A good interview w/ Green Party leader Elizabeth May about
the bill and a counter argument presented by Dr. William Bowie, ID specialist w/ Assoc of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Canada.
www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2014/12/04/canadas-lyme-disease-strategy-debate/Bill:
www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6668321&File=24#1I believe the "preamble in question is this piece:
Bill C-442
An Act respecting a Federal Framework on Lyme Disease
Whereas Lyme disease is an illness caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi that is spread to humans and animals through the bite of certain types of ticks and that can have serious consequences if left untreated, including recurring attacks of arthritis and neurological problems;
Whereas the risk of exposure to Lyme disease is highest in parts of southern and southeastern Quebec, southern and eastern Ontario, southeastern Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and much of southern British Columbia;
Whereas numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies have warned that a warming climate will expand the geographic range of Lyme disease-carrying ticks further into Canada, including a 2012 paper by Leighton et al., which states that over 80% of the population in Eastern and Central Canada could be living in areas at risk of Lyme disease by 2020;
Whereas, since 2009, Lyme disease has been a nationally reportable disease in Canada and all medical professionals must report cases of Lyme disease to their provincial public health authority, which in turn provides the data to the Public Health Agency of Canada;
Whereas Canadians will benefit from the establishment of guidelines regarding the prevention, identification, treatment and management of Lyme disease, a coordinated national effort to track the spread of the disease, and increased public education and awareness to better prevent and detect instances of Lyme disease in Canada;
Whereas recent research further demonstrates the persistence of Borrelia spirochetes after antibiotic treatment that follows the guidelines used in Canada (Embers et al., 2012) and indicates that current serology does not adequately describe the diversity of Borrelia bacteria existing in Canada and that the general understanding of, and practices for dealing with, Lyme disease are no longer sufficient or in line with emerging evidence of how the disease operates (Ogden et al., 2011);
Whereas the current guidelines in Canada are based on those in the United States and are so restrictive as to severely limit the diagnosis of acute Lyme disease and deny the existence of continuing infection, thus abandoning sick people with a treatable illness;
And whereas the 2010 report prepared for the Provincial Health Services Authority of British Columbia entitled Chronic Lyme Disease in British Columbia, A Review of Strategic and Policy Issues concluded that current diagnostic testing for Lyme disease is inadequate and advocated placing the highest priority on the development of reliable diagnostic testing for the disease and on educating physicians so they can recognize the symptoms of Lyme disease and treat patients in a manner that is medically appropriate, including treatment with antibiotics as justified…"
The comments by Bowie in the article scream egotistical paranoia (you'll notice his objection is paraphrased by the interviewer as "the preamble makes it look like the current guidelines are inadequate" —no factual objection.
-p