response to editorial on Under Our Skin

[Guest guest]

The editorial is listed after my response:

Dear Mr. McDonald:

I read your editorial with great interest as I was unable to attend the viewing. The preview was very compelling, and I have spread it far and wide to my friends who either have Lyme disease or are interested in it.

I am unclear where you got the information stated in your editorial, and would like to encourage you to become more educated on issues that you plan on writing about. Below are just some of the blatant mistakes:

· “a handful of individuals who believe they are living with long-term Lyme disease” – evidently you are completely ignorant of the thousands of suffering people, many who have stories similar or even worse than the individuals interviewed for the film.

· “…Since chronic Lyme disease is not recognized by the medical establishment” - the medical establishment is not always represented by the spokespeople, and your statement is mis-leading. The many doctors who are taking care of people with chronic Lyme disease are still a part of the medical establishment, in fact many are on the cutting edge of research and treatment development.

· “…health education to conspiracy theory” No matter where you stand on this issue, you have to wonder where the intense resistance from AMA spokespeople and doctors like Dr. Steere is coming from. Aren’t doctors committed to helping the sick? Why are they disenfranchising an entire segment of dreadfully ill people? What is the motivation? Why is it easier for an expert doctor from Harvard Medical Teaching Hospitals to say (as a specialist in Infectious Diseases actually said to me) “Yes, you have the symptoms of Lyme disease but I don’t believe you have it…I don’t know what you have, I just know it isn’t Lyme disease.” So if there is not a physical reason they can point to, it encourages the inquisitive mind to search for reasons…and with certain facts becoming known – especially with the publication of “Lab 257”, it is a short step to finding easy answers. Really, if you haven’t read “Lab 257” which is jam packed full of verified facts (ie. Actual copies of letters and eyewitness accounts) you shouldn’t disregard the conclusions so readily.

 

John, I hope you will continue to look into the truth of this controversy with compassion for the many victims. Remember, there were writers like you at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic who vilified the victims and ignored the science.

Please research both sides!

Sincerely,

Jenna Smith

 

The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2008; 8:358

DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70125-7

Media Watch, Film

Under our skin

Julian Upton

http://www.thelance

<http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473309908701257/>

t.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473309908701257/

fulltext

 

Presenting the case in support of the existence of chronic Lyme

disease, Andy Abrahams Wilson's Under our skin may not be as manipulative as the

films of Michael Moore, but it runs a pretty close second. As a layman's

introduction to the controversial condition, and the medical arguments surrounding it, the

documentary is enthralling and, at times, powerful. But whether or

not you are convinced by its partisan politics is another matter.

 

Revolving around a handful of individuals who believe they are living

with long-term Lyme disease, and who have presented with debilitating

symptoms, the film emotively portrays the frustrations of patients who feel

abandoned and misunderstood by the wider medical community. It also outlines the

work of a group of " crusading " medical professionals, such as Alan MacDonald,

who are committed to either proving the long-term resilience of Borrelia

burgdorferi or going against accepted guidelines and providing patients with ongoing

antibiotic treatments.

 

The implications for people in the USA who believe they have the

condition go beyond the various health concerns. Since chronic Lyme disease is not

recognized by the medical establishment, health insurance providers

refuse to cover it. The result is that those supposedly living with the

condition can be financially as well as physically battered, as the insurance

companies seek to disprove their cases. However, as emotive as this subject may be,

Under our skin loses some of its impact as it moves from health education to

conspiracy theory. By holding up the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) as

the villains of the piece (the IDSA's spokespeople are given little room to put their

arguments across) and treating as heroes doctors such as Joseph Jemsek (whose

medical license was suspended for treating chronic Lyme disease), the film

becomes a little heavy-handed in its argument. Additionally, Alan MacDonald's

later assertions, such as the hypothesis that identification of B

burgdorferi can be obscured by the formation of biofilm, are left relatively unexplored,

and so appear to provide a cathartic " closure " to the film instead of the

necessary medical breakthrough.

 

Despite these concerns, Under our skin remains provocatively

entertaining, and should bring the arguments surrounding chronic Lyme disease to a wider

international audience. Its release is also timely-last month, the

IDSA agreed to a " one-time special review " of the Lyme disease guidelines. The

debate goes on.

 

**************

The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Editor: John McConnell

ideditorial@ <ideditorial%40lancet.com> lancet.com

 

 

Jenna Smith

www.LymeDiseaseResource.com

www.Miracle-Salt.com

jennasmith1