Dr. Charles Ray Jones Articles
He’s wearing a blue Adidas tracksuit with his name embroidered on the back, and the type of black orthopedic sneakers you’d expect on a man his age.C.R. Jones is burning through OPM (other people’s money) so fast he can’t afford to buy real clothes. Apparently he’s living out of tracksuits. Sure, they’re easy to slip on and fairly comfortable—that would explain all those shoppers in Kmart. But they’re hardly proper attire for a New England physician.
What Jones needs is to augment his defense fund with a sartorial fund. Someone should get him a nice summer weight Brook Brothers tropical, and maybe a couple of sport coats from Joseph A. Banks. A couple of rep ties and some comfortable but stylish shoes from Bostonian or Rockport and he’s good to go….back to court where he can look at least as good as his expensive lawyers.
A fluff piece in the Hartford Advocate notes:
Jones’ supporters are so passionate about him that they’ve been paying attorney’s fees to defend him in front of the state Medical Examining Board, which hears cases of medical misconduct and metes out punishment.
Jones has lost this most recent case and a similar case previously. He’s appealed both to the state appellate court. The legal proceedings have cost him more than $1 million, he estimates.
From a fund-raising letter:
Because fundraising efforts were suspended over the holidays, when my legal team was engaged in an intensive flurry of activity, the defense fund is in dire straights: currently, we owe more than $80,000 in legal fees. All outstanding bills for services rendered must be paid immediately in order for me to retain my legal counsel, and we also must demonstrate that funds will continue to be forthcoming as needed.
With all of this in mind, I must ask you once again to consider making a financial contribution to my legal defense fund, in whatever amount your circumstances will allow. If you are able to contribute, I hope you will do so as soon as possible. Instructions for making donations to the legal defense fund are provided at the bottom of this letter.
And another tin cup solicitation:
To date, the cost of my legal defense over these past six years has amounted to approximately $700,000, most of which has been funded by donations to the legal defense fund. It is extremely painful to think of the resources of the Lyme community being spent in this way. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these charges are not unusual or excessive for a legal defense that has been as complex and lengthy as mine has been. There is a current outstanding balance of approximately $80,000. This will increase over the next few weeks as a result of the ramped up legal activity that will be necessary to address the CMEB decision, the monitor’s complaints and the ongoing appeal.
Next, maybe his misguided supporters could take turns taking him to dinner.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 09:21 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Jones
New Haven Doctor Accused Of Ignoring Order Could Face More Penalties.
Hartford Courant, by A.L. Becker
June 16, 2010
Dr. Charles Ray Jones, a New Haven pediatrician known for supporting a controversial Lyme disease treatment, could face new penalties following allegations that he has not complied with a disciplinary order issued earlier this year.
In March, the Connecticut Medical Examining Board fined Jones $10,000 and placed his license on probation for four years. A board panel had found that Jones violated medical standards by failing to consider other diagnoses when he ordered lab tests to confirm Lyme disease in two children he had not examined and prescribed antibiotics to another child before examining her.
Jones denied wrongdoing and has appealed. The discipline has been stayed until the appeal is resolved.
But in the meantime, Jones, 81, must comply with one part of the medical board's March order, which calls for him to find a pediatrician to monitor his practice, reviewing 12 patient charts each month.
Read the full article here.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 14:59 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Jones
That mythical Lyme disease agitator called Tincup has drafted a letter of protest in response to the recent Ct. medical licensing board’s decision to keep a weary eye on the 80-year-old Dr. “Everything is Lyme disease” Jones. Of course, Tincup’s call to arms was written on April Fools Day so who knows if it’s a joke or just the work of a fool. Or both. In any case, here’s her lead-in:
What Started in CT, Stops in CT! The harassment and persecution of Dr. Charles Ray Jones must stop now!
[snip]
No more interference in our treatment, no more monitors, no more fines, no more prosecutions, no more wasting tax-payers money and no more using loop holes in the CT physician protection law to carry out an agenda that sets detrimental precedent for all Lyme treating physicians. We will continue on this course of action as long as Governor Rell allows these injustices to continue.
She sounds a lot like the equally agitated, white, blue-collar, unemployed people who show up at tea party rallies to foam at the mouth over the alleged crimes of the government in general and the President in particular. Basically, what they all want is for the government to let them do whatever they want whenever they want. It’s a temper tantrum in mass.
The same thing with Tincup and her self-absorbed colleagues. They want governments and other regulatory organizations to give them whatever they want….right now. In effect, they’re demanding that all governments, agencies and other authorities surrender. Stop doing their jobs. Close their offices and go home.
Except possibly when one of them wants a check for something. Or when they’d like the organs of government or expertise to interfere with someone or something they don’t like.
The tea drinkers don’t seem to be having much success overthrowing reality. Neither do the anti-vaccination nuts. Or the AIDS denialists. Or the Lymees. Maybe they all should sit back, relax, and have a cup of decaf coffee. My treat.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 16:45 0 comments Links to this post
Surprise, surprise. Another letter from Dr. Jones asking for money. Here's some of the letter:
March 23, 2010
Dear Friends,
I want to thank you for your many expressions of caring and support which have encouraged me greatly. It is time to update you regarding the status of my defense before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB).
As a result of the CMEB vote:
* I have been ordered to pay a second fine of $10,000 no later than April 15, 2010;
* I must find a practice monitor who is board-certified in pediatrics and licensed in the state of Connecticut by April 15;
* The monitor must come to my office monthly for a period of 4 years (in the previous case, monitoring was ordered to take
place every three months for two years);
* The approximate cost associated with each monitoring session is $1,000. That amounts to an additional financial burden of
$12,000 per year, for four years.
Note also that the CMEB also has ordered that the monitor must have no connection with any Lyme organization. [That's because two quacks are not better than one.]
If I fail to pay the fine and to locate a practice monitor by April 15, I will be out of compliance. I am unable to do this without your assistance. Furthermore, the outstanding balance for my legal fees has grown once again, due to the recent flurry of activity related to my defense. (see below for details).
As a result, I must ask you once again to make a donation as soon as possible to my legal defense fund, in whatever amount that your circumstances will permit. I am painfully aware of the many hardships already endured by so many in the Lyme community, and it troubles me deeply to have to ask you to do this once again. However, it will be impossible for me to meet these demands without your support.
Note: I think someone on LymeNet Europe suggested Jones had already spent about $700,000 (of other people’s money?) on his defense. That’s a lot of money for an 80-year-old guy to recover via a monitored medical practice.
Posted by Relative Risk at 17:28 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Jones, Lyme disease, Quackery
State Disciplines Doctor At Center Of Lyme Disease Controversy
By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER
March 18, 2010
HARTFORD —The state medical board formally has disciplined Dr. Charles Ray Jones, issuing the New Haven pediatrician — known for his support of a controversial Lyme disease treatment— a $10,000 fine and placing his license on probation for four years.
The action Tuesday stems from a hearing panel's finding that Jones violated medical standards in is care for three children. In one case, Jones was accused of ordering tests, diagnosing Lyme disease and babesiosis, and prescribing medication for a 4-year-old girl, all before meeting or examining her. In another case involving two children, Jones allegedly ordered lab tests to confirm Lyme disease without physically examining them.
Jones has said he did nothing wrong. His attorney, Elliott Pollack, said Tuesday that he would appeal the board's decision. Pollack said the evidence did not support the charges; even if it had, he said, the punishment was extremely harsh.
"We'll just have to let the judicial process work its way," Pollack said.
Jones has a loyal following among those who believe that Lyme disease can be a chronic condition that requires extended antibiotic therapy — a view that has been largely rejected by the mainstream medical community, which considers chronic cases rare. Jones' supporters have said he is being targeted because of how he treats Lyme disease.
Members of the medical board have said that they did not consider arguments about Lyme disease itself, but found that Jones violated medical standards that apply to all doctors when he ordered tests without physically examining patients or considering other diagnoses.
A previous case against Jones is also under appeal.
In that case, Jones was accused of diagnosing Lyme disease and prescribing antibiotics to two out-of-state patients he had not met or examined. In 2007, the medical board fined Jones $10,000 and placed his license on probation for two years.
Jones appealed. Ruling on it last fall, Superior Court Judge Carl J. Schuman rejected several arguments against the board's decision but found that the state Department of Public Health had not sufficiently proved one of the violations that the board found. Schuman returned the case to the medical board to determine what discipline Jones should face.
On Tuesday, the board voted to not to change the discipline.
Jones has appealed Schuman's ruling.
Posted by Relative Risk at 12:34 0 comments Links to this post
STATE MEDICAL BOARDState Disciplines Doctor At Center Of Lyme Disease DisputeBy ARIELLE LEVIN BECKERThe Hartford CourantFebruary 17, 2010HARTFORD —The state medical board on Tuesday voted to discipline Dr. Charles Ray Jones, a New Haven pediatrician known for his support of a controversial form of Lyme disease treatment.
The discipline — a $10,000 fine and a four-year license probation during which Jones' practice will be monitored — will not take effect until the board signs the decision, which is expected to happen next month. It will mark the second time in three years that the board has disciplined Jones, 80.
Jones and his supporters say he has been targeted by health authorities because of how he treats Lyme disease. State health officials say the allegations against Jones are about patient care in general, not Lyme disease.
[snip]
Jones said before the vote that he would appeal a ruling against him. "I haven't done anything wrong," he said.
[snip]
More than a dozen of Jones' supporters attended Tuesday's board meeting. Jones is considered a hero to those who believe that Lyme disease can be a chronic condition that requires extended antibiotic therapy. They say that many doctors and tests miss the condition, leaving patients to suffer.
The mainstream medical community has rejected many of the long-term Lyme arguments, saying that such cases are rare and that doctors who diagnose it often overlook other causes of the symptoms.
Dr. Richard Bridburg, who was chairman of the hearing panel, said the panel excluded testimony about the debate over Lyme disease.
"For us, at least, this issue was, perhaps because of the size and busyness of Dr. Jones' practice, we thought that he takes shortcuts," like ordering tests without doing physical exams or considering other diagnoses, Bridburg said.
Jones previously was accused of diagnosing Lyme disease and prescribing antibiotics to two out-of-state patients he had not examined or met. The medical board fined Jones $10,000 in 2007 and placed his license on probation for two years, but Jones appealed. A judge ruled that the state Department of Public Health had not sufficiently proved one of the violations that the board found, and ordered the case returned to the board to determine what discipline Jones should face. That determination has yet to be made.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 08:54 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Jones
Cancellation Notice- Dr. Jones Rally- February 16, 2010
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service forecast for Tuesday, February 16th, 2010 predicts several inches of snow, starting Monday night and continuing into Tuesday and Tuesday night for Hartford, CT and surrounding areas. The forecast indicates the chance for snow is 90%.
Well, maybe it's a conspiracy. Like HHS' uniformed Public Health Service officers, NOAA too has a little known officer corps. Maybe they're conspiring with the PHS and the dreaded HHS intelligence service (the EIS) to stop Lymenuts from supporting poor picked-on Dr. Jones. Probably using some kind of nanotechnology to seed clouds over the Hartford area.
Or maybe not....
Posted by Relative Risk at 09:05 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Jones
He’s back. He’s begging for more dollars on behalf of his lawyers. So begins another chapter in the endless saga of an elderly Connecticut physician determined to find Lyme disease wherever he looks.
Below is part of his pauper’s letter to his foolish fans and supporters. (Though, apparently, there are a few people who have wised up. See the note below.) Assuming this process ends in the near future, Jones may then be close to 82-years-old. Who brings their kids to someone who was in medical school when penicillin was still considered a wonder drug?
February 8, 2010
Dear Friends,
It is time to update you once again on the status of the charges that I have been fighting before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB). I cannot thank you enough for the many expressions of support and encouragement that you have been sending my way over the past several months. These have made a huge difference to me, enabling me to maintain my determination to prevail.
[snip]
Currently, there have been two separate and distinct cases against me. The original case is under appeal, and the second case pertains to a new set of charges regarding a different set of patients.
In addition to this, we have learned that the court-appointed monitor has brought a number of complaints about me to the CMEB, which appear to be based on his reliance on the IDSA guidelines as the alleged “gold standard” for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. These currently are under investigation, but at this point no formal charges have been filed in relation to them. [Wow! How bad are you that even your chosen monitor feels compelled to report you?!]
First case:
[snip]
In its decision of December, 2007, the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB) imposed a $10,000 fine, a reprimand and two years of monitored probation. Despite these disappointing recommendations, this case was not lost. My license to practice medicine was not suspended or limited.
However, the CMEB introduced a very restrictive four part standard of care for Lyme disease at the very end of the proceedings. Left unopposed, this test would set a very dangerous precedent, and could be used against other doctors to shut down the treatment of chronic Lyme disease. It clearly had to be appealed.
Appeal of the First Case:
Most of the charges that I was found “guilty” of were stayed, or suspended, pending the outcome of the appeal, including the four part standard of care. The one exception was the monitoring requirement. I was required to find and pay for a board-certified pediatrician, licensed in the state of Connecticut, to conduct periodic chart reviews at my office for a period of two years. This was not an easy task: We contacted over 80 pediatricians before the current monitor was found; he was then approved by the CT DPH.
The grounds for the appeal have been described in my previous letter. One of them pertains to the discovery of significant bias on the part of one of the panel members, Dr. Senechal, who was recognized by a set of parents who filed affidavits stating that he had expressed very significant bias against me and other Lyme literate physicians, including the statement that doctors who treat Lyme are quacks.
A hearing was held in Superior Court to review the question of the panel member’s bias. The judge rejected our arguments. The case is now on appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court; the brief in support of my position is due in April.
Current case(s):
The Department of Public Health then filed another series of complaints against me. This set of charges differs from the first case in that it involves three separate families, with the respective cases conjoined into one proceeding.
[snip]
* The third count involving one of the families was completely dismissed.
* The testimony of Dr. Zemel was thrown out, with the panel characterizing him as clearly biased against physicians who treat chronic Lyme, and against many of the labs that they use. [Seems like an odd ruling. Sort of like discounting the testimony of cops because they have a professional bias against criminals. I’m sure Zemel wouldn’t feel so “biased” if chronic Lyme actually had a case definition, objective and distinct clinical symptoms, a well-defined rationale for a specific treatment, and treatment end points. Like other infections and diseases.]
* The first count was upheld: this pertained to the charge that I had “improperly” ordered serology (diagnostic) testing prior to examining the patients. This seems strange, because, as far as we know, there were no patient complaints or patient harm. It is also difficult to comprehend why pre-examination testing should ever be the basis of disciplinary action against a physician.
* The second count against me also was upheld. The issue here was the prescription of antibiotics to a patient whose symptoms were quite consistent with both Lyme and Babesiosis. I had obtained a comprehensive history from the referring practitioner who had contacted me about the case, and also from the patient’s mother. An ER had recorded an EM rash that went untreated My schedule was so heavily booked that I could not see the patient for a number of weeks. I was confident that the patient should be started on antibiotics immediately, and that the risk of not treating would be greater than the risk of treating. The patient did well.
In this case, the panel has denied that charges have been brought against me because I am a Lyme specialist. Instead, it has characterized its findings as generic and pertaining to medical practice as a whole. This is why we have not been able to utilize the recently passed physician protection bill in Connecticut.
Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to understand why such matters should have ever reached this level, or why their two expert witnesses were specialists in tickborne diseases. There have been no patient complaints, other than disaffected fathers involved in contested custody or divorce proceedings, and no harm has come to any of the children, who in fact have done well.
Once again, the panel has not recommended that my medical license be revoked. They have, however, recommended the following sanctions:
* Another $10,000 fine
* Four years of supervised probation, with a monitor again hired at my own expense
Why I Continue to Fight:
Some of you have expressed dismay that the Connecticut Department of Public Health has spent so much taxpayer money on these charges. You have been concerned that they will continue to bring charges against me until I am forced to close my office.
This process has been undeniably stressful. It has been painful to see so much time, energy and valuable resources being expended on my defense. I continue to believe, however, that it is critical for me to continue to fight these charges and to prevail:
We must stand up for what we believe and know to be right in the matter of diagnosis and treatment of tick borne disease.
I am painfully concerned about the lack of effective care for children afflicted with tick borne disease. Because I decided to fight these charges when all of this began some six years ago, several thousand additional pediatric Lyme patients have received an appropriate diagnosis and treatment for their tickborne disease.
A successful outcome for me will both hearten and protect other physicians who wish to diagnose and treat Lyme disease comprehensively, and will encourage other pediatricians in particular to train with me.
We must send a clear message to health departments across the country that we will not be bullied, or allow our right to medical treatment to be trampled.
Legal Fees:
I continue to be grateful for the excellent defense that Attorney Elliott Pollack has been providing, and to everyone who has made this possible through donations to my legal defense fund. Please note that Attorney Pollack has achieved some significant victories: my license has not been revoked and, most recently, the decision to throw out the testimony of Dr. Zemel on the grounds that he is biased, will most likely put an end to his usefulness as an expert witness in proceedings against other LLMD’s.
The legal representation necessary to oppose these charges has been very extensive and complex:
* multiple hearings have been held, each of which have required considerable preparation and review;
* many hours have been spent helping witnesses to prepare to testify;
* the filing of the appeal has been time-consuming but essential, and has entailed multiple appearances on the part of my attorneys in Superior Court, including three pretrial sessions.
* New charges have been levied by the monitor which need to be addressed
* Preparation and presentation of the oral argument which will be presented to the CMEB on February 16, after which they will vote on the proposed MOD.
This struggle has been costly, and I will continue to require your financial support in order to prevail. We have known from the outset that Pullman & Comley does not provide pro bono legal services, and Attorney Pollack is accountable to the partners in his firm.
To date, the cost of my legal defense over these past six years has amounted to approximately $700,000, most of which has been funded by donations to the legal defense fund. [Amazing that activists groups would throw away so much donor money on this guy. Though I suppose if they were not burning it on Jones and others, they’d be using it for other mischief.]
It is extremely painful to think of the resources of the Lyme community being spent in this way. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these charges are not unusual or excessive for a legal defense that has been as complex and lengthy as mine has been. There is a current outstanding balance of approximately $80,000. This will increase over the next few weeks as a result of the ramped up legal activity that will be necessary to address the CMEB decision, the monitor’s complaints and the ongoing appeal.
Ordinarily, Pullman & Comley does not allow clients to carry an unpaid balance on their account. They have been impressed by the stream of donations that so many of you have been sending, and have been unusually flexible in this regard. Each time that the unpaid balance grows, however, my legal representation is in jeopardy. It is necessary to demonstrate once again that the legal defense fund is solvent, and will be able to meet the cost of my legal defense.
Because of this, I am asking you to make a donation to my legal defense fund, in whatever amount that your circumstances will permit. I hope that you will continue to find the means to support this fight, despite the hardships which I know that so many of you already live with.
[snip]
--------------------------------------------
LymeNut Posting. 2-11-2010.
My post was censored and cut from this thread.
Dr. Jones hurt my daughter by not having the courage to give a second opinion when we sought help for her desperate situation, when her LLMD was out of the country. We told Jones that if he had ideas on treatment, that we would switch our daughter's care to him. Nevertheless, he did not offer any treatment, change in treatment, or advice- we assume because he did not want to offend the original LLMD.
He took our money, and lots of it, however.
We also observed some irregularities in his office, including talking to our daughter about other patients, taking phone calls from other patients while we were in the room, leaving the appointment abruptly with no explanation, and the extreme number of tests ordered if patients had insurance.
This was 9 years ago, and I believe our daughter is still suffering from Jones' negligence.
Posted by Relative Risk at 11:58 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Jones
I have mentioned the availability of a couple of very informative videos about Lyme disease and the prevention of tick-borne infections.
I don’t want to start a film review blog here, but I should, as a matter of public health and public education, mention a horrible little piece of poisonous propaganda called, Under Our Skin. It’s supposed to be a documentary about Lyme disease. Viewers won’t learn anything useful about the infection, but they will probably come away with a sense of having been punched in the face with a fistful of disinformation designed to confuse and infuriate. (Actually, this piece of disease porn reminds me of the 1980’s efforts of the KGB’s Department A (Dezinformatsiya) to blame the U.S. for the emerging AIDS epidemic. Stories were written about alleged U.S. experiments and then planted in Third-World newspapers by leftist reporters. The planted stories were picked up by other news organizations and quickly traveled around the world. It was a clever and effective propaganda campaign. Good thing the Internet wasn’t around in those days.)
I think I’ve seen most of the film in short clips and trailers posted on various websites. (I can only take it small doses anyway.) Copies of it circulate among Lyme disease activists and it seems to be playing in every church basement and library meeting room where such activists are able to gather. The film focuses on a number of people who are clearly ill; so much so that it’s hard to believe they only have Lyme disease. They are the “victims.” Also featured in the film are various private practice physicians—known as “Lyme Literate MDs” for their alleged knowledge of the infection, and their lack of formal training in infectious diseases or clinical research. They are the heroes.
And what’s a good tale without a villain or two? The villains are academic physicians, public health officials and insurance companies: a supposed cabal working to deny the existence of “chronic” Lyme disease and a national epidemic of Lyme disease.
(A quick note: most researchers and public health people I know tend to exaggerate the numbers, impact, costs, dangers, etc. of any disease they’re interested in. The bigger and badder the disease, the more money they can get for research. It’s rule #1 of any public health campaign or grant proposal. So I’ve never been able to figure out why Lyme activists think there’s a campaign to play down Lyme disease. From the point of view of professional self-interest, it doesn’t make any sense.)
The film has been around long enough that an occasional review has been published. In 2008, for example, Julian Upton, writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases, used words like “partisan,” “manipulative,” and “conspiracy” to describe it. Someone who knows something about making documentaries told me the film seemed to have been made “not to educate but to create and induce fear, panic and distrust.” If so, it succeeded. But I guess that’s the point of good propaganda.
Andy Wilson is the director and was inspired to make this film after his sister contracted Lyme disease. A few years ago, he responded to some criticism in an email: …we very much want to tell the truth about the Lyme disease controversy, and are looking for people…who have a breadth of experience and expertise to contribute to the dialogue.
…the so-called LLMDs have been much more eager to speak to us and, perhaps, this is the reason our research appears biased. Frankly, we've often heard from the "Lyme establishment" that if the opposing camp is equally represented, they do not want to participate. So you must understand our predicament: We are forced to represent one perspective over another.
“Tell the truth about the Lyme disease controversy.” Curious phrasing. I could understand wanting to tell about the Lyme disease controversy, but inserting the word “truth” suggests that something is wrong, something is hidden. Maybe there’s a conspiracy. It’s always tricky to go looking for “truth” because the quest often turns into a crusade. Moreover, how do you know the truth when you find it unless you already think you know what it is?
As for the LLMDs being eager to appear in the film, I’m sure that’s true. It’s free PR for them and an opportunity to attract more patients. It’s a chance to clean up an image that has been regularly tarnished by federal granting agencies, state and federal prosecutors, medical licensing boards, and malpractice lawyers. Who would want to share the limelight with such people? It would only boost their credibility….or reduce one’s own.
“We are forced to represent one perspective over another,” claims the director. So whoever shows up, that becomes the chosen perspective? That becomes the “truth”? Again, I don’t know anything about film and documentaries, but that attitude isn’t likely to produce anything more honest or useful than a heavy-handed commercial. Aren’t there any disinterested experts or science writers to interview? Any infectious disease researchers who don’t see patients, but who might have insights into the epidemiology and pathogenesis of Lyme disease? Apparently, not.
Wilson wrote in an email, We are not interested in agitprop journalism. (Agitprop, by the way, is from the Russian, Agitatsiónno-propagandístskiĭ otdél, or Agitation Propaganda Section of the Central Committee.) Yet Wilson and his producer Kris Newby (herself a self-described “Lyme victim”) certainly sound like they’re out to agitate and propagandize.
A few years ago, a reporter I know wrote, …that documentary filmmaker andy wilson (under our skin, the lyme=aids movie) wants to do a segment on the [news] story, and has one of his producers investigating me by calling colleagues of mine to see if i have "ties to the health insurance industry". it's sort of sad but also creepy.
Similarly, a researcher at Johns Hopkins wrote to a colleague about the same producer, noting, Open Eye Productions contacted Hopkins about your stated affiliation with Hopkins. Another Newby query asked of a reporter, Just out of curiosity, did you get your original source material for your Lyme article from ____? If you did, you really should talk to me.
Newby also wrote in an email, I'm a science writer who's been doing the investigative work for an upcoming Lyme disease documentary…. I have a lot of dirt on the IDSA guidelines authors, if you're interested. I'd love to include it all in our film….” “…I'll give you the 30 minute overview of the greed, politics, etc, with Lyme. I've been working on this for 2 years, and I'd hate for all that research to go to waste.
It’s clear from the film clips that it did not go to waste.
If the creators of Under Our Skin were interested in dirt, greed and politics they need not have looked any farther than a mirror or the company they keep.
Dirt, greed and politics can be found among the advocacy groups and LLMDs who supported this film and advertise its merits on their websites. It can be found among the LLMDs who sit on Lyme advisory boards and troll for patients at advocacy meetings. It can be found among the LLMDs who pump their patients full of i.v. antibiotics and supplements, but are mum about their ties to intravenous infusion and nutritional supplement companies. It can be found among the Lyme advocates and LLMDs who direct confused patients to one or two diagnostic labs specializing in Lyme tests. It can be found among the owners of specialty Lyme labs who sit on Lyme advocacy boards and regularly attend Lyme gatherings to hawk their products. It can be found among the activists who set up defense funds and organize rallies to protect LLMDs from licensing boards, malpractice attorneys and injured patients. It can be found among the activists who write death threats and make anonymous calls to the directors and deans of their imagined enemies. It can be found among the cash-only, bootstrapping LLMDs who justify their clinical practices by citing the clinical guidelines they wrote, and then justifying the guidelines by citing the anecdotal practices that inspired the guidelines.
Sometimes I think this sci-fi movie was commissioned by the activists and their LLMDs as yet another vehicle for making money and spreading hysteria about a common bacterial infection.
As an example, here are a couple of online posts from film’s producer, Kris Newby: Can we please ask you [the activists] to post again asking Dr. Oz and Oprah to do a show on UNDER OUR SKIN, the documentary that exposes the truth about Lyme disease?? And again, Letters to both local and national PBS office would definitely help get UNDER OUR SKIN on the air, so go for it.
Yeah, maybe they can sell a few more DVDs.
Under Our Skin is such an assault on evidence-based medicine it should be classified as a snuff film. Rational and the well-informed viewers are not likely to be deceived by this blatant propaganda piece, but I was surprised to find a number of online Lyme patients who didn’t think much of it either.
One regular poster to a Lyme disease forum wrote, I came away with the impression that Shapiro and Wormser [two infectious disease specialists] were really just used to make, setup, the opposing point. The IDSA starring as the bad guys. Looking at the trailer...there is a statement that Shapiro makes about the "bottom line" that appears to be out-of-context in the film...making it appear as though he is saying something else, entirely.
Another online regular wrote a detailed critique of the pseudo-documentary.
Unfortunately, Under Our Skin falls terribly short in executing its goal in informing the public fully….
The producers’ choices in the doctors they follow does not help the “Lyme-literate” cause. While the inclusion of the Jemsek and Jones hearings was a necessary move, the choice to include Dr. Klinghardt, who openly advertises the use of hormones and bee venom to treat Lyme disease as a top physician in the field is, in my humble opinion, a questionable choice. It is also unfortunate that the filmmakers choose to approach the Jemsek and Jones trials in such a way as to overshadow the numerous mis-diagnoses made by Jemsek, for example. The actual reason why Jemsek had his license suspended in North Carolina is all but ignored, the producers instead focusing on political implications. Similarly, the focus of Jones’ trial is not that he treated patients he had never met, let alone examined, as well as other charges listed on the official order, only that he has helped thousands of patients and therefore deserves some type of immunity for his actions….
I feel that Mandy’s story [a woman portrayed in the film] only ends up making Lyme patients appear to be the malingerers and hysterics that far too many doctors already are too quick to brand us, and I fear that, as genuinely sick as Mandy may have been, the footage of her only renders illegitimate all that could have been redeeming aspects to the film.
On the other hand, Charles Ray Jones, a well-known LLMD in Connecticut and one of the stars of the film, claimed in a letter to his defense fund donors, Validation of my practice has been supported by Andy Wilson in his highly acclaimed documentary film, “Under Our Skin".... Right. Some guy with a video camera thinks you’re Albert Schweitzer while a committee of your physician peers thinks you need to be watched at all times.
I guess it’s true, you can’t convince the committed. Or as someone so elegantly put it, “believers simply look for more excuses, even resorting to a ‘your science is inadequate to test my magic’ argument.”
So there we are with the Lyme controversy. Fact vs. film. Science vs. magic. And if the politicians get any more involved, magic is likely to win….in the short-term….just ask the Pope.
-
Posted by Relative Risk at 17:36 1 comments Links to this post
Labels: Film, Jones, Lyme disease
I’ve been reading through last fall’s transcripts from the medical board’s investigation ofCharles Jones, Connecticut Lyme Doc to the foolish, the gullible, and the desperate. It’s hard to understand why this elderly man is still in active practice and why people would bring their children to him. Reading through the proceedings, I’m left with the impression of a man who doesn’t seem to know much about medicine in general or infectious diseases in particular. At times, Jones seems baffled by the investigation and the examiners’ questions. He gives the impression of having a hearing problem and of being confused—sometimes about his own notes and professional background. Sometimes I feel sorry for the old man that emerges from the pages of this inquiry. One of his most frequent answers to a question is, “I’m sorry?” He says that 33 times through 276 pages of testimony.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
PETITION NOS. 2006-0111-001-010
RE: CHARLES JONES, M.D.
2006-0411-001-069
2006-0407-001-068
SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
CONNECTICUT MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD
BEFORE: RICHARD BRIDBURG, M.D., CHAIRPERSON
ANNE C. DOREMUS, PUBLIC MEMBER
EDWARD OSSWALT, PUBLIC MEMBER
FOR THE BOARD: TANYA DeMATTIA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Here he is introducing himself and outlining his professional background.
My name is Charles R. Jones, M.D. I’m a physician not in Hamden but in New Haven as the Statement of Charges reflect me as being in Hamden. I’m in New Haven. I practice pediatric adolescent medicine, but they -- most of the children I see and adolescents I see having Lyme as well as other tick-borne diseases.
Q Dr. Jones, can you hear me satisfactorily? Doc, can you hear me satisfactorily?
A I’m sorry?
Q Can you hear me?
A Yes.
Q Good. Can you tell the Panel something about your educational background, please?
A Yes, I was -- graduated from New York Medical College in 2000 -- in 2000 -- in 1962. I was resident -- well, first of all, I served as intern in pediatrics at St. Luke’s Hospital in New York City for one year and then residency in pediatrics and adolescent medicine at St. Luke’s and at Memorial Sloane Kettering. The --
Q Any further training, sir, fellowships or anything of that sort?
A Fellowships, yeah, as a rheumatoid arthritis fellow when I was a medical student which enabled me to do -- do basic science research as well as clinical research while I was in -- while I was a medical student, excuse me, while I was a medical student and at the same time while I was an intern and resident at St. Luke’s Hospital. And I was also -- while I was a medical student at New York Medical College, I was an Assistant in the Department of Biochemistry all through the time I was a medical student and did research and some teaching. That was essential because my wife and I weren’t totally independent and I had to have as much income -- we had to have as much income as possible. And she taught and I went to medical school and did research as well as taught.
Q When did you enter clinical practice, doctor?
A I’m sorry?
Q When did you enter clinical practice?
A If I remember -- 1965.
Q And where?
A In New York City, 111, not 111 in --
CHAIRPERSON BRIDBURG: Excuse me. I’m a little confused. Didn’t he say --
A -- in Madison -- just off Madison Avenue. That’s off -- that’s on the east side.
MR. POLLACK: One second, I’m sorry.
CHAIRPERSON BRIDBURG: I thought he said he graduated 1962, is that right?
MR. POLLACK: Correct.
Q But when did you enter clinical practice, do you --
A I haven’t figured that one out. I would have -- ’66 or ’67.
Q And what was your practice initially?
A The practice initially was -- consisted of pediatric adolescent medicine and pediatric oncology.
Q And how long did you practice in those areas?
A In -- until 1969 we moved from New York City to Hamden, Connecticut to -- it was very difficult practicing in New York City. We started having a family. It was difficult raising children in New York City so we decided to move to New Haven, Connecticut, the New Haven area. It was in Hamden. And have a regular pediatric practice and not do cancer and leukemia any longer.
Q When did you begin to focus on tick-born[e], diagnosing and treating tick-born diseases and Lyme disease doctor?
A To focus on?
Q Yes.
A Not just begin seeing it? Begin seeing it?
Q Begin and then focus.
A Okay. Shortly after arriving in New Haven or in Hamden, I started, I’d say in the late sixties and early seventies, started seeing children come into the practice who had -- they were coming in clusters. They had a juvenile rheumatoid arthritis-like picture.
And juvenile rheumatoid arthritis is not supposed to cluster and these children came in in clusters, three or four in the same community, also some from the same family. Some of them -- I wasn’t the only one seeing this. I mean other people in the area were too.
This was at the beginning of the Lyme awareness, where some of the children came in with strep infections and they were put on antibiotics and got better pretty rapidly. And we started treating all the people with the juvenile rheumatoid arthritis-like picture with antibiotics.
snip
Q Going back to the question I asked a moment ago, can you tell the Panel of just the one or two, perhaps, distinctions or awards or honors you’ve received in connection with your pediatric Lyme practice, Dr. Jones?
A Well, one was an award given through a group in California. We’ve got a new group in California but it’s a Lyme organization that publishes Lyme Time. And that was concerned with my being the outstanding physician in Lyme disease and especially -- with reference to pediatric and adolescent medicine in 2000.
I’ve received many awards over the years in the form of plaques denoting outstanding achievement in treating children with Lyme disease from various organizations.
Q Doctor, any connection with Columbia University Medical School?
A Well, that’s a different issue. Not a different issue, it’s one -- it’s a related issue. At Columbia University in the medical school, there’s a -- there’s a fellowship in my name, the Charles Ray Jones Endowment -- endowed fellowship that enables students who completed the first year of medical school -- medical school schooling, to be able to apply for a fellowship in my name. It’s in my name, Charles Ray Jones Endowed Fellowship involving with learning more about the treating of tick-born disease -- diseases.
Q And what’s the nature of that fellowship, please?
A The fellowship enables the recipients to be able to go to offices of physicians who practice and treat Lyme and tick-born diseases or to be with basic science researchers at Columbia or elsewhere to learn more about tick-born diseases. It’s a -- it’s a -- it’s sort of thrilling to have the students come in who are fresh and are not -- who just completed their first year of medical -- medical school and who are interested very much in learning more about clinical medicine. They’ll come in and stay for a week or a month or two months and do a program of -- of awareness. And when they are -- and the people who come to my office, I’ve had about eight or nine -- eight or nine over the years, the people who come to my office have -- I’ve enabled them to participate in the -- in the questioning and also the evaluation of the children who have Lyme disease. It’s a hands-on experience.
A lot of the people who do it have decided that they want to go into a field of medicine that -- that treats infectious diseases, and not just Lyme, but infectious diseases.
Q So these students actually come from the medical school to your office, is that so?
A Yes.
Q And does the medical school send them to you and select them?
A There -- there’s a rather rigorous selection process that Dr. Brian Fallon is involved in where students can apply and then go through a rather -- rather horrendous application and interview situation. But then they are selected or rejected. I don’t know how many are rejected, but a good many are. I think they select two to four a year now. It used to be one. The endowment -- I don’t know what the endowed monies consist of now, but.
Q One last question, when was that fellowship program inaugurated, doctor, if you can recall?
A Maybe -- maybe ’98.
Except as a bad example or a “what not to do,” what could this guy possibly teach new medical students?! I’d love to know what these med students thought of their experiences with Jones. Someone should track them down and find out.
Posted by Relative Risk at 17:16 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: ILADS, Jones, Lyme disease