"No evidence to support prolonged antibiotic use for Lyme disease"
(Warning: Includes a somewhat political rant.)
June 17, 2017- The author of this article, Johan S. Bakken, is past president of the IDSA. That already tells you all you need to know about where he falls on the denialist spectrum. But what is especially revealing and galling is Bakken's conclusion:
Given all the evidence that argues for good antibiotic stewardship, I do not believe that the cost for courses of antibiotics extending beyond 28 days, even with the drugs of choice — doxycycline or beta-lactams — should be covered by third party payors for the treatment of Lyme disease.
Why is Dr. Bakken so concerned with dictating what health insurance companies should or should not cover? Why is he concerned with this at all? Is he a doctor whose job is to solve the riddle of an illness, or is he a shill for the insurance industry? To his credit, at least for once one of these authoritarian controllers of Lyme disease has let slip what their real motivations are and who their likely benefactors are.
And what an odd conflict of interest statement to include:
Disclosure: Bakken reported no relevant financial disclosures.
And Richard Nixon reported "I am not a crook". And Bill Clinton reported "I did not have sex with that woman". Figured I'd hit both sides of the political aisle so you can all be equally cheering and p****** off haha.
Does anyone believe that Dr. Bakken has no relevant financial ties? I sure don't buy it, even if we're talking about indirect allegiances, say for example who funds the IDSA where Bakken's loyalties lie.
The scum of chronic Lyme denialism are really circling the wagons this week with the help of the garbage put out by the CDC.
One of my friends believes all this CDC fueled hoo-ha has to do with getting out ahead of the anticipated increase in Lyme carrying ticks and therefore Lyme cases this year. That's certainly plausible.
I believe this also has a lot to do with the recently released peer reviewed study by ILADS, Chronic Lyme Disease: a Case Definition at Last, which supports the concept of chronic Lyme and extended treatment (see also: WHY The Definition Paper Is So Important).
Gotta make sure that any doctors considering switching to the ILADS point of view know that their hands will be tied from actually following any of the recommendations. I believe it also signals what lies ahead with the not yet released updated IDSA guidlines.
This latest episode should serve as quite a lesson in fake news and how it propagates through our corporate media. Every one of us who have experienced chronic Lyme disease and who understand the medical politics behind the denial of chronic Lyme disease knows that the CDC study warning about the dangers of extended antibiotics for Lyme disease is garbage that relied on a small percentage of harmed patients which can be expected to happen with any illness requiring extended courses of nearly any pharmaceutical.
Yet when a person or organization considered an authoritative source by the corporate news media releases a new study and then blasts a press release to the media, they dutifully report that information as fact without doing any investigation of their own.
Compare and contrast that with ILADS release of their 2017 chronic Lyme disease case definition. I don't recall a similar onslaught of articles proclaiming that chronic Lyme really exists and attacking those who deny its existence.
Of course that didn't happen because no matter the fact that ILADS 2017 case definition is published in a peer reviewed journal and ILADS' 2014 guidelines meet the strict IOM standards and also met the qualifications to be carried by the Guidelines Clearinghouse, ILADS is still considered an outlier by our corporate media because that's what they are told by the recognized "authorities" on Lyme disease, that being the CDC, NIH, FDA, and IDSA.
While I'm on a roll, the reason we can't trust any of those recognized authorities on Lyme disease to conduct honest research and release accurate diagnostic and treatment recommendations is because the entire system is corrupt.
The people in power in those organizations and the university based denialist researchers they rely on are all bought and paid for by big business, whether it be the insurance industry, the diagnostic labs, or big pharma.
And for those who think the solution to this is get rid of the agencies or get rid of the government, NO. The solution is disentangle corporations from the government. Stop allowing government employed or affiliated researchers to hold patents or consultancies that could influence their research.
If you take away government and regulatory agencies who are SUPPOSED to assure that honest, unbiased research is conducted on our behalf all you have left to take it on is big business, the same big business that's corrupted the process to begin with.
Sorry to get so political but the corruption between industry and government is literally and/or figuratively killing us. This is such a perfect example of why decades after Lyme disease was discovered and related chronic illness was observed, we've made almost no progress at all in changing the paradigm despite all the new science disproving it and we're still getting the same bull**** anti-chronic Lyme reporting from the corporate media.
It's why our doctors don't take insurance or Medicare. It's why they still fear persecution from state medical boards. And it's why so many chronically ill patients cannot get insurance coverage for treatment recommended by those doctors and supported by plenty of at least circumstantial and anecdotal evidence in peer reviewed medical journals.
End rant
Steve