Countering "counterterrorism"
kathleen
If the USDOJ dot guv is in collusion (US Attorney Kevin O'COnnor
and John G. Rowland) with the NeoCons who believe in belligerence and
pre-emptive "Defence," and the USDOJ believes that it is proper to
defend the Yale criminals by inventing other people's crimes and
slamming them away forever for saying they are innocent, (which was
part of the entire plan), then everyone opposed to such abuses of
power can become a "terrorist" and jam the DOJ/FBI's email searches
with keywords like:
Unibomber
chemist
ammonium nitrate
subversive
bomb
Yale
command
operation
mail
Create several email addresses. Give all of
them 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW 20530 as your address.
or, 157 Church Street, New Haven, 06510
I was falsely accused of being "a dangerously
intelligent chemist," "like Ted Kaszinski," who
has "command hallucinations to kill."
This was invented for me at my DCF "trial."
Then I was crminally charged with that, and not
allowed access to the courts, since a Yale
"psychiatrist" determined I was insane to be
saying I was innocent.
Tough to figure out.
=============================================
Silicon Spooks: Government Spying on the Internet
- By Shawn Ewald ©, 2002 (repost here in August, 2004)
NSA's Echelon Surveillance Network In a new novel, Digital Fortress by
Dan Brown, the National Security Agency (NSA) has built a code-breaking
supercomputer called TRANSLTR that can crack any cryptographic cipher
in a matter of seconds. Ostensibly, the purpose of this computer is to
monitor the encrypted communications of terrorist groups, but the
designer of this supercomputer recognizes the danger presented to the
privacy of ordinary citizens by his creation and invents an unbreakable
code called Digital Fortress. He threatens that, if the NSA does not
make the existence of TRANSLTR publicly known, he will distribute
Digital Fortress on the Internet.
Unfortunately, only in novels, I suspect, do NSA employees have
consciences, much less concern for the privacy of Jane Q. Citizen.
Fortunately, only in novels does the NSA have a computer that can crack
codes in seconds - even the world's most powerful supercomputer, the
Intel Paragon, would take a bit longer than a few seconds to crack a
message by brute force that was encrypted with PGP (Pretty Good
Privacy, a freely available encryption program that runs on PCs and
Macs).
However, the NSA does indeed monitor all Internet communication, just
as it monitors all telephone, radio, and satellite communication, and,
therefore, our collective right to privacy is routinely violated by the
Government without our knowledge.
But what is different about the NSA's activity on the Internet has to
do with the Internet itself and the public's understanding of it. The
Internet is inherently open and insecure, which makes it incredibly
easy to monitor and intercept communication traffic like e-mail
messages, for instance. Furthermore, the majority of the American
public is largely unaware of how insecure the Internet really is - it
is interesting that, thanks largely to the mainstream media's
successful manufacturing of Internet paranoia, technophobic or computer
illiterate people are more conscious of this aspect of the Internet
than many people who use the Internet regularly. Most people have heard
about government agencies tapping phone lines or even steaming open
paper mail, but it seems that most people are not aware of the
government's routine monitoring of Internet communication traffic,
particularly e-mail traffic. This ignorance is dangerous for a society
that has become almost wholly dependent on electronic mediums of
communication.
The NSA's surveillance of Internet communication began at the early
stages of the Internet's development when it was still populated only
by government employees, university researchers, and government
contractors. Many people involved with the early Internet (known then
as ARPANet) were aware of this surveillance. In fact, Richard Stallman,
an MIT computer scientist who was then involved with the ARPANet (and
later would found the Free Software Foundation), added an optional
feature to a text editor/e-mail client that he had created called
EMACS; the purpose of this feature was to undermine the NSA's
surveillance efforts. The optional feature added randomly selected
keywords at the end of an e-mail message composed in EMACS; these
keywords (i.e. revolution, terrorist, etc.) he believed would trigger
interception by the NSA computers and, hopefully, if enough people made
use of this feature, clog the NSA's computers with irrelevant e-mail.
In former New Zealand intelligence agent Nicky Hager's book Secret
Power, one discovers that the NSA's surveillance capabilities are not
hindered by political borders. Under the code-name ECHELON, and with
the help of the British, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian
Governments, the NSA has established a global communication
surveillance network that is capable of monitoring most of the world's
electronic communication.
The ECHELON system was created by the NSA as a means to interconnect
surveillance systems that had existed in these countries since WWII,
and to put these foreign surveillance operations under the control of
the NSA. What ECHELON became was an international network of computer
systems, each intercepting all fax, telex, e-mail and satellite
communications in their region of the world. The intercepted
communications are scanned with "dictionary" programs for certain
keywords; these dictionaries not only contain keywords of interest to
the intercepting agency, but also keywords that are of interest to the
other intelligence agencies around the world involved in the ECHELON
network. If the intercepted message contains a matching keyword, it is
immediately passed on to the headquarters of the agency concerned.
Given this massive technological arsenal, how can citizens protect
their privacy on the Internet? There is one method that has proven to
be an effective monkey wrench in the Government's efficient
surveillance machine, and that is strong encryption. Despite the claims
of fiction writers, there is no such thing as an unbreakable code or
uncrackable encryption, but what good encryption can ensure is that if
someone wants to snoop on your e-mail communications they are going to
have to put a good deal of effort into it. Cracking encrypted
electronic communications is the labor-intensive equivalent of steaming
open envelopes, whereas intercepting and reading unencrypted mail is as
easy as reading the back of a postcard. Not surprisingly, the FBI and
NSA have asked Congress to outlaw strong encryption. We as citizens
should be fighting their efforts every step of the way.
In the documentation for PGP, the program's author, Phil Zimmermann,
poses the following to users who may be skeptical about the need for
publicly available strong encryption programs:
"Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that
encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with
nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on
postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a
warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide
something? You must be a subversive or a drug dealer if you hide your
mail inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do law-abiding citizens
have any need to encrypt their E-mail?"
The answer is obvious, of course they do. In the next issue I'll
demonstrate how to use PGP (still the best personal encryption
software, and it's free) as well as demonstrate other ways one can
enhance one's privacy and security on the Internet.
Silicon Spooks Part 2: Personal Security on the Internet
Last month, I described how the government routinely snoops on our
electronic communications and violates our right to privacy.
However, for most people, the government is the least of our troubles
when it comes to protecting our privacy when we use computers and the
Internet. Other common snoops are our bosses in our workplaces,
commercial Internet sites, and criminals. And of those three threats to
our privacy, our bosses and commercial Internet sites are the most
common threats. In this short article,
I'll try to give some tips on how to protect yourself.
But first, as promised in my last article, here is a brief tutorial on
how to obtain and use PGP. I'm going to concentrate on the PC version
of PGP because 1) it requires more explanation, 2) it is in much wider
use than the Mac version, and 3) the Mac version is easier to use and
understand.
What is PGP?
PGP is powerful encryption software. Meaning, it is a piece of software
that enables you to encrypt your data (typically documents and e-mail
messages).
Where to get PGP?
There really are only two places you can get it. The first is PGP Inc.,
and the second is at MIT - I recommend the MIT distribution site.
Which version you should get?
There are two commonly used versions of PGP available, PGP 2.6.2 and
PGP 5.0. I recommend PGP 2.6.2.
PGP 5.0 is newer and easier to use, but unfortunately it uses an
entirely new (though not necessarily better) system for encrypting your
data that is not compatible with older versions of PGP. PGP 2.6.2 has a
steeper learning curve in terms of usability but it is, hands down, the
most widely used version of PGP in the U.S. and, therefore, will enable
you to exchange encrypted messages with a much wider number of PGP
users.
How to use PGP
Once you've downloaded and installed PGP the first thing you need to do
is generate what's called a PGP 'key pair". (Installing PGP 2.6.2 is
relatively straightforward for people who are moderately familiar with
their computer. Print out the setup.doc file in the PGP distribution
and follow the instructions for your operating system.)
To generate your PGP key pair, issue the following command at a DOS
prompt: pgp -kg
After you issue this command, PGP will ask you a few questions and
require you to do a few things to generate your key pair. The first
thing it will ask is what level of encryption you wish to use - you'll
be offered three choices:
1. 512 bits- Low commercial grade, fast but less secure
2. 768 bits- High commercial grade, medium speed, good security
3. 1024 bits- "Military" grade, slow, highest security
I recommend choosing option 3 "Military" grade encryption.
The next three things you'll be asked will be 1) choose a user ID 2)
choose a passphrase and 3) entering random keystrokes to generate your
key pair.
Your user ID should be your full name and e-mail address, for example:
Shawn Ewald sh...@wilshire.net
Your passphrase can be as long as you like - it should literally be a
phrase or sentence or a long string of characters - just make sure you
can remember it. Next, you will be asked to type random keystrokes -
this helps PGP generate a truly random key pair. When prompted to do
this, just hit random keys at random intervals until PGP tells you to
stop.
Now PGP will generate a key pair that will be stored in two files:
secring.pgp and pubring.pgp. The first file secring.pgp contains your
PGP secret key, it is very important that you never let anyone see this
file, it is also very important that you make a backup copy of this
file on a floppy disk and store it in a safe place. The second file
pubring.pgp contains your PGP public key, this key can be freely
distributed once you have extracted it from pubring.pgp. To extract
your public key from your public key ring (pubring.pgp) issue the
following command at a dos prompt:
pgp -kx Shawn shawn pubring.pgp
NOTE: replace Shawn and shawn with the beginning of your own user name.
In this case, PGP will store my public key in a file called
"shawn.asc"; I can open this file with any text editor to view it. Once
you've extracted your public key, you can send it to friends so that
they can use their copy of PGP to send you encrypted messages. You can
even make it available to strangers by putting it on your web page. I,
for example, have made my PGP public key available on the web at:
http://www.radio4all.org/pgp/
How to encrypt and decrypt files
To encrypt a file, issue the following command at a DOS prompt:
pgp -es textfile -u your_userid
To decrypt a file, issue the following command:
pgp encrypted_file -o filename
NOTE: replace the words "textfile" and "encrypted_file" with the actual
names of the files you wish to encrypt/decrypt, replace "your_userid"
with your actual user ID, and replace "filename" with the name your
wish to call the decrypted file.
In both of the above examples PGP will ask you to enter your
passphrase. If your passphrase is correct it will immediately go to
work.
Add-ons for PGP
Obviously, typing commands at a DOS prompt is not an enjoyable
experience for most people. Fortunately, there are many add-ons (mostly
for e-mail programs) available for free on the Internet that provide a
nice graphical interface and make PGP much easier to use. The best
place to look for these add-ons is at the yahoo PGP directory. Go here
and select the "PGP - Pretty Good Privacy" link.
Other features of PGP
There are many other features to PGP that I'm unable to describe in
such a brief article. So, I strongly suggest that you print out and
read the file "pgpdoc1.txt" that comes with the PGP distribution.
Other personal security measures you can take
In addition to learning about and using encryption software like PGP,
there are other aspects to using the Internet where your personal
security can be improved. The following is a list of simple things you
can do to protect yourself when using the internet.
1.
Avoid making credit card purchases on-line
Despite the hype, secure online transactions are not nearly as
secure as many businesses would like you to believe. Furthermore, it is
not likely that online transactions will ever be as secure as real
world transactions. Be aware that you are taking a risk whenever you
submit your credit card number online.
2.
Scan downloaded files for viruses before opening them
This is a no-brainer, but it can't be repeated enough. Get a good
virus program (like McAfee Anti-virus, IBM Anti-Virus, or Dr. Solomon's
Anti-Virus) and scan the files you download before opening them.
3.
Never give out your password
No one needs to know your password, except you; never give it
out. If you are signing up for a service on the web that requires a
password, make a new and unique password for that service, never use
your ISP password for any service on the Internet.
4.
Disable the "cookies" feature in your web browser
This can be done in most modern browsers. For example, to disable
cookies in Netscape Communicator:
Click the Edit menu, then select "Preferences." In the
Preferences Dialog box, select the "Advanced" category. In the
"Cookies" section select "Disable Cookies". Then click the "OK" button.
Happy surfing!
Suggested Reading and Websites:
* Secret Power: New Zealand's Role in the International Spy
Network, by Nicky Hager
* The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America's Most Secret Agency, by
James Bamford; Viking
* The Crypt Newsletter
* Secrecy & Government Bulletin
* PGP: Pretty Good Privacy, by Simson Garfinkel; O'Reilly &
Associates
* Bandits on the Information Superhighway, by Daniel J. Barrett;
O'Reilly & Associates
CSS printer friendly enabled
mail to a friend Send this to
derdritt...@yahoo.com
kathleen wrote:
> Here's an interesting thought.
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT PEOPLE DELIBERATELY ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE AND
MISLEAD LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY AGENCIES?
kathleen
1) Lyme is a borreliosis (a permanent brain infection), and we're not
"CRAZY"
Alan Barbour:
http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/microbio/index.html?top.html&menu.html&facultyResearch/faculty/barbour.html
"These tick-borne infections are notable for multiphasic antigenic
variation through DNA recombinations in the case of relapsing fever,
the occurrence of chronic arthritis in the case of Lyme disease, and
invasion of and persistence in the brain in the case of both
diseases."
Borrelia and Brain (MedLine): (nearly 200 citations)
2) The blood testing standard for Lyme is bogus. Steere knows there
is a different antibody profile for neuroborreliosis, and that OspA
(LymeRIX) and B produced strong antibodies in people with arthritis, so
it never should have been left out of the standard.
Borrelia is a "stealth pathogen," thus there is not typically a
high antibody response.
"Multiclonal populations therefore can exist in an infected patient
so that immunological defenses are severely tested if not totally
overwhelmed."
(1986) "Antigens of Borrelia" Allen Steere, in which he states that
antibodies to
borrelia include OspA and B, and that these bound strongly in persons
with Lyme arthritis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3531237&query_hl=1
1: J Clin Invest. 1986 Oct;78(4):934-9.
Antigens of Borrelia burgdorferi recognized during Lyme disease.
Appearance of a
new immunoglobulin M response and expansion of the immunoglobulin G
response
late in the illness.
Craft JE, Fischer DK, Shimamoto GT, Steere AC.
Using immunoblots, we identified proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi bound
by IgM
and IgG antibodies during Lyme disease. In 12 patients with early
disease alone,
both the IgM and IgG responses were restricted primarily to a 41-kD
antigen.
This limited response disappeared within several months. In contrast,
among six
patients with prolonged illness, the IgM response to the 41-kD protein
sometimes
persisted for months to years, and late in the illness during
arthritis, a new
IgM response sometimes developed to a 34-kD component of the organism.
The IgG
response in these patients appeared in a characteristic sequential
pattern over
months to years to as many as 11 spirochetal antigens. The appearance
of a new
IgM response and the expansion of the IgG response late in the illness,
and the
lack of such responses in patients with early disease alone, suggest
that B.
burgdorferi remains alive throughout the illness.
PMID: 3531237 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(1988) "Changes in Infectivity and Plasmid Profile of the Lyme
Disease Spirochete..." National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Disease , (1988)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3397175&query_hl=2
1: Infect Immun. 1988 Aug;56(8):1831-6.
Changes in infectivity and plasmid profile of the Lyme disease
spirochete,
Borrelia burgdorferi, as a result of in vitro cultivation.
Schwan TG, Burgdorfer W, Garon CF.
Laboratory of Pathobiology, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, National
Institue of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Hamilton, Montana 59840.
In vitro cultivation of Borrelia burgdorferi, the etiologic agent of
Lyme
spirochetosis, allows for the isolation and growth of this bacterium
from
infected tissues. However, continuous cultivation in modified Kelly
medium
causes a reduction in the number of detectable plasmids and the loss of
infectivity in the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. In an
unpassaged
culture of B. burgdorferi, nine plasmids were present, including seven
linear
plasmids ranging in size from 49 to 16 kilobases (kb) and two circular
plasmids
of 27 and 7.6 kb. The 7.6-kb circular and 22-kb linear plasmids were no
longer
detectable in spirochetes noninfective in white-footed mice, suggesting
that a
gene(s) encoding for factors responsible for infection may be present
on one or
more of these extrachromosomal elements. Furthermore, changes in
spirochetal
proteins and lipopolysaccharide-like material were observed also during
early
cultivation and may be related to loss of infectivity.
PMID: 3397175 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
NIH: Don't use high passage strains: They lose OspA and B plasmid
expression
(1988) European Patent Application Number 93201345.1
Assigned to Alan Barbour, Louis Magnarelli, Sven Bergstrom
"It has been shown that the earliest IgM antibodies formed against
antigens of the B. burgdorferi strain B31, which was deposited in the
American Type Culture Collection in 1983 with the accession number ATCC
35210, are directed against a genus-specific flagellar poly-peptide
termed flagellin having a molecular weight of 41 kd (10) and which
reacts with monoclonal antibody H9724 (22). IgG antibodies are also
first directed to the 41 kd flagellin, but with advancing disease IgG
antibodies form against other immunogens, especially against two
abundant proteins with molecular weights of 31 kd and 34 kd. These two
proteins, which have been denoted OspA (31 kd) and OspB (34 kd), have
been found to be located at the B. burgdorferi surface and embedded in
its outer fluid cell membrane (11).
-OspA is meant to be a diagnostic antigen (it is now not)
1990 CDC Publication Lyme blood testing standard: Perform serial
Western blots
(1991)- Yale, Fikrig, Borrelia specific flagellin fragment is 94.4%
accurate and does not cross react (is specific)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1894359&query_hl=3
1: Infect Immun. 1991 Oct;59(10):3531-5.
Molecular characterization of the humoral response to the 41-kilodalton
flagellar antigen of Borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme disease agent.
Berland R, Fikrig E, Rahn D, Hardin J, Flavell RA.
Section of Immunobiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New
Haven,
Connecticut 06510.
The earliest humoral response in patients infected with Borrelia
burgdorferi,
the agent of Lyme disease, is directed against the spirochete's 41-kDa
flagellar
antigen. In order to map the epitopes recognized on this antigen, 11
overlapping
fragments spanning the flagellin gene were cloned by polymerase chain
reaction
and inserted into an Escherichia coli expression vector which directed
their
expression as fusion proteins containing glutathione S-transferase at
the N
terminus and a flagellin fragment at the C terminus. Affinity-purified
fusion
proteins were assayed for reactivity on Western blots (immunoblots)
with sera
from patients with late-stage Lyme disease. The same immunodominant
domain was
bound by sera from 17 of 18 patients. This domain (comprising amino
acids 197 to
241) does not share significant homology with other bacterial
flagellins and
therefore may be useful in serological testing for Lyme disease.
PMID: 1894359 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(1992) "Western blotting in the Serodiagnosis of Lyme Disease"
1992, July Dressler/Steere
Steere knowingly using a weakened strain intending to leave OspA and B
out of the serologic standard, decreasing the likelihood that people
will be diagnosed with Lyme disease, and with the intention of
capturing all the post-LymeRIX or ImmuLyme approval testing for Lyme.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8380611&query_hl=7
1: J Infect Dis. 1993 Feb;167(2):392-400.
Western blotting in the serodiagnosis of Lyme disease.
Dressler F, Whalen JA, Reinhardt BN, Steere AC.
Division of Rheumatology/Immunology, Tufts University School of
Medicine, New
England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111.
There are currently no accepted criteria for positive Western blots in
Lyme
disease. In a retrospective analysis of 225 case and control subjects,
the best
discriminatory ability of test criteria was obtained by requiring at
least 2 of
the 8 most common IgM bands in early disease (18, 21, 28, 37, 41, 45,
58, and 93
kDa) and by requiring at least 5 of the 10 most frequent IgG bands
after the
first weeks of infection (18, 21, 28, 30, 39, 41, 45, 58, 66, and 93
kDa). When
these definitions were tested in a prospective study of all 237
patients seen in
a diagnostic Lyme disease clinic during a 1-year period and in 74
patients with
erythema migrans or summer flu-like illnesses, the IgM blot in early
disease had
a sensitivity of 32% and a specificity of 100%; the IgG blot after the
first
weeks of infection had a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 95%.
Among
patients with indeterminate IgG responses by ELISA, 6 of 9 patients
with active
Lyme disease had positive blots compared with 2 of 34 patients with
other
illnesses (P < .001). Thus, Western blotting can be used to increase
the
specificity of serologic testing in Lyme disease.
PMID: 8380611 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(1993) "Antibody Responses to Three Genomic Groups.."
Dressler/Steere
1: J Infect Dis. 1994 Feb;169(2):313-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8106763&query_hl=1
Antibody responses to the three genomic groups of Borrelia burgdorferi
in
European Lyme borreliosis.
Dressler F, Ackermann R, Steere AC.
Division of Rheumatology/Immunology, New England Medical Center, Tufts
University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02111.
The antibody responses to the three genomic groups of Borrelia
burgdorferi (B.
burgdorferi sensu stricto, Borrelia garinii, and Borrelia afzelii) were
determined in 97 German patients with various manifestations of Lyme
borreliosis. The geometric mean antibody titers in each patient group,
determined by ELISA, were similar with each antigen preparation. By
Western
blotting, however, patients with meningopolyneuritis tended to respond
to more
spirochetal polypeptides of B. garinii, the group 2 strain, whereas
those with
arthritis recognized more antigens of B. afzelii, the group 3 strain (P
< .03),
as did those with acrodermatitis. Only 1 patient each with erythema
migrans,
arthritis, or acrodermatitis had weak reactivity with outer surface
protein A
(OspA), and none responded to OspB. It is concluded that differences
among the
three groups of B. burgdorferi may result in variations in the antibody
response
in European Lyme borreliosis. PMID: 8106763 [PubMed - indexed for
MEDLINE]
G39/40 is high-passage (no good)
Steere demonstrates that there is a different antibody profile in
neurologic Lyme patients,
than there is for Lyme arthritis
Sequence described by Steere, kilodaltons (kD)
EARLY, with erythema migrans
41
1-5 months after disease onset
83
66
27
15
months to years
75
60
34 (Osp B)
31 (Osp A)
29
17
Page 936: 34, 31, 29, and 17 were "bound strongly," which means
there was a high antibody concentration. This was not the case later,
in Dressler/Steere, and OspA and B were left out of the serodiagnostic
standard (this is "bogus" science).
(See other notations in that text.)
The 1994 CDC Dearborn Conference criteria are supposed to be for
"early Lyme," but clearly "5 months to years," is not "early
Lyme," and no one agreed with Steere, except MarDx, who had been
given CDC Dearborn-positive arthritis blood to qualify their test kits,
and who also have been given the contracts for both vaccine trials.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038469.htm
The ImmuLyme trial began in March 1994, before Dearborn even convened,
and 6 years later, the principal investigator, Leonard Sigal reported
that he could not even read his Western Blots, in people who were
vaccinated.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9673299&query_hl=9
1: N Engl J Med. 1998 Jul 23;339(4):216-22.
Erratum in:
N Engl J Med 1998 Aug 20;339(8):571.
A vaccine consisting of recombinant Borrelia burgdorferi outer-surface
protein A
to prevent Lyme disease. Recombinant Outer-Surface Protein A Lyme
Disease
Vaccine Study Consortium.
Sigal LH, Zahradnik JM, Lavin P, Patella SJ, Bryant G, Haselby R,
Hilton E,
Kunkel M, Adler-Klein D, Doherty T, Evans J, Molloy PJ, Seidner AL,
Sabetta JR,
Simon HJ, Klempner MS, Mays J, Marks D, Malawista SE.
Department of Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick 08903-0019,
USA.
BACKGROUND: Lyme disease is a multisystem inflammatory disease caused
by
infection with the tick-borne spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi and is
the most
common vector-borne infection in the United States. We assessed the
efficacy of
a recombinant vaccine consisting of outer-surface protein A (OspA)
without
adjuvant in subjects at risk for Lyme disease. METHODS: For this
double-blind
trial, 10,305 subjects 18 years of age or older were recruited at 14
sites in
areas of the United States where Lyme disease was endemic; the subjects
were
randomly assigned to receive either placebo (5149 subjects) or 30
microg of OspA
vaccine (5156 subjects). The first two injections were administered 1
month
apart, and 7515 subjects also received a booster dose at 12 months. The
subjects
were observed for two seasons during which the risk of transmission of
Lyme
disease was high. The primary end point was the number of new
clinically and
serologically confirmed cases of Lyme disease. RESULTS: The efficacy of
the
vaccine was 68 percent in the first year of the study in the entire
population
and 92 percent in the second year among the 3745 subjects who received
the third
injection. The vaccine was well tolerated. There was a higher incidence
of mild,
self-limited local and systemic reactions in the vaccine group, but
only during
the seven days after vaccination. There was no significant increase in
the
frequency of arthritis or neurologic events in vaccine recipients.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this study, OspA vaccine was safe and effective in the prevention of
Lyme
disease. PMID: 9673299 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(1993) March, Wormser and Nowakowski: Use Western blots for ELISA
negatives, Dressler/Steere proposal only 13-25% accurate. (The
standard adopted by the CDC is the opposite- It says not to do a
Western Blot on ELISA negatives.)
1: J Clin Microbiol. 1993 Dec;31(12):3090-5.
Erratum in:
J Clin Microbiol 1994 Mar;32(3):860.
Serodiagnosis in early Lyme disease.
Aguero-Rosenfeld ME, Nowakowski J, McKenna DF, Carbonaro CA, Wormser
GP.
Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla.
Using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA) and an
immunoblot assay (IB), we tested sera from 100 patients with erythema
migrans
(EM) seen in 1991 a the Westchester County Medical Center Lyme Disease
Diagnostic Center. Convalescent-phase sera were available from 59
patients.
Fifty-five patients had EM of < 7 days' duration, 31 had EM of 7 to 14
days'
duration, and 14 had EM of > 14 days' duration. During the acute phase
of
infection, 35 patients had a positive ELISA result and 43 had a
positive IB
result by the recently published criteria of Dressler et al. (F.
Dressler, J. A.
Whalen, B. N. Reinhardt, and A. C. Steere, J. Infect. Dis. 167:392-400,
1993)
for interpretation of IB in patients with Lyme disease. A greater
sensitivity of
IB was observed in patients with EM of < 7 days' duration, as follows:
14 of 55
(25%) for IB versus 7 of 55 (13%) for ELISA (P = 0.144). Sera of all 14
patients
with EM of > 14 days' duration were reactive by both tests, as follows:
13
positive and 1 equivocal by ELISA and 12 positive and 2 indeterminate
by the IB.
The band reactivity most frequently observed in the IB was to the 41-
and 25-kDa
antigens, the latter being the most frequent band observed in
immunoglobulin M
blots. Seroconversion was observed in 74 and 64% of evaluable patients
by ELISA
and IB, respectively, despite the use of antibiotic therapy.
PMID: 8308100 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(1993) "Overdiagnosis" article, Steere Patients not positive
"in our labs" - using bogus strains (high-passage G39/40, and
FRG- a German strain)
Most people will not have antibodies to these weakened or useless
strains.
1: JAMA. 1993 Apr 14;269(14):1812-6.
The overdiagnosis of Lyme disease.
Steere AC, Taylor E, McHugh GL, Logigian EL.
Division of Rheumatology/Immunology, New England Medical Center,
Boston, MA
02111.
OBJECTIVE--To analyze the diagnoses, serological test results, and
treatment
results of the patients evaluated in a Lyme disease clinic, both prior
to
referral and from current evaluation. DESIGN--Retrospective case survey
of
prescreened patients. SETTING--Research and diagnostic Lyme disease
clinic in a
university hospital. PATIENTS--All 788 patients referred to the clinic
during a
4.5-year period who were thought by the referring physician or the
patient to
have a diagnosis of Lyme disease.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS--Symptoms and signs
of disease, immunodiagnostic tests of Lyme disease, and tests of
neurological
function. RESULTS--Of the 788 patients, 180 (23%) had active Lyme
disease,
usually arthritis, encephalopathy, or polyneuropathy. One hundred
fifty-six
patients (20%) had previous Lyme disease and another current illness,
most
commonly chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia; and in 49 patients,
these
symptoms began soon after objective manifestations of Lyme disease. The
remaining 452 patients (57%) did not have Lyme disease. The majority of
these
patients also had the chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia; the
others
usually had rheumatic or neurological diseases. Of the patients who did
not have
Lyme disease, 45% had had positive serological test results for Lyme
disease in
other laboratories, but all were seronegative in our laboratory. Prior
to
referral, 409 of the 788 patients had been treated with antibiotic
therapy. In
322 (79%) of these patients, the reason for lack of response was
incorrect
diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS--Only a minority of the patients referred to the
clinic
met diagnostic criteria for Lyme disease. The most common reason for
lack of
response to antibiotic therapy was misdiagnosis.
PMID: 8459513 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(1993, Dec) US PATENT- Fikrig (Yale) 5618533 Bb Flagellin (94%
accurate, early, and specific test)
United States Patent 5,618,533
Flavell , et al. April 8, 1997
Flagellin-based polypeptides for the diagnosis of lyme disease
Abstract
Diagnostic means and methods for Lyme disease comprising B. burgdorferi
flagellin polypeptides and antibodies. Compositions and methods
comprising neuroborreliosis-associated antigens useful for the
detection, treatment and prevention of neuroborreliosis, arthritis,
carditis and other manifestations of Lyme disease.
Inventors: Flavell; Richard A. (Killingworth, CT); Fikrig; Erol
(Guilford, CT); Berland; Robert (Kingston, NY) Assignee: Yale
University (New Haven, CT) Appl. No.: 166160 Filed: December 10, 1993
1994, March through 1999, August- the ImmuLyme trial- A MUST READ
1994 June- FDA Meeting, Ray Dattwyler recommends using serial
Western Blots to assesss vaccines.
(1994, Oct 7) US PATENT- 5747294 Yale's OspA patent
United States Patent 5,747,294
Flavell , et al. May 5, 1998
Compositions and methods for the prevention and diagnosis of lyme
disease
Abstract
Methods and compositions for the prevention and diagnosis of Lyme
disease. OspA and OspB polypeptides and serotypic variants thereof,
which elicit in a treated animal the formation of an immune response
which is effective to treat or protect against Lyme disease as caused
by infection with B. burgdorferi. Anti-OspA and anti-OspB antibodies
that are effective to treat or protect against Lyme disease as caused
by infection with B. burgdorferi. A screening method for the selection
of those OspA and OspB polypeptides and anti-OspA and anti-OspB
antibodies that are useful for the prevention and detection of Lyme
disease. Diagnostic kits including OspA and OspB polypeptides or
antibodies directed against such polypeptides.
Inventors: Flavell; Richard A. (Killingworth, CT); Kantor; Fred S.
(Orange, CT); Barthold; Stephen W. (Madison, CT); Fikrig; Erol
(Guilford, CT)
Assignee: Yale University (New Haven, CT)
Appl. No.: 320161
Filed: October 7, 1994
"Early in human infection, antibodies are generated primarily against
a 41 kD flagella-associated antigen. Later on, high titers appear to
both OspA and OspB..."
(1994, Oct) Dearborn, MI CDC Conference data: Recommendations: DO
NOT USE HIGH PASSAGE STRAINS
Lists interest-conflicted parties
See my Jan 2001 FDA testimony (How to pass off a bogus vaccine: Make
its failure undetectable):
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/slides/3680s2_11.pdf
(1996, March) US PATENT- 6045804 Persing (Corixa) OspA-less
spirochete
United States Patent 6,045,804
Persing April 4, 2000
Method for detecting B. burgdorferi infection
Abstract
The present invention provides a method for detecting B. burgdorferi
infection utilizing an antigen preparation lacking a detectable level
of outer surface protein A (OspA). The antigen preparation is made from
an isolate of B. burgdorferi that lacks the plasmid encoding outer
surface protein A (OspA). The method of the invention discriminates B.
burgdorferi infection from OspA vaccination.
Inventors: Persing; David H. (Rochester, MN)
Assignee: Mayo Foundation for Medical Educational Research (Rochester,
MN)
Appl. No.: 612231
Filed: March 7, 1996
-Mentions problems with Immunoblotting
- Mentions there is a need for a test to detect Lyme in vaccinated and
non-vaccinated patients- WHICH IS THE ENTIRE NATURE OF THIS SCAM.
-Evidence of "partnership" between SmithKline, Corixa and Imugen
(also L2 Diagnostics, the Yale Lyme and Lupus clinic biotech spinoff.
This spinoff firm was funded by the Yale Endowment fund.
2000, "Detection of Multiple Reactive Species..." (Imugen's
Phillip Molloy,
Victor Berardi, and Leonard Sigal, with Dave Persing.).
Why weren't these unreadable blots reported to the FDA, and how could
Sigal have reported a 92% safe and effective vaccine with unreadable
blots?
Or is this just a promotion for use of their patented test, for which
only Imugen and L2 Diagnostics are licensed from Corixa to use?
http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/98-12-22-01.all.html
Yale, SmkithKline, Corixa, Imugen-THE PARTNERSHIP:
http://www.imugen.com/news_release1.htm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=149722&tools=bot
Please see my notes in that report
Henry Feder (UCONN) ran a vaccine trial on European children, when
there is practically none of that kind of OspA in Europe, according to
Steere.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10547245&query_hl=1
1: J Pediatr. 1999 Nov;135(5):575-9.
Comment in:
J Pediatr. 1999 Nov;135(5):539-41.
J Pediatr. 2001 Apr;138(4):609-10.
Immunogenicity of a recombinant Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface
protein A
vaccine against Lyme disease in children.
Feder HM Jr, Beran J, Van Hoecke C, Abraham B, De Clercq N, Buscarino
C, Parenti
DL.
Department of Family Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center,
Farmington, Connecticut 06030-1406, USA.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A recombinant lipoprotein vaccine against
Lyme
disease, containing 30 microg of Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface
protein A
(OspA) with aluminum adjuvant, has been shown in a large US field trial
of
subjects >/=15 years of age to offer 76% efficacy against clinical Lyme
disease
after 3 injections given at 0, 1, and 12 months. Lyme disease is also
an
important problem in children; thus, OspA vaccine trials in children
are needed.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and
immunogenicity of 2
different doses of lipoprotein OspA with aluminum adjuvant vaccine in
healthy
children 5 to 15 years of age in a double-blind, randomized study.
STUDY DESIGN:
In a double-blind study, 250 children from the Czech Republic were
randomly
assigned to receive 15 microg or 30 microg of OspA vaccine at 0, 1, and
2
months. Serum samples, obtained before vaccination and 1 month after
the second
and third doses, were analyzed for antiOspA antibody. Solicited and
unsolicited
symptoms were collected from diary cards. RESULTS: Local pain at the
injection
site was reported by approximately 76% of the 250 children. Headaches
(after 5%
to 18% of the injections) and malaise (after 2% to 16% of the
injections) were
the most frequently reported general symptoms. Local and generalized
symptoms
were not different between the 15 microg and 30 microg groups, and all
symptoms
resolved within 4 days. Both doses were highly immunogenic, with the 30
microg
dose eliciting higher antibody levels. Seroconversion occurred in 99%
of the 250
children. CONCLUSIONS: The OspA vaccine against Lyme disease was well
tolerated
and highly immunogenic in children.
PMID: 10547245 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2005, Feb- CDC releases more of their nonsense about what is a valid
test, and imply that we need "use of validated laboratory tests,"
but CDC's are hardly valid, FDA's own criteria.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5405a6.htm
2005, May, Reponse to Dr. Raphael Stricker in which he states: "To
my knowledge, the CDC website does not state that the serological
criteria recommended by the CDC are not appropriate for use in clinical
diagnosis."
"Clinical" means signs and symptoms, independent of lab work.
It is on the Department of Health and Human Services' website, in
which CDC states that there is no substitute for sound clinical
judgment: PAUL MEAD: "For this reason, CDC has repeatedly stated
that the surveillance case definition is not a substitute for sound
clinical judgment."
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040129.html
lisasawitch
Let's see how you like it kathleen EVERY time you post, I will change
the title of the thread and I will post these questions until you
answer them one by one and answering them means NOT talking about
mcsweegan or former governor rowland and all your typical diversionary
crap anyway.
PLUS you are cross posting ONCE AGAIN TOTALLY OFF TOPIC and you're
selfish to do this to one newsgroups CRIMINAL to do it to multiple
newsgroups--yes here is your "crime": You are preventing people who
need help from getting help for your selfish personal reasons that you
are so completely egocentric along with delusional paranoid
schizophrenic with psychotic features that you just can't see past your
own twisted delusional psychotic personal agenda--which ought to be
about getting your kids back and solving your own enormous problems in
life instead of trying to solve anyone else's. By preventing people
from getting help you are responsible for the consequences. Surely
people are dying as a result so you are a murderer (trying out a little
kathleen "logic" here. So you are now being reported to the DOJ FBI and
CIA and WHO and UN and DCF and the federal and state courts and
homeland insanity department and all over the planet as a murderer.
How do you like them apples?
Now answer the questions. And stop the off topic cross posting. Answer
the questions TRUTHFULLY for a change. Focus on the question. If
there's a question yuo don't understand which is hard to believe given
your self declared genius IQ, let us know and we'll rephrase it.
Don't LIE as you do and don't try your diversionary tactics. Ignore
this and I will keep reposting it kathleen. Not only that but your
silence will be construed as admissions to all of the facts listed as
questions.
PS: This is NOT "taunting" You have put your credibility at issue. You
have repeatedly said that you NEVER lie. We deserve the answers to
these questions. Straight answers.
REPOST:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thre...
Nope we're talking about YOU. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
And come back and tell us when Steere or McSweegan or anyone else is
actually charged with your "Lyme Crymes" instead of telling us what
you, in all your infinite wisdom, think will happen.
Now let's talk not about who WILL be convicted but WHO already has
been--YOU.
Here's the question list. One by one give us some answers. Your post is
just like the Bush White House trying to DIVERT attention from what
Karl Rove did to Joe Wilson--by attacking him AGAIN.
Nope answer the questions kathleen. Stop trying to change the subject.
I know you're delusional but try to focus. Here is a list of questions
for YOU. We've already heard your ramblings about 100,000 times. Now
dish some TRUTH for a change--I'm going to leave space between the
questions for your answers:
Was your case appealed and was your conviction overturned?
And what isn't true? Everything can be backed up with your own posts
kathleen. Not a big secret how people know since you posted it all
here.
Were you charged with and convicted of threatening and harassing
Jessica Gauvin?
Did you flee to Canada?
Did you tell everyone that your case was a custody case against DCF
when the truth was that it was a criminal case against you and your
kids had been taken away many months earlier and you didn't even appeal
that?
Did you threaten to bomb the stonington schools, joke or not?
Did you show up at your kid's safe house with a bag full of drugs
whether you meant to give them to your lawyer or not?
Come on specifically what isn't true?
You were charged tried and convicted in a court of law. Right or wrong,
admit or deny?
Now you say you've proven you're innocent.
In what court were your convictions overturned?
In fact, tell us what the charges were. Give some detail. What exactly
were you convicted of doing or threatening to do to Jessica Gauvin?
Tell us what your diagnosis was in the mental institution?
You admit or deny that your kids were taken away by child services in
CT?
Admit or deny you were charged with crimes?
Admit or deny you feld to canada?
Admit or deny you were convicted?
Admit or deny you were institutionalized in a mental ward locked wing?
Admit or deny that your convictions were never reversed, in fact you
never filed an appeal did you?
So who's lying about what?
Yeah sure, you say everyone lied about the charges. But that's not what
the court thought was it?
Did you register a website claiming on it you were working for Pfizer
at the time when you had "retired" years before?
Was Lymeraft which solicited funds for YOU, ever a proper legally
registered charity?
kathleen you're the liar here.
Do you really expect everyone to believe that the rest of the world is
crazy, not you?
And that the rest if the world has conspired to frame you? Because of
your lyme activism which you have even admitted amounts to more posting
on the internet than any real accomplishments?
Come on kathleen. What isn't true specifically issue by issue above.
Tell us specifically which items you say aren't true. We can go back
and find the posts where you admitted stuff and show what a liar YOU
are!
derdritt...@yahoo.com
kathleen wrote:
> 1) Lyme is a borreliosis (a permanent brain infection), and we're not
> "CRAZY"
>
lisasawitch
REPOST:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thre...
that?
admit or deny?