by Kate Bloor:
The previous government (before the new coalition of May 2010), did not have a clear strategic (or co-ordinated approach) to tackling the prevention of disease from ticks. It had no well-defined, stated aims or operational tasks and projects, or policy responses, to ticks and tick-borne infection. Agencies and organisations, within the state, such as strategic planning bodies for public health, (including the Department of Health, Health Protection Agency and the public health specialist structures), have not yet enabled a planned, forward looking, and proactive approach to tackling the growing threat to communities and population from Tick Borne Infection’s (TBIs).
The approach of these agencies is ‘reactive’ rather than ‘proactive’, with the underlying assumption that no changes are needed to deal with TBIs, and the new medical challenge of more complex tick-borne infection-related illnesses. Another assumption that has become deeply embedded into policy, and practice (and possibly also research), is that ‘chronic Lyme’ is a mild self-limiting illness. It is also assumed that that is no specific treatment, other than that given for symptomatic relief or those therapies aimed at people with M.E (Myalgic Encephalopathy), irrespective of length of delay in treatment, types of complications/symptoms, and response to standard treatment following initial diagnosis.
The government’s agencies are ‘transfixed’ by the idea that tackling Lyme disease is primarily about dealing with ‘acute’ illness. Read more>>
See also: Chronic Lyme Disease patients: 100% are XMRV positive