NIH's Phil Baker...Re: [SpinLyme] The science is clear
Mort Zuckerman
kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov
Subject: NIH's Phil Baker...Re: [SpinLyme] The science is clear
Date: Jun 28, 2008 5:54 PM
The writer asserts that IDSA's hysteria is to avoid malpractice
lawsuits.
Well, some still exist against Gary Wormser over LYMErix.
We say, "The best defense is a good offense," so the Gary Wormser/
Allen
Steere brigade are simply repeating the LYMErix and ImmuLyme crimes.
There's more to it that that, given the NIH's staff and the CDC's
staff
participation in this crime. (Barbara Johnson, CDC Colorado, Phil
Baker, now the
head of the ALDF.com cabal, CDC officer Alan Barbour being severely
interest conflicted).
The full court press against us appears to be more than a defense
against malpractice
lawsuits.
How is it these Russian scientists investigating the spheroplast/
intracellular forms
of Lyme at New York Medical College are not investigated by the FBI?
Also, it appears that the HLA-associations and the non-reporting of
HLA-associated
bioweapons information is the same can of worms. In other words,
should the nations
realize the US is covering up the neurological outcomes associated
with Lyme Disease,
then in our exposing it and the HLA associations, gives rise to
suspicion, not only
as regards bioweaponeering (PNAC's "race specific bioweapons"), but
as regards childhood immunizations.
I am betting the CDC and NIH are more afraid of the genetics and
bioweapons aspect
of their crimes. Think about it: Mark Klempner revealed the HLA-
DQB1*0602 haplotypes
to a bunch of moron MDs at South County Hospital in Rhode Island,
***assured that
these MD-morons would never question the importance of Mark Klempner's
claims.***
That's big.
Klempner had confidence that Joe MD America is absolutely and
completely demented.
And would predictably swoon when the likes of Mark Klempner or Allen
Steere were
to simply fart.
These are the essential scientific chapters of the book:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP1.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYMEDISEASE_CHP3_B.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMERSHELLGAME.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/LYME_PERPS_INDICTMENTWEAR.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/MKLEMPNER.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAIN_PERMANENT.htm
There are plenty of the bad guys' own proofs that they knew what they
were doing,
that they knew what they were doing is criminal scientific fraud and
with intent
to cause harm.
We're talking about members of the Council on Foreign Relations and
the Mossad.
We're also talking about SmithKline Beecham and Porton Down.
Really. What else explains the CDC staff patenting their crap with
SmithKline in
Europe since 1992, and Corixa being absorbed by SmithKline? What else
explains
the ALDF.com's twin spin false front, the EUCALB? What else explains
Red Pfohl's
otrglobal.com being associated with the ALDF and, foolishly on their
part, the new
ILADS group?
What else explains Corixa being scooped up by SmithKline soon after I
made known
they had a US NIH biodefense contract?
http://www.actionlyme.org/EMBASSIES_CORIXA_TLR_13_JULY_06.htm
What else explains the turncoats on our own former team?
Patricia Coyle, Ray Dattwyler, Bettina Wilske etc.
The only way to solve this - and is it going to be solved, because
other nations,
I guarantee, are looking at this - is at the absolute molecular level
and looking
at what they were going after commercially, as opposed to their own
failed previous
experiments. You have to juxtapose what they were doing
scientifically right, what
they were doing deliberately scientifically wrong, and what they were
*saying* publicly
as opposed to what they were *doing* commercially (Corixa would every
now and then
make an announcement as to the direction of research, the patent
databases.
Remember, we have 2 things going on: 1) Fake fungal vaccines that
actually give
people the disease (not the *infection,* the *disease,* which is a
disease of activated
infections of all kinds in addition to persistent spirochete and
probably permanently
messed up immune systems).
2) The non-disclosure of the haplotypes related to the various
outcomes (immune
suppression or inflammatory) of both the disease and the fake
vaccines.
If you study Yale's Robert Schoen and all the things he ever wrote or
said,
Lyme disease was not his topic, THE GREATER ENTERPRISE was. The
greater enterprise
of blood goodies (including genetic data and new infections). Schoen
was associated
with Dave Persing at Corixa. The two of them knew LYMErix vaccination
blots were
unreadable. This did not present a problem for them, because they
intended to lie
about ospA vaccines all along.
THEN- If they're not sharing this information with Americans, who are
they sharing
it with?
They pulled a lot of crazy crap even for crooks and kooks, which of
course they
are, but picking it apart requires more than on-the-surface conflicts
of interest.
Remember we did that eons ago, in 1999:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/msg/9afc48837708273c?dmode=source
"e-Petition to the U.S Government to stop funding University-based
Rheumatologists, Immunologists, and other researchers (UBRs) whose
endeavors have taken them away from the study of TREATMENT modalities
for Lyme disease and instead leads them to the profitability in
DIAGNOSTICS and PREVENTION..."
By absorbing Corixa, SmithKline made US bioweapons information
proprietary their
own.
I'm thinking perhaps SmithKline threatened the likes of Bettina Wilske
in Germany,
if you know what I mean.
Corporate Spying by a Pfizer insider...
http://www.actionlyme.org/070518.htm
We can put all the funny-business out there for others to follow up
on.
The nations will take care of their interests, if you know what I
mean.
If the United States intends to recover their losses to this fraud,
now would be
a good time, given what the dollar is doing, and given who has what
assets where,
who are still, at the moment, US citizens. Halliburton moved to
Dubai, United Healthcare
and the other insurance companies are sneaking over to China. The AIG/
CFR Greenbergs
have long been part of the offshoring bankers cabal, as are most of
the highest
level "supporters" of the ALDF.com cabal.
If you had a brain cell in your head, you would have to ask yourself,
okay, how
did Mortimer Zuckerman and the likes of the AIG Greenbergs become
associated with
the ALDF cabal? Who among the Wormser/Steere gang thought to approach
them to invest
in their insider info? Why were the Welds involved?
Why doesn't anyone investigate CastleConnolly.com - front for
Kaiser ??
WHO AT KAISER????
So, those are all the angles. I really doubt we would have been
trashed in the
way that we were if this was simply an issue of "antibiotics overuse"
hysteria. Not will all the crime and the stalking and the med board
harassment.
What this is waiting for is a US Attorney with a pair of average sized
gonads to
appear.
Even half a man.
Say CIA-CDC-Kaiser is Rockefeller and SmithKline-PortonDown is
Rothschild-Mossad.
Them is some pretty rich bankers.
It would be simple to prove the CIA-CDC-Rockefeller link.
And I am thinking Glaxo has a company base right here, just waiting to
be raided
by the FBI.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
-----Original Message-----
>From:
>Sent: Jun 28, 2008 1:35 PM
>To: Spin...@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [SpinLyme] The science is clear
>
>http://www.lymebook.com/chronic-lyme-disease-science
>
>
>The science is clear
>
>Let's start by examining the findings of the Institute of Rheumatology,
in Prague, Czech Republic. Physicians in Prague report a case of a
female patient
suffering from Lyme Disease. Her case was confirmed by detection of
Borrelia garinii
DNA present in her blood and synovial fluid. After treatment with
antibiotics, symptoms
persisted and six months later, Borrelia garinii DNA was "repeatedly
detected
in the synovial fluid and the tissue of the patient." Additionally,
even after
antibiotic therapy, antigens and parts of spirochetes were detected by
electron
microscopy in the synovial fluid, tissue, and blood.
>
>A similar discovery was made in Germany at the University Hospital of Frankfurt.
Researchers describe Lyme Disease as a "disorder of potentially
chronic proportions."
They also note that "therapeutic failures have been reported for
almost every
suitable antimicrobial agent currently available and resistance to
treatment...continues
to pose problems for clinicians in the management of patients
suffering from chronic
Lyme Disease." Another University in Germany, Ludwig-Maximilians-
University,
located in Munich, reported that "failures in the antibiotic therapy
of Lyme
Disease have repeatedly been demonstrated by post-treatment isolations
of the infecting
Borreliae."
>
>One of the most interesting German studies, completed at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat
Munich, attributed the clinical persistence of Lyme Disease after
antibiotic therapy
to the presence of variants and atypical forms of B. burgdorferi. In
fact, similar
to the conclusion I draw in my book Lyme Disease and Rife Machines,
German researchers
conclude that "B. burgdorferi produce spheroplast- L-form
variants...these
forms without cell walls can be a possible reason why Borrelia survive
in the organism
for a long time (probably with all beta-lactam antibiotics) and the
cell wall-dependent
antibody titers disappear and emerge after reversion."
>
>Researchers at the University of Dermatologische Privatpraxis, Munich, Germany,
agree with their German peers in a 1996 study which notes that
patients with erythema
migrans can fail to respond to antibiotic therapy. "Persistent or
recurrent
erythema migrans, major sequelae such as meningitis and arthritis,
survival of Borrelia
burgdorferi and significant and persistent increase of antibody titres
against B.
burgdorferi after antibiotic therapy are strong indications of a
treatment failure.
Most, if not all, antibiotics used so far have been associated with a
treatment
failure in patients with erythema migrans."
>
>
>
>In Austria, in 2001, the Lainz Municipal Hospital in Vienna admitted a 64 year-old
woman who presented with various systemic symptoms hinting of Lyme
Disease. Spirochetes
were detected in samples of her skin lesions. Shortly thereafter, a
diagnosis of
Lyme Disease was made. According to doctors, "despite treatment with
four courses
of intravenous ceftriaxone for up to 20 days, progression of [Lyme
symptoms] was
only stopped for a maximum of one year." A nearby hospital in Graz,
Austria,
studied four cases of verified late stage Lyme Disease and found that
serology was
Lyme-positive even after repeated courses of high-dose intravenous
penicillin-G
and/or cephalosporins.
>
>Researchers at the Turku University Central Hospital, Finland, conducted a study
in which 165 patients with disseminated Lyme Disease were followed
after antibiotic
treatment. Approximately 10% of the patients experienced a clinical
relapse with
positive PCR tests and spirochetes successfully cultured from the
blood of the patients.
Note, in this case, that the Lyme Disease relapse was not evidenced
only by continuing
symptoms, but also by two independent testing methods: both PCR
testing and blood
culture. This single study, even without aid from the numerous other
studies presented
in this chapter, should be enough to call into question the IDSA's
staunch and
dogmatic stance on chronic Lyme Disease.
>
>Italy also has experience with chronic Lyme Disease. In 1992, the Universita
di Genova, located in Genoa, Italy, reported on two patients with
"chronic
Lyme arthritis resistant to the recommended antibiotic regimens."
These patients
were eventually cured by long term treatment with benzathine
penicillin. The Italian
researchers who conducted this study offered two possible reasons why
antibiotic
therapy finally worked, and both of these reasons involve active,
persistent infection:
"the sustained therapeutic levels of penicillin were effective either
by the
inhibition of germ replication or by lysis of the spirochaetes when
they were leaving
their sanctuaries."
>
>Moving across the globe to Thailand, scientists at KhonKaen University write
that "Electron microscopy adds further evidence for persistence of
spirochetal
antigens in the joint in chronic Lyme Disease. Locations of
spirochetes or spirochetal
antigens both intracellulary and extracellulary in deep synovial
connective tissue
as reported here suggest sites at which spirochetes may elude host
immune response
and antibiotic treatment."
>
>In France, a study was published in the Journal of Antimicrobial Agents and
Chemotherapy in 1996, conducted by the University of Marseille. The
study notes
that "despite appropriate antibiotic treatment, Lyme Disease patients
may have
relapses or may develop chronic manifestations."
>
>It would be understandable for the IDSA to neglect, or at least take less seriously,
research conducted outside the borders of the United States, since the
IDSA is an
organization that operates inside, and is accountable to, U.S.
citizens and the
U.S. government. However, as we move in to examine studies conducted
in the United
States, you will see that a significant portion of the evidence in
favor of chronic
Lyme Disease actually originated here on American soil.
>
>In 1996, the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, conducted
a study in which it was discovered that urine samples from 97 patients
clinically
diagnosed with chronic Lyme Disease contained Borrelia Burgdorferi
DNA. The interesting
aspect of this finding is that most of these patients had previously
been treated
with extended courses of antibiotics, the implications of which are
simply that
antibiotic therapy (even extended courses) does not always eradicate
the infection.
The study concludes that "a sizeable group of patients diagnosed on
clinical
grounds as having chronic Lyme Disease may still excrete Borrelia DNA,
and may do
so in spite of intensive antibiotic treatment."
>
>The State University of New York at Stony Brook conducted a study in 1996 to
determine which of two types of antibiotic (azithromycin or
amoxicillin) is more
efficacious for the treatment of early Lyme Disease. The study found
that amoxicillin
was more effective than azithromycin. However, more interestingly,
patients from
each group did experience relapses despite antibiotic therapy.
>
>While the IDSA was releasing their guidelines in which it was concluded that
chronic Lyme Disease is not a medical condition that justifies
extended antibiotic
therapy, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute were
discovering
just the opposite. The authors of a report produced at that
institution describe
a case of fatal neuropsychiatric Lyme Disease that was "expressed
clinically
by progressive frontal lobe dementia and pathologically by severe
subcortical degeneration."
When describing the situation, doctors note that "antibiotic treatment
resulted
in transient improvement, but the patient relapsed after the
antibiotics were discontinued...prolonged
antibiotic therapy may be necessary [in some cases]."
>
>In Boston, Massachusetts, researchers at Tufts University School of Medicine
encountered similar findings when investigating Borrelia's ability to
attach
to and invade human fibroblasts in vitro. "By scanning electron
microscopy,
B. burgdorferi were tightly adherent to fibroblast monolayers after
24-48 hours
but were eliminated from the cell surface by treatment with
ceftriaxone (1 microgram/mL)
for 5 days. Despite the absence of visible spirochetes on the cell
surface after
antibiotic treatment, viable B. burgdorferi were isolated from lysates
of the fibroblast
monolayers. B. burgdorferi were observed in the perinuclear region
within human
fibroblasts by laser scanning confocal microscopy. Intracellular
spirochetes...were
also identified by fluorescent laser scanning confocal microscopy.
These observations
suggest that B. burgdorferi can adhere to, penetrate, and invade human
fibroblasts
in organisms that remain viable."
>
>In a separate report, Tufts University researchers conducted a study to investigate
neurologic abnormalities found in chronic Lyme Disease sufferers; 27
patients were
followed. Six months after a two-week course of intravenous
ceftriaxone (2 g daily),
17 patients showed improvement, 6 had improvement but then relapsed,
and 4 had no
change in their condition. Researchers conclude that "months to years
after
the initial infection with B. burgdorferi, patients with Lyme Disease
may have chronic
encephalopathy, polyneuropathy, or less commonly, leukoencephalitis."
With
regard to the cause of chronic Lyme Disease, Tufts University implies
a bacterial
origin with their closing statement in the study: "These chronic
neurologic
abnormalities usually improve with antibiotic therapy."
>
>In 1992, Tufts University presented a hypothesis which might explain how Lyme
Disease bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and host immune
response. Researchers
note that "since B. burgdorferi first infects skin, the possible
protective
effect of skin fibroblasts from antibiotics was examined. We found
that human foreskin
fibroblasts protected B. burgdorferi from the lethal action of a 2-day
exposure
to ceftriaxone." The researchers conclude that "the Lyme Disease
spirochete,
Borrelia burgdorferi, can be recovered long after initial infection,
even from antibiotic-treated
patients, indicating that it resists eradication by host defense
mechanisms and
antibiotics."
>
>At Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, urologists who treated
seven patients with Lyme Disease found that "neurological and
urological symptoms
in all patients were slow to resolve and convalescence was
protracted...relapses
of active Lyme Disease and residual neurological deficits were
common."
>
>In direct opposition to IDSA statements, researchers at the Department of Pathology,
Southampton Hospital, New York, note that active cases of Lyme Disease
may show
clinical relapse following antibiotic therapy. It is noted that "the
latency
and relapse phenomena suggest that the Lyme Disease spirochete is
capable of survival
in the host for prolonged periods of time." In their studies of 63
patients
with Lyme Disease, the researchers conclude that "some patients with
Lyme Borreliosis
may require more than the currently recommended two to three week
course of antibiotic
therapy..."
>
>Also in the State of New York, the New York University School of Medicine conducted
a study which evaluated antibiotic treatment of 215 patients between
the years 1981
and 1987. Of those with "major" Lyme Disease manifestations, a relapse
rate of over 20% was observed.
>
>This next study is interesting for several reasons, as we will see. The Albert
Einstein College of Medicine, New York, reported in 1995 an "unusual"
case of Lyme Disease in which the patient experienced repeated
neurologic relapses
despite aggressive antibiotic therapy. What makes this study
interesting is that
each subsequent course of antibiotics given after the relapses was
followed by Jarisch-Herxheimer
reactions, which are known to occur only when active bacteria are
dying, which implies
that active bacteria were still present in the body after multiple
courses of antibiotics.
Additionally, subsequent to the various courses of antibiotics, the
patient's
cerebral spinal fluid tested positive "on multiple occasions" for not
only complex anti-Borrelia antibodies, but also Borrelia nucleic acids
and free
antigen proteins. This study demonstrates persistent infection via two
separate
indicators: repeated Jarisch-Herxheimer reactions, and repeated
observation of antibodies
and antigens. Both indicators were found after not just one, but
multiple courses
of "adequate antibiotic therapy" had been administered!
>
>One of the peculiar aspects of the above study is that the patient was referred
to as "unusual." Is this an accurate characterization? Are such
incidences
really unusual? Actually, they are quite common. In Aurora, Colorado,
at the Fitzsimons
Army Medical Center, a patient presented with chronic septic Lyme
arthritis of the
knee. This patient had experienced symptoms for seven years despite
"multiple
antibiotic trials and multiple arthroscopic and open synovectomies."
Polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) analysis of the tissue was consistent with
Borrelia infection,
so a diagnosis of Lyme Disease followed. The most interesting part of
this study
is that, after the diagnosis of Lyme Disease was made, and after
multiple courses
of antibiotics were administered, spirochetes were documented in
synovium and synovial
fluid.
>
>Another similar case observed in Bethesda, Maryland, further calls into question
the statement that chronic, persistent Lyme Disease infection is
"unusual."
Doctors in Maryland working with the National Institute of Arthritis
and Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
report a 40-year-old
white man who developed clinical Lyme Disease after being bitten by a
tick. He was
treated with oral tetracycline, after which his symptoms were
resolved. However,
at a later date, the man was re-tested and Borrelia was detected by
PCR in his peripheral
blood leukocytes. After being re-treated with a longer course of
ampicillin, probenicid,
and concurrent cytotoxic therapy, symptoms improved significantly.
This individual's
case of Lyme Disease illustrates two important points: First, ongoing
symptoms after
antibiotic therapy were confirmed by PCR testing to be caused by
active bacteria.
Second, re-treatment with antibiotics resulted in significant clinical
improvement.
>
>Turning our attention back to New York, let's look at a study conducted
on animals at the Baker Institute for Animal Health at Cornell
University in Ithaca.
Antibiotic treatment of Lyme-infected dogs was studied over the course
of 30 days.
The study concludes that "B. burgdorferi disseminates through tissue
by migration
following tick inoculation, produces episodes of acute arthritis, and
establishes
persistent infection...the spirochete survives antibiotic treatment
and disease
can be reactivated."
>
>The Baker Institute for Animal Health conducted a second, similar study which
drives the point home even more clearly. This time, researchers
experimentally infected
healthy dogs via tick bites with Borrelia burgdorferi. The infected
dogs were then
treated for 30 days with high doses of amoxicillin or doxycycline.
Interestingly,
although symptoms declined significantly after treatment, skin punch
biopsies and
multiple tissues from necropsy samples remained PCR positive.
Moreover, and in direct
support of the presence of an actual, persistent bacterial infection,
Borrelia organisms
were found in post-therapy dogs. Some dogs that were treated with
antibiotics were
kept in isolation for six months post-treatment. In most of these
dogs, after six
months, Lyme antibody levels began to increase again, "presumably in
response
to proliferation of the surviving pool of spirochetes."
>
>It is clear that Lyme Disease can persist inside the human body chronically.
But how? I suggest reading my first book, Lyme Disease and Rife
Machines, to read
a thorough and fascinating account of what I refer to as the "Lyme
Disease
Defense Mechanism," which is the survival process that facilitates the
persistence
of Lyme Disease bacteria in almost any environment. In addition to the
information
found in that book, here is one new method of persistence which was
just recently
discovered: In a recent article published in The Journal of Microbes
and Infection,
researchers discovered the presence of "persister cells" in chronic
infections,
particularly Lyme Disease. These cells facilitate numerous means of
bacterial resistance,
including modification of host immune cells and enzymes, expulsion of
antibiotics
from cellular structures, restricted permeability to antibiotics, and
creation of
protective biofilms. The studies discussed in Lyme Disease and Rife
Machines highlight
the many additional strategies Lyme Disease bacteria employ to persist
and survive
despite immunological, therapeutic, and environmental challenges.
>
>What is the truth?
>
>What does the literature tell us? If you take the time to read it and think
about its implications, you'll find that the existence of chronic Lyme
Disease
(as caused by an active bacterial infection) is quite obvious and
established. Numerous
scientific studies, conducted across the globe by interdisciplinary
scientists,
have plainly shown this to be the case. The controversy is one of
political and
dogmatic origin, not of scientific origin. The IDSA denies an active
bacterial infection
as the cause of chronic Lyme Disease not as a result of scientific
observation,
but instead, because of various inefficiencies and shortcomings
inherent in the
bureaucratic procedures through which the IDSA operates. The process
by which bureaucratic
entities accept new truths, and grow in knowledge, has always been
painfully slow
and inefficient-and such is the case with the IDSA. Because chronic
Lyme Disease
is in fact real, I am confident that it will be recognized as such
sooner or later.
Unfortunately, in the meantime, patients are left to dangle in the gap
between two
sides of an academic debate.
>
>After reading the above scientific literature, one cannot help but wonder why
the New England Journal of Medicine would publish a statement such as
this one,
found in the October 4, 2007, article mentioned above:
>
>"The lack of convincing evidence for the persistence of B. burgdorferi
in treated patients is not surprising. The failure of treatment for
bacterial infections
typically occurs as a result of pathogens that either have or acquire
resistance
to antibiotics, difficulties in achieving sufficient concentrations of
antibiotic
at sites of infection, or impaired host-defense mechanisms. None of
these factors
are generally applicable to infection with B. burgdorferi. Although B.
burgdorferi
can develop into cyst-like forms in vitro under certain conditions
that can be created
in the laboratory, there is no evidence that this phenomenon has any
clinical relevance.
B. burgdorferi may penetrate cells in vitro, but there is no evidence
that the organism
may be sheltered from antibiotics during an intracellular phase and
then disseminate
and cause clinical relapse."
>
>Where are they getting this research? Is there a hidden set of scientific literature
somewhere that only these authors have access to? How can the article
make such
sweeping, inaccurate claims? Any rational person would have to wonder,
after reading
the research, what forces motivate those who write such statements. It
seems clear
that whatever their motivation, it is not the presentation objective,
scientific
truth. This is frightening considering that these statements were
published in a
journal as prestigious and important as the New England Journal of
Medicine. Medical
truth is unfortunately not easy to find, even in the places you would
expect most
to see it.
>
>In the year 2008, the number of organizations and researchers who do not acknowledge
the chronic form of Lyme Disease can be counted on one hand. You want
credible evidence?
How about the Yale University School of Medicine. In a report
published by Yale
in September of 2004, researchers describe a newly-discovered
"protective niche
for Borrelia burgdorferi" that allows the infection to "evade
immunity"
leading to "chronic infection." You can add Yale to the list of
institutions
that acknowledge Lyme Disease in its persistent, chronic form.
>
>It is of critical importance that scientists, researchers, and doctors take
steps to quickly correct erroneous conclusions about chronic Lyme
Disease. It is
literally a question of life or death. Right now, as you read this,
there are thousands
of desperate, debilitated, infected people being told that there is
nothing wrong
with them. Even in the year 2008, as modern medicine continues to
provide solutions
to so many health problems, there is a contingent of the population
whose needs
are being completely ignored. This is not acceptable and change must
occur soon.
Very soon.
>
>It seems appropriate to close this chapter, and, indeed, close this book, with
a letter written by a New York physician who states the facts more
articulately
than I can. This letter-written by Dr. Richard Brand, M.D.-clearly
sums up the current
state of affairs. I leave you now with Dr. Brand's words:
>
>October 27, 2007
>
>I have been trying to divine a reason why the various medical specialty organizations
(Infectious Disease, Neurology and now, Dermatology) have been racing
to perpetrate
a preponderance of guidelines that denounce appropriate, or at least
reasonable,
diagnosis and treatment for one particular medical condition. I am
aware of no parallel
in any other illness. It is worthwhile to state that the surprising
orgasm of guidelines
follows no new research findings to account for the timing of their
release.
>
>The reason for issuing guidelines was ostensibly to avert the danger of long
term antibiotic treatment. I found this particularly confounding with
regard to
Dermatologists, who prescribe minocycline for years on end to treat,
or sometimes
prevent, acne, a far less debilitating condition than chronic Lyme
disease. Also,
recently humorously stated, long term antibiotic treatment has
resulted in some
of the healthiest cows and chickens the world has ever seen.
>
>Logically, either the NEJM physicians are all absolutely correct and the entire
Lyme community is as misguided as they attest, and our doctors as
mischievous or
malevolent as they allege, or they themselves are either grossly
mistaken or have
some motive for their savage attacks on fellow physicians, and by
extension, a large
and growing population of suffering patients.
>
>Since they are not fools and they have access to the same database that we do,
including their own previous studies attesting to the persistence of
Lyme following
treatment, they must have some motive. At first, I examined the
disclosures and
recognized some conflict of interest that might offer a rationale for
a few in the
NEJM group, but that did not account for the other professional groups
joining in
the fray, all in such a well timed and coordinated fashion.
>
>This afternoon, I discussed these events with a colleague (my wife, Jane Kelman,
M.D.). If we are correct that Lyme has been misdiagnosed and under
treated, and
disability created wholesale through this negligence, and this becomes
an accepted
public reality, that is, the reality that we already know to be true,
the inevitable
medical malpractice suits will destroy those physicians responsible,
represented
by the three major medical specialties who have been the first contact
for most
patients with Lyme disease. Those are the very specialties now
circling the wagons
in a pre-emptive attack to preserve what they recognize is a massive,
catastrophic
error in analysis and judgment.
>
>While there may have been other, early motivations (the profit from vaccine
development, legal testimony fees and so on), there is now one single,
unifying,
global reason to refute chronic Lyme: To protect themselves from the
repercussions
that will follow if, or rather when, the preponderance of Lyme cases
and disseminated
Lyme information reaches critical mass. They will try to argue
standard of care
by hiding behind their own guidelines and those of their closely
related co-specialists.
While they have different specialties, they have one common motive.
This is defensive
and possibly illegal manipulation of the first degree and it is the
only explanation
that makes sense of the whole.
>
>The current mania to produce guidelines has been driven by the recent explosion
in Lyme information hitting every news media, with the recent
publicity slanted
invariably toward mentioning a controversy rather than merely stating
the anti-Lyme
position, as had been the case until recently. Major TV stations are
picking up
on the story, and now, with the Connecticut attorney general adding
credibility,
and President Bush's treatment adding visibility, the anti-Lyme docs
are in
an understandable panic. This is beginning to look like their perfect
storm, not
ours.
>
>The attorney general of Connecticut is at least half right. He is focused on
the antitrust implications, but, if he is not already, will become
aware of the
motive behind their conspiracy: Besides restraint of trade, the effect
on many infectious
disease, neurological and dermatological physicians will be massive
lawsuits for
negligence involving failure to properly diagnose and treat, with
readily provable
losses of health and income directly attributable to medical
malpractice.
>
>I am elated by recent events. If the anti-Lyme doctors had simply muddled along,
permitting a situation where some Lyme patients got treatment, some
didn't,
and things were confused, they might have survived longer. However,
probably a result
of overactive egos, maybe the new preeminence of certain individuals,
they decided
to go in for the kill, staging the current guideline ploy to finish us
off once
and for all, literally killing us off by providing permission for
insurance companies
to deny treatment. This move, paradoxically, will prove to be their
undoing, not
ours, as it provides a prima facie case for conspiracy.
>
>We have only to keep telling the truth: That Dr. Feder et al make their case
by selectively employing particular studies, avoiding others which
refute their
position, even ignoring their own past studies and pronouncements.
Their duplicity
is transparent and the heat is building.
>
>Richard Brand, M.D.
>120 N. Main St
>New City, NY 10956
>845-638-2626
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>