Thursday, May 6, 2010


Astonishment As Medical Panel Rubber Stamps Its Own Controversial Guidelines

Researchers on the sidelines tell thousands of sufferers that chronic Lyme doesn't exist; no viable alternative explanations given

Contact: Robert Bransfield, MD, DLFAPA

President, International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society
Phone: 732-741-3263
Fax: 732-741-5308
Cell: 732-861-5548
Email: bransfield@comcast. net
April 27, 2010

Betheseda, Maryland - Despite years of controversy, an antitrust lawsuit
by the Connecticut Attorney General, and nine months of review, the
Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) double downed on its own
controversial Lyme disease treatment guidelines with a status quo
decision critics call "highly suspect".

"It's a sad day for the health care system and for everyone who suffers
from the Lyme disease epidemic," says Dr. Robert Bransfield, President
of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). "The
IDSA's flawed positions means patients will continue to suffer with
incorrect diagnosis and improper treatment." Treatment guidelines are
crucial when it comes to healthcare because they may dictate whether
patients can get diagnosed and treated for illnesses and whether or not
insurance companies will pay for it.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal launched an
investigation against the IDSA citing evidence that the authors of 2006
Lyme disease guidelines had undisclosed conflicts of interest that may
have influenced their conclusions. He also charged that they failed to
consider differing medical opinions. This landmark event represented
the first ever lawsuit against a professional medical society for
guidelines abuse.

The much anticipated verdict just released by a special review panel
effectively rubber stamped the association' s earlier, contested
guidelines. It limits treatment to three to four weeks of antibiotics.
Physicians, Lyme patients and advocacy groups weren't surprised but are
dismayed that the panel decided to turn its back on the science - backed
by 1300 pages of peer-reviewed articles, that proves Lyme disease can
become chronic, debilitating and can be missed due to unreliable testing
(as acknowledged by the CDC and FDA). Hundreds of thousands of patients
and their families suffer from chronic Lyme disease. "By and large, the
people on the IDSA panel who made this decision are ivory tower
researchers" , says Bransfield. "They're not the doctors on the front
lines looking into the eyes and faces of these very sick patients,
performing exams and then assuming long term responsibility for dealing
with patients suffering from chronic Lyme.

Bransfield and ILADS point to a number of discrepancies and other
concerns about the vote, including:

• 68 out of 69 of the original 2006 recommendation under review
were OK'd with unanimous votes. "How can there be such a total consensus with any scientific issue?" asked Bransfield. "It's highly suspect and beyond comprehension. "

• If Lyme cannot be chronic, then why did the guideline's authors
acquire 200 Lyme disease patents and receive $76 million in Federal
funds to study it?

• The original guidelines are not only controversial, but written in
2006, are considered old and out of date.

• The CDC has also advised for many years that the disease should be
diagnosed on clinical grounds and not by unreliable laboratory tests.
The Lyme disease tests are inaccurate 50% of the time.

• The IDSA's decision reinforces that doctors have little control
when it comes to treating diseases such as Lyme. Researchers and
insurance companies remain in the driver's seat of diagnosis and treatment.

Lyme disease has reached epidemic levels across the United States. While
the CDC reports 30,000 new cases a year, it recognizes that number could
be as high as 300,000, making it a larger epidemic than AIDS.

Dr. Bransfield says ensuring the integrity of guideline development
processes as they were intended to be used is critical to quality health
care in the United States. "Conflicts of interest on guidelines panels
are now a crisis," Bransfield says, "It is time for Americans to realize

how important the issue of guideline development is. Patient lives are
at stake and no one is being held accountable when guidelines abuse
place financial interests above patient care."

Robert Bransfield, MD, DLFAPA, is available for media interviews on this
and other Lyme related topics. He can be reached at:
225 Highway 35
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-741-3263
Fax: 732-741-5308
Cell: 732-861-5548
Email: bransfield@comcast. net


  1. Speaking of the IDSA. Yale Scientists have a made a new app for the Apple iPhone that pretends to want to educate the public about tick prevention yet it includes misleading tips saying a tick must be attached for 48 to transmit disease and pretending only certain types of ticks transmit disease and ticks carrying Lyme disease are only found in certain locations. It seems to have been manufactored to purposely mislead the public and the scariest part is money from the sale of the application is donated to an association that looks like an IDSA front. Wormser and Shapiro are both on their board and the association states on their website they don't believe in chronic Lyme or long term treatment nor do they like Dr. Jones or Dr. Jemsek from what they have posted. The CDC was involved as well.

  2. I think the key lies in your statement that the Yale scientists are "pretending" to help the lyme situation. Where are the real studies trying to discern how the Lyme organism can be passed through the population? We need to be questioning the role of other insects, sexual transmission, transmission through the blood supply, through breast milk, casual transmission and transmission through the placenta.But this kind of research is not commercially marketable.

  3. I trust Yale Scientists just like I trust their pals from the IDSA - snicker.

    I wish you would blog about chemtrails. I keep mentioning them to young people with Lyme who believe Lyme is a bioweapon that accidentally escaped from Plum Island and they don't believe anything I have to say about chemtrails nor do they understand yet that perhaps depopulation is being paid for by their tax dollars and killing them.

  4. Here is something I put together about chemtrails. I'm not sure that the main purpose of this atmospheric operation is to kill us but I think it may have certain side effects on our health. I think that they are taking care of population control in much less expensive ways. However, this is not to say that there are not several experiments going on in addition to the main purpose of this operation.