Post by LymeEnigma on Apr 21, 2008 10:28:53 GMT -8
Letters: Lyme disease
Your article on the Lyme Wars ("Lyme disease underreported, experts say," April 13) purports to present a balanced view regarding the Lyme disease controversy. But as a family physician in Chester County who sees hundreds of cases of Lyme disease each year, I feel some additional points need to be made.
Although you rightly describe two separate camps of medical professionals, they are by no means equal, either in number or in qualifications. While the conventional experts have advanced training in infectious diseases, teaching positions in medical schools and prestigious hospitals, and base their beliefs on objective studies published in respected journals, the other group (who describe themselves as "Lyme literate," generally are family doctors with no special training or qualifications in infectious diseases.
I have read their literature with a careful, scientifically trained eye, and find their theories poorly substantiated, and while they also quote literature, it is often "cherry-picked," emphasizing studies which seem to support their view and dismissing those which do not.
Indeed, I have rarely seen patients who have consulted these "Lyme literate" doctors and not come away with a diagnosis of Lyme, or some other tick-borne disease. The whole family often ends up on long-term antibiotics, too.
There are many times when it is wise for patients to seek alternative opinions and treatments. Trying acupuncture for chronic back pain or seeing a homeopath for your child's asthma are but two examples of unconventional approaches which may or may not be effective, but are low-risk and usually not too expensive. But I have seen far too many patients treated with potent antibiotics (some given intravenously) over years, without a shred of evidence that they ever had Lyme disease. The emotional as well as financial costs are staggering, and by now most of us know that long-term antibiotics can be dangerous to our health.
As past president of the Physicians' Association for Anthroposophic Medicine (a professional organization which advocates a more holistic approach to medicine) I am hardly an uncritical defender of the medical status quo. But in this case, years of experience and a careful reading of the literature on both sides has convinced me that the conventional approach is safer and more sound.
I'm sure that the "Lyme literate" doctors have many grateful patients who feel better after all the antibiotics. But that is hardly proof of their effectiveness. Bloodletting was "effective" for thousands of patients before we found out that it was really harmful. That is why we do randomized clinical trials, and these have failed to demonstrate a benefit to extensive high-dose antibiotics.
Richard G. Fried, M.D.
Kimberton
www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/chester/nabes/20080420_Letters__Lyme_disease.html
Your article on the Lyme Wars ("Lyme disease underreported, experts say," April 13) purports to present a balanced view regarding the Lyme disease controversy. But as a family physician in Chester County who sees hundreds of cases of Lyme disease each year, I feel some additional points need to be made.
Although you rightly describe two separate camps of medical professionals, they are by no means equal, either in number or in qualifications. While the conventional experts have advanced training in infectious diseases, teaching positions in medical schools and prestigious hospitals, and base their beliefs on objective studies published in respected journals, the other group (who describe themselves as "Lyme literate," generally are family doctors with no special training or qualifications in infectious diseases.
I have read their literature with a careful, scientifically trained eye, and find their theories poorly substantiated, and while they also quote literature, it is often "cherry-picked," emphasizing studies which seem to support their view and dismissing those which do not.
Indeed, I have rarely seen patients who have consulted these "Lyme literate" doctors and not come away with a diagnosis of Lyme, or some other tick-borne disease. The whole family often ends up on long-term antibiotics, too.
There are many times when it is wise for patients to seek alternative opinions and treatments. Trying acupuncture for chronic back pain or seeing a homeopath for your child's asthma are but two examples of unconventional approaches which may or may not be effective, but are low-risk and usually not too expensive. But I have seen far too many patients treated with potent antibiotics (some given intravenously) over years, without a shred of evidence that they ever had Lyme disease. The emotional as well as financial costs are staggering, and by now most of us know that long-term antibiotics can be dangerous to our health.
As past president of the Physicians' Association for Anthroposophic Medicine (a professional organization which advocates a more holistic approach to medicine) I am hardly an uncritical defender of the medical status quo. But in this case, years of experience and a careful reading of the literature on both sides has convinced me that the conventional approach is safer and more sound.
I'm sure that the "Lyme literate" doctors have many grateful patients who feel better after all the antibiotics. But that is hardly proof of their effectiveness. Bloodletting was "effective" for thousands of patients before we found out that it was really harmful. That is why we do randomized clinical trials, and these have failed to demonstrate a benefit to extensive high-dose antibiotics.
Richard G. Fried, M.D.
Kimberton
www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/chester/nabes/20080420_Letters__Lyme_disease.html
He also proves a worthy representative for companies such as his, and the bureaucratic mess they have all become....