"Sezon na Kleszcza" cz druga

    • artur737 Centralia teen dies from tick-borne disease 01.09.07, 16:34
      tinyurl.com/2dq6xv
      Friday, Aug 31, 2007

      Centralia teen dies from tick-borne disease

      CENTRALIA, Mo. (AP) - A 15-year-old girl has died from a rare but treatable
      tick-borne disease, officials said Thursday.

      The Boone County Medical Examiner's Office identified the victim as Emily
      Powell, a Centralia High School freshman. The cause of death was ehrlichiosis, a
      bacterial illness. She died Wednesday, two days after being admitted to
      University Hospital in Columbia.

      Symptoms of ehrlichiosis include fever, headache, fatigue and muscle aches,
      according to the federal Centers for Disease Control. Other signs and symptoms
      can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cough, joint pains, confusion and rashes.

      Symptoms generally appear after an incubation period of five to 10 days
      following a tick bite.

      The disease, if detected early, can be treated with antibiotics.

      State officials reported 117 cases of ehrlichiosis through mid-August, nearly
      three times the annual average. Higher-than-usual rates of Rocky Mountain
      spotted fever, tularemia and Lyme disease are also being reported.
    • artur737 Small insect carries debilitating disease 02.09.07, 22:47
      Prezydent ILADS Dr Stricker przyznaje w tym artykule, ze jego rowniez
      konsultowano w sprawie boreliozy prezydenta Busha.

      tinyurl.com/2j5gfl
      Small insect carries debilitating disease
      They might be only tiny insects, but ticks have the power to turn your life into
      a gigantic nightmare

      By Dana M. Nichols
      September 02, 2007
      Record Staff Writer

      GLENCOE - When Dr. Raphael Stricker, a San Francisco physician known for
      treating patients with Lyme disease, received a call from a Washington, D.C.,
      doctor last summer, he became nervous.

      Stricker said the caller, whom he did not know personally and whom Stricker did
      not identify, asked him lots of questions about treating Lyme disease, a
      potentially debilitating bacterial infection transmitted by tick bites.

      "It was such an odd phone call," Stricker said. "I was actually a little paranoid."

      Stricker is president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society,
      which believes Lyme patients sometimes need longer, more expensive treatments
      with antibiotics than are called for by the guidelines that most U.S. medical
      organizations follow. Some doctors have been disciplined by state medical boards
      for giving the longer treatments.

      Stricker said the call made sense a year later, when news broke that President
      Bush in summer 2006 had been treated for Lyme disease and that his physicians
      deemed him cured when Bush got his annual physical last month.

      Stricker said he finds it suspicious that the president's physicians released
      fairly detailed accounts of the growths in the president's colon but did not say
      exactly how he was treated for Lyme disease, sidestepping what has become a
      medical battlefield.

      On one side of the Lyme debate is the vast majority of the medical
      establishment, including major providers such as Kaiser Permanente and the
      Infectious Diseases Society of America, which sets the guidelines most doctors
      follow. They say Lyme disease infections can be treated with a few weeks of
      antibiotics.

      On the other side are the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society and
      thousands of Lyme patients who say the infection persists in their bodies and
      they need antibiotic treatments that can last months, years or even a lifetime.

      That includes park naturalists Steve and Stephanie Diers of Glencoe, who say
      they've suffered the debilitating effects of Lyme disease for decades.
      • artur737 Re: Small insect carries debilitating disease 02.09.07, 22:49
        "The bottom line is money," Steve Diers said. He and his wife say they spend
        about $11,000 per year on antibiotic medications that Kaiser Permanente, their
        insurer through Steve's job, refuses to cover.

        From 20,000 to 24,000 cases of Lyme disease are reported nationwide every year,
        making it the most common insect-bite-transmitted disease in America, according
        to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

        That includes 50 to 150 reported cases per year in California. But authorities
        say that because of the nature of the disease and inadequate testing, there
        could be 10 cases of the disease for every one that is reported.

        The Infectious Diseases Society of America says there are solid scientific
        reasons for recommending a course of antibiotics of no more than three or four
        weeks to treat Lyme disease.

        "The problem is there are significant adverse long-term effects from these
        antibiotics," said Dr. Eugene Shapiro of Yale Medical School, who helped write
        the Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines for Lyme disease.

        Doctors say patients recover best if they are treated soon after they are bitten
        by an infected tick.

        Often that does not happen because some of those who contract Lyme disease don't
        know they've been bitten. The spiral-shaped Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria can
        travel around the body causing a wide array of symptoms from heart palpitations
        and joint pain to dizziness and mental impairment. The ailment is often
        misdiagnosed - sometimes for years.

        That's what happened to Noelle Sweeney, 19, of Lodi.

        Sweeney's mother, Patty Sweeney, said she never knew her daughter had a tick
        bite. But the symptoms began with migraine-intensity headaches when Noelle was
        in kindergarten. Then Noelle got stomach ulcers, and later her muscles started
        to weaken.

        "All the leading universities we've brought her to," Patty Sweeney said.

        Finally, last year, when Noelle was 18, a naturopath in Reno suggested testing
        her for Lyme disease. Now, she's been on intravenous and oral antibiotics for
        nine months - and she's still waiting to get better.

        "I am only 19, and I have hot flashes and mood swings and headaches. I am a mess
        to be around," Noelle Sweeney said.

        The Diers, both park naturalists who have had many tick bites over the years,
        tell a similar story.

        Stephanie Diers, 51, came from an active, outdoorsy family. She said she
        developed Lyme disease symptoms in the 1960s, long before the ailment even got
        its name.

        It wasn't until 1989 that a doctor diagnosed her with Lyme disease.

        Stephanie Diers says she believes the bacteria are deeply entrenched in her body
        and that they survived the long initial treatment she received.

        She said that when she goes off the drugs, she begins suffering symptoms again.
        • artur737 Re: Small insect carries debilitating disease 02.09.07, 22:50
          Now, she's disabled, unable to work because of the joint pain and concentration
          problems.

          Steve Diers, 54, says he probably contracted the disease in 1995 when he was
          crawling through leaf litter while flagging routes for hiking trails, one of his
          duties as a park ranger. Leaf litter is where the small larval form of ticks,
          called nymphs, hang out, waiting for a blood meal.

          Steve Diers, too, has tried to go off of the antibiotics, but he finds his
          condition deteriorates and he is unable to work without the drugs.

          Experts with the Infectious Diseases Society of America say careful studies of
          long-term antibiotic use for Lyme disease patients have compared the effects of
          the drugs with placebos and found no difference.

          White House staff have not made public whether President Bush received the
          short-term antibiotic treatment or a more expensive long-term treatment.

          A White House media representative on Aug. 15 said she would find a spokesman to
          answer questions about the president's treatment. But as of Wednesday, the White
          House had not responded. The White House media office also did not respond to a
          voice message left again last week.

          All staff will say is the president is cured.

          Contact reporter Dana M. Nichols at (209) 754-9534 or dnichols@recordnet.com.
          Visit his blog at recordnet.com/blogs.
    • artur737 List publiczny CanLyme do wladz amerykanskich 03.09.07, 22:28
      August 26th, 2007


      The Honorable Jon S. Corzine Chairman
      Health and Human Services Committee
      National Governors Association
      444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 267
      Washington, DC 20001


      Dear Governor Corzine,

      This is further to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) president,
      Dr. Henry Masur’s letter to you dated August 7th, 2007.

      We do not normally involve ourselves outside of Canada on the political front,
      but the issue of Lyme disease is borderless so please indulge us for our imposition.

      The IDSA guidelines have done more harm to people throughout North America than
      any other medical guidelines we are aware of.

      Because the infectious disease community in Canada are so closely tied with the
      IDSA, this Canadian group adopted the guidelines (Canada has done no research of
      it’s own) and these guidelines have now become entrenched in our closed
      socialized system.

      This is one massive flaw in our medical system, it allows outside lobby groups
      such as the IDSA who for the most part represent business interests, to easily
      dominate our medical care.

      We’ve become too comfortable in avoiding the cost of doing research here in
      Canada by simply adopting research of others, no matter how poorly executed the
      research is.

      We attach a copy of our letter to the IDSA medical journal in response to their
      published guidelines.

      Until proper post mortem, and multiple live tissue studies per victim, employing
      all testing technology available is done on victims of those several diseases
      linked to Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacteria that causes Lyme disease, very
      little can be said about present testing accuracy, prevalence, what symptoms can
      be attributed to chronic Lyme disease, and what treatment methods are effective.

      This makes the entire IDSA document premature and not worthy of a health care
      guideline.

      We are attaching copies of research abstracts showing just a fraction of the
      research that has been done relative to other diseases and Lyme. We are also
      attaching research showing transmission of this disease via a mother’s placenta
      to her unborn child.

      If the IDSA is that confident in their recommended testing protocol, how
      possibly could Lyme bacteria be showing up in the numbers it is in these other
      diseases (Alzheimer’s, Multiple Sclerosis, Colitis, Crohn’s disease and many
      many others).

      Where along the line is it being missed?

      Only now that victims’ associations are becoming strong enough to fund the
      necessary research that government has been reluctant to fund in both our
      countries for over two decades will the evidence flow forth to even begin to
      look at creating guidelines.

      2)
      It is this reason that laws must be put in place, to tell insurers it is not
      okay to deny longer term treatment for Lyme disease, and to protect those
      doctors who are doing their very best to keep their patients’ quality of life
      manageable. Premature guidelines are being pushed upon doctors who know they
      will only cause harm to their patients.

      The IDSA has stated concerns about the dangers of antibiotics, and this is a
      good example of how poorly they support their position.

      Antibiotic harm pales in comparison to the heavy narcotics, anti-psychotics and
      other medications used to treat the many individual symptoms Lyme disease is
      responsible for. Some Lyme victims have to wean themselves off these dangerous
      drugs before they can start antibiotic therapy.

      Antibiotic resistance is a non-issue so long as we pump antibiotics into our
      food farm industry by the ton as we do now.

      The IDSA boasts about the 400 references they cite in their guidelines as though
      it somehow gives evidence as to their expertise.


      The majority of these references are the author’s themselves and their cohorts
      citing each other’s work after carefully pruning out any contradictory research
      from the in excess of 20,000 research papers on Lyme disease from around the world.

      Doctors who dare look at the entire global databank of research are quickly put
      in place by their medical professional licensing bodies. Professional
      witch-hunts occur using tactics that would not be allowed in a public court setting.

      What never ceases to amaze us is how few people actually run the medical
      professional organizations who then also author guidelines, set testing
      criteria, and then police their members to enforce members do only what they
      tell them they can do.

      We all need to take a hard look at how often the leaders of one organization are
      also in the leader group of another, and who then also sit on policing panels.

      Why are the tens of thousands of good medical minds who do not own patents or
      represent medical insurance or other for profit interests not making the decisions?

      Have a look at who sat on the Association of State and Territorial Public Health
      Laboratory Directors panel in 1994 that set the harmful two-tier testing
      protocol and then look at who authored or provided the research papers for the
      2006 IDSA Lyme guidelines.

      Why do this group of researchers control every aspect of the disease? It doesn’t
      equate, other than for control.

      • artur737 cd: List publiczny CanLyme do wladz amerykanskich 03.09.07, 22:28
        Why is it that so few people control so much in this field (health care) where
        even a hint of bias or conflict should be alarming (because life and death or
        somewhere horribly in between are at stake)? Who are they and what is their
        interest?

        Why are they allowed to dominate every aspect of a disease for so many years?

        How did rules get put in place so this small group, relatively speaking, are
        able to operate almost with impunity and no public oversight?


        You will need to find out how many of these of people are also those who sit as
        reviewers to select which research gets the funding nod from federal and state
        taxpayer dollars through the many funding bodies.

        Only like-minded researchers get funded. We have the same problem in Canada.


        How has this domination affected the quality and direction of research? Could it
        be that the medical financial crisis in North America is in part fabricated
        because of missed research
        opportunities?

        Why is so little common sense basic ‘find the root cause’ research not funded
        anymore? Post mortem and live tissue study are the foundation of medicine.

        These are the same hard questions we are asking our government now.

        We refer to the present system as one of ‘farming sickness’. In some cases
        doctors are used as pawns in the farming process requiring legislation to offer
        them protection from a very powerful, well funded, and carefully positioned
        group of sickness farmers spread across several continents.

        3)
        In order for there to truly be experts in a particular disease, they must have
        studied all aspects of the illness. With there being such an apparent avoidance
        of ‘no strings attached’ research into how many of the millions of people (1.5
        million in Canada alone) who are left with diagnoses of diseases with no known
        cause, may actually have Lyme disease, there are no true experts.

        Until the IDSA can present verifiable research showing that Lyme bacteria plays
        no role in other disease processes that other research has indicated Lyme in
        fact does play a role in, how can they refer to themselves as experts?

        The IDSA, in regards to Lyme disease, are experts at creating algorithms backed
        by their own narrowly focused research creating data that no one else has
        validated except from within their own network of well-connected, well-funded
        cohorts.

        It should be no surprise that they want you ask them to provide ‘experts’.

        Please put legislation in place to help patients get the treatment those of us
        who suffer know very well works regardless of what a contrived document says.
        Protect the doctors, who treat their very sick patients, from witch-hunts.

        After the protections and treatments are in place for the sick, and the doctors
        who treat them, go ahead and hold hearings and commissions to look into the
        entire matter of Lyme as the IDSA suggests.

        That process will go on for years if history is any indicator and those who have
        created the mess will have retired before any change comes about, which is their
        likely goal.

        Victims’ lives are being destroyed now, so the legislation must be put in place
        now. If you do this, Canada will no doubt follow so therefore we have a very
        real and selfish interest in what unfolds.

        Instead of spending millions on hearings as the IDSA suggests …. funding
        multiple Lyme disease research facilities to do the necessary post-mortem and
        live tissue study of all those diseases linked to Lyme (and the coinfections)
        may be a better use of money,

        especially if Lyme disease victims associations and ‘no-strings attached’
        researchers are given a role in research and oversight. Again, that is a selfish
        wish but one that would be good for all.

        We’ve been telephoned and emailed by many Americans asking if we have such a
        facility where they could donate their bodies or organs, or those of their loved
        ones. We do not yet but we are in the process and it will have the necessary
        oversight.

        Rather than enclosing sensational media reports as did the IDSA, we enclose
        research abstracts indicating Lyme disease is linked to other serious, life
        altering diagnoses that are collectively bankrupting our various governments’
        health care coffers.

        Thank-you for your time and we apologize for our uninvited input but this is
        such a serious matter for so many people now and in the future, we thought we
        must point out that the IDSA guidelines’ harm is not limited to the United States.


        Yours truly,


        Jim M. Wilson AIIC
        President, Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation
        (on behalf of our board of directors www.canlyme.com/directors.html)

        cc. Matt Salo, HHS Committee Director, NGA
        Kathleen Nolan, Health Division Director, NGA Center for Best Practices
    • artur737 List publiczny Dr Strickera z ILADS do rzadu USA 05.09.07, 06:24
      Press Room
      By Raphael Stricker, MD
      President, ILADS

      August 28, 2007

      The Honorable Jon S. Corzine
      Chairman
      Health and Human Services Committee
      National Governors Association
      444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 267
      Washington, DC 20001


      Dear Governor Corzine,

      I am writing in response to the letter of August 7 from Dr. Henry Masur,
      President of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). That letter
      urged you and other governors to turn your backs on patients with Lyme disease.
      I would like to offer a more positive approach from my organization, the
      International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS).

      First, however, I would like to extend ILADS' support in the battle against Lyme
      disease to your state of New Jersey, which as you know has one of the highest
      rates of Lyme disease in the country. Lyme disease affects as many as 250,000
      people per year in the United States, based on under-reporting statistics from
      the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and data from state health
      departments. I hope that the former governor of New Jersey is doing well in her
      fight against this insidious tick-borne illness.

      Dr. Masur states correctly that he represents a group of 8,000 doctors who
      specialize in infectious diseases. However, only a small fraction of that group
      knows anything about the diagnosis and treatment of tick-borne diseases,
      including Lyme disease. Unfortunately that small faction has hijacked the IDSA
      policy on Lyme disease and created treatment guidelines that are so restrictive
      that the Attorney General of Connecticut is currently investigating potential
      antitrust violations and restraint of trade arising from the exclusionary
      process that led to the IDSA guidelines formulation.

      In contrast, ILADS is an international organization of healthcare providers who
      specialize in the treatment of Lyme disease and associated tick-borne disorders.
      The members of our multidisciplinary society care for some 50,000-100,000
      patients with tick-borne diseases, and we have published evidence-based
      guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease (available at
      www.ilads.org). Our guidelines are flexible and inclusive. They allow
      practitioners to treat patients in a more pragmatic fashion, especially if those
      patients are suffering from chronic Lyme disease.

      A major problem is that Dr. Masur and IDSA refuse to acknowledge the existence
      of chronic Lyme disease, stating that there is "no convincing published data" to
      support the existence of this serious chronic illness. IDSA has repeated this
      mantra despite evidence from more than 19,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles
      that chronic Lyme disease does in fact exist. The problem is that IDSA does not
      accept this evidence and buries its head in the sand every time the evidence is
      brought up. In fact, IDSA refused to meet with ILADS to discuss our concerns
      before the IDSA guidelines were adopted. It is certainly hard to convince an
      organization that doesn’t want to listen to the opposite argument.

      Dr. Masur employs two lines of reasoning to discredit treatment with longer
      courses of antibiotics for patients with chronic Lyme disease: First he states
      that "carefully designed and conducted studies of Lyme disease treatments have
      failed to demonstrate benefit from prolonged antibiotic therapy". This statement
      ignores the fact that there have been only two published studies that fit this
      description, and the results were mixed. A third study from Columbia University
      sponsored by the National Institutes of Health is currently in press, and it
      shows benefit of longer treatment for patients with persistent neurologic
      symptoms due to chronic Lyme disease. Thus Dr. Masur's statement is both
      inaccurate and out of date.

      Dr. Masur also makes the point in bold letters that "long-term antibiotic
      therapy may be dangerous, leading to potentially fatal infections in the
      bloodstream as a result of intravenous treatment". What he fails to tell you is
      that long-term antibiotic treatment is used routinely in patients with serious
      infectious diseases, such as the case of Andrew Speaker, the attorney with
      resistant tuberculosis who led the CDC on a global chase before he was
      quarantined and treated for his disease. Nobody would argue that Mr. Speaker
      should not receive the full course of antibiotic treatment necessary to
      eradicate his infection (up to two years of therapy). However when it comes to
      Lyme disease, such treatment is branded as "dangerous", despite the fact that
      antibiotics are generally well tolerated by patients and regarded as safe by the
      Food and Drug Administration.

      And why does IDSA consider this treatment dangerous? Because they refuse to look
      at the facts. For example, a homecare company with extensive experience in
      treating patients with intravenous antibiotics for chronic Lyme disease
      submitted a study to IDSA for presentation at their annual meeting. The study
      showed that in patients who received intravenous antibiotic treatment for an
      average of four months, the mortality rate was zero, and the rate of side
      effects was less than 1%. The IDSA response to this report? They rejected the
      study for presentation and refused to look at the data. Once again, there is no
      convincing an organization that refuses to listen to the opposite argument. It
      is particularly sad to see that the sources cited at the end of Dr. Masur's
      letter in support of his views are not articles from the peer-reviewed medical
      literature but rather misleading reports from Forbes Magazine, the Washington
      Post and Newsday.

      ILADS urges the governors of all states to support federal and state legislation
      intended to protect doctors who specialize in treating Lyme disease against the
      misleading and uninformed views of IDSA. ILADS urges you to support adequate
      treatment for patients suffering from chronic Lyme disease, and we urge you to
      consider the research information that has been suppressed and ignored by IDSA.
      If we continue to ignore this information, the Lyme epidemic will continue to
      spread with no end in sight.

      Governor Corzine, August 28, 2007, marks the 44th aniversary of the famous "I
      have a dream" speech by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. The members of ILADS and
      the Lyme community have a dream, and it is not very different from Dr. King's.
      Our dream is to see patients with chronic Lyme disease treated with dignity and
      respect by the entire medical community, so that informed physicians can treat
      those patients in a caring and compassionate manner without fear of
      discrimination, derision and figurative shotgun blasts from medical boards and
      medical societies. This is our simple dream, and I urge the governors of our
      nation to help us make this dream come true.

      Sincerely,

      Raphael Stricker, MD
      President, ILADS

      cc: President George W. Bush
      Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger
      Governor Mitt Romney
      Senator John McCain
      Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
      Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
      Senator Barack Obama
      Senator John Edwards
      Secretary Mike Leavitt
      Matt Salo, HHS Committee Director, NGA
      Kathleen Nolan, Health Division Director, NGA
    • artur737 Lekarz ILADS leczy swojego ojca chorego na Bb 05.09.07, 19:17

      www.upenn.edu/gazette/0907/pro04.html
      Issue Sep/oct 2007

      Class of ’87 | After suffering for 30 years from what doctors repeatedly
      identified as a cardiac disease of unknown origin, Robert Phillips developed
      heart failure severe enough to bring him to the verge of a heart transplant.
      Fortunately, the procedure was not needed.

      Phillips was diagnosed and treated for advanced Lyme disease—one of the fastest
      spreading epidemics in the world, and one of the most debilitating. Since his
      treatment a decade ago, Phillips has enjoyed the benefits of normal cardiac
      function.

      If Lyme is detected and treated properly at the onset of infection, there are
      usually no long-term medical repercussions. Left untreated or under-treated,
      however, it becomes an insidious illness, often inducing a myriad of acute and
      chronic neurological, musculoskeletal, rheumatologic, cardiac, and
      neuropsychiatric symptoms. Lyme has been identified in medical journals as a
      probable cause of multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia,
      Alzheimer’s, and Lou Gehrig’s disease, to name a few.

      For saving his life (and making it worth living again), Phillips can thank Dr.
      Steven Phillips W’87—his son, who happens to be a leader in the fight against
      Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. After graduating from Wharton in 1987, the
      younger Phillips was preparing to enter the business world when a friend who had
      recently finished medical school dared him to pursue a career in medicine.

      That dare would end up saving—and improving—a lot of lives. Phillips has focused
      his efforts on combating Lyme ever since he began his residency at the Yale
      University School of Medicine in 1993.

      “I knew a lot of people with Lyme from home,” the New York state native says.
      “Lyme has its fingers in so many disease states of ‘unknown etiology.’ Even if
      [it] contributes to only a small percent, the implications are staggering.”

      A significant percentage of the medical community still resists accepting Lyme
      and related tick-borne diseases as such severe threats. “Medical dogma changes
      slowly, over decades,” says Phillips, who remains confident that his work will
      ultimately enlighten his colleagues.

      In 1996, he stepped away from his research on the microbiology and immunology of
      B. Burgdorferi (the Lyme bacteria) and established a private practice. Today,
      operating from his cozy clapboard base camp in Wilton, Connecticut, Phillips
      wears a casual button-down shirt and blue jeans. The perpetually ringing
      telephones and fax machines are manned by three women—one of them his mother,
      Gladys. Despite his laidback demeanor and arid sense of humor, Phillips has a
      reputation for caring intensely for each patient.

      By the time they arrive at his door, most of his patients have already sought
      the aid of other doctors in every medical field. Phillips is not committed to
      commonplace Lyme protocol, and he does whatever it takes to alleviate his
      patients’ suffering and improve the quality of their lives. As a result, he’s in
      high demand.

      “There’s a wait of a few months, two to six depending on the time of the year,”
      he says. His patients come from all 50 states and many Western European countries.

      Lyme patients are not the only people seeking his expertise. Network television
      and syndicated radio programs have sought his commentary. The governments of
      Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York—all in the epicenter of tick-borne
      diseases—have invited him to provide testimony. His presentations have prompted
      legislation to fight Lyme and increase education efforts.

      In his critique of “Lyme Disease Testing” (Lancet Infectious Disease, March
      2006), Phillips makes clear that Lyme disease is taking on epidemic proportions
      because of the nonexistent efforts to improve an atrocious testing and reporting
      system—and he implicates government agencies, like the Centers for Disease
      Control and Prevention.

      Having served as president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases
      Society (ILADS), Phillips is now a member of the professional advisory board for
      the Turn The Corner Foundation—a group more focused on funding research and
      treatments.

      With the lay population still mostly ignorant about Lyme, Phillips wishes he
      could go on a speaking tour, in order to “educate so patients may have more
      access to medical care,” on a broader scale. In the meantime, he enjoys being a
      jock in his spare time. As a former instructor, the doctor has a particular soft
      spot for tennis, but there are other games he enjoys, too:

      “Any sports that don’t involve tick exposure.”

      —Eric Karlan C’09
    • franiolek1 Re: "Sezon na Kleszcza" cz druga 07.09.07, 14:43
      health.discovery.com/convergence/mystery-diagnosis/doug.html
      health.discovery.com/convergence/mystery-diagnosis/fein.html
    • artur737 Failures tracking Lyme disease makes a difference 13.09.07, 10:45
      Failures tracking Lyme disease makes a difference
      tinyurl.com/ynjqoy
      By Yvonne Bokhour and Peter S. Arno
      09/12/2007
      email this storyEmail to a friendprinter friendlyPrinter-friendly
      MANY wonder why the White House delayed revealing President Bush's bout with
      Lyme disease. There's a bigger issue: Was his case submitted to the Centers for
      Disease Control and Prevention for tracking or did it vanish, like tens of
      thousands of others?


      Although Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne disease in the United
      States, it's hard to be sure how many people have been infected. The CDC
      recently announced Lyme cases have doubled since 1991, with 20,000 new cases
      reported each year. But experts acknowledge Lyme surveillance is limited. The
      CDC relies on states to report, and each state has its own methods.

      Advertisement
      Without a comprehensive, consistent system, we cannot know Lyme's true reach.

      Lyme is likely to be under-reported. Research suggests official reports
      represent only 10 percent to 20 percent of diagnosed cases. Recently, reporting
      methods have come under particular scrutiny in Connecticut, a state with the
      second highest rate of Lyme disease in the nation.

      Unfortunately, Lyme is controversial: nearly every aspect, from diagnosis to
      treatment, sparks heated debate. Now, apparently, counting cases is also a
      hot-button issue. If we know Lyme is here, causing problems, why bother tracking
      every case? What difference does it make?

      Economically, at least, quite a lot - about $300 million in Connecticut alone.

      Scientific and humanitarian concerns should drive any discussion of reporting.
      But sometimes, money talks. Many families are stressed by the financial burden
      imposed by Lyme disease. What do case reports reveal about patient struggles, in
      dollars and cents?

      Connecticut's reporting system changed drastically in 2003 and with it, our
      ability to assess Lyme's economic impact. Until then, both doctors and labs were
      required to notify the state Department of Public Health when patients tested
      positive for Lyme. That year, 4,631 cases were reported. But in 2003, cases fell
      to 1,403. Why? The state stopped requiring labs to report them. Trends would
      still be discernible, officials said, and the state would soon install a
      computerized system to capture laboratory numbers.

      Five years later, this system has yet to be fully implemented. The state asserts
      technological challenges have prevented its completion - a delay many find
      unacceptable.

      State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal noted: "We have been demanding that
      the Department of Public Health do more accurate reporting. Awareness of Lyme
      disease helps people prevent it. If people think that Lyme disease is going away
      because of under-reporting, it could give them a false sense of security." In
      addition, accurate case numbers might improve diagnosis, since doctors would
      know how probable Lyme is in their communities.

      In 2006, the CDC published a study of the economic impact of Lyme disease. It
      concluded the average case generates $8,172 in costs using year 2000 dollars.
      Adjusting for inflation, current costs would run $10,256.

      If we apply this amount to Connecticut's case numbers, it's clear accurate
      reporting provides vital data regarding the epidemic's toll. Connecticut
      reported 1,788 cases in 2006, mainly from doctors. Using the estimate of
      $10,256, these cases would have generated costs of over $18 million.

      But what if labs were still reporting? By assuming that labs report in the same
      proportion as 2002, we're looking at 5,902 cases, generating costs of more than
      $60 million.

      Finally, consider this eye-opener: Assuming conservatively that case reports
      represent 20 percent of diagnosed cases, Connecticut's 2006 case numbers jump to
      29,509, generating costs of more than $300 million.

      In a nutshell, here's the difference reporting methods can make: the difference
      between 1,788 cases and 29,509 cases. The difference between $18 million and
      $300 million. All in one year. All in one state.

      Poor reporting methods effectively hide Lyme's health, economic and political
      impact. Whether visible or not, however, these costs are real to patients and
      their families. If even half the 29,509 cases were misdiagnosed or
      overestimated, these calculations offer a truer picture of Lyme's magnitude than
      official numbers. Moreover, incomplete Connecticut reporting distorts national
      trends, skewing our understanding of this growing public health threat.

      Until researchers resolve numerous dilemmas, patients will fight symptoms
      affecting not only their personal welfare, but the financial security of their
      families and the economic fabric of their communities. The entire country needs
      a comprehensive, accurate and consistent method of reporting to reduce Lyme's
      serious personal, public health and economic burden. It would seem counting
      cases makes a very big difference indeed.

      Yvonne Bokhour of New Canaan is a master's degree candidate in the Health
      Advocacy Program at Sarah Lawrence College. E-mail: Yvonne@Bokhour.com. Peter S.
      Arno is a professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, School of
      Public Health, New York Medical College, Valhalla, N.Y. 10595. E-mail:
      Peter_Arno@nymc.edu.


    • artur737 People with Lyme: Those most in need victimized 18.09.07, 02:07
      People with Lyme: Those most in need victimized by U.S. system - CA

      People with LymeThose most in need victimized by U.S. system
      Edmonton Sun, Onterio, CA
      By DONNA MARIE ARTUSO

      WASHINGTON
    • artur737 Rash judgment? 18.09.07, 03:05
      Columbia Magazine
      Summer 2007
      tinyurl.com/yrzf5c
      Rash judgment?

      Brian Fallon '85PH, '85PS says the medical establishment underestimates the
      devastating effects of Lyme disease.
      by David J. Craig and Amy Sara Clark



      When Lia McCabe was 25 and working as a financial-planning assistant in
      Manhattan, she started having excruciating headaches and joint pain so intense
      that she couldn’t walk or even hold a pen. She was making stupid mistakes, like
      slamming drawers on her hand and opening cabinets on her head. And then there
      were the memory problems: She knew she had to stop working the day she showed up
      and couldn’t find her desk.

      By the time she was tested for Lyme disease two years later, McCabe was
      bedridden and severely mentally impaired. “I couldn’t add two plus two,” she
      says. “At my worst, I didn’t recognize my parents.”

      McCabe tested positive for Lyme disease, a tick-borne bacterial illness that’s
      difficult to diagnose, in 1994. She’s since learned to walk again and to manage
      her pain by taking lots of powerful intravenous antibiotics. Her cognitive
      ability has improved, too, although she still can’t hold a job. While running
      errands in her own neighborhood, in fact, she carries a map in case she gets lost.

      “I begin every morning with a game of solitaire to see how I’m doing,” she says.
      “I don’t want to pay bills or make a big decision on one of my bad days.”

      Like McCabe, thousands of Americans today suffer serious physical and
      neurological problems despite having been treated for Lyme disease. Scientists
      can’t agree on what makes them sick. Is the Lyme bug still in their systems? Did
      the initial illness simply wreck their bodies? Or do they actually have some
      other condition with similar symptoms? Debate about whether to give them more
      antibiotics is contentious among scientists and confusing to patients; the
      Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) weighed in on the matter last
      October, publishing strict new diagnostic guidelines that essentially deny that
      chronic forms of Lyme disease exist.

      But a group of Columbia professors led by Brian Fallon, a clinical psychiatrist
      whose own research cuts across the boundaries of medicine and neurology, won’t
      concede that point. In April, Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) launched
      the first research center in the world to focus on chronic health problems
      associated with Lyme disease. Supported in part by $3 million in gifts from the
      patient-advocacy groups Time for Lyme and the Lyme Disease Association,
      Columbia’s new Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center is investigating the
      basic science of chronic Lyme disease in hopes of developing new diagnostic
      tools and more effective treatments.

      “I’ve seen too many healthy people get Lyme disease and then never be the same
      again,” says Fallon ’85PH, ’85PS, who directs the new center. “I know that
      chronic Lyme disease is real. But what exactly is it, and how do you treat it?
      Nobody knows because few researchers have asked these questions.”

      Doctors Divided

      Lyme is one of the fastest-spreading infectious diseases in the United States,
      according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with roughly 23,300
      new cases reported in 2005, up 22 percent from 2001.

      The illness is carried by deer ticks in the Northeast, where 90 percent of all
      U.S. cases are reported, and by Western black-legged ticks on the West Coast.
      Lyme has become more prevalent since its discovery in 1975, scientists say,
      partly because suburban neighborhoods have expanded into wooded areas where the
      ticks thrive. “In parts of East Suffolk, Long Island, and Fairfield County,
      Connecticut, it’s a tick haven,” says Rafal Tokarz, a Columbia microbiologist
      and postdoctoral researcher who studies ticks. “People walk out in the backyard
      with their dogs, and they come back in with literally four or five ticks on them.”

      A person with an infected tick burrowed in her skin for longer than 24 hours is
      at high risk for contracting Lyme. If she gets the disease, a large red rash
      typically appears, accompanied by flulike symptoms within a couple of weeks. The
      telltale bull’s eye–shaped rash doesn’t show up in about 40 percent of all Lyme
      cases, however, and early symptoms such as fatigue, fever, headaches, and achy
      joints can mean just about anything. To further befuddle doctors, there’s this:
      Blood tests cannot rule out Lyme because the bacterium that causes it, Borrelia
      burgdorferi, enters the body in such small amounts.
      • artur737 Re: Rash judgment? 18.09.07, 03:06

        Physicians may mistake the disease for everything from chronic fatigue to the
        ordinary flu, according to Fallon. And that’s when the real trouble starts,
        because if treatment is delayed by even a few days, B. burgdorferi can spread
        throughout the body, causing inflammation in the joints, the spinal column, and
        major organs. The corkscrew-shaped bug is especially adept at invading the
        nervous system, Fallon says, leading to mood disorders and memory problems in 10
        to 30 percent of patients who aren’t treated promptly, and in 5 percent who are.
        In more rare cases, he says, Lyme causes manic depression, seizures, numbness in
        the hands and feet, speech problems, and even dementia.

        How effective is treatment? That’s another question that divides the medical
        community. Most Lyme experts insist that a single four-week course of
        antibiotics cures the disease, even when it was detected late. Citing two major
        studies in 2004 that didn’t find any B. burgdorferi in people once treated for
        Lyme, these experts say that if health problems persist it’s likely that the
        patient contracted a new, unrelated illness. The majority of Lyme researchers
        therefore oppose administering more antibiotics, which carry a risk of allergic
        reaction or life-threatening staph infection when delivered by catheter. The
        IDSA’s new guidelines for diagnosing Lyme disease reflect this perspective,
        calling for antibiotic treatment only when a rash appears or when blood tests
        reveal an active infection. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published
        similar standards this spring.

        “We don’t deny that people who say they have chronic Lyme disease are
        suffering,” says IDSA spokesman Steven Baragona. “But it’s not clear that what
        they’re suffering from is Lyme disease.”

        Fallon, on the other hand, is among a smaller number of scientists who believe
        that B. burgdorferi, like the syphilis bacterium it closely resembles, lies
        dormant within human cells, where medications have trouble attacking it. “That’s
        been demonstrated in vitro,” he says, “but not yet in the human body.” Fallon is
        about to publish a study suggesting that repeated courses of antibiotics relieve
        certain symptoms of chronic Lyme; the research provides a counterpoint to
        previous studies that found no such benefit. It’s also possible, Fallon says,
        that the initial B. burgdorferi infection triggers an autoimmune response,
        prompting the body to continually attack itself, and that the bug causes
        permanent tissue damage.

        “There’s probably a complex combination of factors at work,” says Fallon, 51,
        who is an associate professor. “We want to learn how these mechanisms operate in
        different patients, so we can tell who’ll benefit from more antibiotics and who
        should be treated instead for individual symptoms like pain or depression. Right
        now, doctors and patients are frustrated because everything about Lyme disease
        seems so ambiguous.”

        Advocating Caution

        In 1994, when Fallon launched Columbia’s first Lyme research unit, little was
        known about the psychiatric effects of the disease. Fallon was among the first
        to describe them. In one study, he found that Lyme patients are two to three
        times more likely to develop depression than people with similarly debilitating
        conditions, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Then, in 2001, Columbia
        psychologist Felice Tager showed that children with a history of Lyme are prone
        to cognitive problems.

        These Columbia studies had a profound impact. Physicians previously knew that
        Lyme causes arthritis and a handful of neurological conditions like meningitis
        and cranial nerve palsies, but thanks to Fallon and his colleagues they
        gradually came to recognize that the disease can bring about a wide range of
        psychiatric problems. As a result, many infectious disease experts actually
        worry that doctors are now overdiagnosing Lyme and needlessly prescribing
        antibiotics. “There’s been so much publicity around Lyme disease, I think that
        clinicians today are more likely to accept the possibility that Lyme patients
        have a persistent infection than is warranted by the research,” says Eugene
        Shapiro, a Yale professor of pediatrics who coauthored the IDSA guidelines.

        Fallon, who agrees that diagnostics must be made more precise, advocates a
        cautious approach to clinical work. Doctors should consider a diagnosis of
        chronic Lyme most seriously, he says, when clusters of symptoms appear and only
        after patients have tried standard treatments for their individual symptoms. Yet
        he insists that doctors still aren’t sensitive enough to Lyme’s broad
        symptomatology. Surveys have shown, for instance, that many physicians
        mistakenly believe that patients cannot have middle- or late-stage Lyme if they
        don’t have arthritis. In fact, arthritic symptoms are typically supplanted by
        cognitive problems one to two years after a patient contracts Lyme disease,
        Fallon says.

        To make diagnosis more scientific, researchers at Columbia’s new Lyme center are
        trying to identify biomarkers, bodily characteristics that signal the disease’s
        presence. In a forthcoming paper coauthored with Fallon, Columbia brain imaging
        experts led by radiologist Ronald Van Heertum, neuropsychologist Harold Sackeim
        ’72CC, and mathematician James Moeller identify a specific region of the brain
        in which blood flow appears to be altered by B. burgdorferi. “This research
        eventually might tell us whether the Lyme bacteria have invaded the central
        nervous system,” Fallon says, “and therefore whether to risk giving patients the
        powerful IV antibiotics that are designed to reach nerve cells.”

        Fallon and his colleagues recently completed another study that suggests
        repeated courses of the IV antibiotic Ceftriaxone provide long-term benefits in
        physical functioning but only short-term cognitive improvement to chronic Lyme
        patients. The researchers also are investigating the genetic basis of Lyme
        disease. If they can explain why some people are less effective at fighting the
        Lyme infection or why their immune systems produce an overly intense
        inflammatory response, Fallon says, it could open up new treatment possibilities.

        Faulty Guidelines?

        The neurologist Andrew Pachner once called Lyme disease the “new great
        imitator,” updating an old epithet for syphilis, which mimics other illnesses
        when left untreated and was difficult to diagnose prior to the 1930s. Like
        syphilis back then, Lyme disease today is often derided as a “wastebasket
        diagnosis,” a too-easy explanation for otherwise mysterious ailments. Amongst
        physicians, the Lyme debate can get personal: Doctors who specialize in treating
        chronic Lyme have even been accused of exploiting desperate patients.

        In order to discourage careless Lyme diagnoses, the Maryland state legislature
        considered a bill this spring that would have written into law the IDSA’s and
        AAN’s new diagnosis and treatment guidelines, which are nonlegally binding
        ethics standards. The proposed legislation died in the state Senate. Around the
        same time, several state medical boards disciplined doctors who give chronic
        Lyme patients repeated courses of IV antibiotics.
        Time for Lyme and the Lyme Disease Association, the influential patient-advocacy
        groups that funded Columbia’s new center, are lobbying hard against the new IDSA
        and AAN guidelines, which, they say, leave chronic Lyme patients without any
        realistic treatment options. Their case is being heard in some quarters:
        Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal now is investigating whether
        scientists who wrote the new guidelines ignored evidence they didn’t like. Among
        Blumenthal’s
        • artur737 Re: Rash judgment? 18.09.07, 03:08
          Among Blumenthal’s stated concerns is that insurance companies will use the
          guidelines to deny coverage of doctor-prescribed treatments.

          Physicians at Columbia’s Lyme center don’t have to worry about being censured
          because they administer antibiotics only as part of approved research studies.
          But Fallon still refers chronic Lyme patients to doctors who prescribe IV
          antibiotics. “I’m not fixated on using repeated courses of antibiotics,” he
          says, “but I do believe the option should be left open for doctors to consider.”

          As to the underlying scientific debate, Fallon takes a philosophical view: Both
          the physicians who treat chronic Lyme with additional antibiotics and the
          doctors who oppose that approach, he says, are practicing medicine “in a
          reasonable fashion” based on a clear set of diagnostic principles. It’s just
          that they can’t agree on what the principles ought to be. Do the health
          consequences of chronic Lyme disease outweigh the risks of antibiotic therapy?
          Or should doctors adhere to narrow clinical criteria of Lyme, and therefore risk
          leaving some patients untreated?

          “Part of what makes Lyme disease devastating is that there’s so much confusion
          in the medical community,” Fallon says. “Now we have two prominent medical
          organizations saying that the question about antibiotics is closed, but I don’t
          think it’s closed. We still don’t know what causes chronic Lyme, and evidence
          suggests that more antibiotics might help some people. At Columbia, we’re trying
          to keep these questions open.”

    • artur737 Bezczelny list z IDSA do rzadu USA 18.09.07, 03:13
      To jest ten bezczelny list z IDSA do rzadu USA. Wsadzam go tu nie dlatego, ze
      taki dobry tylko aby byl zapis ich chamstwa.

      IDSA
      Infectious Disease Society of America

      August 7, 2007

      The Honorable Jon S. Corzine Chairman
      Health and Human Services Committee
      National Governors Association
      444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 267
      Washington, DC 20001

      (Letter also sent to the National Conference of State Legislatures)

      Dear Governor Corzine:

      I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) to bring
      to the National Governors Association's (NGA) attention problematic Lyme disease
      legislation that has been introduced in several states. In making the NGA aware
      of these legislative efforts, many of which are well-intentioned but
      therapeutically dangerous, our primary concern is to ensure the best quality in
      patient care and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we
      believe it is critically important that you be fully apprised of the widespread
      consensus within the medical and scientific community about the appropriate
      treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical community's concerns about
      unproven, potentially harmful treatments for so called "chronic" Lyme disease
      that are advocated by a small group of physicians.

      IDSA represents more than 8,000 physicians and scientists and is widely
      recognized as the pre-eminent authority on infectious diseases (ID) in the
      United States. The Society's members focus on the epidemiology, diagnosis,
      investigation, prevention, and treatment of infectious diseases in the U.S. and
      abroad. Our members care for patients of all ages with serious infections,
      including Lyme disease. In 2006, IDSA published revised practice guidelines for
      the clinical assessment, treatment, and prevention of Lyme disease. The
      development of guidelines requires the review of scientific and medical
      literature. IDSA's guidelines were developed by a 14-member panel of infectious
      diseases clinicians and researchers, including physicians with many years of
      clinical experience treating patients with Lyme disease. Nearly 400 references
      of papers and studies are cited in the IDSA guidelines and many, many more were
      reviewed that did not meet rigorous scientific standards.

      As you may know, Lyme disease is a tick-transmitted infection that can cause
      non-specific symptoms such as muscle and joint pain, fevers, chills, and
      fatigue. Some patients may continue to experience these symptoms even after a
      course of antibiotic therapy has killed the Lyme disease bacterium. A small
      group of physicians have diagnosed such patients as having "chronic" Lyme
      disease and advocate treating them with repeated or prolonged courses of oral or
      intravenous ...
      • artur737 Re: Bezczelny list z IDSA do rzadu USA 18.09.07, 03:14
        antibiotics. Such diagnoses and treatments are not supported by the IDSA’s
        practice guidelines, nor are they supported by new Lyme disease guidelines
        published by the American Academy of Neurology, nor by the vast majority of
        experts in the field.

        Of greatest concern are some states’ misguided attempts to legislate the
        prolonged use of antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease. There are no convincing
        published scientific data that support the existence of chronic Lyme disease.
        Carefully designed and conducted studies of Lyme disease treatments have failed
        to demonstrate benefit from prolonged antibiotic therapy. Rather, these studies
        have demonstrated that there is no difference in the measured improvement
        between patients receiving placebo and patients treated with long term antibiotics.

        Furthermore, long-term antibiotic therapy may be dangerous, leading to
        potentially fatal infections in the bloodstream as a result of intravenous
        treatment. Also, although the bacteria that causes Lyme disease does not acquire
        resistance to antibiotics, long-term antibiotic exposure can lead to
        drug-resistance among other microorganisms, creating "superbugs" that cannot be
        treated with currently available drugs. In summary, far from improving the
        patient’s quality of life, prolonged antibiotic therapy may actually increase
        the patient’s suffering.

        While IDSA opposes enactment of legislation that sanctions the use of prolonged
        antibiotic therapy, we support efforts to hold public hearings on Lyme disease
        as well as the establishment of legislative commissions to study all aspects of
        Lyme disease. Such hearings or commissions could play an important role in
        educating both state legislatures and the general public about the controversy
        surrounding treatment for Lyme disease. In order to ensure that these
        educational efforts are science-based, IDSA strongly urges the inclusion of
        board-certified ID physicians who represent a balanced perspective on Lyme disease.

        For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the vast
        majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA
        (www.idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        (www.cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
        (www.niaid.gov), the American Academy of Neurology (www.aan.com), or the
        American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org).

        I hope you will contact Mark Leasure at IDSA if you have questions or would like
        the names of board-certified ID physicians who may be willing to provide further
        guidance on appropriate treatments for Lyme disease. Mr. Leasure may be reached
        at (703) 299-0200 or via e-mail at mleasure@idsociety.org.

        Best Regards,

        Henry Masur, MD, FIDSA

        IDSA President

        cc:

        :
        Matt Salo, HHS Committee Director, NGA

        Kathleen Nolan, Health Division Director, NGA Center for Best Practices

        Page Three – Chairman Corzine

        Enclosures:

        :
        IDSA’s Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Lyme Disease

        IDSA’s



        • nataszkam Re: Bezczelny list z IDSA do rzadu USA 18.09.07, 10:17
          To zupełnie dla mnie niezrozumiałe- w czerwcu ukazał się artykuł
          ILADS w piśmie IDSA, a 2 miesiące później mamy kolejne ataki na
          ILADS. czyżby szykowano jakieś ciężkie działo na re?
          • artur737 Re: Bezczelny list z IDSA do rzadu USA 18.09.07, 15:21
            Artykul ILADS opublikowali bo im kazano. Natomiast ten list napisali 'z potrzeby
            serca'.
    • artur737 Climate change ticks ever closer 18.09.07, 03:22
      Climate change ticks ever closer TheStar.com - Environment - Climate change
      ticks ever closer
      tinyurl.com/ytpwfo
      On the Leslie St. spit, signs of global warming are being picked right from the
      feathers of migratory birds. And the ticks now spreading north carry with them
      the spectre of Lyme disease
      September 01, 2007
      Hannah Hoag
      Special to the Star

      At the foot of Leslie St., a spit of land fans out into Lake Ontario. Over the
      years, the man-made peninsula, built with rubble from Toronto construction
      sites, has grown into an urban wilderness, home to butterflies, birds, rabbits
      and the occasional coyote.

      The cottonwoods, birches, grasslands and bugs make the park popular with
      migratory birds that stop in to refuel on their flights – many coming from as
      far away as South America.

      But lurking among the feathers of these international travellers are
      blood-sucking stowaway ticks that can carry Lyme disease.

      Every morning before dawn during the spring and fall bird migration, Dan
      Derbyshire, co-ordinator of the Bird Research Station in Tommy Thompson Park,
      organizes a small group of volunteers who track the birds winging through the
      region.

      The station is part of the Canadian Migration Monitoring Network, a string of
      sites across southern Canada and the northern United States that monitor the
      population trends of northern breeding birds.

      From March to June, in 2005 and 2006, Derbyshire and his team of volunteer
      birders plucked ticks from the heads of the migrating birds. Then they mailed
      the ticks to scientists who are trying to gain a better understanding of how
      birds and climate change might increase the spread of Lyme disease through Canada.

      "The number of cases of Lyme disease have been fairly low in Canada, until
      recently," says Nicholas Ogden, an expert in tick-borne diseases at the
      Université de Montréal in Quebec and a researcher at the Public Health Agency of
      Canada.

      Since the 1970s, parts of the United States have suffered an epidemic of Lyme
      disease, mostly within the northeastern, mid-Atlantic, and north-central states.

      In the United States, approximately 20,000 new cases are reported each year. The
      disease – which causes fever, headaches and can spread to the heart and nervous
      system if untreated – is rarely reported in Canada, but ranks among the top
      bug-borne diseases in the United States.

      Ten years ago, eastern Canada had only two known populations of Ixodes
      scapularis, commonly known as the eastern blacklegged tick. Today, there are 13
      or 14, says Ogden.

      "It's not that those two have spread out, but that there are new ones bobbling
      up," he says.

      They tend to settle in migratory bird landfalls, resource-rich chunks of land
      near large bodies of water.

      Point Pelee National Park is one of the better-known migratory bird landfalls in
      southern Ontario. Each year millions of migratory birds funnel through this
      small spit of land that juts into Lake Erie.

      But the Leslie St. Spit, the Toronto Islands and the Toronto lakeshore are also
      popular resting spots for migrants.

      Like Point Pelee, the region lies within the crossroads of two major migration
      flyways. It provides weary-winged travellers a chance to rest during their
      migration over the Great Lakes and stock up on energy for the next leg of their
      travels.

      "Toronto has always been on the migration highways," says Derbyshire. "There are
      lots of green spaces where the birds can drop in and rest, and the creation of
      the spit has really added to that."

      Ogden says the migratory birds may be bringing ticks into Canada after passing
      through the northeastern and north-central states, where they're abundant. The
      birds may also be carrying ticks from established Canadian populations farther
      north.

      Other researchers have previously found blacklegged ticks on migratory birds.
      "We just wanted to know if it was rare or a common thing," says Ogden.

      Although Ogden won't reveal details of the study until they have been published
      in a scientific journal, he says all the stations from western Ontario to Nova
      Scotia captured migratory birds with ticks on them.

      "We think migratory birds are quite efficient at spreading the tick around," he
      says.

      But once the ticks are here, will they survive?

      Canada's cooler climate once offered protection from the diseases of warmer
      regions. But as climate change brings milder winters, scientists worry that the
      ticks – formerly limited by the cold – may move farther north.

      "Insects are cold-blooded – air temperature determines body temperature," says
      Jonathan Patz, Director of the Center for Sustainability and the Global
      Environment at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. The warmer air
      temperature can make it easier for the insect to survive the Canadian winter. It
      can also speed up the rate at which it develops.

      According to the Ministry of Natural Resources, should greenhouse gas emissions
      remain high, average summer temperatures in southern Ontario are expected to be
      4 to 5 degrees Celsius warmer and average winter temperatures about 6 degrees
      Celsius warmer before the end of the century.

      "All the biological processes that are going on require a certain amount of
      heat," says Ogden. "If it is very cold, those processes are very slow or will
      stop altogether."

      "When people say why should we worry about a half-degree of warming, it means
      everything to a mosquito carrying dengue or West Nile virus. It means do you
      have infectious mosquitoes after 10 days or three weeks?" says Patz.
    • artur737 Residents raise the stakes in Lyme war 18.09.07, 05:26
      Angry residents raise the stakes in Lyme disease war
      September 16, 2007
      BY CAROL ANN CAMPBELL
      Star-Ledger Staff
      tinyurl.com/yw6e27
      In Warren Township, fearless deer stride across front lawns to nibble on grass
      and shrubs. They waltz up to front porches of million-dollar homes to sample the
      potted plants. Sometimes only repeated blasts of the car horn will clear the
      driveway.

      Along with these four-legged symbols of bucolic suburban life comes a dreaded
      illness: Lyme disease. In some cases, entire families are being diagnosed with
      tick-borne ailments, and residents are demanding that their towns and counties
      do something. In many towns, Lyme disease is becoming not just a medical issue
      but a potent political one.

      About 20 neighbors in a section of Warren near Route 78 joined together to
      pressure local officials at a recent town council meeting. They called for the
      town to reduce the deer population
      • artur737 Re: Residents raise the stakes in Lyme war 18.09.07, 05:27
        The anger and activism
        • artur737 Re: Residents raise the stakes in Lyme war 18.09.07, 05:28
          Some residents want towns to consider using devices, such as bait boxes and
          special feeders, that kill ticks on deer and mice. Others say habitat
          modification
    • artur737 Dr Jemsek bankrutuje i opuszcza NC 18.09.07, 17:13
      Kolejna ofiara IDSA. Mamy nadzieje, ze dobry doktor sie nie podda i otworzy nowa
      klinike gdzies indziej.
      Bezposrednio przyczyna bankructwa byla rewidnykacja leczenia za ubiegle lata
      przez ubezpieczalnie na podstawie werdyktu lokalnej izby lekarskiej, ze terapie
      Dr Jemseka przekraczaly ogolnie przyjete standardy.
      tinyurl.com/2uo8zc
      Sep. 17, 2007
      HEALTH
      Doctor who fought for his beliefs pays a high price
      KAREN GARLOCH

      Jemsek Specialty Clinic in Huntersville is closing Wednesday. That sort of news
      wouldn't normally make headlines. But Dr. Joseph Jemsek, the clinic's founder,
      is not just any doctor.

      He has been a pioneer in AIDS treatment during nearly 30 years in the Charlotte
      area. But in summer 2006, he went before the N.C. Medical Board to defend
      himself against allegations of unprofessional conduct in connection with
      diagnosing and treating patients with Lyme disease.

      Jemsek is one of a small group of infectious disease specialists who believe
      there is a condition called "chronic Lyme disease" that can be debilitating for
      years after a deer tick bite. He and like-minded doctors believe such patients
      need antibiotics for months or years, much longer than the standard few weeks.

      Establishment doctors in the Infectious Diseases Society of America and on the
      state medical board see things differently.

      That's why Jemsek lost his fight in July 2006.

      During a public hearing in Raleigh, witnesses testified that Jemsek misdiagnosed
      them with the tick-borne illness and treated them with intravenous antibiotics
      for many months without telling them the treatment exceeded the standard.

      Many devoted patients said Jemsek was the only doctor who helped them.

      The board concluded he had violated state law.

      Board members allowed Jemsek to continue practicing but required Lyme disease
      patients to sign consent forms explaining they understood his treatment differs
      from that of most N.C. doctors.

      That ruined his practice.

      Insurance companies stopped reimbursing Jemsek for treatment of Lyme disease.
      Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina filed suit, asking him to repay
      hundreds of claims for Lyme disease treatments that were "not medically necessary."

      Since then, Jemsek and his clinic have filed for bankruptcy. His five-bedroom
      house in Foxcroft is on the market for $2.5 million.

      Now his Web site
    • artur737 Prezydent IDSA wygraża pięscia 18.09.07, 17:40
      Jeszcze jeden wrogi dokument z IDSA opublikowany niedawno w ich czasopismie.
      Parafrazujac tresc dokumentu ma takie znaczenie "Znacie nas dobrze, zawsze
      dotrzymujemy danego slowa i teraz piszemy, ze jezeli przyjdzie nam kiedys bronic
      naszych restrykcyjnych zalecen leczenia borelizy to ta ręka nie zadrży".

      Prokurator generalny zażyczył sobie szeregu dokumentow od IDSA dotyczacych
      nieslawnych zalecen i je otrzymal. Potem kiedy rozszerzyl sledztwo aby szukac
      powiazan czlonkow nieslawnego komietetu od boreliozy z ubezpieczalniami napotkal
      na wsciekly opor. Czlonkowie komisji odmowili przekazania zamowionych dokumentow
      lub robia wszytko by ich nie przekazac. M.in. dlatego sledztwo sie przeciaga.
      Ten artykul jawnie popiera dzialalnosc tychze czlonkow komisji odmawiajacych
      wspolpracy z wladzami karnymi kraju.
      Prezydent IDSA żądania prokuratora generalnego nazywa frywolnymi piszac:
      "We will vigorously resist requests that are intrusive and time-consuming for
      members if these requests seem frivolous."

      Artykul mozna ocenic wchodzac na ponizszy link. Jedynka oznacza najnizsza
      mozliwa ocene.
      www.idsociety.org/newsArticle.aspx?id=4262
      Dotychczasowe pinie na temat tego manifestu jak widac sa dosc niskie i srednia
      ocena to odrobine wyzej niz jeden.


      Volume 17 | Number 2 | Summer 2007 IDSA News heading image
      From the President: IDSA Stands Up For Lyme Disease Guidelines

      IDSA produces its practice guidelines with one goal in mind: to provide our
      members with the best possible advice about how to best take care of patients.
      We achieve that goal through a rigorous, transparent, evidence-based process.
      Once written by an expert panel, our guidelines are carefully reviewed for
      content, readability, and objectivity by the Standards and Practice Guidelines
      Committee, by subject matter experts, and by the Board of Directors. Thus, the
      conclusions are carefully developed, although we are always prepared to consider
      new evidence or new perspectives and initiate revisions if needed.

      The Connecticut attorney general has notified IDSA that he is investigating
      possible antitrust violations in connection with the development of our 2000 and
      2006 Lyme disease guidelines. This unprecedented move against a professional
      society and its practice guidelines appears to have been initiated on behalf of
      health care professionals and patient care advocates who disagree with IDSA
      recommendations. These individuals maintain that Lyme disease exists in a
      chronic form, and that long-term intravenous ceftriaxone provides clinical benefit.

      The guidelines committee had carefully considered clinical evidence on these
      topics, and concluded that there is no evidence Borrelia burgdorferi persists
      chronically following 10 to 28 days of antibiotic therapy. Moreover, clinical
      trials have demonstrated that long-term ceftriaxone provides no objective
      benefit, and can cause obvious harm in terms of adverse effects of ceftriaxone
      and vascular access complications. At IDSA’s 2006 Annual Meeting, guideline
      committee representatives debated a spokesman from the International Lyme and
      Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) about these issues. ILADS produced no
      convincing data to indicate that our guidelines should be altered.
      Nothing Replaces Clinician’s Judgement

      Why is the Connecticut attorney general investigating IDSA? ILADS and others are
      unhappy that IDSA guidelines are used by the insurance industry as a basis for
      denying payment for chronic antibiotic therapy, thus depriving health care
      providers of income and depriving patients of therapy. IDSA is proud that its
      guidelines are considered authoritative and are widely used. However, IDSA
      recognizes that every patient is different, and nothing can replace a
      clinician’s judgment. Guidelines are intended to help them reach decisions about
      the best course of treatment. They are suggestions based on the best available
      science—but they are by no means mandatory. IDSA cannot and would not dictate an
      individual physician’s actions. Furthermore, the Society has no role in
      insurance company policy, and no insurance company has any role in the
      development of our guidelines.

      There is no legal precedent for charging a professional society with antitrust
      violations for developing clinical practice guidelines, and legal experts tell
      us that an antitrust claim, if brought, would have little chance of success.
      Even if no claim is ever brought, this investigation will have an impact on
      IDSA. IDSA has already spent tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees and
      many hours of staff time providing documents requested by the Connecticut
      attorney general. Thus far, IDSA has cooperated fully with the attorney general.
      We have nothing to hide: Our process is rigorous and transparent. We are
      concerned, however, that IDSA volunteers who serve on committees not be
      harassed, and not be hurt financially. We will vigorously resist requests that
      are intrusive and time-consuming for members if these requests seem frivolous.

      The debate on how best to treat Lyme disease is a scientific one, and we believe
      it is best resolved scientifically. Unfortunately, those who are unhappy with
      our scientific conclusions have made it political. In some states, advocates
      have pressured the legislature to endorse long-term antibiotic therapy despite
      the evidence. In Connecticut, they have found a sympathetic ally in the attorney
      general, who has initiated this investigation.

      We are immensely sympathetic to frustrated patients who have diverse symptoms,
      and who are frustrated that we cannot identify a cause for their symptoms.
      However, our Society is committed to management strategies that rely on data,
      interpreted by experienced clinicians and researchers, to formulate
      recommendations for what approaches are effective and safe. If therapies are
      used which have been demonstrated to be ineffective or unsafe, we cannot shy
      away from discouraging the use of such practices.

      IDSA is facing an unprecedented challenge from the attorney general of
      Connecticut that threatens the role of all professional societies to educate
      their members and the public about best medical practices. We will do our best
      to educate the attorney general and his advisors, and other lawmakers and
      policymakers, about the merits of evidence-based practice guidelines. We also
      are working to educate the media and the public about Lyme disease and its
      proper treatment. However, we will resist any efforts to prevent the
      dissemination of objective, science-based recommendations.
    • artur737 Real Source of Antibiotic Resistance 18.09.07, 19:04
      Nastala moda dla zarzadcow Sluzby Zdrowia by motywowac odmowe leczenia u
      pacjentow z borelioza
      mozliwoscia wytworzenia opornych szczepow bakteryjnych.
      Ciekawe, ze nikt jakos nie ma obaw o szczepy oporne kiedy idzie o produkcje
      miesa. Tu uzywa sie abx nie jako srodek do leczenia chorob ale jako
      profilaktyke. Wlasnie na produkcje miesa idzie zdecydowana wiekszosc
      antybiotykow a nie do leczenia ludzi.
      Wiekszosc abx uzytych przy produkcji w koncu konczy sie ich obecnosci w pokarmie
      dla ludzi i w srodowisku naturalnym.

      Artykul z Kanady

      Antibiotic resistance...do we stop treating?

      It has become fashionable for medical/public health officials to use the issue
      of the overuse of antibiotics causing antibiotic resistant bacteria as a factor
      to keep treatment of Lyme disease at an unsafe insufficient level.

      Those same medical/public health officials' concerns become muted and virtually
      non-existent when it comes to the mega food producers of the world contaminating
      our food supply with antibiotics.

      By Health Canadas' own statement it is food producers using antibiotics /
      antimicrobials in farmed food products who are a cause of antibiotic resistance.

      On the same Health Canada webpage when discussing safe use of antibiotics the
      only issue addressed is improper use in humans yet when comparing the volume of
      antibiotics used in our farmed food production to human medicinal consumption
      one realizes human use is minuscule in comparison. Antibiotics are a commodity
      put in feed of animals by the ton, and not limited by prescription as they are
      in humans who are then given them by the individual dose.

      Our food industry producers are not mentioned other than that they should be
      "encouraged" to give antibiotics to animals only when the animals are sick. They
      do not...they give antibiotics to animals as growth enhancers and prophylactic
      disease inhibitors.

      The European Union, effective Jan. 1st, 2006 has banned all antibiotics in
      animals used in the food chain.

      Where is Canada on this? ... curbing treatment for humans and the targeting
      doctors who treat seriously sick patients.

      There is considerable research globally linking most antibiotic resistant
      bacteria one way or another back to the use of antibiotics in our food
      production, hospital micro-environments, or natural evolution of micro-organisms.

      Our farmers feed antibiotics / antimicrobials to cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. at
      alarming rates.

      Government and public health officials appear to say it is okay to continue to
      flood our food chain with antibiotics, which is by far the most significant
      problem with antibiotic resistance, while we keep humans who contract treatable
      disease sick because we don't want to abuse antibiotics? ...something is very
      wrong with this logic. Read this about pig farmers and the concerns raised in
      the last paragraph by the doctor.

      Here at this link is how one aspect of the animal industry explains it...
      Canadian Animal Health Institute (an institute run by those companies who make
      profit from selling drugs, etc. to the global mega food producers)

      According to the Canadian Animal Health Insitute and Health Canada it is okay to
      give our food animals (cattle, chickens, fish etc) antibiotics constantly while
      they are alive so long as levels upon death are acceptable enough for us to eat.
      They call these left-over traces of antibiotics in our killed meats and
      fish...'residuals'.

      The Canadian Animal Health Institute have diverted the issue of antibiotic
      'resistance' to a discussion of antibiotic 'residuals'. (one wonders how this is
      an animal 'health' institute) These two topics, although related, are two very
      different issues.

      The larger issue of antibiotic resistance has not been addressed. The
      micro-organisms / bacteria our cattle, chickens, fish, etc. come in contact with
      daily while they are being fed antibiotics are the bigger issue. Many
      micro-organsims are becoming antibiotic resistant thanks to feeding on our food
      animals who are fed with antibiotics. Think of how many ticks, fleas, mites,
      mosquitoes etc. feed on the back of one cow daily. Each time these bugs feed
      they are getting a small dose of antibiotic that is not at levels enough to kill
      micro-organisms/bacteria in their guts. These micro-organisms, through rapid
      regeneration, evolve levels of resistance to the antibiotics. This evolution
      crosses over into levels of resistance to human grade and type of antibiotic.

      The real culprit in antibiotic resistance is the overuse of antibiotics in our
      global farming industry and until that is dealt with any attempt to keep humans
      sick for fear of creating super bugs is simply a tool used to again create fear
      in the public, and medical community, against using the necessary antibiotics
      over a long enough time to heal us. Treating victims would cost the global
      medical insurance industry billions of dollars...so keeping the fear alive is
      standard fare for the profit driven market.

      On any given day we have thousands of people arriving at our airports from
      countries around the world where antibiotics are available without prescription
      at local vendors. They will undoubtedly carry antibiotic resistant bacteria to
      our shores as well.

      We spend a lot of money in Canada researching the issue of antibiotic resistance
      yet we have not banned the biggest culprit, the mega food production business,
      from dumping antibiotics all over North America. These residuals are now in our
      food, our soil, our water etc.. see this recent report.
    • artur737 25-50% kleszczy w Kanadzie jest zarazone Bb 24.09.07, 22:29
      Po wszystkich awanturach rzad w koncu zaczal troche sie przygladac boreliozie.
      Nowo odkryta niespodzianka: w Kanadzie nie 10% kleszczy jest zarazonych
      borelioza a w zaleznosci od terenu jest to 25-50%.

      tinyurl.com/ytesac
      Lyme Disease
      Overview

      Lyme disease was first discovered in 1975 near Lyme, Connecticut, when two
      mothers called the local health department to voice their concerns about the
      high rate of arthritis among children in the area. It emerged that their
      symptoms were caused by a bacterium called Borrelia burgdorferi, which is
      transmitted by the bite of a tick.

      When surveillance of Lyme disease began in the U.S. in 1982, there were about
      491 cases reported annually. This number has since increased to 17,029 in 2001.
      Currently, about 15,000 cases are reported each year in the U.S. In Canada, only
      278 cases met the Canadian surveillance case definition for Lyme disease and
      were reported between 1987 and 1996. However, Lyme disease was not a reportable
      medical condition in all provinces during this period; therefore, this number
      may be understated. Also, doctors across the country may report Lyme disease
      based on different ways of diagnosis, so the total number of reported cases is
      misleadingly low. In fact, people with Lyme disease may actually be misdiagnosed
      with other medical conditions, including arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome,
      multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, and mood disorders.
      Causes

      In North America, Borrelia burgdorferi are carried by deer ticks of the species
      Ixodes scapularis, the western black-legged tick (Ixodes pacificus) and the lone
      star tick (Ixodes neotomae). While deer ticks do inhabit deer, the juvenile
      ticks that are most likely to transmit disease generally live on the
      white-footed mouse in North America. In Europe, Russia, China, and Japan, where
      the disease also occurs, different strains of Borrelia inhabit various other
      animals, especially sheep. They've also been found on dogs, which sometimes
      contract Lyme disease.

      In North America, the areas of greatest risk are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
      York, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island,
      Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Oregon. People who live or work in the
      woods are most at risk, while people living in cities are less likely to be
      bitten by ticks. However, household pets that spend time in the woods may carry
      ticks into city parks and bushes.

      Of the three kinds of deer ticks capable of transmitting Lyme disease, two may
      be found in Canada. The black-legged tick (Ixodes scapularis) can be found
      around Lake Erie in southern Ontario. The western black-legged tick (Ixodes
      pacificus) can be found on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and around the
      Fraser Delta in British Columbia. B. burgdorferi has been found in both these
      populations.

      Lyme disease can take months to appear, so it's sometimes hard to tell if it's
      been contracted locally.
      Symptoms

      The classic symptom of Lyme disease is a skin rash called erythema migrans
      (migrating rash). This characteristic skin rash starts out as a small red patch
      that gradually expands, often clearing in the centre to form a "bull's-eye"
      pattern. A bite from a very young tick that is very small may not leave a rash
      or a bite-mark.

      Some of the symptoms of Lyme disease are common to other medical conditions such
      as influenza. "Flu-like" symptoms include fatigue, headache, chills and fever,
      muscle and joint pain, and swollen lymph nodes.

      Other symptoms a person with Lyme disease may experience include:

      * buzzing, ringing, or pain in the ear
      * chest pain or rib soreness
      * confusion
      * difficulty concentrating or reading
      * difficulty speaking or understanding speech
      * difficulty walking
      * dizziness, poor balance, increased motion sickness
      * double- or blurry vision, eye pain
      * facial paralysis
      * forgetfulness or poor short-term memory
      * hand tremor
      * heart palpitations, heart murmur, or skipping pulse
      * joint pain, tenderness, or swelling - especially in the knee
      * muscle twitching of the face or other areas
      * neck creaks and stiffness
      * stiffness of the joints, neck, or back

      The most common complication of Lyme disease is arthritis, which affects about
      60% of those who develop the rash. Unlike rheumatoid arthritis or
      osteoarthritis, many forms of infectious arthritis don't actually damage the
      bone. Most people with Lyme disease arthritis experience temporary swelling and
      pain, mainly in the large joints. The knees are most commonly affected, though
      sometimes several joints are inflamed together. Arthritic symptoms usually come
      and go. Some people feel brief flu-like symptoms in the days before a joint
      starts to swell. Though temporary, the arthritis can be severe and require
      crutches. Arthritic symptoms may appear within a few weeks of the rash, or they
      may appear several years later.

      Cardiac (heart) and neurological (brain and nerves) symptoms may also appear
      within several weeks of the onset of the initial symptoms of Lyme disease. About
      5% of the people who do not receive treatment for Lyme disease may have cardiac
      symptoms, most commonly arrhythmias (an irregular heart beat). Neurologic
      symptoms occur in about 15% of people who do not receive treatment for Lyme
      disease, most commonly due to inflammation of the lining of the brain
      (meningitis) or of the brain itself (encephalitis), although there may also be
      other problems. Some doctors may also request studies of the brain and spinal fluid.
      Treatment

      Treatment:

      Antibiotics:
      In general, routine use of antibiotics to prevent Lyme disease is not
      recommended. Experts used to believe that even in areas with many cases of Lyme
      disease, the majority of deer ticks were not infected with the bacteria so the
      risk of infection after such a bite was relatively low. Newer information
      suggests that up to 50% of ticks in Central Canada and 25% of ticks in Western
      Canada may be infected with bacteria.

      For people who require treatment for a mild infection associated with Lyme
      disease, the doctor usually prescribes an antibiotic to be taken by mouth for 14
      to 21 days. Such antibiotics include doxycycline* (for adults, children over 8
      years of age, and non-pregnant women), amoxicillin (for children and pregnant
      women who are not allergic), and cefuroxime or erythromycin (for people who are
      allergic or cannot tolerate the first two antibiotics).

      For people who require treatment for more severe infections associated with Lyme
      disease, the doctor usually prescribes an intravenous (given through the vein)
      antibiotic (e.g., ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin) for two to four weeks.
      For persistent infections, three months of intravenous antibiotics may be
      necessary. On occasion, treatment with an oral (by mouth) antibiotic may be
      prescribed following treatment with an intravenous antibiotic.

      If the tick is identified and removed within 72 hours of the bite, and assuming
      that no skin rash is present, the doctor may consider prescribing only a single
      200 mg dose of doxycycline to be taken by mouth. This treatment has been shown
      to help prevent the rash from developing.

      Inflammation of the brain and neurologic symptoms will usually clear up once the
      antibiotics have killed the bacteria.

      Anti-inflammatory and pain medications:
      Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)* or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can
      usually control swelling and pain in the joints. In cases where ASA or an NSAID
      cannot be tolerated or the person is allergic, the doctor may prescribe
      acetaminophen.

      Heart medications:
      For people with heart problems due to Lyme disease, medications for regulating
      heart rate may be recommended. In more severe cases, surgery may be required to
      install a pacemaker device.

      Prevention:
      • artur737 cd: 25-50% kleszczy w Kanadzie jest zarazone Bb 24.09.07, 22:31
        You can help prevent Lyme disease if you know what to look for. The tick digs
        its mouth into the skin and feeds for two or three days before dropping off.
        Evidence suggests that the bacteria are transmitted towards the end of this
        process. If you spend days in the woods, you should wear long pants, socks, a
        hat, and a long-sleeved shirt to reduce the chances of tick bites. As an extra
        precaution, put tape around the area where your pants and socks meet.

        If you spend several days outdoors in areas that might contain ticks, inspect
        yourself daily, once you're indoors. Check your skin carefully for ticks, and
        ask someone to check your scalp for ticks. If a tick has already latched on to
        you, don't panic. Even if the tick is infected, it isn't likely to transmit the
        bacteria causing Lyme disease before 36 hours of tick attachment.

        Other things you can do include:

        * If possible, stay away from tick-infested areas, especially in May, June,
        and July.
        * Stay in the middle of hiking trails and try not to brush against grasses
        or leaves.
        * Wear light-coloured clothes to make it easy to spot ticks "hitching a
        ride" on you.
        * Spray your clothes and exposed skin (except your face) with an insect
        repellent that contains DEET, or treat clothes with the insect repellant
        permethrin, which kills ticks on contact.

        Tick removal:

        The best way to remove a tick is with a drinking straw and a piece of thread.
        Tie a single knot in the thread and wrap it loosely around the straw. Put the
        straw at a 45-degree angle over the tick on the skin. Slide the thread down to
        the skin and tighten the knot around the tick's mouthparts. Remove the straw,
        and gently pull upwards with the thread. Pull the tick straight out firmly and
        steadily. Be patient, as proper tick removal will take time.

        Some experts do not recommend using fine-point tweezers to remove the tick
        because they will usually crush the tick's mouthparts. Crushed ticks do not
        survive for very long after removal, so the bacteria that cause Lyme disease
        will also die quickly. Even if a person has already been infected with Lyme
        disease, the tests on the tick will be falsely negative.

        Do not squeeze the tick's body, apply petroleum jelly or alcohol, or use a hot
        match, nail polish, or other products while the tick is attached. These actions
        could transmit the Lyme disease-causing bacteria to you.

        After you've carefully removed the tick, cleanse the area with an antiseptic
        (e.g., alcohol) or mild soap and water. Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and
        water. You should also have tick bites examined by a doctor, especially if you
        develop a rash or flu-like symptoms.

        If the tick has been removed alive, you should then place it in a container
        (e.g., a small jar) with a piece of moist gauze or paper towel on top so it will
        stay alive until you can get it to your doctor to have it tested for carrying
        Lyme disease. If the tick dies, the bacteria will die and the test will be
        falsely negative.



        *All medications have both common (generic) and brand names. The brand name is
        what a specific manufacturer calls the product (e.g., Tylenol®wink. The common name
        is the medical name for the medication (e.g., acetaminophen). A medication may
        have many brand names, but only one common name. This article lists medications
        by their common names. For more information on brand names, speak with your
        doctor or pharmacist.
        Other tips:

        A diagnosis of Lyme disease is based on the doctor's interpretation of symptoms,
        and on recent exposure to ticks and tick-infested areas. There are a number of
        blood tests that can detect the bacteria B. burgdorferi, but none are definitive
        on their own. Some experts think the blood tests are not very accurate and only
        catch approximately 35% of cases.
    • artur737 Lyme disease belongs in limelight 28.09.07, 18:03
      Troche o ostatnim protescie w Ottawie, o probie zniesienia testu Elisa w
      Kanadzie i o porownaniu obecnego ruchu chorych z borelioza do sytuacji ludzi z
      HIV w latach siedemdziesiatych i osiemdziesiatych.

      www.thechronicleherald.ca/Letters/898660.html
      Lyme disease belongs in limelight

      By SHAUN BURKE

      On Sept. 14, a gathering on Parliament Hill in Ottawa was held to boost
      awareness of the very real problem of Lyme disease in Canada. People from all
      over Canada attended this awareness gathering. It was the first national
      gathering of people suffering from Lyme disease. Doctors from Canada as well as
      the United States were in attendance.

      The largest issue, which was discussed, was the lack of adequate testing for the
      disease, as well the controversy over long-term treatment, which consists simply
      of antibiotics.

      The United Nations has stated that the disease will progress apace with global
      warming. As it is, Canadian doctors are not adequately trained to identify and
      treat it.

      Without proper testing and treatment, those infected with Lyme disease will
      slowly lose everything: finances, home, family, friends, career, spouses. But
      the No. 1 thing they will lose is their health. Health is wealth.

      It is time we all take a closer look at this disease, as it is linked to so many
      other diagnoses, such as MS, IBS, Alzheimer’s, Gerd, fibromyalgia and the list
      goes on.

      Why are the government and the medical community not putting funds toward
      research? In Canada, there is basically none happening. Lyme disease is now
      endemic to every province. The U.S. is on high alert for the illness, but not
      Canada.

      In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, AIDS was ignored and downplayed. Shouldn’t we
      have learned as a society from the mistakes we made with AIDS? Do we just ignore
      Lyme disease until it becomes fashionable and politicians can see opportunity
      with it? The fact is people do die from the complications of Lyme disease. The
      Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta estimate the rate of infection for Lyme
      disease is outpacing AIDS tenfold.

      Today there are many Canadians suffering from Lyme disease who are travelling at
      their own expense to the U.S., desperately seeking the proper medical treatment.
      It has been stated that the U.S. ranks 37th in the world in medical care. If
      Canadians travel there for treatment, where does this leave us in the world
      rankings?

      The science is there for doctors to read. The testing is not working. People are
      suffering. A clinical diagnosis must be accepted as the standard until we have
      the proper testing. It must also be stated that testing, such as bloodwork, is
      only a tool in the diagnostic process of most diseases.

      Illnesses such as MS are out of control, to an extent we now accept them as a
      normal part of life. With the statistics continually showing that Nova Scotia
      has the highest rate of almost every illness, why is it we, the people of Nova
      Scotia, are not asking questions collectively? It is time we all come together
      and ask some hard questions of our officials. There is power in numbers, but
      divided, we are easily disregarded.

      Our recent gathering is certainly a start, but things must move faster and we
      desperately need the support of the general public to make some headway.

      For more information, please check out www.lymeinns.bravehost.com

      Shaun Burke is president of the Nova Scotia Lyme Disease Association.
    • artur737 Woman’s 18-year struggle with affliction 06.10.07, 19:05

      Free at last: Woman’s 18-year struggle with affliction she couldn’t catch here
      www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/Local%20News/343884.html
      By MATTHEW HEINDL
      Today staff
      Friday October 05, 2007
      Sheila Callan suffered for 18 years of her life with Lyme disease, though
      doctors failed to diagnose it, even after the infamous bullseye rash appeared on
      her face. Doctors were told that there is no Lyme disease in Alberta, and still
      believe this today, even as the bacteria appears more often.
      Callan, after being told nothing was wrong with her or that no diagnosis was
      possible, was finally treated in April for Lyme disease in B.C. and continued a
      second round of treatment two weeks ago.
      It’s difficult to believe that the 46-year-old has ever been ill when you meet
      her now, healthy with a serious disposition. Six months ago, Callan was
      wheelchair bound, shaking uncontrollably, losing her vision and falling further
      into illness.
      “Even my husband said afterward he was surprised I would live past Christmas
      (2006), because at that point I was spiraling so far down,” said Callan. “And I
      think if I hadn’t found this
      • artur737 cd: Woman’s 18-year struggle with afflictio 06.10.07, 19:06
        Doctors in this region were not educated very much at the time, with no evidence
        of ticks that carried the disease or any reported localized case, “and never any
        deep concern for Lyme disease in this area,” said Dr. Alan Nicholson, the
        Medical Office of Health for Northern Lights Health.
        “I’m delighted for her, but getting Lyme disease here 20 years ago
    • artur737 Re: "Sezon na Kleszcza" cz druga 09.10.07, 16:02
      Udalo sie odwrocic demencje mozgowa u myszy chorych na chorobe Alzheimera
      poprzez wstrzykniecie im przeciwcial IgM.

      Czyli okazuje sie, ze IgM jednak przenika do mozgu. Dotad powszechnie uwazano,
      ze nie przenika. Moze to tlumaczyc poprawe u chorych z borelioza leczonych abx,
      ktore nie przenikaja do mozgu, ale pomagaja poprzez wytluczenie Bb z ukladu
      odpornosciowego zwiekszajac tym samym poziom IgM przeciwko Bb.

      Cognitive deficits in mice reversed
      tinyurl.com/2d24pj
      ST. LOUIS, Oct. 8 (UPI)
    • artur737 List opublikowany w Hartford Courant (reposta) 09.10.07, 19:49
      Re-posted from Randy Sykes
      EDITORIAL/OTHER OPINION

      The Hartford Courant has failed to fully publish the other side of the story in
      its front page headline, “Lyme Disease Diagnosis Challenged” on Thursday October
      4, 2007.

      Bulleting “The Case Against Chronic Lyme” misrepresents the fact that there are
      multiple studies of refractory and persistent Lyme disease in both animal and
      human models.

      One study, published by Alan Barbour, et al. (1996) in the Journal of
      Antimicrobal Agents states “If treatment was delayed for 7 days or more,
      vancomycin failed to eradicate infection with with B. burgdorferi (the bacterial
      causing Lyme disease) or B. turicate (another tick borne bacteria).

      The failure of vancomycin in eradicating infections in immunodeficiant mice was
      associated with the persistence of viable spirochetes in the brain during
      antibiotic treatment.” For those who are not in the medical profession,
      vancomycin is a very, very strong antibiotic that is usually given intravenously
      after all other antibiotics have failed.

      The fact that it could not eradicate Lyme disease in immunosuppressed mice who
      were infected for just 7 days demonstrates significant scientific proof that the
      spirochete B. burgdorferi is quite virulent and clearly refutes the Courant’s
      print that “Lab specimens do not reveal evidence of Lyme bacterium in culture or
      other tests” and “Lyme bacterium not known to be resistant to antibiotics.”

      Moreover, the study referenced was by a researcher who is considered as on the
      conservative side of Lyme disease treatment, meaning he does not advocate for
      long term antibiotic use.

      Those who are internet savvy do not have to look far to find multiple peer
      review journal articles, patient reports, and CDC/NIH guidelines proving the
      following about Lyme disease:
      Lyme disease is a clinical diagnosis, with a very long, yet common, list of
      presentations.
      Lyme disease “blood tests” are extremely fallible and should not be used to
      prove or disprove infection. They only test for certain antibodies, rather than
      disease itself.

      Symptoms of Lyme disease may mimic other diseases, and thus has been dubbed “The
      Great Masquerader.”
      Lab specimens do reveal evidence of Lyme bacterium culture in several studies
      after antibiotic treatment.

      Rigorous antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease has helped thousands of patients,
      while under-treating the disease has maimed thousands of patients and even
      killed some.

      Lyme bacterium are very resistant to antibiotics, especially when in cell wall
      deficient forms or cysts.

      Patients who were treated too briefly, were immunosuppressed, or were treated
      early with corticosteroids such as prednisone tend to have advanced and more
      chronic infections of Lyme disease.

      Of course citing just one study suggesting persistent infection, even by Alan
      Barbour, does not mean that Lyme disease is absolutely recalcitrant, persistent,
      and/or chronic…so
      I have taken the liberty to include a website for readers to connect to where
      they can read for themselves.

      It is:
      www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Oasis/6455/persistence-special-abstracts.html
      Perhaps Henry Feder and his prestigious Journal of New England Medicine peer
      reviewers, lick ticks, can dig their heads out of the skin of their own egos and
      realize that science occurs elsewhere besides their own limited scope of reference.

      Moreover, the Courant should have more balanced and credible journalism that
      does not insult, and further injure, those who are sick with Lyme and other tick
      borne illnesses.



      The author is recovered Lyme disease patient who was treated for nearly8 years
      with antibiotics. He is a nationally certified psychologist who freely gives of
      his time to help and advocate for Lyme disease patients. He is credited for
      helping to sponsor a bill in 1999 that now mandates insurers to cover antibiotic
      treatment for Lyme disease.
    • artur737 Reakcja na NEJM 09.10.07, 20:40
      Jeszcze jedna reakcja na publikacje NEJM od grupy wsparcia w Maryland.
      Oswiadczenie prasowe - nie wiadomo czy zostanie wydrukowane.
      PRESS RELEASE
      Centreville, MD October 9, 2007
      • artur737 Inna Reakcja na Raport NEJM 09.10.07, 21:05
        Report angers patients suffering with chronic Lyme
        BY RIDGELY OCHS | ridgely.ochs@newsday.com
        October 9, 2007

        Bob Levine doesn't understand why chronic Lyme disease has become such a
        divisive issue in the medical community.

        "It's become a holy war," he said. "It is an issue of who's right and who's not,
        and the patients are stuck in the middle."

        A review in the latest New England Journal of Medicine arguing that there is no
        evidence chronic Lyme exists and that the use of long-term antibiotics to treat
        it may be harmful frustrates the 50-year-old engineer from Port Jefferson.


        Related links
        Scientists say chronic Lyme disease doesn't exist
        Levine said he has been on and off antibiotics since 1998 to treat an array of
        symptoms, which he attributes to chronic Lyme disease. He said he has stopped
        using antibiotics "dozens" of times, only to have his symptoms - headaches,
        double vision, mental confusion, tingling, numbness and involuntary muscle
        twitching - return within six weeks and disappear again when he resumes the oral
        antibiotic Biaxin.

        "It has ruined people's lives," Levine said of the disease. " ... All these
        people can't be head cases, including me."

        Levine, who feels many of the researchers are arrogant, and others say they are
        perplexed by what they see as the narrowness of many doctors and researchers,
        who, because they don't understand the complexity of the long-term disease,
        dismiss it as nonexistent.

        Colleen Nicholson of Bayville, a military spouse who is a patient advocate for
        military families who have been denied long-term antibiotics, said she believes
        many doctors ignore much of the research that has been done and have little
        hands-on contact with chronic Lyme sufferers.

        "They are basically telling me my symptoms aren't caused by anything," said
        Nicholson, who, along with her two sons, is on long-term antibiotics. "They are
        self-proclaimed experts but they don't treat Lyme."

        Levine said he worries that this latest review will put more pressure on doctors
        who treat patients like him - he would not reveal the name of his doctor. And he
        is concerned health insurers will begin to deny coverage. He estimated it would
        cost him $500 a month out of pocket for his antibiotics.

        But regardless, he said, he will get the drugs. "I'll always find a way to get
        antibiotics," he said. "It's other people who don't have the resources I have
        pity for."
    • artur737 Re: "Sezon na Kleszcza" cz druga 10.10.07, 23:51
      Zeby sie nie zagubilo tu dolaczam link na temat publikacji Fallona

      forum.gazeta.pl/forum/72,2.html?f=26140&w=70310528
    • artur737 Sprawa z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:10
      Tym artykulem grupa IDSA zaatakowala niedawno chorych z borelioza.
      Kto chce i zna angielski niech sobie przeczyta.

      content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/357/14/1422.pdf
      A Critical Appraisal of “Chronic Lyme Disease”
      Henry M. Feder, Jr., M.D., Barbara J.B. Johnson, Ph.D., Susan O’Connell,
      M.D.,Eugene D. Shapiro, M.D., Allen C. Steere, M.D., Gary P. Wormser, M.D., and
      the Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease Group*

      Tego rodzaju atak nie zdarzyl sie pierwszy raz, ale ruch chorych zaniepokoil
      sie powaznie, poniewaz atakujacy artykul zostal opublikowany w bardzo poczytnym
      i cenionym New England

      Journal of Medicine. Lekarze czytajacy to medyczne pismo licza na to, ze
      publikacje sa wczesniej dobrze sprawdzone pod wzgledem jakosci i dlatego czesto
      wnioski z nich od razu wedruja do praktycznej medycyny.

      Stalo sie to teraz zapewne dzieki temu, ze edytorem pisma jest niektoinny a
      znany nam i oslawiony Klempner.






      Lekarze LLMD a glownie Dr Jemsek wystosowali nastepujaca odpowiedz. Nie wiemy
      czy ta odpowiedz zostanie opublikowana czy nie, ale podejrzewamy, ze tak.
      Inaczej zapewne nie bylaby upubliczniona.

      Artykul jest napisany w mocnych slowach i wywleka nagorsze brudy IDSA na srodek.
      Prawde mowiac dawno juz nie widzialem az tak zaangazowanego listu. Byc moze
      nawet nigdy smile
      List byl napisany jeszcze przed opublikowanie pracy Fallona wiec autorzy nie
      mogli wtedy uzyc nowych dowodow z badan medycznych. Ciagle jednak odwalili
      naprawde dobra robote.
      Szkoda, ze list jest az tak dlugi bo o tlumaczeniu na polski mozna sobie raczej
      chyba tylko pomarzyc.
      • artur737 Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:18
        It is not intended to reflect an exhaustive critique of the many shortcomings of
        the “Feder” paper, but rather an attempt to highlight the most glaring
        incongruities and perplexing logic flows contained within what is considered a
        shameful and politically-motivated article.

        The purpose of this critique is to place disparaging opinion about persistent
        disease associated with Lyme Borreliosis on full exhibit.
        The subject of “Chronic Lyme Disease” was once again presented in a prominent
        journal setting in a recently published “review” in the October 4 NEJM article
        by Feder et al.

        As seen in several previously published reviews, opinions, and guidelines, the
        tenor of the publication is dismissive to physicians who feel that Borrelia
        burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, may be responsible for
        persistent illness which requires long-term antibiotics and a myriad of other
        treatment considerations and measures.

        It seems to patronize the opinions of these physicians, opinions which are
        backed by hundreds of scientific publications and galvanized by countless
        clinical encounters with desperate and marginalized patients.
        Published “reviews” on Lyme disease, similar to the Feder article, seldom offer
        any new or credible insight into clinical or scientific issues, and therefore
        their purpose and timing must be questioned. This article clearly echoes the
        stilted logic and highly suspect content promoted by the portion of the 2006
        IDSA Guidelines which dealt with this subject matter and whose authors may come
        under anti-trust investigation.

        The repetitive arguments promoted by a select group of researchers and/or
        self-proclaimed “ad hoc” committee members –“the Lyme Cabal”, as we will refer
        to them, includes the high-ranking members of the CDC’s Vector Borne Branch,
        Johnson and Mead, and do nothing to further our understanding of what is making
        our population chronically ill.

        In the absence of new ideas and with a history of rejecting meaningful dialogue
        with those who may disagree with them, Feder and associates appear to simply
        reshuffle authors and rearrange their template of imperial arguments for this
        most recent article. Again they employ the same indecipherable, distorted, and
        circular logic which they have displayed in the past, and appear to play
        favorites with their facts.

        Many of the authors cited are known to have ties to patented business ventures
        dealing with, among other things, future testing and vaccine development in
        Borreliosis-related ventures. We have serious concerns about propriety and
        integrity issues for both the Lyme Cabal constituents and for the NEJM, which
        has a heretofore irreproachable standard of excellence in publishing medical
        science.

        We also express serious concerns about the health of our population in terms of
        the continuing scientific “ambiguity” surrounding this disease complex, which we
        term Lyme Borreliosis Complex (LBC).

        The review begins by indicating an important fact – that Lyme disease is a
        serious public health problem which is “complex”, but the tone of the article
        immediately thereafter becomes and remains,dismissive. LBC is trivialized
        through consistent application of journalistic phrasing techniques designed to
        give the reader a sense that the authors are annoyed that there is a fuss about
        this issue, and that their views have not been accepted without reservation.
        • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:19
          Examples of these methods of literary intimidation and the abusive misuse of
          factual material are scattered throughout the text and are briefly portrayed as
          follows:
          a) This “serious public health threat” which is “complex” will “usually respond
          well to conventional antibiotic therapy.” The committee fails to provide
          evidence of what response is measured and by what methods.

          b) They further state that a “minority of patients” have symptoms which remain
          after “resolution…after antibiotic treatment.” Again, this assumes that all
          patients are diagnosed and treated, which is simply not fact, and again this
          statement defaults to the committee’s inflexible criteria for diagnosis and
          treatment.

          c) The committee further considers symptomatic illness as “usually mild and
          self-limiting”, and defines these patients as having “post-Lyme disease
          syndrome”, an arbitrary term adopted by the Feder camp years ago and thoroughly
          associated with ill-defined, non-organic illness through repetitive
          indoctrination with this brand of pseudo-scientific jargon on the unsuspecting
          medical community.

          “Mild and self-limited” is counter to the characterization of numerous other
          reports, and contradicts the authors’ opening remarks of a “serious and
          complex” illness. The terms “mild and self-limited” are subjective, and craftily
          inserted to prejudice the biased opinions which follow.

          d) After the initial paragraph, the word “complex” is no longer mentioned, as if
          the authors feel readers will forget the reference as it is plowed under by
          subsequent disparaging remarks.

          e) The committee stated that their review is “not the objective manifestations
          of late Lyme disease but rather the imprecisely defined condition referred to as
          ‘chronic Lyme disease.’”

          i. ‘Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. The more skilled and experienced
          the observer becomes, the better the tools available with which to measure; the
          better the understanding of the elements which comprise the universe of the
          subject matter at hand, the more “objective” the manifestations of the illness
          complex will become.

          ii. The committee is derelict in not being more forthright about issues of
          objectivity; if objective measures are wanting, why not make efforts to improve
          them? The practice of medicine is suffering mightily as our practitioners
          increasingly rely upon guidelines and “cookbook” medicine, and not on what the
          patient communicates. We physicians are becoming more robotic, and why is that
          so? The physician must constantly listen to, and learn from the patient,
          especially when “testing” fails both provider and patient.

          iii. The committee stumbles over the precise definition of an illness they
          initially state is “complex” and proceeds to want only blur the debate further
          by talking about, “not the objective manifestations of Lyme disease”, but rather
          “chronic Lyme disease”. This is classic double–speak on their part.
          • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:24
            f) The committee targets a “small number of practitioners”, not a subtle
            reference, the terminology of which is assuredly designed to reduce the number
            and significance of those with opposing viewpoints. The committee appears to
            mock physicians who “suggest” that persistent B. burgdorferi may require
            long-term antibiotic treatment, or that it may be “incurable”. They do so in
            such manner that suggests a whimsical allusion to futility, and implies in
            parallel analogy that patients who embrace this view are equally futile in their
            thinking.

            g) Declarative and unsubstantiated statements dominate the “review” as in “the
            opinion of the committee is that Lyme disease includes a broad array of
            illnesses or symptom complexes for which there is no reproducible or convincing
            scientific evidence of any relationship to B. burgdorferi infection”.

            First, note that this is an opinion but, in the setting of the Lyme Cabal
            publishing in the NEJM, this opinion equates to dictum and also, in our
            collective opinion, equates to an abuse of power by those who hold power in this
            setting. The lack of “evidence” reference, which glides so easily on the NEJM
            page, is easily countered by well-documented literature references indicating
            that the world at large is held hostage to unreliable and stifled testing which
            severely limits the ability of the practitioner to provide laboratory data in
            support of this aforementioned “complex illness”.

            h) In the very near future, we predict that many of the Lyme Cabal will find it
            hard to explain the more than 200 patents they hold for better testing, vaccine
            development, and other business interests in the expanding universe of
            Borreliosis-related disease.

            Further, it may prove exceedingly difficult for the Cabal to explain why their
            involvement with these patents have been largely undisclosed, when the science
            at hand could have benefited the untold thousands whose lives have been
            unalterably changed by this chronic illness.

            i) Late in the publication, the committee uses the political and inflammatory
            term “Chronic Lyme Disease” as the heading of a new section, instead of their
            preferred term, “late Lyme disease”. We ask the obvious question of why the
            choice to begin a section with something the committee says does not exist.

            j) The committee further makes vague and imperial comments about those diagnosed
            and treated for Lyme disease, as somehow being “substantively” different than
            those with other “recognized” infectious diseases. We are disturbed that a NEJM
            editorially-approved article would accede to a reference which equates to
            “intellectual cement” in academic medicine. At what point did the US academic
            universe decide that they had a handle on the mysteries of medicine? Over 90% of
            the most prominent chronic illnesses, e.g. MS, RA, Crohn’s, etc., have no know
            cause. This is hardly a position from which to exude scientific arrogance.
            Diagnoses are, and always will be, integrally associated with varying clinical
            criteria, test interpretations, and physician judgment. Testing was designed to
            serve the will of the clinician and now it seems that the tail wags the dog.
            • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:26
              Generational change in medicine historically shows that 50% of what we hold as
              fact today will change, but which 50%?

              k) A disclaimer by an organization is an attempt by the rule makers to absolve
              all recriminations in perpetuity. To wit, as our authors and their alter egos
              at the IDSA suggest, (and as some of the committee’s authors who took part in
              the 2006 Lyme Guidelines stated): “It is important to realize that guidelines
              cannot always account for individual variations among patients. They are not
              intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or
              special clinical situations”.

              Why then would these committee members attempt to minimize the role of physician
              judgment in the diagnosis of any illness, especially a disease with the
              devastating impact of persistent Lyme disease? Clearly the committee is
              de-emphasizing clinical judgment and experience because they don’t fully
              appreciate the roots of their discipline – the patient. This is a highly
              disturbing and dangerous thought for the profession of medicine and for the
              population which it serves.

              l) The committee criticizes the “lines of reasoning” to support a diagnosis of
              Lyme disease in those who do not show antibodies against B. burgdorferi in
              serum, particularly given the “the well-known immunogenicity of lipoproteins”.
              They claim these “theories” of antibody negativity with LBC are not
              well-supported by scientific data. They fail to acknowledge that the testing
              reagents used in traditional labs are limited to only one strain (B31) in a
              disease in which multiple Borrelia burgdorferi strains may play a role.

              They ignore the well-documented altered life forms of Borrelia species, (e.g.
              CWD forms, cysts, and blebs), none of which manifest lipoproteins. They fail to
              acknowledge the intracellular habitat of both helical and cyst forms, and the
              disturbing ability of the B31 spirochete to penetrate a series of neuronal and
              glial cell lines, as described in the 2006 Livengood CDC paper published in the
              summer of 2006. They fail to hypothesize or consider the notion that patients
              with LBC may have highly dysfunctional innate and adoptive immunologic effects.

              As if not satisfied with yet another highly creative and biased interpretation
              of the data, the authors then turn to criticize “specialty labs” as not “FDA
              approved”. The FDA, which by the way acknowledges that current testing is
              unreliable, has nothing to do with credentialing labs unless a product is
              marketed, a convenient oversight by the authors.

              This “shoot the messenger” approach ignores the highly suspect and arbitrary
              manipulation of data and policy which took place at the 1994 Dearborn meeting
              and left the world without Osp A and B bands as qualifying criteria for
              diagnosis. This is a particularly mystifying situation since the ill-fated and
              ill-conceived LYMErix vaccine promoted by several of the Lyme Cabal was based on
              the Osp A, or kda band 31, lipoprotein antigen.

              Most significantly, the authors fail to mention that much of the research done
              by several of the authors of their own committee, (when closely examined),
              supports the opposite view of what they express. Perhaps they should go back and
              re-study their own, earlier research.

              • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:27
                As stated previously, many in the Lyme Cabal are involved in various
                side-interests which include, but are not limited to, the patenting of
                diagnostic tests and/or components thereof, which we have referred herein.
                Therefore, we and others are concerned that these individuals might have a
                vested interest in dismissing any diagnostic or treatment modalities contrary to
                their “recommendations”.
                .
                m) The committee uses “shock value” terminology to describe a minority group who
                treat Lyme disease – a handful of practitioners utilizing “unconventional” or
                “dangerous” methods to treat Lyme, as if they are the collective majority. The
                mainstream of providers does not fit their characterization, so these inferences
                are wholly unsubstantiated, unwarranted and malicious.

                To this end, the committee has a history of promoting the term “medical
                quackery” at every opportunity because its use resonates loudly as an alarm to
                the public. The authors know that libelous remarks directed against specific
                physicians or groups are very difficult to prosecute and that their public
                indignation makes for good journalistic copy without fear of reprisal.
                .
                n) Further, the committee states that “no other spirochetal illness
                including…tertiary syphilis is managed in an analogous fashion.” Syphilis,
                caused by treponema pallidum, has a formidable and sinister history for causing
                human illness in past centuries, and in recent times has experienced a
                renaissance associated with the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

                Unlike Borrelia burgdorferi, treponema pallidum has only one host, the human,
                whereas Borrelia burgdorferi has many hosts. For the record, we use a “tongue in
                cheek” byword when referring to treponema pallidum, which we refer to as “Lyme’s
                DUMB Cousin.”

                We use this droll term based on comparative genomic profiling among spirochetal
                and other bacterial species, which makes Borrelia burgdorferi the clear winner
                in the microbial genetic lottery.

                o) The authors compare the duration of treatment for Lyme disease to that of
                tuberculosis, another predominantly intracellular infection. We are amused at
                the implications by the authors that tuberculosis is treated successfully for a
                relatively limited period of 6 months, compared to LBC which “may go on for years”.

                However, in the not so distant past, tuberculosis used to require 18 months or
                more of antibiotics. When better drugs became available and pulsed
                antimicrobial programs were employed, therapy was made more efficient and
                shorter in duration.

                Of interest, pulsed therapy is precisely the treatment methodology employed by
                the Jemsek Specialty Clinic and other Lyme-literate physicians in treating
                “chronic Lyme disease”. Furthermore, as experience is gained, treatment
                programs using combination antimicrobials, as is the case for tuberculosis and
                HIV/AIDS among many other complex infections, is also allowing for more
                efficient therapy of shorter duration in LBC.

                p) In terms of persistence, dozens of articles support this notion, including
                some of the authors’ earlier works. From a purely observational basis, if
                Borrelia burgdorferi is so easily dealt with in the infectious state, why does
                it proliferatively persist in hard-shelled ticks, various small and large
                mammals, and humans (not the end host). Why is it revered by microbiologists as
                the most uniquely and lavishly genetically-endowed bacterium on the planet, and
                why is it being so heavily patented by Universities, researchers and others,
                including the majority of the members of the committee who performed the NEJM
                review?
                • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:32
                  q) Approaching the stratosphere of arrogance, the committee goes on to summarize
                  Lyme disease into 4 convenient categories, like shoeboxes lined up in a row for
                  shoeless and illiterate providers, without vote or consensus via any authorized
                  committee or organization which would consummately arrive at these “categories”;
                  and yet these were blithely published by the NEJM. So, because they must be
                  addressed, we will do so.

                  i. They do not accurately encompass the majority of Lyme disease patients.

                  ii. They choose to ignore patients who present to their physicians with clear
                  erythema migrans rashes and other clinical symptoms of Lyme disease, but who are
                  told they “do not have Lyme”, because the physicians do not recognize its
                  clinical manifestations, or are relying on surveillance criteria definitions,
                  and inaccurate laboratory testing.

                  iii. These individuals are then not treated, and go on to develop Lyme disease
                  in a chronic form.

                  iv. They also do not address patients who are misdiagnosed with other illnesses
                  such as MS, ALS, RA and CFS.

                  v. The committee assumes at all points that patients are treated appropriately
                  for their illness, and yet in fact, most patients receive little or no
                  treatment, which is why they remain chronic.

                  vi. In patients with positive serology and no objective symptoms, the
                  Bb-associated illness may
                  be subclinical, as research proves that Bb remains dormant within the body for
                  extended periods of time, from months to years after infection. Some of the
                  committee members’ own research clearly states this.

                  vii. Category 4 disease, as newly crafted and defined by the Lyme Cabal, has had
                  an embarrassingly small number of treatment trials upon which to draw these
                  conclusions. Further, in eschewing the study and expansion of the scientific and
                  clinical horizons for the innumerable issues which remain to be addressed in
                  this illness complex, the authors make it clear that they are content to remain
                  entrenched in their existing dogma perhaps until it is “time to announce the
                  Lyme epidemic” and bring out the new tests and vaccines.

                  The most prominent of the studies mentioned above was performed by Dr. Mark
                  Klempner, a committee member who also happens to be on the editorial board of
                  the New England Journal of Medicine. If the NEJM is an objective medical
                  journal, we ask why this fact was not made prominently apparent for its readership.
                  • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:34
                    r) The committee is disdainful about antibiotic therapy causing “considerable
                    harm” to patients, but fails to mention that all medical treatments have
                    inherent risks. This allowance by the editor of the NEJM is in and of itself,
                    unpardonable. Further, the authors fail to present a balanced representation of
                    the patient populations in question.

                    They fail for example, to mention that untreated and dismissed chronic Lyme
                    patients commit suicide at alarming rates due to the hopelessness and agony
                    associated with this illness.

                    s) The committee members claim those running clinical studies have had
                    “difficulty” securing patients who meet the criteria of their obviously biased
                    studies – such as the elimination of 500 people who were excluded because they
                    lacked a “substantiated history of Lyme disease.”
                    Substantiated by what account? Most Lyme patients have no substantiated history
                    of Lyme disease because doctors are missing the diagnosis and failing to treat
                    these patients…more circular logic. Again, the committee is myopic in arriving
                    at its conclusions about the scarcity of patients, either those
                    “well-documented” or who develop “clinically significant problems” after
                    “conventional treatment.”

                    We would like to provide the benefit of the doubt to the Lyme Cabal and pray
                    that their glossing over and misinterpreting/ignoring or trivializing
                    consistent and debilitating patient issues are not intentional.

                    t) There are untold thousands of individuals in our country and around the world
                    who live unfulfilled and tortuous lives due to the political situation
                    surrounding LBC and consequent access to quality care issues. A symptom of the
                    rudimentary state in which we find ourselves is made evident by the authors
                    suggesting that eligibility criteria for controlled trials require symptoms be
                    “severe enough to interfere with the patient’s ability to function”.

                    This line of reasoning is simply astounding in its unsophistication and
                    insensitivity. The committee’s statements about controlled trials and
                    documented disease history is admirable and would be more so if the medical
                    community was fully engaged in an environment in which, as in HIV research, the
                    best minds were involved and funded in the pursuit of the study of this illness
                    complex.

                    Patients know what has made them better and it is highly insulting to patients
                    who are denied care or who had irreversible adverse health consequences to
                    themselves or their loved ones because of suspect motivations by those who now
                    hold power…….almost certainly the patient’s interest is not the primary concern
                    in this story.
                    • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 13.10.07, 05:37
                      IN SUMMARY

                      Open attempts to intimidate the Connecticut Attorney General, physicians, and
                      patients are not lending credibility to those who are perpetrating this behavior.

                      Nevertheless, the politicization of an illness for which many people are
                      tragically suffering, and who are afforded very little credence by the
                      scientific community when evidence shows their illness is real, and who are
                      subjected to increasingly narrow treatment options, may indeed be approaching
                      not only anti-trust violations, but scientific fraud on a grand scale.

                      The public confusion comes not just from the myriad of symptoms or the
                      restrictive definition of the illness itself, but also from physicians and
                      patients who are well aware of the illness within their own bodies, and who are
                      confounded by the unwillingness of the scientific community to embrace a medical
                      illness of such major significance.

                      Rather, many perceive an increasing plaintive and obvious disregard for the
                      welfare of thousands of patients by a small number of individuals entrenched in
                      power and trapped within their logic loops, whether these loops are genuinely
                      believed, or contrived. Inaction is somehow justified on the basis of a lack of
                      double-blind, randomized studies.

                      Regrettably, there also appears to be a barrier to publication of dissenting
                      views by the editors and reviewers of established journals. The public,
                      including some physicians, do know how to read, after all, and patents and a
                      pattern of interpretative reversal in research opinions speak volumes about the
                      truth of LBC.

                      So does successful resolution of symptoms through open-ended, long-term
                      antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease. In this complex illness, therapy is most
                      often successful, i.e. life restoring, when it is patterned on an increasingly
                      sophisticated understanding of the many interwoven issues involved in the
                      illness, and in the successful integration of therapies which address the
                      immunosuppressive, multi-systemic, polymicrobial disease complex which is LBC.

                      Most of us deeply involved in patient care don’t care who takes credit for
                      change, and realize that traditional powers must engage for this to happen. We
                      encourage this at every opportunity.

                      Physicians and patients are earnestly waiting for the truth to be revealed, and
                      we hope that this truth will arise from the medical community in a proactive and
                      vigorously engaged manner.
                      LBC is just part of what is driving an epidemic of unwellness and chronic
                      illness in this country.

                      The paradigm of medicine and chronic illness must change over time………too many of
                      us are sick and getting sicker.

                      [1] Feder HM Jr, Johnson BJB, O’Connell S, Shapiro ED, Steere AC, Wormser GP,
                      and the Ad Hoc International Lyme Disease Group*. NEJM. 2007 Oct
                      4;357(14):1422-1430. A review article
                      [2] Wormser GP, Dattwyler RJ, Shapiro ED, Halperin JJ, Steere AC, Klempner MS,
                      Krause PJ, Bakken JS, Strle F, Stanek G, Bockenstedt L, Fish D, Dumler JS,
                      Nadelman RB. “The Clinical Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Lyme
                      Disease, Human Granulocytic Anaplasmosis, and Babesiosis: Clinical Practice
                      Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.” Clinical Infectious
                      Diseases 2006;43:1089-1134.

                      • artur737 Re: Odpowiedz na artykul z NEJM 19.11.07, 04:25
                        Tu jeszcze dolaczam list od LDA w tym samym protescie

                        NEJM Owes Patients Responsible Journalism Says Lyme Disease Association

                        Jackson, NJ, October 4, 2007-The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
                        published an article October 3 titled A Clinical Appraisal of "Chronic Lyme
                        Disease." Eleven of its authors also served on the IDSA Lyme Disease Guidelines
                        panel which is under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for the
                        development of those Guidelines. Although the article mentions the
                        investigation, nowhere does it disclose that these authors are under
                        investigation. What sanctions does a journal of the stature of NEJM impose on
                        authors who do not fully disclose?

                        In an unscholarly tone uncharacteristic of NEJM, the article concludes there is
                        no chronic Lyme disease, and patients should not receive treatment. It tells
                        doctors how to deliver that message to patients. It implicates Lyme disease
                        groups established by "laypeople" as being part of the problem rather than part
                        of the solution. Yet the article offers no solutions as to how to identify what
                        these patients do have or what can be done while this issue is resolved. Worse,
                        the article precludes the exercise of clinical judgment, which physicians
                        usually rely on in areas of uncertainty.

                        NEJM is used by physicians worldwide, but this article provides an appendix of
                        author-selected science that physicians use to deny patients diagnosis and
                        treatment and excludes the science in opposition. A balanced peer review process
                        that included divergent viewpoints would have prevented this. No one benefits
                        from foreclosing debate on open scientific issues. The problem in Lyme disease
                        is not the patients or their treating physicians, but the suppression of
                        divergent viewpoints. Without open public debate, critical questions never reach
                        the research agendas. What responsibility does the NEJM have to provide "the
                        whole truth" to its readers?

                        NEJM has done a disservice to patients who are sick with Lyme disease and who
                        now will be unable to get a diagnosis and treatment. Isn't it time that
                        responsible, rational people stop recycling the same rhetoric from the same
                        people and instead choose to sit at the table together to find out why tens of
                        thousands of people are left to suffer without diagnosis and without treatment?


                        Patricia V. Smith
                        President, Lyme Disease Association
                        888-366-6611
                        Lymeliter@aol.com
    • artur737 Re: "Sezon na Kleszcza" cz druga 16.10.07, 22:15
      www.insidebayarea.com/ci_7182577?source=rss
      Chronic Lyme disease' is center of debate
      By Delthia Ricks, NEWSDAY
      Inside Bay Area
      Article Last Updated:10/15/2007 06:33:45 AM PDT
      IN WHAT is becoming one of the most heated debates in medicine, doctors,
      scientists and patients are lining up on two sides of a discourse about Lyme
      disease, an infectious condition whose incidence has risen sharply in recent years.

      A prestigious group of physicians and scientists says there is no evidence that
      chronic Lyme disease exists, and that patients may be doing themselves more harm
      than good by undergoing prolonged antibiotic therapy.

      The team wrote a report earlier this month saying as much in the New England
      Journal of Medicine.

      Yet scores of people, told by their physicians that they have chronic Lyme
      disease, dismiss the report as biased and without merit.

      Lyme disease is the most common of all vector-borne infections in the United
      States. Vectors include ticks, mosquitoes or fleas. In the case of Lyme disease,
      the vector is the Ixodes scapularis tick, or deer tick, which carries the
      bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi. Symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue and
      sometimes a skin rash. Left untreated, infection can spread to the joints, heart
      and nervous system.

      Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that
      64,382 Lyme cases nationwide were reported between 2003 and 2005 and that 59,770
      cases were reported in the 10 most affected states.

      "This is very upsetting," said Eva Haughie of Manorville, N.Y., adding that not
      only has she been bitten at least 45 times by ticks and their nymphs, or
      early-stage ticks, but that she has suffered with tick-borne infection since 1988.

      However, a team of doctors who doubt "chronic Lyme" is genuine say using the
      term itself is a misnomer. Moreover, they say, prolonged use of antibiotics is
      expensive and dangerous.

      The doctors cite drug resistance as one consequence and the destruction of the
      body's "good" bacteria as another.

      Dr. Eugene Shapiro, lead author of the report and a professor of pediatrics and
      investigative medicine at Yale University, said more than 30 experts in
      infectious diseases participated in the research and support the conclusions.
      Co-authors include those from the CDC, Harvard Medical School and New York
      Medical College, home of Dr. Gary Wormser, who led a task force last year on
      development of new diagnostic and treatment guidelines.

      Wormser told Newsday when the new guidelines were announced that 95 percent of
      Lyme disease cases are cured within 10 to 28 days with oral antibiotics.
      Long-term antibiotic therapy, he said, has not proven effective, and may be
      dangerous. The new research picked up the mantle from there.

      "People who say they have chronic Lyme have symptoms, such as fatigue and aches
      and pains. The epidemiology is very similar to chronic fatigue syndrome and
      fibromylagia," Shapiro said. "It's also very similar to chronic Epstein-Barr
      infection, which people no longer believe in," he said of an infectious disorder
      that was commonly diagnosed in the 1980s.

      Rather than calling the condition chronic Lyme disease, Shapiro and colleagues
      advocate referring to symptoms that persist for six or more months as post-Lyme
      disease syndrome.

      Haughie wonders how doctors could be so callous.

      She said tick-transmitted bacteria caused her to endure cognitive impairments
      similar to Alzheimer's disease and weakened her ability to walk and talk.
      Long-term antibiotic therapy, she said, helped her regain her strength and
      memory. She said doctors have prescribed antibiotics on and off since 1988.

      Rosemary Markowsky, a patient in Manhattan, said she was apparently bitten in
      1994 but it took more than a decade to get the correct diagnosis. "I was
      misdiagnosed for 12 years (and) now after 11 months of antibiotic therapy I am
      90 percent better," she said.

      Dr. Len Horowitz, an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan,
      said prolonged antibiotic therapy may be warranted for patients with advanced
      symptoms. "In the later stages, patients may even need intravenous (antibiotic)
      therapy because Lyme can progress from a simple infection to cardiac disease.
      The organism at this stage is more difficult to eradicate," he said.

      In Wilton, Conn., Dr. Steven Phillips, past president of the International Lyme
      and Associated Diseases Society, said he's dismayed that Shapiro's report
      appeared in such an influential journal. "It was biased and without merit," he said.

      But even though Phillips said chronic Lyme disease is real, he acknowledged that
      no one knows how many patients are affected. "Everybody defines chronic Lyme
      differently," he said. "I define it as people who keep relapsing."
    • artur737 "Other Side" of Lyme Disease 18.10.07, 20:26
      www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb561780.htm
      The "Other Side" of Lyme Disease: Understanding
      • artur737 cd: "Other Side" of Lyme Disease 18.10.07, 20:29
        Dr. Lipson notes that, for depression and anxiety, antidepressant medications
        can be helpful, as can learning coping strategies and effective communication
        skills to help deal with family, friends, and medical providers. She also
        recommends seeking out a specialist trained in medical or health psychology,
        such as a medical or health psychologist, ideally someone who's treated other
        patients with Lyme disease.

        Another big help: Joining a Lyme disease support group, such as the one Dr.
        Lipson leads for Time for Lyme, which is co-sponsored by the Greenwich Dept. of
        Health and Greenwich Hospital (The support group meets at the Greenwich Town
        Hall the first Thursday of each month. Meetings run from 7-8:30 PM. You can find
        more info on the support group on their website at www.timeforlyme.org.)

        "Support groups can be an invaluable tool for people struggling with Lyme
        disease
Inne wątki na temat:
Pełna wersja