Mort Zuckerman
2011-07-24 08:55:14 UTC
To: ***@hhs.gov, ***@nih.hhs.gov,
***@fda.hhs.gov, ***@blumenthal.senate.gov,
***@forbes.com, ***@drcarolgoodheart.com, ***@cdc.gov,
***@yale.edu, ***@columbia.edu, ***@nymc.edu,
***@ostp.gov, ***@princeton.edu,
***@fiu.edu, ***@hhs.fds.gov,
***@niaid.nih.gov, ***@niaid.nih.gov,
***@yahoogroups.com, ***@calea.org, ***@gmail.com,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@sbcglobal.net,
***@nejm.org, ***@courant.com, ***@cdc.gov,
***@ct.gov, ***@po.state.ct.us, executive-
***@nytimes.com, managing-***@nytimes.com, news-
***@nytimes.com, ***@nytimes.com, ***@nytimes.com,
***@nytimes.com, ***@cdc.gov, ***@optonline.net,
***@hotmail.com, ***@aol.com, ***@courant.com,
***@yahoo.com, ***@fff.org, ***@usdoj.gov,
***@ct.gov, ***@washpost.com, ***@washpost.com,
***@allegorypress.com, ***@po.state.ct.us,
***@comcast.net, ***@comcast.net, ***@po.state.ct.us,
***@charter.net, ***@po.state.ct.us,
***@po.state.ct.us, ***@ct.gov,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@yale.edu, ***@greenwich-
post.com, ***@yale.edu, ***@nswbc.org, ***@aol.com,
***@nytimes.com, ***@sbcglobal.net
Cc: ***@ucia.gov, dr-***@president.ir,
***@washpost.com, ***@newstimes.com, ***@hotmail.com,
***@aol.com, ***@gmail.com, ***@rms-law.com,
***@aol.com, ***@yahoo.com,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@usdoj.gov,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@yale.edu,
***@yale.edu, ***@yale.edu, ***@aldf.com,
***@idsociety.org, ***@theatlantic.com
Subject: *Stupid* people at the New London, CT, newspaper criticize
Blumenthal's Lyme bill
Date: Jul 24, 2011 1:42 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
==========================================
MY RESPONSE TO THE NEWSPAPER:
Well, if "Lyme disease" was first the "New Great Imitator" (Syphilis
being the "Great Imitator") because it caused all kinds of outcomes
like Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, and Lou Gehrig's disease, but later
the disease's definition was changed to "just an autoimmune arthritis
in response to OspA, Yale's Lyme vaccine," then one would have to
wonder what happened to the Great and New Great Imitator outcome
definitions of the disease?
Those neurological definitions were thrown out because they happened
to be caused by OspA, Yale's non-Lyme vaccine. OspA is a toll-like
receptor-2 agonist, and as such, suppresses the immune system and
activates Epstein-Barr. Just ask any of the 1104 scientists at Pfizer
who were fired because they missed such essential science.
http://www.actionlyme.org
=====================================================
http://www.theday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110724/OP01/307249990
Recent legislation concerning Lyme disease introduced by Connecticut's
junior senator, Richard Blumenthal, appears on the surface to be well
intentioned. A press release issued by his office last week stated the
Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education and Research Act
would "combat the growing epidemic of Lyme disease in New England and
across the country."
It is hard to argue with legislation that supposes to combat disease.
And it's easy to score political points in crusading against a disease
endemic to the state you represent. This explains why Sens. Jack Reed
and Sheldon Whitehouse, both Rhode Island Democrats, and Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand, D-N.Y., are cosponsors. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
also climbed aboard as a cosponsor after the original introduction of
the bill.
This is not exactly political risk-taking. It's not as if anyone is in
favor of Lyme disease.
But by taking a closer examination of the bill and placing it in the
context of Sen. Blumenthal's background on the matter, it becomes
apparent this is not good legislation. Indeed, it's potentially
harmful. It seeks to politicize a subject that lawmakers should leave
to the impassioned assessment of the scientific community. It would
create another needless layer of bureaucracy when both federal and
state governments already have ample resources to assess and deal with
Lyme disease.
History
First, a little history. During his long tenure as the crusading
attorney general of Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal endeared himself to
those suffering from long-term health problems they believed were
connected to Lyme disease, so-called chronic Lyme. These groups
complain that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) use overly
strict guidelines and test protocols in detecting Lyme, standards that
they consider inadequate in accounting for chronic Lyme. It was no
coincidence that, when announcing the legislation, Sen. Blumenthal was
joined by Debbie Siciliano and Diane Blanchard, leaders of Time for
Lyme, a chronic Lyme advocacy group.
Mr. Blumenthal also became an advocate for the controversial long-term
antibiotic treatment of so-called chronic Lyme. He fought for
protection of doctors who provided it and railed against insurance
companies that refused to pay for it. The only problem, the treatment
is not supported by the science.
According to the CDC, the vast majority of people who get Lyme disease
from a tick bite respond well to antibiotic treatment and fully
recover. However, about 10 to 20 percent of patients have lingering
symptoms of fatigue, pain, or joint and muscle aches. While informally
called chronic Lyme, the CDC considers it "Post-treatment Lyme disease
Syndrome."
Most medical experts believe that lingering symptoms are due to
residual damage to tissue and the immune system during infection.
However, there is no evidence of persistent infection, therefore no
benefit to continued use of antibiotics. In fact, studies have shown
that patients treated with prolonged courses of antibiotics do no
better than patients getting a placebo. More importantly, long-term
intravenous antibiotic treatment can cause health problems and promote
development of drug-resistant bacteria.
IDSA dispute
Armed with this information, the IDSA guidelines recommend against
such treatment. This outraged chronic Lyme advocates and then-Attorney
General Blumenthal. In 2006 he accused the IDSA of manipulating its
guidelines to benefit the insurance industry, a serious charge that
proved unfounded. To settle the dispute, the IDSA agreed to have an
independent panel of experts assess its guidelines. After an
exhaustive review, the panel unanimously upheld the IDSA guidelines,
finding no wrongdoing.
Now it appears Sen. Blumenthal is at it again with this federal
legislation. It calls for establishing a "Tick-Borne Advisory
Committee" that would "ensure a broad spectrum of scientific
viewpoints" and evaluate "guidelines for effective representation of a
wide diversity of views." The committee would be required to have a
"diversity of scientific perspectives."
These appear to be code words for trying to legitimize long-term
antibiotic Lyme treatments and other controversial approaches to
chronic Lyme. Good science does not come from a diversity of views or
perspectives. It comes from the facts, what can be proved and what
cannot.
Sen. Blumenthal's office said they have not determined how much his
new committee and mandates would cost. Whatever the cost, it would not
be money well spent.
The CDC, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration
and Department of Health and Human Services already have the ability
to manage this disease. Private pharmaceutical companies have the
incentive of profit to develop better diagnostic tools, tests and
treatments.
This legislation is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive. It
deserves to die in committee.
KMDickson
***@fda.hhs.gov, ***@blumenthal.senate.gov,
***@forbes.com, ***@drcarolgoodheart.com, ***@cdc.gov,
***@yale.edu, ***@columbia.edu, ***@nymc.edu,
***@ostp.gov, ***@princeton.edu,
***@fiu.edu, ***@hhs.fds.gov,
***@niaid.nih.gov, ***@niaid.nih.gov,
***@yahoogroups.com, ***@calea.org, ***@gmail.com,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@sbcglobal.net,
***@nejm.org, ***@courant.com, ***@cdc.gov,
***@ct.gov, ***@po.state.ct.us, executive-
***@nytimes.com, managing-***@nytimes.com, news-
***@nytimes.com, ***@nytimes.com, ***@nytimes.com,
***@nytimes.com, ***@cdc.gov, ***@optonline.net,
***@hotmail.com, ***@aol.com, ***@courant.com,
***@yahoo.com, ***@fff.org, ***@usdoj.gov,
***@ct.gov, ***@washpost.com, ***@washpost.com,
***@allegorypress.com, ***@po.state.ct.us,
***@comcast.net, ***@comcast.net, ***@po.state.ct.us,
***@charter.net, ***@po.state.ct.us,
***@po.state.ct.us, ***@ct.gov,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@yale.edu, ***@greenwich-
post.com, ***@yale.edu, ***@nswbc.org, ***@aol.com,
***@nytimes.com, ***@sbcglobal.net
Cc: ***@ucia.gov, dr-***@president.ir,
***@washpost.com, ***@newstimes.com, ***@hotmail.com,
***@aol.com, ***@gmail.com, ***@rms-law.com,
***@aol.com, ***@yahoo.com,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@usdoj.gov,
***@usdoj.gov, ***@yale.edu,
***@yale.edu, ***@yale.edu, ***@aldf.com,
***@idsociety.org, ***@theatlantic.com
Subject: *Stupid* people at the New London, CT, newspaper criticize
Blumenthal's Lyme bill
Date: Jul 24, 2011 1:42 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
==========================================
MY RESPONSE TO THE NEWSPAPER:
Well, if "Lyme disease" was first the "New Great Imitator" (Syphilis
being the "Great Imitator") because it caused all kinds of outcomes
like Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, and Lou Gehrig's disease, but later
the disease's definition was changed to "just an autoimmune arthritis
in response to OspA, Yale's Lyme vaccine," then one would have to
wonder what happened to the Great and New Great Imitator outcome
definitions of the disease?
Those neurological definitions were thrown out because they happened
to be caused by OspA, Yale's non-Lyme vaccine. OspA is a toll-like
receptor-2 agonist, and as such, suppresses the immune system and
activates Epstein-Barr. Just ask any of the 1104 scientists at Pfizer
who were fired because they missed such essential science.
http://www.actionlyme.org
=====================================================
http://www.theday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110724/OP01/307249990
Recent legislation concerning Lyme disease introduced by Connecticut's
junior senator, Richard Blumenthal, appears on the surface to be well
intentioned. A press release issued by his office last week stated the
Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education and Research Act
would "combat the growing epidemic of Lyme disease in New England and
across the country."
It is hard to argue with legislation that supposes to combat disease.
And it's easy to score political points in crusading against a disease
endemic to the state you represent. This explains why Sens. Jack Reed
and Sheldon Whitehouse, both Rhode Island Democrats, and Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand, D-N.Y., are cosponsors. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
also climbed aboard as a cosponsor after the original introduction of
the bill.
This is not exactly political risk-taking. It's not as if anyone is in
favor of Lyme disease.
But by taking a closer examination of the bill and placing it in the
context of Sen. Blumenthal's background on the matter, it becomes
apparent this is not good legislation. Indeed, it's potentially
harmful. It seeks to politicize a subject that lawmakers should leave
to the impassioned assessment of the scientific community. It would
create another needless layer of bureaucracy when both federal and
state governments already have ample resources to assess and deal with
Lyme disease.
History
First, a little history. During his long tenure as the crusading
attorney general of Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal endeared himself to
those suffering from long-term health problems they believed were
connected to Lyme disease, so-called chronic Lyme. These groups
complain that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) use overly
strict guidelines and test protocols in detecting Lyme, standards that
they consider inadequate in accounting for chronic Lyme. It was no
coincidence that, when announcing the legislation, Sen. Blumenthal was
joined by Debbie Siciliano and Diane Blanchard, leaders of Time for
Lyme, a chronic Lyme advocacy group.
Mr. Blumenthal also became an advocate for the controversial long-term
antibiotic treatment of so-called chronic Lyme. He fought for
protection of doctors who provided it and railed against insurance
companies that refused to pay for it. The only problem, the treatment
is not supported by the science.
According to the CDC, the vast majority of people who get Lyme disease
from a tick bite respond well to antibiotic treatment and fully
recover. However, about 10 to 20 percent of patients have lingering
symptoms of fatigue, pain, or joint and muscle aches. While informally
called chronic Lyme, the CDC considers it "Post-treatment Lyme disease
Syndrome."
Most medical experts believe that lingering symptoms are due to
residual damage to tissue and the immune system during infection.
However, there is no evidence of persistent infection, therefore no
benefit to continued use of antibiotics. In fact, studies have shown
that patients treated with prolonged courses of antibiotics do no
better than patients getting a placebo. More importantly, long-term
intravenous antibiotic treatment can cause health problems and promote
development of drug-resistant bacteria.
IDSA dispute
Armed with this information, the IDSA guidelines recommend against
such treatment. This outraged chronic Lyme advocates and then-Attorney
General Blumenthal. In 2006 he accused the IDSA of manipulating its
guidelines to benefit the insurance industry, a serious charge that
proved unfounded. To settle the dispute, the IDSA agreed to have an
independent panel of experts assess its guidelines. After an
exhaustive review, the panel unanimously upheld the IDSA guidelines,
finding no wrongdoing.
Now it appears Sen. Blumenthal is at it again with this federal
legislation. It calls for establishing a "Tick-Borne Advisory
Committee" that would "ensure a broad spectrum of scientific
viewpoints" and evaluate "guidelines for effective representation of a
wide diversity of views." The committee would be required to have a
"diversity of scientific perspectives."
These appear to be code words for trying to legitimize long-term
antibiotic Lyme treatments and other controversial approaches to
chronic Lyme. Good science does not come from a diversity of views or
perspectives. It comes from the facts, what can be proved and what
cannot.
Sen. Blumenthal's office said they have not determined how much his
new committee and mandates would cost. Whatever the cost, it would not
be money well spent.
The CDC, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration
and Department of Health and Human Services already have the ability
to manage this disease. Private pharmaceutical companies have the
incentive of profit to develop better diagnostic tools, tests and
treatments.
This legislation is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive. It
deserves to die in committee.
KMDickson