DR. JONES' HEARING SYNOPSIS
(DAY THREE)
June 22 2006
from Sandy Berenbaum
The 3rd day of Dr. Jones' hearing began with the
cross-examination of Dr. Eugene Shapiro. Discussions
of motions included the question of whether testimony
of witnesses from California be accepted
telephonically, given the distance, and time off it
would require for them to travel. One witness
mentioned was Nick Harris, President of IGeneX Labs.
Shapiro's testimony on the 2nd day of the hearing had
challenged the credibility of IGeneX testing.
Discussion continued regarding to what extent this
case was about Lyme disease. Attorney Pollock
continued to suggest that if it was not about Lyme
disease, the health department could withdraw Shapiro
as an expert witness, and withdraw any charges related
to Lyme. No move was made to withdraw Shapiro or to
amend the charges, so Pollock cross-examined him for
most of the day. (Lyme is a big part of the case
against Dr. Jones, or Shapiro, who is one of the
authors of the IDSA guidelines, would not have been on
the health department's witness list.)
Pollock brought up derisive statements Shapiro has
made in public forums regarding Dr. Jones, chronic
Lyme disease, and Lyme patients. Pollock referred to
published material on the possibility of gestational
Lyme; Shapiro denied the possibility that Lyme could
be contracted by the fetus in pregnancy. On the
question of breast milk, Shapiro stated that Lyme
disease could not be transmitted by breast milk.
Pollock made the point that this was one example of
the lack of agreement over the standard of care for
Lyme disease, diagnostics as well as treatment. At no
point did Shapiro agree that there is a standard of
care other than the one he espouses. Pollock noted
that a CT hearing held in 2000 concluded that there
was no single standard of care, yet Shapiro continued
to refuse to acknowledge that there are two standards
of care.
Pollock questioned Shapiro on opinions of experts,
(Brian Fallon, MD, Jennifer Nields, MD, Virginia
Sherr, MD, Tessa Gardner, MD, Sam Donta, MD, Eugene
Escow, MD) including their publications on
neuropsychiatric, headaches and gastrointestinal
symptoms, on co-infections. None of these
distinguished physicians were seen as experts by
Shapiro; he did not see Lyme as probable with the
above symptoms, and did not acknowledge the relevance
of co-infections. At one point, he indicated that, in
his opinion, except for acute meningitis LD does not
cause neuropsychiatric symptoms in children.
He did, however, make the outrageous statement that
95% of Lyme patients have the EM rash. He also stated
that usually 95% or 99% of the patients who have Lyme
will have a positive test, and that the vast majority
of tests are false positives
Shapiro's cross-examination ended the presentation of
the case against Dr. Jones, and Pollock began to
present Dr. Jones' defense. Steven Phillips, MD was
the first witnessed called.
Dr. Phillips indicated that, in fact, Lyme disease is
present in Oklahoma where the mother of the children
in question said they were bitten, a fact Shapiro
denied. He also discussed the fact that Lyme can be
present, despite the fact that the blood work is
sero-negative and there is no rash. He referred to
research indicating the presence of neuropsychiatric
Lyme disease, citing the clinicians who reported it,
another fact Shapiro denied. He discussed the
limitations of relying on spinal fluid, given the low
yield for Bb in CSF. He commented on gestational
Lyme, citing evidence of spirochetes on autopsy of an
infant, again naming the researcher. He cited the
inadequacy of the IDSA guidelines, indicating that
they don't recommend treatment beyond one month.
Dr. Phillips continually referred to studies, to back
up his statements, something Shapiro failed to do.
Again and again, he refuted Shapiro's testimony, with
solid evidence. Dr. Phillips testimony was on point,
clear and concise, and backed by study upon study upon
study. Even the manner in which he presented his
points far surpassed Dr. Shapiro.
Dr. Jones' next hearing date is September 7th, in
Hartford.
Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, BCD
Brewster, New York Note: The health department claims they are taking this action against Dr. Jones because he:
1) prescribed medication over the phone for two patients he had not seen (extension of short term antibiotics for an illness they had already been diagnosed with - " not Lyme!), and
2) had spoken with the school about options for not expelling a child he had not seen. Therefore why was Lyme included in the statement of charges? Why was it brought up at all?. The fact that the health department has never removed Lyme from the statement of charges, and called Eugene Shapiro as their expert Lyme witness indicates an agenda far beyond those two cited charges. All Lyme patients, physicians, other Lyme professionals, advocates, all those who care about someone who is suffering from chronic Lyme must keep that in mind, and support Dr. Jones' efforts to clear his name! ***
Next Day...