Petition update

Dr Lee’s comment for the Lyme Disease Guideline Project Plan

Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH

Mar 27, 2015 — ________________________________________
From: "Carl Tuttle" <runagain@comcast.net>
To: "Dick Blumenthal" <Dick_Blumenthal@blumenthal.senate.gov>
Cc: "Kemp Hannon" <hannon@nysenate.gov>, "matt sheehey" <matt.sheehey@mail.house.gov>, bonacic@senate.state.ny.us
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:44:23 AM
Subject: Dr Sin Lee’s comment for the Lyme Disease Guideline Project Plan


Dear Legislators,

For the record I would like to call attention to Dr Sin Lee’s comment for the Lyme Disease Guideline Project Plan posted to Lorraine Johnson’s LymeDisease.org website:

http://lymedisease.org/news/lyme_disease_views/idsa-guidelines-revision-process-cause-for-alarm.html#comment-12260

Dr Sin Lee is the director of Milford Molecular Diagnostics which provides DNA sequencing-based tests for Lyme disease and Lyme disease-like Borrelioses out of Milford, Connecticut. Dr Lee’s lab identified an ongoing infection in a sixteen year old that was misdiagnosed by faulty/misleading Lyme disease antibody tests which landed this boy in a psychiatric ward. I reported the case to the Massachusetts Medical board:
https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/9024981


Dr Lee’s comment:

“I have submitted my comment on time. I would like to post my comment for the record in case this panel decides to throw my comment into the rubbish can. Here is my comment submitted:

“In this Lyme Disease Guideline Project Plan, a conspicuous absence is any mention of nucleic acid-based laboratory tests for molecular diagnosis of early Lyme borrelioses although PCR was considered relevant when babesiosis was a differential diagnosis (page 13, line 220). Is this omission of PCR for Lyme disease intentional? If not, please add PCR/sequencing to the project plan. We are in an era of molecular personalized medicine in the year of 2015, almost 40 years after Lyme arthritis was first described.

According to Part 13 in a series on the NSF-NIH-USDA Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease (EEID) Program published recently, Ebola, Dengue fever and Lyme disease have been identified as the three infectious diseases with growing economic cost to society [1].

When we face Ebola, a highly contagious disease with very high mortality rates, RT-PCR and DNA sequencing of a 346 bp RT-PCR amplicon of a signature segment of the viral RNA is the accepted standard laboratory test to diagnose Ebola patients for early intervention [2]. No medical scientist in his or her right mind would suggest measuring antibody levels or antibody patterns to screen Ebola patients for isolation and for early intervention.

It is questionable why the experts in this project plan insist on using antibody tests to diagnose a bacterial infectious disease, an obvious deviation from the standard practice of clinical microbiology in dealing with Lyme disease which is really a systemic infection with periodic bacteremia. Do the IDSA members advocate using Widal test, instead of blood culture, to diagnose typhoid and paratyphoid fevers now? I don’t think so. Therefore, to put it bluntly this Lyme Disease Guideline Project Plan is nothing but a sham designed to maintain the status quo of a dysfunctional system.”

References

[1] National Science Foundation (Discovery) Ebola, Dengue fever, Lyme disease: The growing economic cost of infectious diseases.http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133576

[2] Maganga GD, Kapetshi J, Berthet N, Kebela Ilunga B, Kabange F, Mbala Kingebeni P, Mondonge V, Muyembe JJ, Bertherat E, Briand S, Cabore J, Epelboin A, Formenty P, Kobinger G, González-Angulo L, Labouba I, Manuguerra JC, Okwo-Bele JM, Dye C, Leroy EM. Ebola virus disease in the Democratic Republic of Congo. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2083-91.”

-End of comment-


Respectfully submitted,

Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH 03051


Discussion

Please enter a comment.

We were unable to post your comment. Please try again.