Spider Solo - sorry your doc doesn't seem to take Lyme seriously. When I had it my doc didn't even bother to do the blood test - she said it was a waste of time and money, that there were many instances of false negatives, and that what it really shows is that you have (at some point in your life) been exposed to Lyme - not that you necessarily have it at the time of the blood test. I was lucky I guess, in that I had the bull's eye rash. She just went ahead and prescribed doxy for 21 days.
It's discouraging that even with what seems to be heightened awareness of this disease that the docs are still not considering it when assessing a patient and their symptons. Given the fact that the rash does not show up in as many cases as first thought, this is very troubling. It is even more troubling (IMO) with the swine flu making its appearance; I wonder how many cases of Lyme are being overlooked and thought to be swine instead.
On July 30, 2009, a newly formed panel from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) heard 8 hours of testimony from 18 presenters representing various viewpoints on Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment. This was the first time the two sides of the Lyme controversy have been given equal time in front of a conflict-free evidence-review panel.
This hearing came about as the result of an antitrust settlement initiated by Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal in 2007. During his investigation, the Attorney General found substantial conflicts of interest among the 2006 panel members, who held commercial interests in diagnostic tests, vaccines, and insurance. In addition, he found that this panel had suppressed scientific evidence and had excluded opposing views from the panel.
Unfortunately, three days after the hearing, IDSA President, Ann Gerson, MD said this:
“The physicians and scientists who wrote the Infectious Disease Society of America’s (ISDA) guidelines thoroughly reviewed all the medical evidence and took great care to address the claims made by the small minority of physicians who advocate long-term antibiotic use.”
“The notion that the authors had financial conflicts of interest is absurd to anyone who has read the guidelines, which recommend generic tests and a short course of generic drugs.”
Lorraine Johnson, the champion of the Lyme patients who organized much of the ILADS evidence, had this to say:
“This hearing shows that the weight of the science falls on the side of providing patients with treatment options. The speakers supporting the 2006 guidelines relied heavily on conjecture, belief and reputation, advancing an unsubstantiated somatic disorder hypothesis for possible explanations of why patients remain ill. Hypothesis, conjecture and beliefs are not science and hopefully this panel will recognize that and gut these guidelines.”
After the hearing, the IDSA requested nine copies of the film "Under Our Skin" which will be given to each of the panelists. Let's hope that the guidelines will really be gutted and changed as a result of this hearing.
You can view footage of the hearing and download hearing presentations here:
http://webcast.you-niversity.com/idsaArchives/
Here is another link to a blog that is on the "Under Our Skin" website. While much is about the movie, there is some interesting reading.
http://underourskin.com/blog/
This is also on the "Under Our Skin" website - the Faces of Lyme. It is very sobering. Just float your cursor over the photos and you will see a short quote from the person in the upper righthand corner of the site. One such comment: "I went to an infectious disease doctor in NY with a positive Lyme test, with the tick in a plastic bag, with a bite wound, with classic symptoms, and he still said 'I don't think you have Lyme.'"
