Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2011 Feb;37(2):68-73. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.032896. Epub 2010 Nov 21.
Johnson and Stricker published an opinion piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics presenting their perspective on the 2008 agreement between the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Connecticut Attorney General with regard to the 2006 IDSA treatment guideline for Lyme disease. Their writings indicate that these authors hold unconventional views of a relatively common tick-transmitted bacterial infection caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that their opinions would clash with the IDSA's evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Their allegations of conflict of interest against the IDSA resemble those made against the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, which were found to be baseless. It is the responsibility of all physicians and medical scientists to stand up to antiscientific, baseless and unethical attacks on those who support an evidence-based approach to caring for patients.
约翰逊和斯特里克在《医学伦理学杂志》上发表了一篇观点文章，阐述了他们对 2008 年美国传染病学会（IDSA）与康涅狄格州总检察长之间就 2006 年 IDSA 莱姆病治疗指南达成的协议的看法。他们的观点表明，这些作者对由螺旋体伯氏疏螺旋体引起的一种相对常见的蜱传细菌性感染持有非传统的看法。因此，他们的观点与 IDSA 对莱姆病的诊断和治疗的循证指南相冲突，这并不奇怪。他们对 IDSA 的利益冲突指控类似于 2000 年对美国国立卫生研究院、美国食品和药物管理局以及疾病控制与预防中心的指控，这些指控被认为是毫无根据的。所有医生和医学科学家都有责任站出来，反对那些支持基于证据的方法来照顾患者的人所受到的反科学、毫无根据和不道德的攻击。
