joe the tick

February 12, 2010

Letter & update from Dr Jones

Filed under: Lyme Disease, Lyme Disease Fundraisers, Lyme Disease News, Lyme Fighters, Lyme Law — Tags: , — joethetick @ 7:43 pm

Dear Friends,

It is time to update you once again on the status of the charges that I have been fighting before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB). I cannot thank you enough for the many expressions of support and encouragement that you have been sending my way over the past several months. These have made a huge difference to me, enabling me to maintain my determination to prevail.

I also extend a hearty invitation to you to attend the next meeting of the CMEB, which will take place
on February 16, 2010 at 1:30 at the Department of Public Health Complex, 470 Capitol Avenue, Conference Room C, Hartford, CT 06134. At that time, the Board will vote on the recommendations of the panel which has been hearing the most recent set of charges brought against me.

History and Overview
In this update, I will focus on the most recent developments in what has become a long series of charges and investigations by the CMEB and Connecticut Department of Health (CT DPH). For more detailed background information, I refer you to my letter dated September 5, 2008 , which is posted on the following website: www.lymesite.com

Currently, there have been two separate and distinct cases against me. The original case is under appeal, and the second case pertains to a new set of charges regarding a different set of patients.
In addition to this, we have learned that the court-appointed monitor has brought a number of complaints about me to the CMEB, which appear to be based on his reliance on the IDSA guidelines as the alleged “gold standard” for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. These currently are under investigation, but at this point no formal charges have been filed in relation to them.

First case:
I was brought up on a series of charges pertaining to two children from one family in Nevada, whose parents were involved in a post-divorce decree custody dispute. The children involved in the case were doing quite well and there was no allegation of harm done to either of them as a result of their treatment.
In its decision of December, 2007, the Connecticut Medical Examining Board (CMEB) imposed a $10,000 fine, a reprimand and two years of monitored probation. Despite these disappointing recommendations, this case was not lost. My license to practice medicine was not suspended or limited.

However, the CMEB introduced a very restrictive four part standard of care for Lyme disease at the very end of the proceedings. Left unopposed, this test would set a very dangerous precedent, and could be used against other doctors to shut down the treatment of chronic Lyme disease. It clearly had to be appealed.

Appeal of the First Case:
Most of the charges that I was found “guilty” of were stayed, or suspended, pending the outcome of the appeal, including the four part standard of care. The one exception was the monitoring requirement. I was required to find and pay for a board-certified pediatrician, licensed in the state of Connecticut, to conduct periodic chart reviews at my office for a period of two years. This was not an easy task: We contacted over 80 pediatricians before the current monitor was found; he was then approved by the CT
DPH.

The grounds for the appeal have been described in my previous letter. One of them pertains to the discovery of significant bias on the part of one of the panel members, Dr. Senechal, who was recognized by a set of parents who filed affidavits stating that he had expressed very significant bias against me and other Lyme literate physicians, including the statement that doctors who treat Lyme are quacks. A
hearing was held in Superior Court to review the question of the panel member’s bias. The judge rejected our arguments. The case is now on appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court; the brief in support of my position is due in April.

Current case(s):
The Department of Public Health then filed another series of complaints against me. This set of charges differs from the first case in that it involves three separate families, with the respective cases conjoined into one proceeding. Although the exact facts differ, the cases are similar in that two of them involve
non-custodial fathers filing complaints.

In none of the cases were any of the children involved harmed; indeed, as with the first case, the children all are doing very well.The CT DPH called on Dr. Lawrence Zemel and Dr. Peter Krause to provide expert testimony contesting my treatment.Following lengthy hearings concluding last May, a
three-member panel has issued its “proposed memorandum of decision” (MOD). This will be voted on by the CMEB on February 16, following the presentation of oral arguments by both attorneys:

* The third count involving one of the families was completely dismissed.
* The testimony of Dr. Zemel was thrown out, with the panel characterizing him as clearly biased against physicians who treat chronic Lyme, and against many of the labs that they use.
* The first count was upheld: this pertained to the charge that I had “improperly” ordered serology (diagnostic) testing prior to examining the patients. This seems strange, because, as far as we know, there were no patient complaints or patient harm. It is also difficult to comprehend why pre-examination testing should ever be the basis of disciplinary action against a
physician.
* The second count against me also was upheld. The issue here was the prescription of antibiotics to a patient whose symptoms were quite consistent with both Lyme and Babesiosis. I had obtained a comprehensive history from the referring practitioner who had contacted me about the case, and also from the patient’s mother. An ER had recorded an EM rash that went untreated My schedule was so heavily booked that I could not see the patient for a number of weeks. I was confident that the patient should be started on antibiotics immediately, and that the risk of not treating would be greater than the risk of treating. The patient did well.

In this case, the panel has denied that charges have been brought against me because I am a Lyme specialist. Instead, it has characterized its findings as generic and pertaining to medical practice as a whole. This is why we have not been able to utilize the recently passed physician protection bill in Connecticut.

Nevertheless, it is rather difficult to understand why such matters should have ever reached this level, or why their two expert witnesses were specialists in tickborne diseases. There have been no patient complaints, other than disaffected fathers involved in contested custody or divorce proceedings, and no harm has come to any of the children, who in fact have done well.

Once again, the panel has not recommended that my medical license be revoked. They have, however, recommended the following sanctions:

* Another $10,000 fine
* Four years of supervised probation, with a monitor again hired at my own expense

Why I Continue to Fight:
Some of you have expressed dismay that the Connecticut Department of Public Health has spent so much taxpayer money on these charges. You have been concerned that they will continue to bring charges against me until I am forced to close my office. This process has been undeniably stressful. It has been painful to see so much time, energy and valuable resources being expended on my defense. I continue to believe, however, that it is critical for me to continue to fight these charges and to prevail:

We must stand up for what we believe and know to be right in the matter of diagnosis and treatment of tick borne disease.
I am painfully concerned about the lack of effective care for children afflicted with tick borne disease. Because I decided to fight these charges when all of this began some six years ago, several thousand additional pediatric Lyme patients have received an appropriate diagnosis and treatment for their
tickborne disease.
A successful outcome for me will both hearten and protect other physicians who wish to diagnose and treat Lyme disease comprehensively, and will encourage other pediatricians in particular to train with me.
We must send a clear message to health departments across the country that we will not be bullied, or allow our right to medical treatment to be trampled.

Legal Fees:

I continue to be grateful for the excellent defense that Attorney Elliott Pollack has been providing, and to everyone who has made this possible through donations to my legal defense fund. Please note that Attorney Pollack has achieved some significant victories: my license has not been revoked and, most recently, the decision to throw out the testimony of Dr. Zemel on the grounds that he is biased, will most likely put an end to his usefulness as an expert witness in proceedings against other LLMD’s. The legal
representation necessary to oppose these charges has been very extensive and complex:

* multiple hearings have been held, each of which have required considerable preparation and review;
* many hours have been spent helping witnesses to prepare to testify;
* the filing of the appeal has been time-consuming but essential, and has entailed multiple appearances on the part of my attorneys in Superior Court, including three pretrial sessions.
* New charges have been levied by the monitor which need to be addressed
* Preparation and presentation of the oral argument which will be presented to the CMEB on February 16, after which they will vote on the proposed MOD.

This struggle has been costly, and I will continue to require your financial support in order to prevail. We have known from the outset that Pullman & Comley does not provide pro bono legal services, and Attorney Pollack is accountable to the partners in his firm. To date, the cost of my legal defense over these past six years has amounted to approximately $700,000, most of which has been funded by donations to the legal defense fund. It is extremely painful to think of the resources of the Lyme community being spent in this way. At the same time, it is important to recognize that these charges are not unusual or excessive for a legal defense that has been as complex and lengthy as mine has been. There is a current outstanding balance of approximately $80,000. This will increase over the next few weeks as a result of the ramped up legal activity that will be necessary to address the CMEB decision, the monitor’s complaints and the ongoing appeal.

Ordinarily, Pullman & Comley does not allow clients to carry an unpaid balance on their account. They have been impressed by the stream of donations that so many of you have been sending, and have been unusually flexible in this regard. Each time that the unpaid balance grows, however, my legal representation is in jeopardy. It is necessary to demonstrate once again that the legal defense fund is solvent, and will be able to meet the cost of my legal defense.

Because of this, I am asking you to make a donation to my legal defense fund, in whatever amount that your circumstances will permit. I hope that you will continue to find the means to support this fight, despite the hardships which I know that so many of you already live with.

The current instructions for donating to my legal defense fund are noted below. These instructions also are posted on Kay Lyon’s website:

http://lymesite.com/Dr_Jones_use_paypal_to_make_donations_to_.htm

For those of you who may have additional questions not answered by this update, I invite you to send them to me by letter or by fax: 203-772-0682. Please reserve for telephone calls for urgent matters only, given the very high volume of patient calls that the office receives.

With warmest wishes,
Dr. Jones
Charles Ray Jones, M.D.

HOW TO DONATE TO THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND:
Make Donations payable to: ” Pullman & Comley Trust Account-for Dr. Charles Jones”
Mail to:
Elliott B. Pollack, Esquire
c/o Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103-3702

Note “gift” in the memo field
To use PayPal to donate to the defense fund, go to the following web address:
http://lymesite.com/Dr_Jones_use_paypal_to_make_donations_to_.htm

Lyme Disease the Cause of 1/3 of Psychiatric Disorders?

Filed under: Lyme Disease, lyme symptoms — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — joethetick @ 5:53 pm

From What Psychiatrists Should Know about Lyme Disease, ILADS
Source holtorfmed.com

In a published study (Hajek et al., Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:297-301), one’third of psychiatric inpatients showed signs of an infection with the Lyme spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi. It has been found that even severe neuropsychiatric behavioral symptoms in this population can often be reversed or ameliorated when a multi-system treatment program targeting Lyme disease is used.

Patients with late-stage Lyme disease may present with a variety of neurological and psychiatric problems, ranging from mild to severe. These include:

* Cognitive losses
* Memory impairment or loss (“brain fog”)
* Dyslexia and word-finding problems
* Visual/spatial processing impairment (trouble finding things, getting lost)
* Slowed processing of information
* Psychosis
* Seizures
* Violent behavior, irritability
* Rage attacks / impulse dyscontrol
* Anxiety
* Depression
* Panic attacks
* Rapid mood swings that may mimic bipolarity (mania/depression)
* Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)
* Sleep Disorders
* Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
* (ADD/ADHD)-like syndrome
* Autism-like syndrome

At any time, patients infected with Borrelia may also exhibit cognitive symptoms such as memory and concentration impairments and word-finding difficulties, ADD/ADHD-like symptoms, learning disabilities, OCD, crying spells, rages, depression, bipolar disorder, panic and anxiety disorders and psychoses – all may be caused or exacerbated by Lyme disease. Disorders of the nervous system have been found in 15–40% of late-stage (tertiary) Lyme patients (Caliendo et al, Psychosomatics 1995;36:69-74). When Lyme disease affects the brain, it is often referred to as Lyme neuroborreliosis or Lyme encephalopathy. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of these patients will be properly diagnosed as having Lyme disease and most continue to have relatively unsuccessful treatment with psychiatric medications.

Neuroborreliosis can mimic virtually any type of encephalopathy or psychiatric disorder and is often compared to neurosyphilis. Both are caused by spirochetes, are multi-systemic, and can affect a patient neurologically, producing cognitive dysfunction and organic psychiatric illness. Such symptoms may be dormant, only surfacing years later.

Dr. Brian Fallon, director of the Lyme Disease Research Program at Columbia University and principal investigator of the NIH-funded study of brain imaging and persistent Lyme disease, cites five questions that imply warning signs of possible Lyme encephalopathy:

1. Are there markers of non-psychiatric disease such as erythema migrans rash, arthralgias or arthritis, myalgias, severe headaches, sound or light sensitivity, paresthesias, diffuse fasciculations, cardiac conduction defects, word-finding problems, short-term memory loss, tremors, cranial neuropathies, and/or radicular or shooting pain?
2. Is this psychiatric disorder atypical or unusual? For example, does a panic attack last longer than the expected 1/2 hour? Or is it a first ever panic attack at age 50?
3. Is there poor or paradoxical response or excessive side effect sensitivity to medications that are expected to be helpful for particular psychiatric symptoms
4. Is this new-onset disease without psychological precipitants such as new stressors or secondary gain?
5. Is there an absence of a personal history or family history of major psychiatric disturbances?

Negative answers to these questions do not rule out the presence of Lyme disease. But a “yes” to most of the questions, especially in a patient with an out-of-doors lifestyle or a pet, demands further clinical assessment. Dr. Fallon recommends Western blot serologic studies (IGENEX), lumbar puncture, neuropsychological testing, brain MRI and SPECT (single photon emission computerized tomography) scans.

Because blood tests at the top three general medical laboratories in the nation fail to detect a majority or large percent of Lyme antibodies, ILADS recommends use of laboratories that specialize in Lyme and other tick-borne illnesses. Blood tests should not be used to rule out Lyme disease when there is a strong clinical presentation because of the high incidence of false negative results.

What should a psychiatrist or treating physician do?

Patients with a psychiatric disorder should be screened for symptoms related to Lyme, especially those with complicated or atypical presentations. Be suspicious of Lyme if a patient mentions cognitive changes, extreme fatigue, weight changes, headaches, fibromyalgia, a history of “mono,” “spider bites,” multiple sclerosis, explosive rages or sudden mood swings. Consider Lyme disease in children with behavioral changes, fatigue, school phobias, academic problems, learning disabilities, headaches, sore throats, GI complaints and/or migrating pains. In teens, Lyme disease may be complicated by drug abuse.

The Lyme spirochete is slow growing and can be difficult to treat, so the patient should be treated with multi-system treatments that include appropriate antibiotics for at least two to four weeks beyond symptom resolution. Most individuals with Lyme disease respond to multi-system treatments, but the treatment course is highly patient specific.

Some of the common symptoms of late-stage (tertiary) Lyme disease and other tick-borne co-infections:

* Profound fatigue
* Chills, sweats and skin flushes
* Night sweats
* Migrating arthralgias
* Muscle pains/twitching
* Sleep disturbances
* Severe headaches
* Shifting neurologic pains
* Tremors, shakiness
* Numbness, tingling sensations and pain often shifting and unusual in type
* Cranial nerve disturbance (Facial numbness, pain, tingling, paralysis, optic neuritis, trouble swallowing, distortion of smell or taste)
* Losses in fields of attention/executive functions such as inability to maintain divided or sustained attention and memory
* Impaired memory functions (lost items, missed appointments, retold stories)
* Language difficulties (halting speech, disrupted participation in conversation)
* Impaired visual/spatial processing (inability to find things, tendency to get lost, disorganization, difficulty reading, especially for enjoyment)
* Impaired abstract reasoning (poor problem-solving/decision-making)
* Slowed processing speed (familiar tasks take longer, can’t follow conversations well).

Most or all of these impairments, if caused by neuroborreliosis, may improve with proper antibiotics combined with other appropriate multi-system treatments.

Temple Douglas, Intel finalist for Lyme disease research

Filed under: Lyme Disease, Lyme Disease News, Lyme Disease Research, Lyme Fighters — Tags: , , , , — joethetick @ 11:12 am

Temple Douglas of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology has proposed a faster way to test for Lyme disease.

By Holly Hobbs
Fairfax County Times
Thursday, February 4, 2010

A high school senior’s research paper on Lyme disease is getting national recognition for proposing a method of early detection that cuts diagnosis time from a month to mere minutes.

“We’re going to develop a new diagnostic test so that we can detect it earlier and more accurately,” said Temple Douglas, 18, of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria.

Douglas was recently named one of 40 finalists nationwide in the Intel Science Talent Search, an annual contest sponsored by Intel that scouts for research conducted by high school seniors in science, health and technology.

She received a $5,000 scholarship for the ranking, a laptop and a chance to compete in March in Washington for a $100,000 scholarship.

Douglas said her research was inspired by three relatives’ struggles with Lyme disease.

“My sister and brother had joint pain, but my mom had more severe symptoms,” she said.

Almost half the cases of Lyme disease in Virginia are reported in Loudoun County, where Douglas lives. A resident of Lucketts, she buses 90 minutes to her Fairfax County school each day.

Students at Thomas Jefferson must do a senior research paper. Douglas chose Lyme disease for hers.

“At the end of the summer, I was thinking of the testing and its inaccuracies and what could be improved,” she said.
ad_icon

Currently, blood tests are used to detect Lyme disease.

“Now, you have to wait for antibodies to show up [in your blood]. That can take up to three weeks,” Douglas said.

Her research paper, “The Application of Hydrogel Nanoparticles for Early Lyme Disease Diagnosis,” proposes using a urine test instead.

“Nanoparticles are added to the urine to allow you to see the bacteria,” she said.

Staff and teachers at Thomas Jefferson said they are not surprised by Douglas’s successful ranking.

“As a student, Temple was very inquisitive and enthusiastic,” said teacher Robert Latham, the school’s science and engineering fair coordinator. “The choice of what to do after high school or college rests with Temple, but from the experience gained in her scientific project work and from the maturity developed in writing a scholarly scientific research paper, she has demonstrated high-level skills that would make her very successful as a research scientist or in a related field.

“I would like to see her win a Nobel prize.”

Douglas has been accepted to several colleges, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Principal Evan Glazer had similar praise for Douglas, saying, “Her work is inspiring because she pursued groundbreaking work in a topic that could help her family.”

Twelve of Douglas’s fellow students were named semifinalists in the contest this month, each receiving a $1,000 prize for themselves and $1,000 for their school.

Last year, two Jefferson students were finalists in the Intel competition, Alexander Kim and Narendra Tallapragada.

Of the D.C. conference in March, Douglas said she is excited and nervous to compete, adding that she would find it “neat” to meet President Obama.

“The kids last year got to meet Obama,” she said.

Douglas said she hopes to one day assist in the efforts to find a cure for cancer.

Dutch Lyme Disease Group Wants Action

Filed under: Lyme Disease, Lyme Disease Awareness, Lyme Disease News — Tags: , , , , , , — joethetick @ 11:07 am

Debilitating Lyme disease is a growing concern in the Netherlands. A patients’ association has collected more than 65,000 signatures calling for government action on the tick-borne disease.

The Dutch Association for Lyme Patients wants to put Lyme disease on the parliamentary agenda. Its petition calls on the government to improve training for doctors in diagnosing the disease, set up a Lyme disease expertise centre, and increase public information on the danger of tick bites.

Lyme disease is caused by the Borrelia bacteria and is passed on to humans by sheep ticks. Tick numbers are increasing in the Dutch countryside. What’s more, a study by Wageningen University found that around 25 percent of ticks in the Netherlands carry the bacteria. This is far higher than the European average of 10 percent.

The disease can cause a range of symptoms, including severe arthritis, and may even be fatal. According to the Dutch Association for Lyme Patients half a million people in the Netherlands are currently suffering from Lyme disease, and ten thousand people are infected each year. The infection frequently goes undiagnosed, especially when patients fail to notice they have been bitten by a tick. As a result, the symptoms worsen and become harder to treat.

Source www.rnw.nl

Borreliose Centrum Blankenburg

Filed under: LLMDs - Lyme Literate Doctors, Lyme Disease, Lyme Videos — Tags: , , , , , , — joethetick @ 10:56 am

The Borreliose Centrum Blankenburg (BCB) in the middle of the Harz Health specializes in the diagnosis and therapy of tick-transmitted infections. Here you can also chronically ill, who often have a long ordeal behind them, being helped. The Center provides over 800 square meters diagnosis, laboratory, therapy and rehabilitation all under one roof. Lyme disease is in most cases (more than 70%) healed, though often only for a period of several months, and only using a holistic treatment approach. In the BCB to spot a variety of therapies and rehabilitation measures directly offered and implemented.

The film shown here was taken by a regional TV channel and clearly shows the example of a patient’s chances of cure with Lyme disease.

More information can be found here:

BCB Borreliose Centrum Blankenburg
a Division of Health and conference
City Blankenburg GmbH & Co.KG
Rudolf Ludwig Strasse 4
38889 Blankenburg
Phone: 03944 – 3619470
Fax: 03944 – 3619499
E-mail: service@b-c-bl.de
Web site: www.b-c-bl.de

Lyme Disease Connection with Bipolar, OCD, Schizophrenia, other Mental Illness

Filed under: Lyme Disease, Lyme Videos — Tags: , , , — joethetick @ 10:44 am

A few important facts and tips on Lyme disease and mental illness, including some helpful books that I publish. Learn more at LymeBook.com. Includes several “action steps” and resources.

December 4, 2009

MN Lyme Bill in the Works | Senator John Marty to Attend the Event

Filed under: Lyme Bills, Lyme Disease, lyme symptoms — Tags: , , , — joethetick @ 9:24 am
WEBWIRE – Thursday, December 03, 2009

Join us on Dec 8, 2009 Minnesota State Senator John Marty, author of Senate bill SF 1631.The goal of this bill is to protect physicians who treat Lyme disease aggressively from unwarranted intrusions by the state medical board. Come and learn how the passage of this Physician Protection bill will improve patient access to physicians who are able to correctly diagnose and treat Lyme disease.

About Lyme Disease in Minnesota:

· Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease in the United States. Minnesota ranks 8th, with 1,282 cases reported in 2008.

· The CDC estimates the number to be ten times what is reported.

· 1 in 3 deer ticks in Minnesota carry the Lyme bacteria, according to the MN Dept of Health.

· Lyme cases have spiked 450% in Minnesota from 1998 – 2008.

· Tests for LD are highly inaccurate and result in false negatives; insurance companies then use these results to deny care.

· Patients are often denied much-needed antibiotic treatment by doctors who are misinformed about the disease or fear reprisal from state medical boards.

· Each year thousands go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, told that their symptoms are “all in their head.”

About Senator Marty:

As chair of the Senate Health Policy Committee, Senator Marty is in an advantageous position to advocate for the bill. With two decades of legislative experience, Senator Marty has the necessary skills to move the bill forward.

Make a difference:

Having a strong advocate in the state senate is only one part of the strategy for passing this bill. The most important part is citizen activism; Minnesota Lyme Action Support Group needs Minnesotan’s to speak up and demand action from governmental officials, including the senators and representatives elected from their districts.

Be a part of the solution to improve Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment in Minnesota.

We Need Your Help!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009

7:00 PM

Hosanna Lutheran Church

9300 Scandia Trail

Forest Lake, Minnesota 55025

Study finds Lyme in 90% of deer ticks

Filed under: Lyme Disease — Tags: , , , — joethetick @ 9:22 am

Written by Justin Reynolds, Mack Reid

A recent study of ticks collected in four nearby Fairfield County towns in 2008 and 2009 showed that 90% of them carried Lyme disease bacteria and 30% of them carried the parasites that cause babesiosis, a sometimes severe malaria-like disease that can be fatal.

Because there wasn’t money in the town budget for testing ticks that were collected in July at Slaughter Field in Wilton, no testing of those ticks was done, said Pat Sesto, Wilton’s director of environmental affairs and the chair of the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance. But testing of ticks caught in Bethel, Newtown, Redding and Ridgefield showed high instances of infection.

“It’s fair to assume we are no different,” Ms. Sesto said Tuesday. “Most definitely we should take lessons from these results. Information leads to better decisions, certainly. The more we know about the various diseases that the ticks carry, the better understanding we’ll have moving forward.”

Ms. Sesto said a Department of Environmental Protection fly-over of Wilton last winter pegged the deer population in town to be somewhere in the 60 to 64 deer per square mile range.

“If you want to cause the tick population to substantially subside, you want to be in the eight to 10 range,” she said.

Ms. Sesto said the removal of deer through controlled hunts is the best way to solve the tick problem.

“Our position, the best way to deal with the tick population is to deal with the deer population,” Ms. Sesto said. “If the tick doesn’t get the last blood-meal from the deer, it won’t lay eggs. The adult tick either lays her eggs and dies or dies without laying eggs.”

Ticks need to get the blood-meal from a large mammal, which is almost always a deer, according to Kent Haydock, public education chair of the deer management alliance.

Ms. Sesto said ticks can be removed through the spraying of pesticides, but that method has ill effects on the environment.

“This is a community that values clean ground water and clean surface water,” she said. “You’d need universal spraying of the town to get rid of ticks, but then you also get rid of other things, too.” Ms. Sesto said the removal of these insects and other species adversely affects the food web as well.

Ms. Sesto said controlled deer hunts — on both private and public land — are necessary for reducing the tick population. She said property owners interested in hooking up with hunters should call her office at 563-0180.

“Contact my office. We have a lot of hunters who call,” Ms. Sesto said. “Hunters are out there, but the opportunity to connect with private property owners is weak. We need to build up a system that helps that connection along. It’s something I’d guess the Deer Committee will be focusing on.”

Ms. Sesto said property owners might feel a bit apprehensive about dealing with hunters for the first time, but that they can call her and she would tell them what sort of questions they should ask the hunters.

“Hunters are conscientious,” she said. “Working with them, it’s new for me. But the stereotypes you see in television and in the cartoons — it’s not the case. These are really the guys next door, the normal dad down at the soccer field.”

Hunters must be licensed, Ms. Sesto said.

“The state has criteria of training and proficiency,” Ms. Sesto said. “Every year, you have to get permits from the state. Otherwise, you are poaching. You are breaking the law.”

The study

The University of New Haven study led by Dr. Eva Sapi was done under contract with the Fairfield County Municipal Deer Management Alliance. The researchers collected 899 ticks from 15 locations in Ridgefield, Redding, Wilton, Bethel and Newtown from October 2008 to July 2009.

Overall, the study found 90% of the ticks tested were infected with the Lyme bacteria, with the range from 96% in Newtown to 88% in Redding.

The ticks collected in Ridgefield were not tested for the Lyme bacteria, but for the babesiosis parasite, Babesia microti. It was found in 33% of the ticks, far higher than the previously reported levels of 5% to 8%.

Combining results from all towns on the babesiosis parasite, the study found a 30% infection rate with a range from 28% in Newtown to Ridgefield’s 33%.

A different study by Columbia University researchers on ticks collected in nearby Westchester County, New York, 65% of ticks infected with the Lyme bacteria, Borrelia burgdorferi, and a total of 72% to ticks infected with either Lyme or one of four other tick-borne diseases.

The New York study found 32% of ticks infected with more than one pathogen.

November 21, 2009

Nurses with Lyme disease Form Southern Oregon Lyme Disease Support Group

Filed under: Lyme Disease, Lyme Disease News, Lyme Fighters — Tags: , , , , , , — joethetick @ 3:49 pm

By Bill Kettler
Mail Tribune

Put two nurses with 70 years of combined experience in the same room and chances are they’ll find plenty to talk about.

When both have Lyme disease, the conversation transcends the usual shop talk.
The first meeting of the Southern Oregon Lyme disease support group has been scheduled for 6:30 to 9 p.m. Thursday in the Smullin Center, Room 35, Rogue Valley Medical Center, 2825 E. Barnett Road, Medford.

For more information, call 944-5068 or 879-0222. For general information about Lyme disease in Oregon, contact the Oregon Lyme Disease Network at 541-312-3081 or visit the Web site at www.oregonlyme.org.

Sharon Lee of Eagle Point was infected some 30 years ago in California, when nobody on the West Coast knew much about the strange tick-borne disease that’s difficult to diagnose and produces a wide range of symptoms among its victims.

When Judi Johnston of Ashland came down with Lyme during the past year, she realized the Southern Oregon medical community still knows relatively little about the disease.

“I don’t know what made me more upset,” Johnston says. “Personally, not being able to find the (treatment) resources, or professionally, knowing the resources aren’t here.”

Lee and Johnston plan to use their nursing experience and training to assist Rogue Valley residents who may not even know they have Lyme disease. They’re organizing a support group to help local people determine whether they’re infected, and steer them to physicians who can give them appropriate care.

“There’s far more Lyme disease than is being recognized,” says Johnston, a nurse for more than 30 years. “And we don’t have Lyme-literate physicians in this part of the country.”

The group’s first meeting is scheduled for Thursday at the Smullin Center on the campus of Rogue Valley Medical Center.

The bacterium that causes Lyme disease is transmitted to humans by certain species of ticks, including the blacklegged tick (Ixodes pacificus), which thrives in Southern Oregon and California. The bacterium is also carried by tick nymphs, which are so tiny people often fail to realize they may have been bitten.

Johnston says she “never did see the tick,” that infected her.

Lee describes the bacterium itself as “a stealth organism” that evades the body’s natural defense mechanisms. If it establishes itself in the body over time, “your immune system can’t even find it,” she says.

Symptoms vary widely from person to person. The bacterium may attack the joints, the heart, the brain or other parts of the nervous system. Lyme has been confused with a number of other diseases, including multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and even Alzheimer’s.

“Some people can be sidelined and in a wheelchair,” says Lee, who retired to Eagle Point after 45 years in nursing. “Others can respond (to treatment) and do pretty well.”

Ticks often carry a number of other infectious agents, and Lee says researchers now believe the wide variety of symptoms associated with Lyme may be related to those other tick-borne diseases.

She says early diagnosis is critical for effective treatment, but tests don’t always provide conclusive proof of infection. Some people produce a rash with a characteristic bulls-eye pattern soon after they’re infected, but others may not, further complicating the diagnostic process.

Lee says she and Johnston hope to recruit a local physician who might be willing to learn more about Lyme disease so that local people can get effective treatment without traveling to California.

“We want this to be more than a support group,” Johnston says. “We want to educate people, too.”

Reach reporter Bill Kettler at 776-4492 or e-mail bkettler@mailtribune.com

Lyme Disease Vaccine? Tick Saliva Found to Protect Mice from Lyme Disease

Filed under: Lyme Disease, Lyme Disease News, Lyme Disease Research — Tags: , , , — joethetick @ 3:46 pm

ScienceDaily — A protein found in the saliva of ticks helps protect mice from developing Lyme disease, Yale researchers have discovered. The findings, published in the November 19 issue of Cell Host & Microbe, may spur development of a new vaccine against infection from Lyme disease, which is spread through tick bites.

Traditionally, vaccines have directly targeted specific pathogens. This is the first time that antibodies against a protein in the saliva of a pathogen’s transmitting agent (in this case, the tick) has been shown to confer immunity when administered protectively as a vaccine.

The Lyme bacterium known as Borrelia burgdorferi is transmitted by ticks. When it moves through the tick, it is coated with a tick salivary protein known as Salp15. The Yale team injected Salp15 into healthy mice and found that it significantly protected them from getting Lyme disease. When combined with outer surface proteins of B. burgdorferi, the protection was even greater.

Lead author Erol Fikrig, M.D. of Yale School of Medicine and Howard Hughes Medical Institute said, “The interaction between the Lyme disease agent and ticks is very complex, and the bacteria uses a tick salivary protein to facilitate infection of the mammalian host. By interfering with this important interaction, we can influence infection by the Lyme disease agent.”

Several years ago there was a Lyme vaccine on the market that utilized just the outer surface proteins of the bacteria. It was taken off the market in 2002, and to date no other antigen has been tested in phase III clinical trials.

The authors believe this new strategy of targeting the saliva — the “vector molecule” that a microbe requires to infect a host — may be applicable not just to Lyme disease but to other insect-borne pathogens that also cause human illness.

“We believe that it is likely that many arthropod-borne infection agents of medical importance use vector proteins as they move to the mammalian host,” Fikrig explained. “If so, then this paradigm, described with the Lyme disease agent, is likely to be applicable to these illnesses. Currently, we are working to determine if this strategy is likely to be important for West Nile virus infection, dengue fever, and malaria, among other diseases.”

Other researchers were Jianfeng Dai, Penghua Wang, Sarojini Adusumilli, Carmen J. Booth and Sukanya Narasimhan of Yale School of Medicine, and Juan Anguita of the University of Massachusetts. This work was support by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress