Journalistic Fail: "It Just Doesn't Resonate"

Local television station WBZ has posted a story about Lyme Disease on their web site. In the piece there are two patients cited who a) had difficulty getting a diagnosis when they were sick, and b) got better when they were finally put on long-term antibiotics. One of those patients had been paralyzed and the other had been told she had a year to live. After finally getting diagnosed with Lyme and being given long-term antibiotic treatment, both improved. Neither has died.

The piece is entitled "Doctors Divided on Treatment of Lyme Disease". The author, Joe Shortsleeve, after giving the history of these two cases, goes on to tell us that getting treatment is difficult. Both patients, though they had health insurance, had to go out of state and pay out of pocket for their treatment. He explains that this is because the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), is against this treatment. He then quotes two different doctors and their opinions on the subject.

Ok. 
Rant #1:

What Joe Shortsleeve fails to mention is that the IDSA wields an enormous amount of power in the medical world. That they are the law of the land when it comes to guidelines defining the disease, how it will be tested and accepted treatment protocols. He also fails to inform the audience that the IDSA had to agree to an antitrust settlement with the CT State Attorney General because:

"This agreement vindicates my investigation -- finding undisclosed financial interests and forcing a reassessment of IDSA guidelines," Blumenthal said. "My office uncovered undisclosed financial interests held by several of the most powerful IDSA panelists. The IDSA's guideline panel improperly ignored or minimized consideration of alternative medical opinion and evidence regarding chronic Lyme disease, potentially raising serious questions about whether the recommendations reflected all relevant science.

He further failed, to report that the IDSA violated this antitrust agreement by purposefully manipulating and avoiding transparency in the review process.

This irks me. It is shoddy journalism to do a report like this where you do not question the credibility of an organization with power. They have been investigated by an attorney general and they have violated the antitrust settlement agreement that resulted from that investigation. Why do they continue to be referenced without pointing this out?

And what about looking into other medical associations? It is not simply individual doctors who disagree with the IDSA on this subject.
  
Rant #2

What does the doctor who supports the IDSA approach to denying treatment to sick patients have to say to defend this position,

"The concept that Lyme disease germs can be lurking in one's body open endedly… just hasn't been resonating," said Dr. Mark Pasternack

Seriously? You're talking about people's lives in the balance and you support denying them treatment because "it just hasn't been resonating"? Wow, there's a powerful scientific argument.

Where is the journalistic ethic that asks, "and do you have science that proves that the germs can't lurk?" I mean, look at those two cases up above. You're talking about denying treatment to a woman who was paralyzed and another who was given a death sentence. The reporter thought it was satisfactory to leave it at "just hasn't been resonating?"

Rant #3
The report does, then, mention what the IDSA claims is a concrete reason for denying treatment: Long-term antibiotic use comes with risks.

You may be completely debilitated but we don't think you should have long-term antibiotics because there is risk.

Where is that dogged journalistic nature that asks, "Are these risks any greater than the risks taken to treat other diseases?" or "Do we use long-term antibiotic treatment for any other diseases?"

This irks me to no end. The public needs to understand that thousands of patients across the United States are living disabled lives because of the IDSA. An organization who

1. was shown to be corrupt in an antitrust investigation
2. was proven to lack integrity when they violated the antitrust settlement that resulted from that antitrust investigation
3. who have no science to prove their position and use a lame defense of "it just hasn't been resonating"
   and
4. deem that disabled and dying people should not be able to take risks to recover their health, when those same risks are not denied for people with other diseases.

Why do we, in this country, continue to give credibility to people and organizations who have clearly demonstrated that they don't deserve it?

When will get back to expecting quality journalism and quit accepting stenography?

I'll tell you what doesn't resonate: the IDSA as a credible source of information.