The IDSA is accepting comments and letters as they prepare for their open hearing on Lyme disease and the IDSA guidelines this April in Washington D.C. I am sure many are aware of this. At this time I am preparing a model letter which I plan to publish on this BLOG.
One glaring, critical flaw in the IDSA logic is staring me in the face, so in advance of my letter, I have decided to share this one point with my readers.
The IDSA claims that the controlled trials have shown that patients with chronic Lyme or post Lyme do not benefit from prolonged use of antibiotics. They are of course referring to the 3 NIH sponsored studies: Klempner, Krupp and Fallon.
All three studies were designed to look at patients with an established diagnosis of LD who were first treated with IDSA approved courses of antibiotics and yet still complained of various symptoms.
Most of the patients I see with chronic Lyme developed symptoms over a period of years and have never been treated with the IDSA approved Lyme disease regimens or any antibiotics for that matter. These patients are not the subset studied in the 3 NIH sponsored trials.
These studies consider only a small subset of patients identified as having chronic Lyme or post Lyme. The generalization of the findings to all groups of patients with Lyme disease is bad science at the very least.
If one were to study patients who had been previously treated for primary syphilis and then apply the results to heretofore untreated patients with disseminated tertiary syphilis, all would agree that this would be preposterous. In the case of Lyme disease the rules of logic and science apparently do not apply. Not only is the illogical non-science accepted by many well known physicians, but the New England Journal of Medicine agreed to publish an editorial predicated on such nonsensical thinking. One can only conclude that a determined group of individuals, having decided a priori what a particular study would show, twisted, massaged and manipulated the limited data to fit into the "Procrustean bed" of their forgone conclusions. This is not science. Whatever it may be- I have no name for it.
Unfortunately as absurd as this all may seen, the consequences of these machinations has had, and continues to have, a devastating impact on so many suffering patients and the physicians who treat them.
This is not just bad science- it is outside the pale.