Re: CRAP!

"Frog Prince" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.mail.spam.spamcop.social
Organization SpamCop
Message-ID <[email protected]>
"Spamvireslayer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Frog Prince" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| >
| > If it help any the insurance industry consider Lyme DX as a mental DX
(it's
| > all in your head) to the extent that UNUM-Provident gamed a $12M study
by
| > the CDC to their advantage (help them deny coverage to many claimants)
|
| I haven't found that to be true at all, at least recently,  but you are
right about
| them paying to have their positions protected.  One insurance official was
known to
| be involved in writing the treatment guidelines, which should have been
done by
| medical people, not insurance companies.  The CDC's criteria for diagnosis
is total
| crap, they don't include the most specific bands unique to borrelia in
their testing,
| and they don't acknowledge the fact antibodies in the blood are not a good
diagnostic
| criteria because they don't always appear, and disappear in late Lyme.
Multiple step
| testing is needed for a diagnosis, and that diagnosis is SUPPOSED to be
made
| differentially based on symptoms.  The CDC criteria was never meant to be
used for
| diagnosis, only for the reporting of the disease.  Unfortunately doctors
are so
| scared of being interrogated by the insurance companies and denied payment
for
| treatment that none of them will deviate from what the CDC says is right,
even when
| it's wrong.  Sad.

Might have changed with regards to the CDC (some folks were headed to the
gray bar Hilton) but based on info from various disability cases I've
followed they're still up to no good.

FWIW the SSA has hired UNUM to teach the SSA folk how to process disability
claims.  (Need I mention that UNUM uses SSA rejections as a basis for
rejection of their claims)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.