Politics Articles
Politics Articles
08 September 2010
Controversy Of Treating Lyme Disease Arises In TX
RICHLAND HILLS (CBS 11 / TXA 21) ―
Kerry Reed of Richland Hills loves playing with her three young daughters, but she remembers how difficult it was some days just taking care of them. "I was feeling severely fatigued," she said. "It was hard just to get through the day." She was sick off and on for years, and didn't know what was wrong with her.
In February, an urgent care doctor near her home told her he thought she had Lyme disease, a bacterial infection people get after being bitten by deer ticks. A bulls-eye lesion on the skin is a common symptom.
About 30,000 cases are reported nationwide each year, though experts say the number of cases could be much higher. In Texas, however, the number of reported cases is far lower – only about 100 annually – and experts say that number could be lower because the ticks that spread Lyme disease aren't common here.
[snip]
She believes when got Lyme disease as a teenager, she was never fully cured. Another physician, Dr. Ron Wilson of Denton, prescribed an aggressive treatment of antibiotics for Reed. This treatment helped land Reed in the middle of a controversy that's dividing the medical community and spurred the Texas Legislature to study the issues surrounding the disease.
[snip]
Reed said Wilson prescribed an IV infusion of antibiotics every twelve hours, four days a week for eight straight weeks. Reed keeps leftover medical supplies tucked away inside boxes.
"There is no evidence to support the fact that there is such a thing as chronic Lyme disease," said Dr. Michael Norgard, chair of the Microbiology Department at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
Norgard and other infectious disease doctors nationwide are convinced the disease should be treated with short-term antibiotics, no longer than three weeks. They worry extended use of these drugs could actually ruin a patients health.
Norgard, who specializes in Lyme disease, said doctors who treat the disease with ongoing and aggressive antibiotics are irresponsible. "They're subjecting their patients to false hopes," he said. "They're not really getting to the real [etiology] of the underlying illness."
[snip]
But Reed is forced to find a new doctor: The Texas Medical Board received a complaint about Wilson and investigated his treatment of Lyme disease. The board disciplined the doctor for failing to use "the generally acceptable standard of care…" based on guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
The board also concluded that the doctor recommended a patient buy a vitamin supplement that he received a percentage of profits for recommending. The state said Wilson must comply with its standard in treating Lyme disease and take an ethics course.
"I've been forced into a situation that makes it very difficult to do what I love and do what I want to do and to help people," he said. Under his care, Wilson said about 80 percent of his Lyme disease patients improved. He said the state's standard for treating the disease is almost the same as not treating it at all. So, he said he will stop seeing these patients altogether.
[snip]
Both Reed and Wilson want a new state law to allow doctors to use more aggressive treatments. But Norgard said he thinks a new law isn't necessary.
There is an over-diagnosis of Lyme disease, he said, and it has become a catch-all for many illnesses. Norgard said patients who believe they have chronic Lyme disease should consider that they may have another condition and pursue a correct diagnosis.
Now, the Texas Legislature is studying the issue. A committee is expected to release its findings this fall.
______________________________________________________
A not-so-disInterested endorsement from....his not-so-knowledgable daughter:
My father is actually Dr.Ron Wilson in Denton who is an Ob/Gyn and member of the International Lyme and Associated Disease Society. He is "Lyme literate" (as they say in the Lymie community). My dad has retired from his usual practice to treat Lyme full-time. He is passionate about this and treating it properly because his whole family has been infected. I was diagnosed with chronic Lyme almost five years ago. Along with the nasty co-infections like Babesia and Bartonella. These can be just as destructive as the borealis Burgdorferi (Lyme) bacteria.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 08:43 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Lyme disease, Politics
21 July 2010
The Huffington Post may be a good source of information about politics and celebrity gossip, but its science and medical reporting is usually a lot of 'pseudoscience' and quackery. Still, they did manage to accurately report on a recent hearing about the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in herd feed.USDA Admits Link Between Antibiotic Use by Big Ag and Human HealthAt a hearing of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday, July 14, 2010, a representative of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finally caught up with the rest of the world -- and his peers at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) -- and admitted that the use of antibiotics in farm animal feed is contributing to the growing problem of deadly antibiotic resistance in America.[snip]Why is this news? Because the USDA has been continually playing the Three Wise Monkeys game -- it sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil -- when it comes to deadly consequences to humans of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals.
[snip]
Despite the feeble nature of the recent FDA Guidance to Industry on farm animal antibiotics (read more about this in our blog), Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principle Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, was clear in his testimony that the overall weight of evidence supports the conclusion that using antibiotics for production purposes in livestock farming (as growth promoters and to prevent rather than treat illness) is not in the interest of protecting and promoting public health.
Dr. Sharfstein also turned away a challenge from Representative John Shimkus (R-IL 19) about the soundness of the science upon which his findings rest. Mr. Shimkus, obviously unhappy with Dr. Sharfstein's testimony, badgered him to come up with up a U.S. peer-reviewed study (which Dr. Sharfstein did -- a 2003 Institute of Medicine study) and then questioned the veracity of the findings. Dr. Sharfstein assured Mr. Shimkus that the Institute has a peer-review process in place and reminded him that "the Institute is considered our nation's leading scientific expert ... "
Read the full article here.
And for more, here’s part of a July 13 letter from the CDC Director to Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the same issue:
There are multiple North American studies describing how:
• Use of antibiotics in animals results in resistant bacteria in food animals
• Resistant bacteria are present in the food supply and transmitted to humans
• Resistant bacteria result in adverse human health consequences (such as increased hospitalizations)
In addition, a strong body of evidence from Europe demonstrates that antibiotic use in animals is linked with antibiotic resistance in humans. Multiple studies looked at the effects of the Danish ban on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in food animals. We have thoroughly reviewed these studies and have found them to be well-designed and rigorous, and to establish a clear link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans.
I appreciate this opportunity to restate my conclusions from the April hearing, and provide you additional detail. This opportunity is particularly important because some discussion at the hearing has been mischaracterized.
To be clear, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that there is a compelling body of evidence to demonstrate this link, as summarized above, in my April testimony….
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 11:17 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
30 June 2010
Docs Oppose SB 1199 On Lyme Disease
By CHUCK MORAN, For The Bulletin
On Tuesday, June 22, 2010, Daniel B. Kimball, MD, testified on behalf of the Pennsylvania Medical Society in front of the Pennsylvania Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on SB 1199, a bill that could be harmful to those with Lyme disease.
All of his testimony can be found here. What I do want to highlight about his statement before the Penn Senate is this:
“Please consider the following two excerpts from an article entitled ‘Inaccurate Information About Lyme Disease on the Internet,’ published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Volume 23, Number 12, December 2004:
‘Persistent B. burgdorferi infection in patients with chronic Lyme encephalitis has not been demonstrated. Chronic subjective problems such as fatigue, headache, irritability, poor concentration, poor memory, arthralgias or myalgias do not indicate chronic Lyme disease. Some of these subjective symptoms may occur after Lyme disease and may be termed ‘post-Lyme syndrome.’ These symptoms may be unrelated to Lyme disease and have not been shown to respond to antibiotic treatment.
‘The Infectious Diseases Society of America practice guidelines do not include treatment options for chronic Lyme disease because persistent infection has not been demonstrated. Combinations of antibiotics, prolonged courses of antibiotics or unusually high antibiotic doses should not be used to treat Lyme disease, because they may be harmful and have not been shown to be more effective than standard therapy.’
[snip]
“So, up front, if we want to do what’s best for the patient, we better be sure that we prescribe the correct treatment that is evidenced-based. Until then, this bill holds great potential of putting patients at risk.
Posted by Relative Risk at 19:40 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Lyme disease, Politics
26 June 2010
Last month was Lyme disease Awareness Month. If you did not know about it certainly many Lyme disease activist groups were made aware after April’s shower of cold reality.In 2006, Lyme activists persuaded the Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to threaten the Infectious Diseases Society of America with a “restraint of trade” lawsuit over their voluntary recommendations for the treatment of Lyme infections. (Activists think the guidelines somehow interfere with patient treatment.) The suit had no legal or scientific merit, but the Society wanted to avoid a costly legal battle and agreed to have their recommendation reviewed by a second panel of infectious disease experts. On April 22, 2010, the panel declared the recommendations “medically and scientifically justified.” Undeterred by this second opinion, activists launched a petition urging Blumenthal to investigate the second panel for alleged voting irregularities.On April 29, the Institute of Medicine in Washington organized an expert panel to assess the state of the science concerning Lyme and other tick-borne infections. The IOM panel will not look at treatment (Blumenthal’s review answered those questions, thank you very much), but will likely recommend more research on the ecology and epidemiology of tick-borne diseases in the U.S. and maybe additional research on diagnostics. Immediately after the meeting, Lyme activists denounced the IOM panel for its membership, its procedures and reviewers, and even the timing of the meeting.
Is there a disconnect between activists and infectious disease experts? Yes. It’s a problem of perspective.
Much of Lyme activism takes place on the Internet where conspiracy theories, allegations of financial conflicts, and quack treatments are readily endorsed and exchanged. This activism has spawned a kind of “parallel universe” with its own self-described Lyme experts, meetings, publications, and even a patient-funded research center. It is a place where Lyme infections are described as incurable but requiring long-term antibiotics, transmitted from mother-to-child and husband-to-wife, capable of producing any symptom, and causing MS, ALS, Alzheimer’s, autism, and other illnesses. It is a place where alternative forms of microbiology, immunology and pharmacology exist independent of the sciences I know.
Offline and in the everyday world, Lyme disease remains a common bacterial infection—transmitted by ticks—that is treated and eradicated by common antibiotics, but which can lead to permanent joint or nerve damage if left untreated. In that regard, it is like most other bacterial infections. Clinical research continues to show long-term use of antibiotics does not help people with lingering symptoms resulting from prior infections.
These two perspectives cannot be reconciled.
How did it come to this? Space does not allow for a full history. Suffice to say that Lyme activism is an outgrowth of a larger anti-science phenomenon that encompasses anti-vaccination, HIV denialism, climate-change doubters, autism activists, and many other conspiracy-minded groups. None of them recognize objective scientific evidence as such. All of them trade in accusations and denunciations, regularly accusing mainstream scientists and physicians of being in the pay of “Big Pharma,” “Big Business,” or “Big Brother.” Sometime threats are made.
Infectious disease experts who have run afoul of various Lyme disease groups have been stalked, picketed at meetings, threatened with lawsuits, and had anonymous phone calls made to their deans, editors and employers. Nowadays, being on the wrong side of an obscure scientific issue can be dangerous.
Case in point. A few days ago, I got a phone call from a detective with the local FBI terrorism task force. According to the detective, a Lyme activist had reported me as a potential terrorist threat. Why me? Maybe someone didn’t like what I wrote. Who knows. In the 1950’s, you could get rid of a nosy neighbor or a pushy boss by denouncing them as communists and traitors to Hoover’s FBI. Today, you can accuse someone of being a terrorist.
The detective had done some research on Lyme disease and activists and so had a good sense of what was really going on with these accusations. After a few jokes, we hung up, both perhaps thinking that maybe accusers should be as carefully examined as the accused.
The world is seldom what we want it to be. Medicine often fails to heal and science is always turning up some inconvenient fact that may alter the course of business, behavior and belief. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s just the way the world works.
May was also Martini Month, Better Hearing and Speech Month, National Bike Month, and American Wetlands Month. I’m guessing no one involved in those activities was accused of being a terrorist.
Posted by Relative Risk at 10:15 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: IOM, Lyme disease, Politics
09 June 2010
Ms. Johnston, the legal voice and bloggista of a California Lyme disease group, writes, “I have begun to think of large medical societies and government (the IDSA, the NIH, the CDC, WHO (who knew?)) as simply being marketing aggregators for pharmaceutical interests and stand up men for researchers with industry ties. I realize that this is, really, hopelessly cynical, and I hope someone -- please soon-- wakes me up from this dream(?) As I said before, I would love to be wrong on this. I am so hoping that the IOM proves me wrong... for once.”
No, you have not yet “begun to think,” but yes, you are wrong. You’re one for one on the wish list.
One of the problems with whining lawyers is they are blind to their own faults and the faults of their clients (in this case, Lyme activists and LLMDs). Perhaps this is self-induced hyperopia because a mere glance at Lyme groups, their doctors, and the various labs and treatment clinics that support them all will show a tangle of very real professional and financial conflicts, the likes of which would embarrass the most jaded congressman or Washington lobbyist. For example:
- Most Lyme activist groups are advised by the same small group of self-described LLMDs.
- Many Lyme activist groups and other organizations have overlapping officers and advisors such that the same people wind up advising the same groups about the same things.
- Most Lyme activist groups direct patients to these same LLMDs for treatment.
- Most LLMDs rely on the diagnostic services of one or two labs that use non-standard testing methods to provide positive Lyme tests to patients.
- Many Lyme activist groups direct patient queries to one or two Lyme specialty labs.
- The directors of these labs serve as advisors to Lyme activist groups and lab employees attend activist meetings to hawk their tests and troll for customers.
- The director of one of these labs helped write Lyme treatment guidelines, which his lab could potentially benefit from.
- Lyme activists have had a hand in writing treatment guidelines for Lyme patients; guidelines that would benefit them and their base of activist/ patients.
- Lyme activist groups provide funds to their LLMD/advisors to support their “research,” and likely support their travel and per diem to their meetings where they can troll for more patients.
- Some LLMDs have ties to i.v. infusion companies that provide long-term antibiotics to their Lyme patients.
- Many Lyme activist groups promote the services and products of various labs, LLMDs, and authors, possibly for fees, though there are no disclaimers suggesting otherwise.
- Finally, no effort is ever made to acknowledge these obvious conflicts, correct them, or prevent them. It’s always someone else who is in conflict and therefore tainted.
One more for the road: Johnson writes that the membership of the recent IOM meeting on Lyme and other tick-borne diseases “is composed almost exclusively of IDSA members, in what seems like a saga of deniable accountability.” Well, you could believe that (while trying to figure out what ‘deniable accountability’ is) or just look at themembership list right here.
There’s one guy.
Posted by Relative Risk at 10:31 0 comments Links to this post
26 May 2010
A nice review of the Blumenthal mess.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has a problem and it is just not his military record that he is exaggerating about. He has also exaggerated in promoting his medical/scientific agenda. Mr. Blumenthal believes that all relationships with industry constitute a conflict of interest.In doing so he forced a medical society to spend almost a million dollars defending themselves against trumped up anti-trust charges for issuing clinical guidelines and the state resources on the hopeless investigation.
Read the whole article here.
Posted by Relative Risk at 21:33 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Blumenthal, Politics
16 May 2010
Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) must have a lousy staff. He’s hosting a forum on Lyme disease and other tick-borne infections for his constituents this week. But like any other political event, this one is heavy on myth and propaganda. The audience is likely to learn something about politics and Mr. Smith, but little about the reality of vector-borne diseases in N.J. Here's the list of speakers.
Dr. Joseph Burrascano, MD, an Internist, is recognized internationally as a skilled Lyme disease clinician and founding member of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society. He has authored a number of papers and three textbook chapters on Lyme disease and has provided expert testimony before state legislatures and before Congress. He will focus on the clinical diagnosis and treatment of tick-borne diseases.
Internist? I don’t believe he has a currently active medical license. (“I have decided to close my office and retire from the clinical practice of medicine.” 2006.) He did at one time, having been dragged before the N.Y. state medical licensing board. (“I will be placed on probation with a practice monitor. The original penalty was to have this for 6 months. The appeals board upheld this penalty but did expand the time period of probation to two years….” 2002.) Recognized internationally? By whom? People who think they have chronic Lyme disease? He’s authored a “number” of papers? How many? There are 3 argumentative review articles written with fellow Lyme quacks, according to PubMed. And as for “expert testimony,” I’m sure it’s the same nonsense he first delivered to a congressional committee in 1993 when he first warned the world of a Lyme disease conspiracy.
“Underserved area”? What about the 70 FDA-approved diagnostic tests for Lyme? And speaking of the FDA, haven’t they tried to close or fine this lab for various technical failings?
Ellen Stromdahl, PhD, (invited) is an Entomologist with the Tick-Borne Disease Laboratory for Entomological Sciences with the US Army Public Health Command. She will focus on tick species found in the US and the pathogens they carry, focusing on New Jersey and the Northeast.
Hopefully, this poor “invitee” won’t be able to make it. She’ll find herself in some strange company and hearing a lot of things that run counter to reality.
Pat Smith, President, national Lyme Disease Association (LDA), is a Member of the Columbia University Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center Advisory Committee and former chair of the Governor’s Lyme Disease Advisory Council (NJ). She will focus on the spread of Lyme disease, its impact on patients, and what is being done.
“The Columbia University Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center Advisory Committee.” Sounds impressive until you remember it’s a little lab bought and paid for by Lyme activists, who also give money to one of its advisors, Brian Fallon. So does this make her an advisor of Fallon’s or just one of his employers, or both? As for the Governor’s Advisory Council, at least one member of that group wound up in jail on various charges related to quackery. Finally, Pat’s theme song must be Willie Nelson’s “On the Road” because she’s always somewhere—spreading the gossip of chronic Lyme from state to state, meeting to meeting, and politician to politician. I guess the LDA has an unlimited travel budget for its president. I wonder if the LDA has an independent auditor?
Posted by Relative Risk at 09:28 0 comments Links to this post
15 May 2010
Nick Harris, PhD, is the founder and CEO of IGeneX, Inc., a specialty laboratory devoted exclusively to patient testing and research related to Lyme disease and its associated co-infections. He has spent over 25 years researching and developing tests in this underserved area. He will focus on the role of the laboratory in the diagnosis of Lyme and its co-infections.
These activists, like poor Wiley, don’t seem to realize they’ve walked off a cliff. They’re still scheming even as they hurtle toward the ground.
Lyme advocates look for action from AG after controversial treatment guidelines upheld
Lisa Chamoff, Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2010
A local Lyme disease advocacy group is calling for Connecticut's attorney general to continue the fight to alter controversial treatment guidelines.
Greenwich-based Time for Lyme is circulating a petition urging Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to look into the recent decision by a special panel, formed as part of an antitrust investigation, to allow the guidelines to remain unchanged.
[Blum was once listed as an advisor to this group.]
The eight-member review panel issued its report three weeks ago, unanimously agreeing to uphold the disease treatment guidelines developed in 2006 by the Arlington, Va.-based Infectious Diseases Society of America.
The guidelines, among other things, don't recommend treating Lyme disease with antibiotics for more than a few weeks and say there is no evidence that chronic Lyme disease exists.
Time for Lyme says it wants Blumenthal to hold the IDSA legally accountable for violating the agreement with his office and to vigorously investigate what the group says are voting and other process irregularities.
"We feel there is unfinished business with the IDSA guidelines process that was started by the AG," said Diane Blanchard, co-president of Time for Lyme, a nonprofit group that advocates for better research into and treatment of the disease. "This precedent-setting process may have long-term implications for Lyme patients and in fact for all patients who could be subject to standard-setting guidelines for any disease."
[For activists, this will always be “unfinished business.” They will not be happy until medicine and science surrender to quackery and faith. As for the “precedent-setting process and the implications for Lyme patients,” well, you all should thought about that before trying to sue evidence-based medicine and its practitioners.]
[snip]
Posted by Relative Risk at 08:28 0 comments Links to this post
12 May 2010
May 12, 2010
NH Senate Suggests Committee On Lyme Disease
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) ― New Hampshire's Senate has passed a bill that would set up a committee to investigate alternative medical treatments for Lyme disease.
The vote came Wednesday. The measure replaces a House-passed bill that would protect doctors who give antibiotics to Lyme disease patients beyond a few weeks without fear of disciplinary action by medical boards. Current national guidelines recommend against such treatment, saying there's no evidence it's effective.
The New Hampshire Board of Medicine and New Hampshire Medical Society say no doctors have been disciplined in New Hampshire for Lyme disease treatment.
The bill now returns to the House.
[If it passes it will be interesting to see what kind of people are appointed to the committee and what kinds of "alternative medical treatments" they think warrant investigation.]
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 22:39 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
08 May 2010
Notes from Antibacterial Resistance Hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Health Subcommittee
US House of Representatives
April 28, 2010
On April 28, 2010, the Health Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on antibiotic resistance, its causes, its implications for human health, and how US government agencies are working to address the issue.
Committee Members in Attendance:
Majority:
Frank Pallone, Chairman (D-NJ)
Lois Capps, Vice-Chair (D-CA)
Cathy Castor (D-FL)
Donna Christensen (D-USVI)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Gene Green (D-TX)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Zachary Space (D-OH)
Henry Waxman, ex-officio (D-CA)
Minority:
John Shimkus, Ranking Member (R-IL)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Michael Burgess (R-TX)
Joseph Pitts (R-PA)
Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
Opening Remarks
[snip]
In their opening comments, subcommittee members from the majority highlighted their concerns over non-medical use of antibiotics in livestock, inappropriate use in humans, and expressed their support for several bills that are currently under discussion in committee.
Subcommittee members from the minority expressed doubts over the connection between antibiotic use in agriculture and antibiotic resistant infections in humans; cautioned against enacting overly ambitious legislation; and were of the opinion that new taxes on the pharmaceutical industry in the recently enacted health care reform legislation would further reduce the industry’s interest in developing new antibiotics. [These are the same guys who doubt climate change and evolution too.]
[snip]
Next Steps:
Based on the repeated calls for further discussion of the issue from nearly every member in attendance it seems likely that the subcommittee will hold additional hearings on antimicrobial resistance.
Posted by Relative Risk at 08:42 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
05 May 2010
This article may be a bit dated, but it still offers some well-written comments on the social phenomenon of Lyme disease advocacy and the need for scientists to develop and deploy better communication tools.
The Ongoing 30-Year Lyme Disease War: Case Study of a Failure to Communicate
By Leslie P. King, MD, MPH | November 25, 2008
The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media
Lyme disease, dubbed one of the “deadly dozen” by a recent Wildlife Conservation Society report, could skyrocket as global shifts in temperature and precipitation transform ecosystems.
From a public policy standpoint, the situation is compounded by the communications issues complicating it, bringing to mind the well-known quote from the late actor Strother Martin in the 1967 film “Cool Hand Luke” — What we’ve got is failure to communicate.
Concluding paragraph...
Lyme disease is indeed a cautionary tale. It teaches that scientists must modify their practice of publishing solely for scholarly journals and must also communicate their findings to a larger audience. Their scientific expertise can help in contesting advocacy interests and policy makers unfamiliar with the full scientific picture. In the absence of that fuller understanding, potential climate-driven ecological changes could lead to increased incidences of widespread infection, and the toxic scientific environment surrounding Lyme disease could become a perfect storm that fuels a significant epidemic.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 16:37 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Lyme disease, Politics
02 April 2010
That mythical Lyme disease agitator called Tincup has drafted a letter of protest in response to the recent Ct. medical licensing board’s decision to keep a weary eye on the 80-year-old Dr. “Everything is Lyme disease” Jones. Of course, Tincup’s call to arms was written on April Fools Day so who knows if it’s a joke or just the work of a fool. Or both. In any case, here’s her lead-in:
What Started in CT, Stops in CT! The harassment and persecution of Dr. Charles Ray Jones must stop now!
[snip]
No more interference in our treatment, no more monitors, no more fines, no more prosecutions, no more wasting tax-payers money and no more using loop holes in the CT physician protection law to carry out an agenda that sets detrimental precedent for all Lyme treating physicians. We will continue on this course of action as long as Governor Rell allows these injustices to continue.
She sounds a lot like the equally agitated, white, blue-collar, unemployed people who show up at tea party rallies to foam at the mouth over the alleged crimes of the government in general and the President in particular. Basically, what they all want is for the government to let them do whatever they want whenever they want. It’s a temper tantrum in mass.
The same thing with Tincup and her self-absorbed colleagues. They want governments and other regulatory organizations to give them whatever they want….right now. In effect, they’re demanding that all governments, agencies and other authorities surrender. Stop doing their jobs. Close their offices and go home.
Except possibly when one of them wants a check for something. Or when they’d like the organs of government or expertise to interfere with someone or something they don’t like.
The tea drinkers don’t seem to be having much success overthrowing reality. Neither do the anti-vaccination nuts. Or the AIDS denialists. Or the Lymees. Maybe they all should sit back, relax, and have a cup of decaf coffee. My treat.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 16:45 0 comments Links to this post
26 March 2010
From yesterday’s Science magazine: Health Bill Backs Evidence-Based Medicine, New Drug Studies
Some snippets:
Buried within the 2400 pages of the landmark health care reform bill passed by the House of Representatives this week and signed by President Barack Obama are several provisions that touch on clinical research. Two are aimed at determining which therapies work best and identifying researchers' financial conflicts. A third, which has flown under the radar until now, would fund a new push in drug development at the National Institutes of Health.
Most directly tied to health care is a provision that focuses on comparative effectiveness research (CER)—evidence-based studies that compare the value of medical treatments, such as two different drugs, or a specific drug versus surgery. Proponents hope that these studies will improve the quality and lower the cost of health care by identifying the best treatments. The bill creates an independent, nonprofit Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to conduct this research.
A less-noticed section of the health legislation creates a new translational research program within the NIH director's office aimed at drug development. Called the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN), it is the brainchild of Senator Arlen Specter (D–PA). CAN will give out grants and contracts of up to $15 million a year to companies, academic researchers, and patient groups to help bridge the "valley of death": the gap between the initial discovery of a drug and the lab and animal studies a developer needs to conduct to obtain regulatory approval for clinical trials.
Finally, the bill puts into place a widely supported proposal to shed light on the payments that drug and medical-device companies make to physicians and hospitals. Starting in 2013, the so-called Physician Payments Sunshine Act provisions require that such companies file annual reports to HHS listing all payments or other "transfers of value" to doctors and hospitals of more than $10 per event or $100 total per year. The information will be posted in a public online database.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 23:19 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
01 February 2010
From the PLoS Pathogens article, "Killing a Killer: What Next for Smallpox."
January 2010.
by Grant McFadden
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 16:42 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Emerging Infections, Politics
31 December 2009
I don’t normally write about politics, but the recent “underwear” bomber incident reminded me again of the dangers that the TSA continues to present to the traveling public. It is a vast, incompetent bureaucracy of previously unemployed high school graduates who have suddenly found themselves in positions of power: able to order people around, confiscate their property, and rifle their luggage for jewelry, cash, and expensive electronics.
They’re supposed to be looking for Muslim Mass Murders (M3), but that’s hard to do when you’re frisking nuns, infants, the handicapped, and the elderly. And everyone else. And pickpocketing the occasional traveler.
As the CBS news report below reiterates, much of what this Bush-league agency does is absolutely unless. Also, here’s a link to Patrick Smith’s excellent NYT piece about the ineffectiveness of the TSA’s practices. Definitely, worth reading.
I guess these clowns (the TSA) have been around since early 2002, but I don’t recall that they’ve ever actually caught a would-be bomber. Sure, they catch the occasional college kid who forgot about the weed in his backpack or the Texas yahoo who forgot he was still packing his S&W .500. But terrorists? Not a one. It’s left to the passengers to subdue the periodic shoe bomber and this month’s underwear bomber. (What’s next: the enema bomber? The oral cavity bomber? The surgical implant bomber?) So it’s passengers 2: TSA 0. Maybe we should just pay passengers to do airline security and dissolve the TSA.
It would probably be more cost-effective. I’m told there are some 49,000 worldwide flights each day. That’s about 17,885,000 flights per year. Since 911, that comes to 147,550,000 flights. Of those millions of flights, two had incompetent bombers aboard; both of who had slipped by numerous layers of security and visa/passport control. So what are the odds of having been on a plane with some nut trying to light himself on fire? One in 73,775,000 or 0.0000000136.
I think that gives some idea of both passenger safety overall and the hopeless task of the TSA using its current methods.
In that same 911-to-now timeframe, I’ve run into the TSA some 80 times while traveling internationally and domestically. If only there was a way to lower the odds of running into them.
Expert: New Security Steps a Smokescreen
(CBS/AP) New security restrictions swiftly implemented following a botched attempt to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day are a poor attempt to make passengers think skies are safer, says one expert. And airlines are concerned the new rules are making air travel more burdensome and could discourage some business fliers -- key customers for them.
Tougher security measures were imposed after a man flying from Nigeria to Amsterdam then to the U.S. on a Northwest Airlines flight Friday tried to ignite an explosive as the plane prepared to land in Detroit. On Sunday, police met another Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight after the crew reported a "verbally disruptive passenger." A law enforcement official said the man posed no security risk to the plane.
Government officials didn't detail the restrictions, saying they don't want terrorists to know about potential security measures. They also declined to say how long the measures would be in effect, and said the limits could vary from airport to airport.
Travelers on incoming international flights said that, during the final hour, attendants removed blankets, banned opening overhead bins, and told passengers to stay in their seats with their hands in plain sight.
CBS News Travel Correspondent Peter Greenberg noted that, in the last hour of flights coming into the U.S., in-flight entertainment systems are also turned off, "meaning they're not gonna show you that little map showing where the plane is. Pilots are not going to be allowed to announce where you are. It gets a little crazy."
What's more, Greenberg told "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith Monday, similar measures "weren't effective in the past. We even have a new system now where you're only allowed one carry-on bag on flights coming to the United States -- not one carry-on bag and your computer. One carry-on bag. They used to do that, and that made havoc in the skies, because people who were transferring on different flights were denied boarding.
"The real problem here is that, tomorrow, if someone tried to detonate a bomb on a plane and, right before he detonated it, he sang, 'Mary Had a Little Lamb,' the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) would issue a rule tomorrow saying, 'No singing on a plane.' It is a very bad camouflage attempt of not dealing with the real issue of how did this guy clear security in Nigeria and twice in Amsterdam, and still get on the plane?"
Passengers will likely face longer lines at checkpoints for all flights and less freedom to move around the airplane in the air.
Leisure travelers, such as the families that packed airports to return home on Sunday after the holiday, are likely to put up with the new inconveniences, as they have before.
But, say analysts, business travelers may think twice before flying if stepped-up security means spending hours at the airport. That's troubling to the airlines, because business travelers tend to fly frequently and pay higher fares.
Some business travelers could jump from the major airlines to smaller business jets to avoid wasting hours in the terminal every time they fly, said airline consultant Robert Mann.
The new security measures are "just going to add to the overall onerous way we have to conduct travel," said Kevin Mitchell, president of the Business Travel Coalition. "No doubt it will dampen demand."
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 11:08 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
06 November 2009
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: After Delay, Senate Committee Approves Biosecurity Bill
The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Wednesday approved a bill intended to improve security at the nation's biological research facilities. One week after postponing a decision in order to give the Obama administration more time to weigh in on the legislation, the panel voted 8-1 in favor of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009. "This is an urgently needed bill, and I am pleased the committee has moved it forward," Chairman Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said in a statement. It was unclear when the full Senate would take up the legislation.
The measure -- sponsored by Lieberman and committee ranking member Susan Collins (R-Maine) -- would require the Homeland Security Department to prepare security regulations for laboratories. It would also divide the government's list of select agents and toxins into three tiers, subjecting facilities that handle the eight to 10 most harmful pathogens to the highest security. Homeland Security would be in charge of regulating those laboratories while the Health and Human Services Department would oversee sites in the remaining two tiers. (GSN)
Control of infectious disease research now passes from medical experts to a vast lumbering bureaucracy and an ignorant, but easily frightened and confused Congress.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 09:51 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
03 November 2009
Well, the economy, the war(s) and the pandemic seemed to have push this megalomaniac right off the front page again. So what better way to ride right back into print than to piggyback on someone else's crisis. Blum is fishing around for overpriced vaccine. Most of it is free. Half the country doesn't want it. Good luck finding any profiteers.
Still, Dick Blum must be in the news....even if he has to make up the news. What next? The alleged Tampon shortage? Over-priced bagels in East Coast grocery chains? I'm just wondering if he'll wait until spring to start alleging vaccine injuries.
Blumenthal Investigating Possible Vaccine Price Gouging
By JOSH KOVNER
November 3, 2009
Doctors, nursing agencies and other health care providers have reported to state regulators that the price of seasonal flu vaccine has shot up to as much $100 a dose in some cases, triggering an investigation by Attorney General Richard Blumenthalinto possible price gouging.
Blumenthal said Monday that the vaccine was selling for as low as $7 a dose less than a year ago. In recent days his office has written to 13 national vaccine manufacturers and distributors who do business in Connecticut, and requested information on current and previous per-dose prices.
A spokeswoman for one of the firms, MedImmune Vaccines of Gaithersburg, Md., said the company's prices for seasonal flu vaccine "have not changed at any time during this season."
[snip]
The letters also ask the 13 companies to explain any significant price increases, whether the firms are honoring price quotes given to customers before a recent shortage of seasonal flu vaccine, and whether the companies have repurchased and then resold the vaccine at substantially higher prices.
Blumenthal said some health care providers also are reporting that they have received only a portion of the seasonal vaccine they have ordered. He said some manufacturers have told him that they have reduced production of seasonal flu vaccine to concentrate on meeting the growing demand for H1N1 vaccine.
[snip]
Blumenthal said he would go to court to seek fines and restitution if he can show that vaccine makers are "skewing" the market toward large drugstore chains and other retailers that can afford to pay more for the doses than health clinics can.
[snip]
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 19:30 0 comments Links to this post
31 October 2009
The job of media rep is tough enough in the federal government; anything you say, or don't say, will get you in trouble with someone. But this poor woman, Lola Russell, must have the worst job at CDC. Part of the list of her responsible topics include:
- Lyme Disease and plague
- Morgellons disease
- Pertussis, chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, HPV, Norwalk virus, rotavirus and influenza
- Pandemic flu community mitigation measures
Imagine all the crank calls and nutty emails she must get from people worried about ticks and mysterious Morgellons threads on their skin. Then there's the anti-vaccine people calling to denounce routine vaccinations, and now the swine flu vaccine.
A lone voice of reason--or at least of stated federal policy--raised against a howling hurricane of noisy nonsense, psuedoscience, quackery, and good old-fashioned ignorance.
I'm sure they don't pay her enough to do that job.
Posted by Relative Risk at 11:27 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Anti-science, Politics
30 October 2009
From the NASW’s ScienceWriters magazine, Fall 2009
Media Access to Federal Scientists Enters Warming Period
by Jennifer Freeman
On his first day in office in January, President Barack Obama went to work for science writers as he issued a directive on transparency and access to government information. The new president issued an Executive Memo on “Openness and Transparency,” reversing a Bush-era rule that favored secrecy over disclosure for requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Obama turned the clock back to Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno, who said information should be released unless it could cause “forseeable harm.” The Bush Administration, in contrast, had urged agencies to consider any “legal basis” for withholding information. The message released by Obama on his first day in office was that government ought to be “transparent,” “participatory,” and “collaborative.”
Impeding journalists’ ability to communicate with federal scientists was a matter of policy during the Bush administration, one of several ways in which that administration undermined science in government. I was involved in several Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity division reports documenting how government undermined science, and how federal scientists were frustrated, to say the least, with the situation.
For a report called Freedom to Speak?, the Union of Concerned Scientists documented interference by federal agencies (including NASA, NOAA, FWS, OSHA, and CDC) with scientists’ ability to communicate their research findings with journalists. “A reporter specifically asked to speak to me and was told I was unavailable,” reported a NASA scientist. “Requests for specific biologists are given to the field supervisor who generally handles them by himself or with the help of a public affairs person or supervisor, rarely the appropriate biologist,” said a scientist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Some scientists approached the policy creatively: “I ignore the policy and speak directly with the media when I feel it is important to do so (which is often!)” said a Center for Disease Control (CDC) scientist.
The Freedom to Speak? report looked at agency media policies and noted an uneven landscape. Some agencies actively tried to keep a short leash on scientists for message control. Some agencies’ media policies specifically advised scientists to route all communication with journalists through agency minders. Other agencies lacked a clear policy, or enforced controls unevenly, resulting in harsh treatment of scientists working in sensitive areas such as climate science and reproductive health. Agencies’ attempts to build walls between researchers and journalists were but one aspect of the problem. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ website The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (of which I am a contributing editor) documents distortion, suppression, and misuse of science in all corners of the government. Some of the most egregious cases involved climate science, where Bush Administration appointees seemed determined to bend science to fit political goals. Communications between federal scientists and journalists started to improve after climate guru James Hansen went public with accusations that he was being “muzzled” by NASA. A few other prominent climate scientists also spoke out. Science writers including Andy Revkin of the New York Times helped bring attention to the problem by covering these incidents in major newspapers.
In 2006 NASA revised its media policy to emphasize its “commitment to open…dialogue
with the public” and make clear that NASA scientists may speak freely with the media. The following year the U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), issued a new media policy modeled on NASA’s, which the Union of Concerned Scientists called “a step in the right direction.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists gave the Center for Disease Control a high grade on its media policy. In practice, though, the agency did not always meet the policy’s high standards. A CDC scientist said that “with highly charged issues the agency has buckled to political pressure” in spite of good media policies.
[snip]
Federal agencies are tremendous bureaucracies difficult to change overnight, but President Obama has actively set a tone from the top that supports openness in communication with government scientists. He has also emphasized respect for science, and a determination to make science, rather than politics, the basis for his administration’s decisions. All of this should encourage managers at federal science-based agencies to improve the flow of information
to journalists.
[But don’t hold your breath.]
Posted by Relative Risk at 12:38 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Politics
09 October 2009
Bill has money for Kan. bio lab, but with a catch
By SUZANNE GAMBOA
Associated Press Writer
October 7, 2009
Congressional negotiators agreed Wednesday to allow the Homeland Security Department to spend federal money planning and designing a foot-and-mouth research lab in Kansas, but they want more study on its safety before allowing money to be used for its construction.
A Homeland Security Department spending bill approved by a House and Senate conference committee includes $32 million for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility planned for Manhattan, Kan. The negotiators also asked for studies to prove that the lab can operate safely and tied construction money to that request.
[snip]
There has been opposition to the lab and the foot-and-mouth disease research to be done there, based in part on concerns that an accidental release of the disease would devastate livestock.
[snip]
Negotiators want the Homeland Security Department to study the risks of operating the planned 520,000-square-foot lab, known as NBAF, and what would be required to safely operate it. The study is to be reviewed and validated by the National Academy of Sciences, said Rep. David Price, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's homeland security subcommittee.
[snip]
The Homeland Security Department chose Manhattan, Kan., for the lab after a competition among several states. The department and Kansas state and federal officials have repeatedly said that the lab can be safely operated in the state. Costs for the lab and transferring of research there are estimated to reach $915 million, with Kansas providing at least $110 million and land for the lab.
A group that tried to lure the site to Texas, one of the finalists for the lab, challenged the selection decision in a lawsuit. Among other things, the Texas group alleged political influence played a role in the selection of the Kansas site and that the Homeland Security Department failed to consider tornado dangers in the state. The lawsuit was dismissed as prematurely filed.
Michigan Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak and John Dingell, former Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, raised concerns last year about the planned move of foot-and-mouth research to the U.S. mainland.
Stupak, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said more hearings were planned on the lab and a report from the Government Accountability Office also is pending.
"This issue is far from being decided," Stupak said.
Foot-and-mouth disease, which affects cattle and swine, was eradicated from the U.S. in 1929. The Kansas lab is intended to replace the aging lab at Plum Island, N.Y. where research has been confined.
[snip]
DHS has said building the lab on the U.S. mainland will allow for rapid response to animal disease outbreaks.
[Note: DHS, which is a hodge-podge collection of federal agencies with no knowledge of infectious diseases, is moving a laboratory well-known for its decades-long work on agricultural diseases into the heartland of American agriculture where economic disaster is now just a broken test tube or faulty filter away.]
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 09:32 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Bioterrorism, Politics