Post by LymeEnigma on Aug 2, 2008 13:18:05 GMT -8
Movie review: Under Our Skin
When I first learned that a documentary on Lyme disease was in the works, one that focused on the patients and the controversy at hand, I was cautiously optimistic. A good documentary would inform the people of the very real dangers Lyme diseases poses, while also being careful not to add to the stigma and misinformation that have clouded all sides to the surrounding controversy. The film makers involved appeared to be striving for a balance of information, as indicated by trailer available at www.openeyepictures.com, and anyone who has suffered an atypical case of Lyme disease knows all too well that balance has never existed in the Lyme community, not since its discovery over thirty years ago.
Anyone who has suffered the lasting effects of atypical or late treated Lyme can attest that there exists an enormous split between two very different camps on how to diagnose and treat the disease. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), who authored internationally recognized guidelines on the disease, believes that Lyme disease is easy to diagnose and can almost always be treated completely with fourteen and twenty-eight days of antibiotic therapy. Alternatively, the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) believes that Lyme disease, as well as numerous other tick-borne co-infections, can be difficult to diagnose and can take years of antibiotic therapy to treat. Both camps have peer-reviewed material to back their claims, and both denounce or ignore the findings of its rival, leaving no place for eclectic and innovative doctors and researchers, such as Donta, Burgdorfer, and Fallon, who would consider approaches that include findings from both camps.
Unfortunately, Under Our Skin falls terribly short in executing its goal in informing the public fully on the pros and cons of each camp. Where there are good ideas and thoughtful interviews, the movie ultimately succeeds only in proving just how disjointed and unsophisticated Lyme awareness and advocates truly are. This is truly a shame, as the film has within it small gems from both the IDSA and ILADS camps, mixing scientifically backed information with undue spin and speculation, while failing to capture the most important issue: Lyme disease exists, even if in minute numbers in some areas, in all fifty states (an all across Europe), and prevention and early treatment are the only real ways of avoiding the possibility of developing life-long illness and/or sequelae.
The producers’ choices in the doctors they follow does not help the “Lyme-literate” cause. While the inclusion of the Jemsek and Jones hearings was a necessary move, the choice to include Dr. Klinghardt, who openly advertises the use of hormones and bee venom to treat Lyme disease (http://www.klinghardt.org/lyme.htm) as a top physician in the field is, in my humble opinion, a questionable choice. It is also unfortunate that the film makers choose to approach the Jemsek and Jones trials in such a way as to overshadow the numerous mis-diagnoses made by Jemsek, for example. The actual reason why Jemsek had his license suspended in North Carolina (www.casewatch.org/board/med/jemsek/charges.shtml) is all but ignored, the producers instead focusing on political implications. Similarly, the focus of Jones’ trial is not that he treated patients he had never met, let alone examined, as well as other charges listed on the official order (www.dir.ct.gov/dph/hcquality/Physician/Orders_Physicians/001-012860/20040917001221.pdf), only that he has helped thousands of patients and therefore deserves some type of immunity for his actions, and, moreover, was targeted specifically for treating children for Lyme disease with controversial long-term antibiotic regimens.
The producers’ choices in patients followed also does little to back the ILADS camp. While I have little doubt in my mind that the patients followed all genuinely suffered (and likely continue to suffer) from Lyme and/or similar diseases, and I have no doubt that every patient shown suffered greatly, I also have no doubt, and this is only a personal opinion, that Mandy Hughs gave an unnecessarily dramatic performance. As a long-time sufferer of Lyme-related symptoms, I can understand the frustration that comes with suffering from such an invisible disease; I can understand one’s desire to find some way to make that level of suffering visible to others, because I know from personal experience just how bad it can get. However, I feel that Mandy’s story only ends up making Lyme patients appear to be the malingerers and hysterics that far too many doctors already are too quick to brand us, and I fear that, as genuinely sick as Mandy may have been, the footage of her only renders illegitimate all that could have been redeeming aspects to the film.
Under Our Skin had great potential, but unfortunately I do not think the finished piece will be capable of producing any positive impact on actual Lyme awareness. It’s a great movie for those already standing firm in the ILADS camp; to everyone else, I fear it is going to come across as just another propaganda film.
When I first learned that a documentary on Lyme disease was in the works, one that focused on the patients and the controversy at hand, I was cautiously optimistic. A good documentary would inform the people of the very real dangers Lyme diseases poses, while also being careful not to add to the stigma and misinformation that have clouded all sides to the surrounding controversy. The film makers involved appeared to be striving for a balance of information, as indicated by trailer available at www.openeyepictures.com, and anyone who has suffered an atypical case of Lyme disease knows all too well that balance has never existed in the Lyme community, not since its discovery over thirty years ago.
Anyone who has suffered the lasting effects of atypical or late treated Lyme can attest that there exists an enormous split between two very different camps on how to diagnose and treat the disease. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), who authored internationally recognized guidelines on the disease, believes that Lyme disease is easy to diagnose and can almost always be treated completely with fourteen and twenty-eight days of antibiotic therapy. Alternatively, the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) believes that Lyme disease, as well as numerous other tick-borne co-infections, can be difficult to diagnose and can take years of antibiotic therapy to treat. Both camps have peer-reviewed material to back their claims, and both denounce or ignore the findings of its rival, leaving no place for eclectic and innovative doctors and researchers, such as Donta, Burgdorfer, and Fallon, who would consider approaches that include findings from both camps.
Unfortunately, Under Our Skin falls terribly short in executing its goal in informing the public fully on the pros and cons of each camp. Where there are good ideas and thoughtful interviews, the movie ultimately succeeds only in proving just how disjointed and unsophisticated Lyme awareness and advocates truly are. This is truly a shame, as the film has within it small gems from both the IDSA and ILADS camps, mixing scientifically backed information with undue spin and speculation, while failing to capture the most important issue: Lyme disease exists, even if in minute numbers in some areas, in all fifty states (an all across Europe), and prevention and early treatment are the only real ways of avoiding the possibility of developing life-long illness and/or sequelae.
The producers’ choices in the doctors they follow does not help the “Lyme-literate” cause. While the inclusion of the Jemsek and Jones hearings was a necessary move, the choice to include Dr. Klinghardt, who openly advertises the use of hormones and bee venom to treat Lyme disease (http://www.klinghardt.org/lyme.htm) as a top physician in the field is, in my humble opinion, a questionable choice. It is also unfortunate that the film makers choose to approach the Jemsek and Jones trials in such a way as to overshadow the numerous mis-diagnoses made by Jemsek, for example. The actual reason why Jemsek had his license suspended in North Carolina (www.casewatch.org/board/med/jemsek/charges.shtml) is all but ignored, the producers instead focusing on political implications. Similarly, the focus of Jones’ trial is not that he treated patients he had never met, let alone examined, as well as other charges listed on the official order (www.dir.ct.gov/dph/hcquality/Physician/Orders_Physicians/001-012860/20040917001221.pdf), only that he has helped thousands of patients and therefore deserves some type of immunity for his actions, and, moreover, was targeted specifically for treating children for Lyme disease with controversial long-term antibiotic regimens.
The producers’ choices in patients followed also does little to back the ILADS camp. While I have little doubt in my mind that the patients followed all genuinely suffered (and likely continue to suffer) from Lyme and/or similar diseases, and I have no doubt that every patient shown suffered greatly, I also have no doubt, and this is only a personal opinion, that Mandy Hughs gave an unnecessarily dramatic performance. As a long-time sufferer of Lyme-related symptoms, I can understand the frustration that comes with suffering from such an invisible disease; I can understand one’s desire to find some way to make that level of suffering visible to others, because I know from personal experience just how bad it can get. However, I feel that Mandy’s story only ends up making Lyme patients appear to be the malingerers and hysterics that far too many doctors already are too quick to brand us, and I fear that, as genuinely sick as Mandy may have been, the footage of her only renders illegitimate all that could have been redeeming aspects to the film.
Under Our Skin had great potential, but unfortunately I do not think the finished piece will be capable of producing any positive impact on actual Lyme awareness. It’s a great movie for those already standing firm in the ILADS camp; to everyone else, I fear it is going to come across as just another propaganda film.