“Chronic Lyme disease: A dubious diagnosis” is an accurate statement. Webster-Merriam dictionary ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dubious) defines dubious as: giving rise to uncertainty, of doubtful promise or outcome <a dubious plan>, questionable or suspect as true nature or quality <the practice is of dubious legality>, unsettled in opinion, doubtful <I was dubious about the plan>.
Accurate, misleading, and incomplete…the article (available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-chronic-lyme-disease-20101207,0,5671843.story?page=4) in the December 8, 2010 Chicago Tribune with the above title, struck me as malicious—as though the authors were angry with Chronic Lyme disease diagnosed patients, and the medical practitioners who are trying to treat them.
The Chronic Lyme diagnosed patients and their physicians are painfully aware of the uncertain, questionable, suspect, and unsettled opinions concerning the diagnosis and treatments of Lyme’s Disease and associated variations of the disease such as: Acute, Chronic, Late Stage, Post Lyme, etc.
I have personally done quite a bit of research into Lyme’s Disease (LD) in search of a medical solution to whatever was disintegrating my mental and physical health. I started searching on my own because I was getting little or no help from the mainstream medical system after many frustrating years of continual degradation of my health. After three years of research and two years of treatment I have learned much, and my health has definitely improved…but the uncertainty, questions, suspicions, and doubt have only increased with little hope of resolution in sight. I have submitted to long term antibiotic treatments after the IDSA suggested treatments failed. I hope this does not contribute to the overall ineffectiveness of antibiotics, but long term antibiotic treatments are not a new concept or exclusive to the treatment of Lyme, and if they are deemed appropriate for infections that cause ailments like acne, they should be deemed acceptable for the treatment of infections like Lyme. That is just common sense.
I credit most of my improvements to my “non-mainstream Lyme aware” doctor. This doctor holds MD’s in both conventional and holistic medicine, office visits are a full hour, and the first visit was three hours. Let me be clear…that is the amount of time the doctor spends with me, not the time I spend at the clinic. When was the last time your doctor spent an hour with you (while you were conscious)? Furthermore, this visit is an examination with conversations where I actually get to explain without interruption what I am experiencing; apparently my doctor does not believe in the eighteen second rule…a rumored average time it takes a physician to cut off a patient trying to explain symptoms. This doctor has never promised a cure, in fact, she has been very open about the cost, uncertainty, and controversy of the alternative treatments offered, and I know all suggested treatments are ultimately my choice.
Not surprisingly, with such a thorough examination we discovered I had multiple health issues, some that needed treatment, others required lifestyle changes. I realize my experiences with this physician justify my tendency to place this compassionate human being on a pedestal, but I do not understand how anyone, who does not know this person, can discriminately label her as not caring because she is associated with a specialized group of physicians providing care in a “golden age of dubious medicine”. By the way, I do agree with that claim—this is a golden age of dubious medicine without a doubt!
Has my doctor done something to offend or burden anyone because of the methods she uses to diagnose or treat me? Are you certain, without doubt, and do you know for a fact that what my doctor is doing is wrong? If you answer yes, even the IDSA would consider your opinion dubious.
I was going to critique the whole article but I had a hard time getting past the title. Like I said I felt it was accurate, but very incomplete, and therefore extremely misleading. If anyone is interested in my thoughts, I might blog a critique on the subtitle “There's little good evidence that chronic Lyme disease exists. Yet doctors are treating it with drugs that put patients and the public at risk.” It also is accurate, incomplete, and misleading. And after that we could look at “Lyme disease is real. The bacterial infection, chiefly transmitted by deer ticks, can cause rashes, swollen joints and inflamed nerves, and usually is curable with a round of antibiotics.” This statement is also accurate, incomplete, and misleading.
My purpose is to criticize or antagonize in order to stimulate conversations that will raise awareness. This Chicago Tribune article was negative in tone but may actually have a positive effect in the end because it does criticize and antagonize conversation which can only raise awareness. Most people will see through the biased opinions and the phony media agenda of creating controversy for profit. After all if there is no such thing as bad publicity...it should work both ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment