discredited? I dont think so......

For everything that is related to Lyme and/or Lymeland, but doesn't fit in the other forums. Speak your mind, connect, ask help, etc.
OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

discredited? I dont think so......

Post by OneGuest » Tue 13 Jan 2009 2:40

From the lymemd blog
Monday, January 12, 2009
Doctors know about the Lyme controversy- they just are not up to date
The lay public is clueless about how doctors are educated and how they stay up to date. The above statement reflects the beliefs of most patients I encounter on a daily basis. They are wrong. Dead wrong.

Doctors do turn to trusted sources when researching a disease and/or looking for topical updates. Practicing doctors are completely unaware of the raging controversy which has been going on for many years now. Major players on the two sides of the dispute are listed below. It is unlikely that a diligent physician looking for information about Lyme disease would encounter any information suggesting that the IDSA guidelines are in dispute. The current maneuvering of the IDSA is designed to ensure that the status-quo remains unperturbed.

Group number one:
Chonic Lyme is real:
ILADS: marginalized- a fringe group.
Dr Burrascano- Medical board issues- discredited.
Dr. Jones- Medical board issues- discredited.
Dr. Jemsek- license to practice in North Carolina suspended- thoroughly discredited
Dr. Horowitz- ILADS president- emphasis on CAM- ridiculed by mainstream- evidence based medicine
Dr. Sticker- discredited in various and sordid ways
Other ILADs physicians- off the radar- no academic credentials- irrelevant
Dr. Donta- Good credentials- Professor of infectious disease medicine at Boston University- No publications in highly esteemed journals like New England Journal of Medicine- marginalized- a single voice- an outlier.
I think this blogger is wrong in his assessments here....I believe these thoughts represent
something else within him. I would recommend he pull this and think more.



One Guest

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by OneGuest » Tue 13 Jan 2009 2:59

He (the blogger) is thinking just like they wanted him to think. He has
been brainwashed and sounds like some of the doomsdayers on
lymenet, when they are at a low. This attitude and belief system will
have effect on his work. I only hope that this is just a temporary
depression.

OG

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by OneGuest » Tue 13 Jan 2009 3:36

He also reinforces and perpetuates these guided slander attempts by IDSA, by using
their words. He is playing into their hands.

He needs to re-think what he is saying and who will read it, and who will repeat it.

OG

newlylymie
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat 24 May 2008 2:12

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by newlylymie » Tue 13 Jan 2009 5:09

OG,

I guess I am interpreting this blog in a different way. I actually think he is honestly stating the present state of lyme disease in the medical establishment today, as he sees it. I don't think he is putting down ILADs or parrotting IDSA. I think he is trying to get people to realize how much change still needs to occur.


My personal experiences with supposedly "top level" doctors have pretty much followed the scenario described on LymeMD's blog. My (now former) rheumatologist, named best in his field in Washingtonian Magazine, believes that only IDSA and CDC have any relevance to lyme treatment. (He also routinely refuses to do any lyme testing at all since he believes most of his patients' symptoms---joint pain and fatigue-- don't warrant a lyme test.)


My wonderful pediatrician who also was named best in his field by his peers, who studied under Dr. Brazelton and Dr. Spock, also does not believe there are two views to lyme treatment. When we discussed my son's treatment he said he would only follow IDSA guidelines because any treatment recommended outside of that would be recommended by "quacks out to take your money". I was shocked and disappointed. I have admired this doctor's dedication and amazing diagnostic skills for almost 20 years.


I always considered him to be on the "cutting edge" and at the forefront of innovative medical treatment. To learn that he had absolutely no understanding of the lyme controversy was disheartening at the least.


I have had other wonderful doctors in my life and the life of my family. My brother-in-law is a well-respected cardiologist at the Cleveland clinic. None of these doctors, my brother-in-law included, have any knowledge of the two opposing views on lyme treatment.


I am fortunate, however, that the doctors that have known my family for years, while not understanding the lyme controversy themselves, have been supportive of my decision to have myself and my son be treated by an llmd.


I'm sad to say that my views of the conventional medical establishment are the same as LymeMD. I really admire his honesty and I hope he continues his blog just as it is.

Cobwebby
Posts: 1716
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 0:55

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by Cobwebby » Tue 13 Jan 2009 6:37

OG I haven't read the blog. but I think he is saying that IDSA is the one discrediting these docs.

The current maneuvering of the IDSA is designed to ensure that the status-quo remains unperturbed.

Group number one:
Chonic Lyme is real:
ILADS: marginalized- a fringe group.
Dr Burrascano- Medical board issues- discredited.
Dr. Jones- Medical board issues- discredited.
Dr. Jemsek- license to practice in North Carolina suspended- thoroughly discredited
Dr. Horowitz- ILADS president- emphasis on CAM- ridiculed by mainstream- evidence based medicine
Dr. Sticker- discredited in various and sordid ways
Other ILADs physicians- off the radar- no academic credentials- irrelevant
Dr. Donta- Good credentials- Professor of infectious disease medicine at Boston University- No publications in highly esteemed journals like New England Journal of Medicine- marginalized- a single voice- an outlier.

In other words, the IDSA wants us to side with them and against these docs because they (seem) to be discredited-but we know it is for invalid reasons. So you are right- Discredited-I don't think so , and neither does LymeMD.
The greater part of our happiness or misery
depends on our dispositions,
and not on our circumstances.
Martha Washington

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by OneGuest » Tue 13 Jan 2009 10:06

Thank you for your thoughts, and I see what you are saying. I know there are numerous md's who
work with these llmds without question.

To say Dr.X is discredited means that they were discredited.

(duh)

The point is that IDSA along with the medical boards, and insurance co's are "trying" to discredit with
bad science, and misuse of media, by spreading slander and libel.

So have they done this and is it a given fact that these drs. are without credit at this time?

NO.

Because others see what is going on.

And I know, along with Newlymie, that there are many important md's who do see what
ILADS physicians are seeing.

The named drs. are not discredited. There is an attempt to do this, but in their (IDSA's) attempts, they have
actually weakened their public integrity (as if that ever existed). IDSA shoots itself in the foot.

The worker bees (general md's who pass off the symptoms) are pawns. They discredit themselves with
their blind belief and lack of thinking.

They are the ones who are discredited, and they did it to themselves.l

Does that make sense? (Afterall, it is 3 a.m. here, and I am totally wired.)

The institutional infiltration of their (IDSA) policies is only a game plan. It has
become so apparent, though, that again, they only provide artillary for their own demise.
They do such bad science by discarding McKlossey's and others work, an by discarding
all that is known about the co-infections and borrelia.

They (IDSA) are the ones who are discredited, thoroughly.

OG

(edited for typos, etc)

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by OneGuest » Tue 13 Jan 2009 10:50

and another thing (I said I was wired)......

When the blogger states "discredited", that means it is already accomplished.
The IDSA goals have been met. It reads like it is a given fact, when that is not
true.

Therefore, the blogger is contributing to the public "mythical image/meme" of the plans
of IDSA.

I enjoy his blogs. I respect his right, as an md, to hold back on involving
supplements as a part of the treatment because there is not a lot of strong
evidence....not enough big studies and all that. His professional level of
acceptance or need requires a different set of standards, than a patient would.
I have no problem with that. That does not mean that supplements are
useless. It means that criteria for incorporation into a professional
medical healing plan are
different. (having trouble with finding right words...he has to be more
careful, in other words, when he sets up a regimen....) (edit)

OG

OneGuest
Posts: 300
Joined: Wed 21 Nov 2007 4:08

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by OneGuest » Tue 13 Jan 2009 11:15

and one more thing (did I mention wired?)....

There is another inherent danger in using the term discredited as a given fact:

It could be interpreted that he himself thinks they (the names listed) already are discredited.

If that is the case, then this blog maybe about his own inner turmoil about his
decision to treat a real problem. He may have his own fears about the
decision in regards to his career and status as a physician (as a livelihood or calling),
and amongst his peers.....but the problem here is that he has to define who his
peer group is.

OG

Martian
Posts: 1944
Joined: Thu 26 Jul 2007 18:29
Location: Friesland, the Netherlands

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by Martian » Tue 13 Jan 2009 15:15

I think it's true that the ILADS/"llmds"-camp has little credibility beyond it's own "camp". I have said it before, the ILADS should hold themselves to the highest standards if they want to gain any credibility. But in recent years the ILADS has shown not to understand this, else they would not associate themselves with the likes of Rosner. It's hard to imagine they are really that stupid. So that makes we wonder, can we be even sure that they care about it? Perhaps they have other interests than we think they do.

FYI:

The lymemd blog post in question:

Date: Monday, January 12, 2009
Title: Doctors know about the Lyme controversy- they just are not up to date
Permalink: http://lymemd.blogspot.com/2009/01/doct ... overy.html

itsy
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007 21:03

Re: discredited? I dont think so......

Post by itsy » Thu 15 Jan 2009 16:22

I think...and I could be wrong here...

That it is his opinion that a doctor is discreditied in the mianstream, scientifically accepted community when, for example, their license is yanked by the state, for example.

And that WOULD be true. My LLMD says her doctor is Dr. Jemsek. She says he is brilliant. This may be true, I don't know him personally...however she herself appears vastly improved since she has been seeing him. I can actually SEE the difference. However, having to move to a different state because of issues makes a doctor look like a cad, not a hero, in the eyes of peers and those "above" said doctor in the whole political sceme of things.

I do not disagree with the points made here by lymemd. This is what I have been trying to say since the start, though he seems to say it much more clearly and eloquently than I. He isn't slamming them, per se, other than pointing out there have been mistakes made that have brought down the credibility of the lyme patient.

We instinctivey want to protect our doctors and definately stick up for those who make us better and believe in us. And many see them as heroes standing up against a corrupt system. While this MIGHT be true to a degree, it doesn't matter when viewed from the mainstream.

Docs who get their privledges yanked are seen as crooks by their peers. They do become discredited even if the patients see it differently. It hurts the lyme community, whether the docs meant to scam people or not, it still brings down the legitimacy of those who suffer from the disease in a chronic form.

I am sorry but that is the truth.

I keep saying there has to be massive reform, because what lymies and ILADS are doing at the moment isn't working for us. We have dug our own holes. Look, a lot of docs afiliated with ILADS are awesome. I know mine is awesome. I am sure others are as well. But a few high profile bad eggs pushing CAM and a few items of bad press when even the ones who have been said to be good go too far hurt us.

I have been called a stricker basher, though I really do not dislike the guy. I think, after a brief communication with him online that he is smart and graceful. But I do not think it is wise of him to bring his history and mistakes in AIDS reseach to the lyme playing field so publically. If I'd made a faux pas like he did, I would keep a low profile for the sake of the patients I treat. I wouldn't want MY history tainting the cause I was involved with and would respectfully work behind the scenes and support those who have a squeekier/cleaner past.

Lyme MD is telling te truth. At at very least I strongly agree with his opinion. He wants to wake people up about the pitiful state of what is going on. Meanwhile its ILADS (not the individuals docs on the frontlines but the spotlighted uberalties and nefarious ones) shooting us in the foot and playing into the hands of the IDSA. Some of them make it all too easy.

I know it is an ugly truth, that those on our side make us look ridiculous sometimes, but it is true. And mainstream doctors are taught that Lyme is nothing and that there isn't another side other than quacks profitting off patients. Its not really the fault of the common doctor. Until we reform the community and shift perceptions on how we present ourselves to the mainstream, we are not going to win this debate in a public forum. This is a case of just because its always been done this way doesn't mean its the right way. And that Einstein/AA saying about doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity in its purest form comes into play here. I know my opinion on this isn't always popular, but I cannot see it any other way.

Post Reply