder if I shouldn't use negative integers instead, though, to count these...)
Did I miss seeing the Jumbotron ad this year? A million dollars in advertising would have gone a long way towards a good drug trial on Maybelline nail polish and the impact of karmic trauma on the treatment of infectious diseases.
I think it's good to spread awareness about how to prevent tickborne diseases and put that message out in the public. At the same time, if I had a million dollars, I would have used it for research on Lyme disease and NOT on nail polish.
+1 for snark
This is sarcasm, an unfortunate fact of life in Lymeland.
Does it have to be? You have a choice to decide how to express yourself - as do I.
How much injustice and radical patient exploitation do you think people like Henry and others can bear to listen to until they get so angry that they have to resort to trying to teach science to people who protect predators and others who think you can train your DNA.
If you feel it is not appropriate to be outraged against such patient exploitation and anti-science, then I would question your
motives much more than Henry's and others like him. Here's another.
I read those blogs, too.
This is the thing, Bagge: I think "training your DNA" and homeopathy don't work, either.
But just because those methods do not work is a completely different topic than whether or not bacteria can persist in a human host.
I'm here to tell you that I think chronic Lyme could be autoimmune.
Do tell? You think that Lyme disease, which is defined as an infection with Bb, is not really an infection, but rather an autoimmune disease? How does inserting the word "chronic" change the whole concept of a disease process from being an active bacterial infection to an autoimmune disease? Interesting. How about this approach. The people who have been diagnosing, treating, endangering, and exploiting thousands of patients for chronic infections don't know what they are doing and now everyone is beginning to notice. Heaven's to Betsy, could Wormser, Halperin, and the CDC have been right?
Well, it may be that Huber and co and Barthold are both right. I don't know. That's why more research is needed.
Would the NIH be investing in a xenodiagnosis study on Chronic Lyme disease or would they have invested in the PLEASE study in Europe if the debate about persistence was over?
And what about those antigens/Borrelia in the knee that MacDonald and Bockenstedt have been discussing?
Or Cadavid's B. turicatae serotype study in mice, and whether or not that model could apply to human hosts - at least some percentage of them? Can it apply to other genospecies of Borrelia? I'd like to see these questions answered.
And I laugh at these stupid intricate arguments on whether or not there was 1 million or 700k people that had Lyme disease in Germany.
Those not so useless numbers and facts, they always get in the way of a good medical and science debate.
I think knowing the number of cases is good. But I don't think it's enough? I think one has to know how often Germany does surveillance, where they drag flannel and how often, which bugs they look for (are they looking for B. miyamotoi or not, for example), how many trained entomologists with PhDs they have or even masters-level versus hired undergrads, how much climate change is affecting the numbers and future projections, how much money people are willing to invest in research for tickborne diseases and in treatment, how much insurance companies in Germany affect medical practice and decisions, and so on....
It'd be nice to have the bigger picture to know how decisions are made. Context.
**No! It is not enough for scientists or physicians to only focus on diagnosing and treating infectious diseases or any other illness. Ethical physicians who dare to take on leadership roles in healthcare must also speak out in attempts to protect their patients against unsafe, unproven, and predatory medical practices. It's all part of healthcare. Bravo to those few brave ones!
How many doctors in general practice call other doctors out on their practices? I'm not asking to deflect from your question (I'm willing to get into it more once my question here is replied to), I'm asking because I'm wondering how often it really happens that doctors point out other doctors and report them for any reason?
And how does one keep that reporting a "clean" process - how does one keep a competitive doctor from making claims against another doctor (refer to items in the news about Russian health care system regarding doctors there)?