Minister of Health Patty Hajdu readily admits there is “still lots to learn” about treatment of Lyme disease but as typical opts to keep sick people sick without options of extended antibiotic treatment that has helped hundreds of thousands of people who had to leave Canada for help. Instead she wants more research, none of which is going to help sick Canadians because it is designed and controlled by the very people who have allowed this almost 4 decade travesty to unfold across Canada.
In her response she also indicates she defers to another MP, Marcus Powlowski MD for her advice on Lyme disease. In the almost 20 years of CanLyme being in existence, and having attended many a meeting with government, many conferences, and spoken with tens of thousands thousands of sick Canadians, we have never heard of him in Lyme circles. His only experience with Lyme is likely to follow the same poor medical policies set under the domination of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease of Canada (AMMI) that have harmed so many Canadians and caused the death of an untold number of Canadians.
We are tired of token Minister’s of Health, appointed by whatever party has formed government, doing nothing but ignoring the cries from the public who insist on real ethical engagement on the Lyme file AT THE POLICY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION TABLE. There is a ton of expertise being strategically excluded by meaningless token engagement.
We need a Minister of Health and a Prime Minister with spine who will insist on transparent meaningful engagement with patients and their experts, and who will stop jumping on the same hamster wheel of repeated engagement with the entrenched medical bureaucrats who have screwed people over for decades. What is the harm please??
Infectious disease (AMMI) doctors are in the very key positions across Canada responsible for antibiotic stewardship. They use a ‘for the greater good’ argument but refuse to truly engage those affected by their denial of access to antibiotics to debate the evidence they use to promote their position. Science cannot be considered evidence unless it is published, independently replicated, and transparently debated. No debate allowed on the Lyme file so there is no evidence to support refusing longer-term antibiotics for a disease that ample evidence and hundreds of thousands of personal testimony exists showing that in many cases longer-term periods are required and very beneficial for those with Lyme disease.
CanLyme fully supports antibiotic stewardship but we also must insist upon ethical science, research, debate, and a significant role in the design and implementation of Lyme disease policy across Canada. This will not take place without government intervention that includes public oversight.