Attacking Ray Stricker....Beware PsyOps, Disinformation, Alternative- and Un-Medicine (Like Sweeg)
Mort Zuckerman
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Attacking Ray Stricker....Beware PsyOps, Disinformation,
Alternative- and Un-Medicine (Like Sweeg)
Date: May 14, 2010 3:42 PM
The character below, "scienceblog" (clue),
is telling people what Morgellons *ISN'T,*
rather than what it is, in the same vein
as IDSociety.org is falsely claiming what
Lyme Disease (and LYMErix Disease) ISN'T,
without saying what it - or OspA -is.
====
This is also a perfect example, below, of
Pat Smith
http://www.lymediseaseassocation.org
as PsyOps or a Disinformation devotee.
In the Fall of 2001, we were lobbying in
Albany (again) and I submitted this summary
(bottom of the page)
http://www.actionltyme.org/Actionlyme_History.htm
stating that the treatment of chronic Lyme
is not "alternative," it is the State of
the Science, applying to all spirochetal
diseases of humans:
"Part I.
"VALIDATION OF THE SCIENCE
"In answer to the question, “Do the NY OMPC investigated Lyme treating
physicians have valid reason to believe Lyme borreliosis is a
persisting infection, such that they treat and retreat Lyme
Borreliosis according to methods that match the extensive evidence of
how spirochetal microbes in general, and Borrelia burgdorferi, in
particular, behave,”
--says meseff.
Pat Smith wanted to invite FAIM.org in to the
defense of Joe Burrascano:
http://www.actionlyme.org/OPMC_CORRUTION.htm
(in the ^^^ pre-Pam Weintraub era).
BAD IDEA. The treatment of Chronic Lyme
as chronic is not "alternative medicine."
Pat Smith made the ILADS gang (before it
was formalized into its current ineffectual
self) look like medical fruit loops.
Similarly, McSweegan himself
http://www.actionlyme.org/SWEEG_WATCH.html
is a player in this Disinformation arena
http://www.actionlyme.org/THE_AMAZING_ADVENTURES_OF_CHUCK_P_MCSWEEGAN.htm
^^ PsyOsp-Sweeg
Here is another McSweeganite Disinformation
Dissertation:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MCSWEEGAN_AND_MUNCHAUSENS.htm
The character below, "scienceblog" (clue),
is telling people what Morgellon's *ISN'T,*
rather than what it is, in the same vein
as IDSociety.org is falsely claiming what
Lyme Disease (and LYMErix Disease) ISN'T,
without saying what it - or OspA -is.
The CDC and Kaiser have for over two years
been studying Morgellon's, so we know it
doesn't even take a week to DNA sequence
a sample, especially if using common
species primers probes, particularly of
the likes of the 16S and 23S spacer probes.
[In a week in a Pfizer analytical lab
we could tell you pretty much what *any*
*mad*ss* sample was. That's what these
REAL LABS are set up for- ANALYTICAL.
We *know* what to do!!!}
It is not possible that whoever is studying
Morgellon's samples hasn't known what most of
them are for nearly 2 years.
NONETHELESS, who can argue against these
disinformation specialists?
ILADS.org?
Of course not. ILADS cannot argue scientific
validity to save anyone's lives, and not
even in physician persecution cases. (ILADS
happens to run away from their colleagues
when under the gun, like Jones and Burrascano,
retarded cowards that they are...)
1) Pat Smith has done nothing but run interference
in all our objectives to get the truth out;
2) ILADS.org is in it entirely for themselves
and in particular, do not DARE mention or
train their colleagues (*I* trained Ginger
Savely, BTW; she knew nothing when she
joined this ILADS.org gang);
3) ILADS.org cannot dissect this PsyOps/Disinfo
and say, "Stop telling us what this science
*ISN'T.* Tell us what OspA *is*, for example?"
"Stop telling us we're 'alternative medicine'
to be saying what Allen Steere did in Europe
'is a scientific fraud cryme,' and that 'Lyme is
chronic,'
http://www.actionlyme.org/RICOCHRON.htm
"IDSociety.org ^^^ happens to agree and have
re-proven it, literally 20 times over^^!"
Because ILADS is a bunch of psychiatrists
and the like, they don't *DARE* puts the
tools of application of Scientific Validity
into brains and mouths and fingertips of
their victims. Right now the likes of Bob
Bransfield Malpractice-treats Lyme
brain because the APA's guidelines say
you have to treat the Delirium FIRST:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BUNNEY_YALE_BRAIN_DAMAGE.htm
"Medications for psychiatric disorders can be both the cause of
delirium and exacerbate or contribute to delirium from other
causes."- The American Psychiatric Association.
ILADS.org is totally incompetent to fighting
this kind of PsyOps and Disinformation.
They *SHOULD* be made fun of in this way
(below).
There are crooks and there are stupid
people in this Lyme cryme game, but it's
like Dr. Goldberg said at the 2001 FDA
Meeting said:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3680t2.rtf
"I also was concerned about the discussion of case definition that
came
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3680s2_11.pdf
up in the open part of the hearing. And, the fact that in the
original studies this very specific definition was used and I would
urge, that if it's possible, to ***reanalyze that data with sliding
definitions of cases. And determine, what kind of affects
misclassification on case definition could have on the efficacy
results."***
We need a sliding scale of classification
of crooks. "ILADS takes their victims for
all they got and IDSA throws them out
of the office":
http://www.actionlyme.org/BLUMENTHAL_FORSCHNER.htm
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
======================================
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2010/05/bad_science_done_badly_its_bad.php
« It’s not my fault! | Main
Bad science, done badly. It's bad.
Category: Medicine
Posted on: May 13, 2010 6:02 PM, by PalMD
So-called "morgellons syndrome" is an interesting phenomenon. This
syndrome is not at this point generally recognized by the medical
community, but its sufferers describe many different systemic
symptoms, such as "brain fog" and fatigue, and characteristic skin
lesions which they describe as containing or extruding an unknown
substance. The patients are most often diagnosed as having delusions
of parasitosis, a diagnosis which understandably is not often
acceptable to the patient.
One of the most consistent facts to date about the disorder is that
there has been no significant scientific literature published about
morgellons as a distinct entity. In the literature---such as it is---
morgellons suffers one of two fates: it is attributed to delusions of
parasitosis; or it is presented as unverified and unverifiable
opinions from self-appointed experts. But there is a hint and a
trickle of information. The CDC has an ongoing investigation into
"unexplained dermatopathy", and a recent commenter has sent a new
article my way.
The article, entitled, "Morgellons disease: Analysis of a population
with clinically confirmed microscopic subcutaneous fibers of unknown
etiology" was published this month in the Journal of Clinical,
Cosmetic, and Investigational Dermatology. I would give you a PMID or
DOI, but the journal is not indexed by PubMed. The publisher describes
it as "open access" and emphasizes that, "[t]he journal is
characterized by the rapid reporting of clinical studies, reviews and
original research in skin research and skin care." The journal even
has a "testimonials" page. That's unique. I'm pretty sure most of the
journals I read don't have that. All of the testimonials agree that
the service is excellent. In addition, the journal appears to publish
very efficiently:
"I was very impressed with how promptly the paper was published."
"I was impressed at the rapidity of publication from submission to
final acceptance."
When evaluating a study, it's important to note the source and the
authors first. This journal would appear to value rapid communication
over quality. That's not generally a favorable quality, but it isn't a
deal-breaker either.
What about the authors?
Raphael Stricker is a disgraced hematologist who after losing his
career to data manipulation took up the chronic Lyme disease banner.
He is part of ILADS, which has been demanding that actual experts shut
up and get out of the way so they can continue their evidence-free
treatment of supposed chronic Lyme disease. Savely has written earlier
crappy articles about morgellons. She is a nurse practitioner who
"treats" people with "chronic Lyme disease" and morgellons.
None of this means the authors can't do some serious science, though,
so let's look at the article itself.
The article starts with this:
Morgellons disease is a poorly understood multisystem illness
characterized by stinging, biting, and crawling sensations under the
skin.
That is an unfounded assertion. Morgellons is simply a label used by
some for a set of symptoms. There is not, as of yet, any agreed-upon
disease called "morgellons". And where do they get their data? From
the Morgellons Research Foundation, an organization founded by the
person who named the disease. This foundation has not yet done any
real science, and is not a valid source of epidemiologic data. Quoting
MRF should be easy for Stricker, who is on their board.
The article then goes on to assert that morgellons is characterized by
mysterious fibers under the skin. They make the same somewhat mystical
assertion that is common on morgellons websites:
this material is often labeled as "textile fibers" on pathologic
examination. However, a more thorough analysis of the fibers performed
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation forensics laboratory has
revealed that the fibers do not resemble textiles or any other manmade
substance. In fact, the fibers are virtually indestructible by heat or
chemical means, making analysis difficult by conventional methods.6
The citation for this rather bold and unusual assertion?
6Wymore R. Personal communication. May 4, 2009.
Yeah. Wymore is this guy in Oklahoma who is supposedly doing all sorts
of groundbreaking research into morgellons, but somehow none of it
gets published. He doesn't happen to be a dermatopathologist or
materials scientist or anything else relevant to the field, so maybe
he's just in over his head.
So apparently the purpose of this study was "to identify prevalent
symptoms in patients with clinically confirmed subcutaneous fibers in
order to develop a case definition for Morgellons disease." Is it just
me, or is that a bit circular? So how did they identify cases?
The convenience sample included all patients seen in the first
author's San Francisco medical office who met the inclusion criterion.
The subject inclusion criterion was a positive examination for
microscopic subcutaneous fibers as visualized by the first author
using a 60 × handheld lighted magnifier. There were no exclusion
criteria for the sample group because the inclusion criterion was
narrowly defined to promote a homogeneous sample.
So the author, who works at a clinic that specializes in, among other
things, morgellos as she defines it chose subjects who she thought had
fibers in their skin. I look at skin every day. I'm no dermatologist---
and I know it. I know that if I see something under the scope that
looks funny to me, I need to call a dermatologist. I wonder if she
sent any of these fibers to an expert (other than Wymore or TEH
FBI!!!)? No?
As a brief aside, take a look at these images:
morgellons.jpg
Image from the Savely and Strickland paper.
neuroticexcoriation.jpg
Image from American Family Physician of "neurotic excoriation"
The authors of the morgellons study claim that the rash in their image
occurs in area that cannot be reached by the patient. Compare to the
photo of a patient with neurotic excoriations (that is, a rash caused
by compulsive scratching). Both images are quite typical of "an
outside job", that is, they both look as if they have been chronically
scratched. There is nothing in the morgellons patient photo that would
argue against this.
I can't go on much longer, because my brain hurts, but one of the most
remarkable "findings" is this:
Sixty-four (52.5%) of the subjects had positive Lyme tests by
Western blot. Another 44.3% (n = 54) were highly suspect for Lyme
disease based on the presence of 5/7 of the defined criteria for a
Lyme diagnosis, as outlined in the Materials and methods section.
These results imply that 96.8% of the sample may have been infected
with B burgdorferi [the organism that causes Lyme disease]
Fascinating. In 2008 there were 74 cases of Lyme disease reported in
the entire state of California, and yet somehow, one nurse
practitioner in San Francisco managed to find find 64 cases in a brief
period of time. Remarkable.
This article is so remarkably bad it's almost like they were trying to
parody science. Please...don't try any harder.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci