LLMD controversy

What I did understand is that Lyme disease is not considered an ongoing infectious disease by the IDSA and that treating it as a long-term, chronic disease is against their guidelines. So, OK, it's a medical controversy, there are so many others... but prosecuting doctors for prescribing antibiotics?!?!?!?

Something doesn't fall into place, something doesn't make sense, there has to be more to this that I don't get, or don't know.

First of all, why would any medical organization deny the chronicity of Lyme? That would make us all crazy. But beyond that, how can a physician be held accountable for medical misconduct when his treatment actually cures the disease? Is it because the prolonged use of antibiotics (with no actual reason, like they say) can cause social and individual harm? Social, since the microorganisms become antibiotic-resistant, and individual, because of the adverse reactions (fungal infections, liver damage etc.)? I'm just speculating here, didn't see any official explanation - or non-official, for that matter, just an explanation, a rationalization, something...!

What were the charges against Drs. Jones and Jemsek, on what grounds were the prosecuted, officially?

Is it also the insurance companies, that don't really like long-term diseases? Or this is already part of the conspiracy theory?

I'd like to know WHY I can't find a doctor that can treat my mom, and why I have to ask about it privately? Advertisement is good for doctors, it's wonderful when they get word-of-mouth... WHY NOT IN THIS CASE?

Where there are two standards of care, this initial review should be by someone who is familiar with both standards. Otherwise, the reviewer simply pulls the IDSA guidelines and says that the case is not in compliance with those guidelines. The critical point, however, is that the patient having been properly informed, selects the treatment approach that he or she wants to follow. Some states understand this, New Jersey and California, for instance. Other states like New York have taken officially advised their medical boards to not pursue actions against physicians who treat Lyme disease longer term. Some states have enacted physician protection statutes, like California.

Imagine what would happen if every case brought against a prostate cancer physicians were referred for review to a physician who only believed in watchful waiting? Obviously, surgery is more risky than watchful waiting, but it is the patients' choice that should carry the day here. Imagine what would happen if all cases brought against IDSA doctors were referred to physicians who followed longer term treatment approaches, for example the approaches recommended by ILADS physicians.

Most IDSA doctors (or at least those who follow IDSA protocols) do not treat long term, because the guidelines recommend against it. These physicians are not experienced in treating chronic Lyme disease patients who are effectively shuttled out of the office when the IDSA's short term approach fails. The IDSA is so powerful that it effectively has monopoly power to drive a medical standard of care in this country. The IDSA's Lyme treatment guidelines are put together by a research group that receives an enormous amount of federal grants and promote the results of their own research results heavily in their guidelines. They exclude input from treating physicians and patients as well as their own members who disagree with their agenda. Its recommendations frequently carry enormous weight with medical boards and insurers. This means that cases are frequently and unquestioningly referred to review by physicians who simply pull the IDSA guidelines down off the shelf and note that the patient was not treated in accordance with those guidelines.

What is at stake is patients' right to choose the treatment approach that they prefer based on their own unique situations. Most patients who are using longer term approaches have tried and failed with shorter term approaches. The other right at stake is the patients' access to health care. This has become a crisis for those with Lyme disease, who find it difficult to find a doctor--many travel great distances to obtain health care, some are forced to fly great distances to see a physician who will treat them. Each case that is brought against an LLMD affects that physician and all of the patients that that physician treats (and patients of doctors who consult with them). Even worse, each case has a chilling effect on the willingness of other physicians to treat Lyme disease..."

Lori

This is all so wrong.

witch hunting galore going on!

These docs are up against too much already, we are lucky to have any of them to help us.

there has to be a way to put a stop to this!

I'm sorry, I don't have any of that info. I do need to do that though.

I agree it's VERY important not to post docs names.

Unfortunatly, so many people don't know this.

I use another site that doesn't have PM's so everything is just on the board!! They don't seem to have their act together, and I don't go there too much, but if I were to see docs names I'd have to say something.