http

Despite what his followers claim, last week's recommendation by a state physician review panel that pediatrician Charles Ray Jones be fined, reprimanded and put on probation was not retribution for his controversial stand on Lyme disease.

The doctor had improperly diagnosed two Nevada children and prescribed antibiotic treatment without first seeing or examining the children.

He persisted with his diagnosis of Lyme disease after seeing the children even though there was no compelling medical evidence of the disease.

Dr. Jones, who practices in New Haven, has gained national attention as the leading advocate for using long-term antibiotic therapy to treat the debilitating symptoms of the tick-borne disease.

The mainstream medical establishment has not embraced his theory, saying that the benefits of such treatments have not been proved and could create treatment-resistant super-bugs. But hundreds of passionate advocates across the country, who claim Dr. Jones has cured them after other physicians ignored the symptoms, say current medical tests for the illness are inadequate.

Dr. Jones hurt his cause by not examining the two children before prescribing medication. He argued that he relied on his three decades of clinical experience. There could, however, have been other reasons for their symptoms.

Panel members suggest that he be fined $10,000 and placed on two years' probation, during which his treatments would be reviewed by an independent doctor. That seems a reasonable reprimand for his mistake. The full board should follow through on the recommendation.

================================

http://tinyurl.com/3desnk
[Open in new window]

Panel: Lyme Disease Doctor Should Be Reprimanded
By WILLIAM HATHAWAY | Courant Staff Writer
7:41 PM EST, November 29, 2007

In a decision with national implications for how suspected cases of Lyme Disease are treated, a state physician review panel is recommending that controversial pediatrician Charles Ray Jones be reprimanded and put on two years' probation for his diagnosis and treatment of two Nevada children.

If the panel's recommendation is upheld next month, the New Haven area pediatrician -- who gained support across the nation because of his willingness to ignore consensus treatment guidelines and prescribe long-term antibiotics to children suffering symptoms of Lyme -- would also have to pay a $10,000 fine and pay a doctor to review records of his patients.

The decision, in criticizing Jones, could have broad implications. It calls into question the medical validity of treating patients who show symptoms of Lyme Disease -- such as aching joints and fatigue -- but don't meet the criteria established by mainstream doctors.

But the panel from the Connecticut Medical Examining Board upheld most, though not all, of the state health department's allegations about Jones' diagnosis and treatment of two Nevada children in 2004 and 2005, which came into question during a bitter custody dispute.

Jones prescribed antibiotics to the son of Jeffrey and Robin Sparks and told the boy's school principal that he had diagnosed late-stage Lyme Disease without ever having seen the boy, the panel found.

Jones also prescribed antibiotics to the Sparks' daughter before examining her.

When Jones finally did see the Sparks' children, he persisted in his diagnosis of Lyme Disease for children without compelling medical evidence to support his diagnosis, the three-member panel found.

"The respondent diagnosed a disease when the exposure risk was extremely low, medical history was non-specific, the signs and symptoms were non-specific, and the laboratory tests were negative,'' the panel found.

Jones defended his actions, saying he has successfully treated thousands of patients suffering from Lyme Disease.

The panel's finding, which will be reviewed next month by the full board, goes to the heart of bitter feud over Lyme Disease.

The majority of medical experts say there is little evidence to support the idea that Lyme Disease, if treated properly, will nonetheless continue to cause ongoing symptoms, a view that has been bolstered by the treatment guidelines issued by two medical associations for the disease.

There is no good evidence, these doctors say, that extended courses of antibiotics have long-term benefits for patients suffering from Lyme-like symptoms. And symptoms experienced by these patients are more likely attributable to causes other than a lingering infection from the tick-borne pathogen.

But advocates for Lyme patients insist there is abundant evidence that the bacterium which causes Lyme can persist for years, even after initial antibiotic treatment and often eludes detection by existing tests. They believe that thousands suffer needlessly because their doctors do not recognize clinical signs of Lyme and refuse to prescribe long courses of antibiotics. Members of the so-called long-term Lyme camp crowded Jones' hearings, which lasted more than a year, in support of the doctor. They raised money to aid in his defense.

"Dr. Jones is being charged with improperly diagnosing and treating Lyme Disease after having treated and cured two children whose health was of great concern to their mother for years,'' said Jones' attorney, Elliot Pollack. "Instead of being sanctioned, he should be complimented.''

Jones treated three of Maggie Shaw's children for Lyme Disease and all got better, the Newtown mother said.

"My concern is not only for my kids, but how will this effect treatment for all children,'' Shaw said.On the other side of the divide, the decision was well-received by the doctors who argue that treating patients with Lyme-like symptoms with long-term antibiotics is not only misguided, but can lead to a failure to properly diagnose other ailments in those patients.

"This decision sends a message to very small cadre of physicians who do not conform to standards of care for diagnosing and treating Lyme Disease,'' said Dr. Lawrence Zemel, chief of rheumatology at Connecticut Children's Medical Center and professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.

That view was bolstered by a recent review in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In addition to the fines and probation, the panel is recommending Jones hire a doctor to review his treatment regimens quarterly while he is on probation. Future misconduct could lead to a suspension of his license.

The full board is scheduled to review the findings on Dec. 18. They can confirm, reject or modify the findings of the panel.