Disagreements Mark The Process—

Panel Debates Tick-Borne Disease Issues

By Kendra Bobowick

His final words Tuesday evening were telling: “The facts are not clear. If you could go from A to B to C, but it’s not that way …” said Dr Robert Grossman, chairman for the Tick-Borne Disease Action Committee Wednesday evening. He adjourned the meeting at roughly 10, as frustrated words still rang in members’ ears.

Regarding a report generated by Dr Michelle McLeod, member Kim Harrison gently began, “I can tell you spent time and I think this is detailed. There are a couple of things I noticed …”

“It’s a draft,” Dr McLeod said.

They were turning the pages of Dr McLeod’s interim report, more detailed than a preliminary one-page overview of the group’s progress to date that Dr Grossman provided last week to then First Selectman Joe Borst as his term concluded.

Raising broader arguments, member Maggie Shaw looked to Dr McLeod and spoke: “What is going on — there’s an elephant in the room. There are people here who are deer advocates. Is that creating a drawn-out process? We need to know where you’re coming from and the process [of determining how to reduce tick-borne diseases] won’t be so painful …”

“I think that’s a little insulting …” Dr McLeod responded.

Ms Shaw was not finished speaking, however.

Ms Shaw persisted, “Will humanitarian reasons get in the way of helping residents?” Reaching for her folder containing statistics and studies bolstering her argument, Ms Shaw noted the researchers’ work explaining, “I feel we’ve had people who have done the science … they say deer reduction leads to disease reduction.” Indicating Dr McLeod’s draft report, Ms Shaw said, “I don’t see that anywhere in the report …”

Glancing at the names of several members that Dr McLeod had contacted for help with the report, Ms Shaw felt, “The people most for deer advocacy wrote the report. People from both sides should be in on the report process, we should have divergent views working together.”

“Are you through? I am a little insulted,” Dr McLeod began again. “A number of people in this room spent hours, took time off from work; the suggestion that we’re wasting your time because we don’t think how you think …”

“I never said that ,” Ms Shaw replied.

“We need a consensus, not people saying we’re holding up the boat and asking why it’s so painful,” Dr McLeod said.

Ms Shaw: “I am saying we need to go through the points, that’s all I am saying.”

Dr Peter Licht stepped in, explaining that Dr McLeod’s effort was an interim report only. “We have not even started to reach conclusions.” Her report could serve as a template, but the final report is really the important paperwork. Much discussion is to come, he reminded the group. Uncertain of members’ individual thoughts, he offered, “I don’t think anyone has a save-the-deer mentality, I think at the end we’ll go through a myriad of data — the end is important.” He stressed again, “If one of us feels there is not enough attention to one attitude,” he paused, then reiterated, “The end report is important.”

At last returning to the document itself, member Neil K. Chaudhary asked, “What’s our plan with this document?”

“I say we use this as a template; right now the opinion process is meaningless,” Dr Licht said. Should members “take a crack at it” and offer their respective thoughts to the document? Mr Chaudhary asked. “Let’s table it,” Dr McLeod conceded. “I am afraid we’ll get lost [in the arguments] and we have a lot to do.”

Raising the point of public perception regarding the action committee, Dr Grossman said, “This has to be kept in the public mind.”

Would it be wise for the public to note the discord? “The group is not of the same mind,” Dr Grossman said.

More positively, members noted that new First Selectman Pat Llodra is interested in seeing the group continue. “She wants us to continue and make our final recommendations. She is supportive,” he told the committee.

Back to the report. Was Dr McLeod’s document neutral enough to submit to Mrs Llodra? Ms Shaw asked, “Can we just have more time to review?”

“It’s a great beginning — but,” Ms Harrison said. With the report tabled, members chose to circulate emails noting changes or additions they would like to see in the report, and “take it up at the next meeting,” Dr Grossman said. Ms Harrison clarified, “We have in no way reached any conclusions.”

More Discrepancy

Should the group use the word “cull,” “deer management,” or “reduction”? Preferences varied, but the question raised a point: “What’s the difference if you say ‘management,’ ‘cull?’”

The reply from several voices was instant. References to culling are “emotionally charged.”

With another point to weigh, Dr McLeod asked, “What’s a cull, and what is hunting?”

The group debated: what do the abundance of studies, researchers’ work, numbers, or percentages, really mean regarding the mass of material the group has seen so far? Members’ offered skepticism on some points — such as mice. “I don’t think they’re born infected,” Pat Boily said. He also noted differences in percentages among some data, saying he was “suspicious of contamination.”

They talked about Newtown’s efforts to drag for ticks, the method, tick count, and results for tick infection. Were the ticks nymphs, or adults? Did they feed on mice or deer? Where was the dragging done? The group questioned all these factors.

Were there lifecycle changes for the deer, mice, ticks, that might skew different years’ results? they talked as uncertainties emerged regarding one study or another.

Ms Shaw said finally, “We have to look at the science, but we also need to look at residents’ illness. It’s about people, not just ticks and deer.” Was that not why the group was assembled, to reduce human infection? several members countered.

The conversation took another path, with members wondering where the Newtown Forest Association (NFA) might stand regarding hunting on its property. Questions remain regarding the NFA, the town’s health district, and public education.

Dr Licht proposed contacting Newtown’s legislators. They could connect with their counterparts in other states, promote a vaccine. “I ask the community to start thinking about a vaccine; it’s the only way we’re going to cure [Lyme disease],” he said. “A vaccine is the cure.” Dr Grossman, for one, raised catches to the plan. Years ago a vaccine had failed to gain popularity. Ms Harrison later noted that pharmaceutical companies “hoarded information,” ultimately intent on making profits.

David Delia touted education, speaking from his own experience with the tick-borne disease committee. “What we are learning is immense — I can’t comprehend why there is not more education,” he said. “It’s bizarre, insane, mind-boggling … thousands of people are sick.” He questioned the need for a group to grapple with the problem that appeared to be obvious. “Why is there not more information out there?” he asked.