Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News

Lyme law uses “junk science” says expert

Carolyn Brown
CMAJ December 09, 2014 186 (18) 1354; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-4936
Carolyn Brown
Ottawa, Ont.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Metrics
  • Responses
  • PDF
Loading

A rare private member’s bill on a single health problem – Lyme disease – will be considered by a Senate committee before the end of this year and is poised to become federal law in Canada. But an expert physician has told senators and the health minister the bill is based on “junk science.”

Bill C-442 requires the federal health minister to convene a conference of provincial and territorial health ministers, stakeholders and patient groups within a year to hammer out a framework that includes a medical surveillance program, Canadian guidelines and standardized educational materials.

The sponsor of the bill, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich–Gulf Islands, BC), says she’s received letters of support for the bill from the Canadian Medical Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The bill was passed unanimously by the House of Commons.

What could be amiss with promoting action on an emerging disease? At issue are duelling guidelines, explains Dr. David Patrick, director of the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia. The Lyme disease guidelines most commonly followed by physicians are those of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Patrick takes issue with the Canadian bill’s preamble, which criticizes the IDSA guidelines as being “so restrictive as to severely limit the diagnosis of acute Lyme disease and deny the existence of continuing infection, thus abandoning sick people with a treatable illness.”

Patrick says he’s concerned this implies support for another set of guidelines issued by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, which advocate long-term courses of various antibiotics. In 2010, an independent review of these guidelines by the Health Protection Agency in the United Kingdom called them “not evidence based and poorly constructed.” The guidelines’ “poorly defined case definitions” would result in high rates of misdiagnosis, and its “vague treatment recommendations” could cause harm, the review concluded.

“Legislation in the Parliament of Canada should not be based on this,” says Patrick, calling it “pseudoscience.”

Figure1

A leader in public health says a proposed federal bill on tick-borne Lyme disease is not based on good evidence.

Image courtesy of AlexRaths/iStock/Thinkstock

Timothy Caulfield, director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, agrees. “This is different from a government adopting an evidence-based public health policy like seat belts and vaccination. The science in this area is extremely contested,” he says, citing articles in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2011;11:713–9) and New England Journal of Medicine (2007;357: 1422–30) about advocacy of chronic Lyme t tment as part of an antiscience movement.

May says she took medical concerns into account. She spoke with physicians and worked with House of Commons legislative drafting experts while crafting the bill — one of the few to include references to medical journals. “The operative sections of the bill do not offend Dr. Patrick’s concerns at all. Once passed, this law should meet Dr. Patrick’s concerns,” she says.

Patrick has asked senators to reword three paragraphs in the bill’s preamble and add that Canadian guidelines must be evidence-based.

However, May says any wording changes to the bill at this point would mean it would have to go back to the House of Commons and would not receive royal assent before the next election, essentially killing the bill.

Patrick says he is concerned that politicized Lyme disease advocacy in the United States has led to incorrect diagnoses. “The problem is not an intellectual joust. We’re seeing the fall-out of false-positive diagnoses.”

May says she’s aware of the concern about incorrect Lyme diagnoses in the US. “The much more common complaint north of the border is that people have Lyme disease and it is not diagnosed and treated on time,” which can lead to post-Lyme disease syndrome.

May says she introduced the bill because of her constituents’ concerns and because the spread of Lyme disease is linked to climate change.

In a federal system where health is both a provincial and federal responsibility, she says framework legislation does not intrude on provincial jurisdiction. “This may be a model that works well for coordination in the future.”

But Caulfield questions legislation concerning a specific disease. “In general, I think it is more appropriate to allow the scientific method and the processes surrounding biomedical inquiry to drive research priorities.”

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 186 (18)
CMAJ
Vol. 186, Issue 18
9 Dec 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Lyme law uses “junk science” says expert
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Lyme law uses “junk science” says expert
Carolyn Brown
CMAJ Dec 2014, 186 (18) 1354; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4936

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Lyme law uses “junk science” says expert
Carolyn Brown
CMAJ Dec 2014, 186 (18) 1354; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4936
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Lyme law: targeting best practices
  • The Lyme law
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • How can Canada safeguard those marginalized by society as MAiD expands?
  • Canadian physicians frustrated with vaccine rollout
  • Protecting the brain against bad news
Show more News

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Infectious diseases
    • Canadian government

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire