I'm writing again... View 'Mooie Dingen'

Major breakthrough in Dutch medical scientific information for doctors

Written by Huib, published Thursday April 26th, 2018

The Dutch magazine ‘Medical Contact’ will be the first medical publication platform to set strict requirements for the content and substantiations of future of Lyme publications. This is worth a compliment and hopefully others, like The Lancet, will follow this enlightened example. Below you can read my e-mail exchange with the editors, based on their well-substantiated rejection of the submitted opinion article ‘Week of the Tick’ mainly says a lot about a limited view on Lyme Disease‘. It feels fitting to share this joyous news about the quality standards for the provision of future of information about Lyme to doctors, to all Lyme patients in the Netherlands and abroad.

———- Forwarded message ———

Subject: RE: A.107-18 Week van de Teek zegt vooral veel over beperkte kijk op Lyme (opiniestuk)

Geachte miss De Vries,

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, I must let you know that we will not post your article. It lacks substantiation and depth for an opinion-based contribution. We consider its contents to be too thin for an audience of involved and scientifically oriented physicians.

We thank you again and hope that you understand our considerations.

Sincerely,

Robert Crommentuyn, adjunct-chief editor

———-

Dear Mr. Crommentuyn,

Miss De Vries, who had sent you the opinion article “Week of the Tick says a lot about the limited view on Lyme” on based of her interview with me, with the request to publish it in your journal ‘Medical Contact’, kindly forwarded me your joyful answer to her.
I am very pleased to learn that from now on Medical Contact has decided to no longer allow opinion articles about Lyme to be published, without strict requirements for demonstrable depth and good substantiation. I completely agree with you that earlier opinion-making MC publications did not meet these requirements. I refer to the opinion articles by Keuter (July 2015) who used – without references – the meaningless slogan ‘MUS‘ as the basis of his statement that Lyme does not exist at all, but failed to mention that MUS was removed from the DSM V by the APA as a non-valid diagnosis; by Bonneux (May 2016) who reasoned about invisible garden gnomes and who called PTLDS ‘undisputed’, but failed to add references to a meta-analysis; by again Keuter (October 2016) about his jealousy towards German colleagues, who don’t give their patients a one-way ticket to Psychiatry, but rather provide them with options to care; or by Keppel Hesselink (June 2016) who states that giving antibiotics for a Lyme infection can be equated to a ‘conspiracy theory’ or that parents completely wrongly lose their trust in regulators, such as the FDA or the CDC. Again without any reference, while accidentally ignoring Lyme guidelines that comply with international standards according to the IOM. Indeed, all these articles were neither in-depth nor substantiated.
Fortunately, you will therefore be able to post letters sent in the future by, for example, a director of an American pathological research center, which has been conducting research into Lyme for more than 30 years. Such as the submitted letter from Thomas Grier, which was translated into Dutch by me at the time, but was rejected by you because ‘the editors were on holiday’ in June 2016 (coincidentally the same month that the post-modern opinion piece of Keppel Hesselink was published; apparently without an editorial decision).
The many chronic Lyme patients in the Netherlands and abroad will also wholeheartedly applaud your firm decision to change this, after their interests were significantly damaged after previous articles in MC had strongly influenced the thinking of their treating physicians. I assume that serious doctors, who would like to be properly informed, will also be satisfied with a more strict information quality threshold. Hopefully a magazine like The Lancet will quickly follow your resounding example.
For a future submission to MC, I would like to hear from you whether more than 260 peer-reviewed articles would suffice as substantiation, demonstrating congenital and persistent Lyme infection with many – often potentially fatal – conditions are sufficient evidence for an informative article about Lyme. Incidentally, the absence of references seems to be a good use in current medical science, because the RIVM states that “human congenital Lyme infection is rare”, but also omits references to support that statement. Certain gynecologists should find this relevant, as they do their utmost best to expose unscientificity in medicine. But that as an ‘aside’.
For example, the subject of a subsequent article submitted could serve to inform physicians that they are now – perhaps unwittingly and misled by the aforementioned prior MC publications – cooperating in the violations of the human rights of their patients. Which has been reported by us in June 2017 to the Special Rapporteur on Health and Human Rights of the UN. If I were to be a scientifically oriented doctor myself, I would find it important to get the complete information available I would need to be able to fulfill my Hippocratic Oath.
I look forward to hear from you.
With best regards,
drs. Huib Kraaijeveld
Author of ‘Teken aan de Wand’, chairman of the On Lyme Foundation & founding member of the ‘Ad Hoc Committee for Health Equity in ICD11 Borelliose Codes’.
P.S. The extensive and more in-depth version of the originally submitted article of mrs. De Vries can be read on my Blog – with links to all relevant articles.
———- Forwarded message ———
From: mail_medischcontact_redactie <[email protected]>
Date: Wed 25 Apr. 2018 15:43
Subject: RE: A.107-18 Week of the Teek says a lot about a limited view on Lyme (op-ed)
To: Titia de Vries Clarity Coaching <[email protected]>
Dear Ms De Vries,
Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, I must let you know that we will not post these. We lack substantiation and depth for an opinion-based contribution. We consider this to be too thin for an audience of physicians who are involved and scientifically oriented.
We thank you again for offering and hope that you understand our considerations.

drs. Huib Kraaijeveld

In: Blog Bureaucracy Inspiration Lyme Media Human rights Social Science

Bekijk hoe wij omgaan met persoonsgegevens in onze Privacyverklaring.