Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
I would suggest to check out the Oscar finalist documentary "Under Our Skin", which narrates the convoluted story of Lyme disease from the perspective of patients and the doctors that treat them.
The insurance industry lobby has used the same practices to deny ME/CFS and Chronic Lyme. Some articles that you may find enlightening:
The book "Cure Unknown" by Pamela Weintraub gives a very good account of the corruption and controversy surrounding chronic Lyme.
Hi Hip,I don't have Lyme myself, and have not really got the energy or focus to read a whole book on Lyme corruption. I would just like to get a few names of the individuals most suspected of corporate collusion and corruption, ie, the Simon Wesselys of the Lyme world, and some direct evidence of their links to the insurance industry.
You don't think that Gary Wormser getting $1.5 million from Pasteur Mereiux Connaught to run Lyme OspA vaccine trials is problematic when he's the chairman of the IDSA Lyme guidelines committee? This is ok?
"While conflict of interest abuses related to medications used to treat diseases are well known, conflicts may extend to any commercial area of medicine.
As pointed out in a previous forum [7], the IDSA Lyme guidelines restrict the definition of the disease and mandate laboratory testing. Guidelines that restrict the definition of a disease can favor vaccine developers when they serve to increase the reported rate of effectiveness for a vaccine.
Guidelines that mandate testing for diagnosis of a disease promote the interests of those who hold patents on diagnostic tests.
Guidelines that deny treatment to patients further the financial interests of insurers and their consultants.
Attorney General Blumenthal found that the IDSA Lyme guidelines panel had financial conflicts of interest in each of these areas."
I appreciate your inquiry, but I would refer you to some of the early sources we mentioned for more detailed info on the shady practices of the IDSA/CDC in their handling of Lyme. Those books and documentaries do a much better job than I could possibly do. Mind you, our issue is not with the IDSA as a whole, but their specific handling of Lyme.If there were high level of adverse events from the vaccine I can certainly see this as being problematic; however, that is an issue of vaccine safety. As far as I can see, it is unrelated to the controversy of the existence of chronic Lyme disease.
I am still interested in any evidence that could provide evidence for bad politics or corporate manipulation of the scientific investigation of chronic Lyme.
Hip, I appreciate your interest. I suggest you read Pam Weintraub's book, and see Under Our Skin.
Overall, it was about the vaccine, and keeping the disease definition within the narrow margins set by the fda to qualify as such (no seronegativity, no chronic or persistent infection post treatment). Funny how the majority of the panel would profit if such vaccine made the market.
not just to the insurance industry.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal investigated the IDSA panel members for possible violation of antitrust laws and conflicts of interest.
Of the 14 panel authors of the first edition guidelines:
- 4 were paid by insurance companies to write Lyme policy guidelines or consult in Lyme legal cases, and
Seems to me people have been trying to summarize points for you for over a day now, but you keep insisting on more.
The Lymerix vaccine story was relevant because of the potential conflicts of interest involved, but also because of the firestorm caused when some recipients reported adverse side effects. Those complaints had an impact on the revenue stream. The product was pulled from the market.
Can you see the financial motivation on the part of Insurance carriers for refusing to accept the existence of chronic Lyme? Yes?
Then there is what the CDC promotes as post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, not to be confused with chronic Lyme. The latter should represent continued infection. PTLDS presupposes successful treatment, and the absence of Bb in the patient. With PTLDS, abx therapy is not recommended. So, if you get colored with the PTLDS brush, and you actually DO still have Bb, you are out of luck.
Isn't this the money shot?
Why does it have to be this linear of a relationship? I doubt they would be stupid enough to directly pay someone to write Lyme guidelines but the hubris never ceases to amaze me.I looks like it might well be the money shot, but why can't I find any info online about these four people in the IDSA who were paid by insurance companies to write Lyme policy guidelines. That would be damning evidence, but I could find nothing about it online.