archive: Re: Submitted to FDA with supporting

Skip to first unread message

The Bogus Prophet

Feb 7, 2001, 8:52:05 AM2/7/01
In article <>,
<> wrote:
>>From: "Writer0608" <>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:01 PM
>>Subject: Re: archive: Re: Submitted to FDA with supporting
>> I did take the chance to say Hello to two NIH employees who attended the
>>full meeting together - Phil Baker and Ed McSweegan. Ed's comment when I
>>said "Hi Ed" was to say, "Buzz-Off Karen". I would have expected more from
>>an NIH public official in dealing with someone from the public.
>I heard both conversations went badly. (Nice fictitious quote though.
>Where have I seen this done before?) But the only question here is: Why
>would Karen-Help, I'm being stalked, send money-Forschner go up to someone
>she tried to sue for $2M and who tearfully told a room full of lawyers
>this same man broken into her house and used "his knowledge of biological
>agents to poison" her well water? What was she thinking...or trying to
>start? Was she expecting an invitation to lunch?

Hey, Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, Baby, Baby, Baby! How's it hanging? Y'know,
it's funny that you'd hear such things. Y'know, voices in your head
aren't evidence of anything and, remember, they report that they have
fairly good medication for that kind of stuff these days. You really
should look into it. These kinds of stories might be a source of
amusement for your butt buddies but just makes you look sad and pathetic
to the general public, know what I mean? BTW, do you wear a hat made
out aluminum foil so that you hear the signals that are being beamed
to you by your secret sources more clearly? That should make you stand
out in any photos taken at the meeting.

>I think the problem is there are really two Karens. Let's call them Sane
>Karen and Insane Karen. Unfortunately, you can't tell them apart and you
>never know which one is going to show up.

Well, thank you for sharing, Nadie, Nadie, Nadie. Now, I don't think
you're a psychologist (or a lawyer for that matter, but I digress), but
clearly you must be basing this on your own knowledge and experience.
Let's see, How I evaluate thee, Let me count the ways:

Nadie the Sane
Nadie the Insane
Nadie the Third-rate Science Writer
Nadie the Third-rate Usenet Troll
Nadie the Third-rate Usenet Kook
Nadie the Fourth-rate Scientist
Nadie the Nth rate Human Being

Shoot, Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, looks like you're a lot of things, but, y'know,
you don't seem to be particularly good at any of them. Wow, stupid and less
than mediocre too!

>> 1. Karen Forschner did not accept the donation from SKB. The requirements
>>of the presenters was to disclose conflicts and I disclosed that the *LDF*
>>had received $120,000 in a matching grant challenge for the year 1999. I
>>am a volunteer, and do not get paid for my time at the LDF. But, Nadie
>>already knows this.
>Semanitics. The Forschners are the LDF; the LDF is the Forschners.

Hey Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, you have to check this URL. It's the webpage that
the New York State Department of Health EXPLICITLY labels as "Clinical
Practice/GUIDELINES/Testing" in their "Info for Providers" section.

Guidelines are Guidelines, eh, Nadie, Nadie, Nadie? Funny how YOU can't
admit to being wrong even after being publicly humiliated with the FACTS
twice. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, should I? YOU can't handle
the truth.

>> 2. I was not sheepish in saying the LDF was pro-vaccine. And, as you know,
>>from your emails, that the LDF funded Dr. Barbour in some of his vaccine
>>He confirmed this in his emails to an NIH employee. And, if people were
>>taking the vaccine, I planned to take it too. No one offered us anything
>>for this. Unfortunately, my daughter and I got sick and were not eligible.
>Are you well now? Physically, I mean. There's still time to roll up your
>sleeve before the spring season. Barbour got some one-time money from you
>to pay for his postdoc, A. Sadziene, in between grants 10 years ago. Good
>for him. Nice to see the money flowing in the right direction.

Hey, Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, if your batting average is any indication of
how accurate you are, I'm willing to bet you wouldn't know the right
direction even if you walked into it. Tell me, Nadie, Nadie, Nadie,
since I and most everybody else on the planet don't who or what you
are (well, we know what you are but you know what I mean), do you have
any education? I mean, you hang out trolling Usenet newsgroups bucking
for Kook of the Month (how about "Eternal Failure", seems easier for you
to achieve), talking trash about other people, and it seems like you've
got squat to show for yourself. I mean, are you really such a bitter,
unaccomplished, jealous little troll that has nothing better to do than
hang out on Usenet? I mean, if you really had something to contribute,
especially SCIENTIFICALLY, shouldn't you be working on making that
contribution? Or are you too stupid to even figure that out? Or do you
have the insight to realize that your mediocre talents at best only allow
you to fulfill your intellectual potential as a Usenet troll?

>> 3. Kathleen's presentation was on target, because it discussed the issue
>>of criteria for vaccine failure. And, it went to the heart of how the
>>difference between definitive, probable, and not a vaccine-failure was
>>defined. Only vaccine failure information for definitive LD was presented.
>Read the agenda. The issue was an update of vaccine safety. That's adverse
>events. It wasn't a contest to see how many times the names Steere and
>Sigal could be mentioned without taking a breath.

Nadie, Nadie, Nadie take some time to read about the sociology of science
to understand the forces that shape the conduct of people involved in the
SOCIAL enterprise of science. Only fools accept the superficial appearance
of things as being reality, grasshopper. Then read Sun Tzu's "The Art of
War". Finally, for relaxation and for something that you might find
remarkably descriptive of yourself, read "Zippy the Pinhead".

>> 4. My presentation was not off-topic. And, it received praise from
>>advisory committee members.
>Yes, the Chair gave everyone a polite 'thank you'. Even to a rolling
>cadence of "We are concerned about X. We are concerned about Y, etc., etc."
>with a few vague accusations thrown in for good measure.

Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, now remember what I said about voices in your head
not constituting evidence.

>> b. Concern that some scientific data from the trial had not been published
>>(36% seronegative rates for people who never serologically convert, or that
>>the Bull's eye rashes are not the most common), and some published data was
>>not included in the consideration of an explanation of the mechanism of
>>adverse events.
>Probably a lot of data is still being collected, analyzed, written up and
>reviewed. It takes time.

Nadie, Nadie, Nadie please don't talk about things that you have NO IDEA
about. I mean, you're already a mediocre Usenet troll and kook, don't
dilute that by being mediocre or worse in areas where you don't have the
intellectual grapefruits to carry it off. Listen, maybe if you learned
how to do some of the things you've just mentioned instead of wasting time
being a troll and kook, you might actually be remembered for something.

>> c. A letter to an NIH pubic official where the vaccine investigator showed
>> concern about possible vaccine-linked adverse events that were occuring in
>> volunteers. Questions were asked about who was told about this, when, and
>>what action was taken. An outside FOI's indicates this NIH letter now
>>missing from NIH files.
>Careful, your paranoia is showing again. If it's missing how is you had it
>to show? And who are we talking about here? Names please.

Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, Names Please: What's Yours? Jack Hoff?

>> Lastly, how do *you* know that the second shot issue "will be looked at in
>> greater detail" by the FDA? This statement indicates you have used inside
>> contacts in the FDA to determine this. Contacts not available to the
>>general public. The only way to know this is by using work-related
>There it goes again. You missed the word "Maybe". Try reading slower. And
>work on your quoting.
>Turns out it's already been checked. At least according to the safety data
>posted on the FDA web site.

Nadie, Nadie, Nadie next time you see your Momma tell her to slap you hard
for raising such a fool. You believe "safety data posted on the FDA web site"?
Listen Nadie, Nadie, Nadie I got a great deal for on beachfront property in
Arizona. God, it must suck to be you.

>> But, of course, that is just by viewpoint.
>Exactly. Present some facts next time.

*snicker* Hey Nadie, Nadie, Nadie, still believe that the NYSDOH doesn't
provide practice guidelines? Check out your "facts' before you present them
next time, you fool.

"You trying to work me, boy?" - Minerva,
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
"It's A Business, Stupid". The Bogus Prophet
The Bogus Prophet - Copyright 2000, Mike Palij


Feb 7, 2001, 10:25:03 AM2/7/01
I'm very confused! Who is Nadie?


Sent via

The Bogus Prophet

Feb 7, 2001, 12:28:56 PM2/7/01
In article <95rpc5$gli$>, Chicci <> wrote:
>I'm very confused! Who is Nadie?

Nadie is a figment of the NIH's imagination. As a result, it is a very
poorly thought out character who is relegated to playing supporting roles
when not engaging in mopping up operations. Others can provide a little
more illustrative info. Nadie, of course, could explanation but, really,
he/she/it has nothing of value to say.



Feb 7, 2001, 1:47:25 PM2/7/01
>(ShaGoodman) wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>> You wrote:
>> >Well so the vaccine trials won't have been a complete waste and
>> >disaster THIS information that you refer to--the 36% seronegativity
>> >rate--also seen in the PMC trials--is gold! Very important.
>> Could you explain the importance of this? It is lost on me. Thanks
>a bunch.
>> -Sharon in GA
>Well this is very good evidence of the real problem with Lyme testing--
>which is NOT the whole false positive myth perpetrated by
>ALDF/ACP/steere/sigal/the Yalies etc.
>The truth is that the real problem is false NEGATIVES--and the true
>incidence of seronegativity!!!
>In both the PMC and SKB vaccine trials between 35-40% of those who were
>positive on culture and/or PCR were seronegative utilizing ELISA/WB
>testing (and the dearborn criteria for evaluating that testing)
>rather than being dismissed as a rare phenomenon, seronegativity is a
>very real and common occurence!
>The literature recognizes but consistently downplays the issue of
>seronegativity, and emphasizes the issue of false positives--even the
>FDA warning (see FDA WARNING: Lyme Disease Test Kits: Potential for
>Misdiagnosis: emphasizes
>false positives and gives short shrift to false negatives.
>Yet doctors consistently rule out Lyme disease on the basis of negative
>Although seronegativity HAS been well documented, the extent of it has
>not. The data from the vaccine trials represents a treasure trove of
>such information--precisely because it was a large cohort of patients
>(not everyone in the trials but those who developed lyme or definite
>lyme or 'unconfirmed' lyme represent a large group) and this group was
>well followed and tested--which is why this data, along with the
>information on rashes and other chemical findings (elevated LFTs, Sed
>rates, lipids etc) is so valuable and important.
>Does that explain it? If not email me privately and I'll try to explain
>it further.
>Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE

Thanks Joel, yes - I get the gist here. If someone had access to this data,
could they write a scientific paper indicating that the seronegativity is
common in more than 1/3 of Lyme disease cases? If someone could write such and
article and get it published in one of the MAJOR medical magazines - then maybe
it would get some attention...

Hoping, hoping, hoping

Joel M. Shmukler, Esq

Feb 7, 2001, 2:24:01 PM2/7/01
In article <>, (ShaGoodman) wrote:

> Thanks Joel, yes - I get the gist here. If someone had access to
this data,
> could they write a scientific paper indicating that the
seronegativity is
> common in more than 1/3 of Lyme disease cases? If someone could
write such and
> article and get it published in one of the MAJOR medical magazines -
then maybe
> it would get some attention...
> -Sharon
> Hoping, hoping, hoping

Sharon: Yes you get my point exactly!!! And at this point the data is
there just waiting for someone to write about it. But SKB has no
interest in the science or the medicine of all of this--the vaccine
trials were a means to an end--the end being approval of the vaccine
and the hopes of substantial profits from the product. WHEN the vaccine
gets pulled from the market, what is in it for SKB to do anything with
the data other than toss it in the trash can???

AS karen f pointed out--there is also some real good stuff on the
incidence of and variability in appearance of the rashes too.

And I suspect that other data--on LFTs, sed rate, lipid abnormalities
is all there too...

Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE

Sent via


Feb 7, 2001, 5:46:17 PM2/7/01
>Sharon: Yes you get my point exactly!!! And at this point the data is
>there just waiting for someone to write about it. But SKB has no
>interest in the science or the medicine of all of this--the vaccine
>trials were a means to an end--the end being approval of the vaccine
>and the hopes of substantial profits from the product. WHEN the vaccine
>gets pulled from the market, what is in it for SKB to do anything with
>the data other than toss it in the trash can???
>AS karen f pointed out--there is also some real good stuff on the
>incidence of and variability in appearance of the rashes too.
>And I suspect that other data--on LFTs, sed rate, lipid abnormalities
>is all there too...
>Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE

Okay - so who can do this? This would be the perfect project to get together
as a group and fund. Maybe the LDF? Are there any researchers interested in
analyzing this data? If not, how do we GET someone to be interested?


Joel M. Shmukler, Esq

Feb 7, 2001, 6:46:51 PM2/7/01
In article <>,
The biggest stumbling block is getting SKB and PMC to release the
data....writing isn't as big a deal and since this is a retrospective
analysis of data already collected--this is not the same as funding a
stuy--it wouldn't cost much to fund someone to write it--and some might
be willing to take a crack at it without pay...but will SKB and PMC
release their data???

I don't believe that any researchers are anlayzing the data since SKB
and PMC have the data and their interest was in the vaccine, not the
data we mentioned.

The last time SKB released data I even wrote a paper about it:
LymeRiX: Safety and Efficacy Concerns:

Joel M. Shmukler, Esquire, Director LYMECURE

Sent via


Feb 8, 2001, 11:31:22 AM2/8/01
The best way to get this into the medical literature is for a doc/researcher to
publish and include a reference to the presentations of SKB as a source of
Any doc can use this as the information was preented several times at various
LDF and other programs.

The Bogus Prophet

Feb 8, 2001, 12:08:55 PM2/8/01
In article <>,
Writer0608 <> wrote:

And so, what are we waiting for? Do we not know any MD, Ph.D., physician,
clinician, and/or researcher that is a talented enough writer to make the
appropriate presentation for our side? How many more people have to get
chronically ill before it's done? How many more have to die?


Feb 8, 2001, 12:58:31 PM2/8/01

Sorry you have so much confused and incorrect. Why would you keep attributing
statements to me, that you know I did not say? You need to be accurate.

My concern is that you are fixated on me, and that fixation is increasing.
Including increasing over the internet.

Ed did say "Buzz-off Karen." Not very mature. And, I did not go up to him. I
noticed him after I was talking with Phil Baker. And, he was there with Phil.

I wonder how his lawsuit against NIH is going. Is he claiming conspiracy again?

And, the document was missing when it was FOI'd. Ed even sent an email to the
reporter, asking why she was interested in the document(s). But, I guess you
know this.

You state "I heard both conversations went badly." What do you think you
"heard"? Now, be careful, because you need to cite first hand information, not
gossip. Who told you the information, Phil or Ed?

Lastly, I admit that I did cry during the deposition. Yup. It was during a
reading of material Ed admitted writing, that mocked our dead son and pets.
And, a number of such writings were done WHILE he was a public official
working at NIH as LD Project Officer.

I was also surprised that Ed, (while a Public Official and LD Program Officer)
was tracking my parents address and phone numbers; my home address and phone
numbers; my travel agent's information; employee names, home addresses, home
phone numbers; my movements while working for the LDF; and had been at the
LDF's office.

He even had tracked down and talked with a person working with Dr. Joe
Burrascano. Keeping their informtion in his files. I was also surprised to see
his point system, giving himself a score when he was able to harm/interfere
with an LDF/Karen initiative. This was happening while he was the LD project

When was he working? And, who else did he track that he wasn't caught tracking?

Anon, if you plan to cite depositions I suggest this format.

These are regarding various charges Ed made about the LDF. Ed's deposition. Q's
are by lawyers to Ed. A's are Eds answers.

p229 lines 11-13.
"Q. But you have no factual basis to rely on?
A. Not at the moment."

p 288 lines 1-8
"Q. And what was your basis for saying this may invite investigation and
(ed -accusing the LDF of a wide range of things while NIH LD Program Office)
A. Clairvoyance.
Q. Anything else?
A. Wishful thinking. I don't know.
Q. Clairvoyance and wishful thinking, okay. Anything else's?
A. No, I didn't have any knowledge of anything related to investigations at the

p 147 lines 15-22 p 148 lines 1-6
"Q. Are the things you've said about them, the Forschners or the Foundation,
that you believe to be true but that you didn't necessarily follow up on and
check yourself before you made those statements?
A. For example?
Q Anything
A. I don't think so.
Q In other words, if you made a statement about the Forschners or the Lyme
Disease Foundation that you didn't have personal knowledge about, did you make
an inquiry about it before you would make that statement in writing or orally
to make sure it was accurate?
A. Yes, but, in fact, I have no personal knowledge of anything."

The LDF received a lot of material from Ed during the time he was suing the
LDF. Much of this crossed lines from NIH to CDC and to the FDA. Ed appeared
to be very concerned with the activities of various people and we were not the
only ones to receive threats, retaliation, or reporting to federal authorities.
His own colleagues and a grantee was included as targets to be turned in to
federal, state, and local officials accused of serious wrongdoing.

It wasn't just the LDF.

Joel M. Shmukler, Esq

Feb 8, 2001, 1:11:38 PM2/8/01
In article <>,

Well I haven't attended EVERY LDF conference but have attended several.
I have copies of the conference materials from nearly every year. I did
hear SOME of the information presented but often verbally and not
included in written abstracts or articles.

By the way: the LDF conferences are always excellent, informative and
professionally organized--and you deserve kudos on all the work that
goes into organizing them! I reccomend attending to anyone, especially
support group leaders hoping to keep their attendees up to date on
various topics relevant to testing, diagnosis, treatment, and related
tickborne disorders and other matters!!!

At numerous presentations prior to the approval of the vaccine (not
just LDF conferences) I heard BOTH PMC and SKB present on
seronegativity rates--although to them this was 'incidental' data and
NOT the main point--however I NEVER saw ANY of it in writing--other
than the notes I made.

To me this data on seronegativity reates was highly significant and I
have frequently made reference to it over the last several years--
although I have had to refer to it as 'unpublished data presented

I did NOT hear or see them present on rash variability--although Dr
Masters did. Maybe this was mentioned briefly in passing but I don't
recall any presentations on it (although that doesn't mean they didn't--
my memory could be wrong or it could have been at a conference which I
was not able to attend).

I DEFINITELY NEVER heard them present on the question of elevated LFTs,
sed rates nor lipids nor any other chemical abnormalities seen in Lyme

Anyway, if the LDF has this data, I'm sure that we could do some good
with it, and I'm sure that we could get volunteers to help an LLMD or
LLMD researcher/scientist to publish.

While this might be a labor intensive effort, it wouldn't be a costly
one since the data has already been collected--it isn't as if we need
to fund a study, this is just a writing effort.

And if we couldn't get it published in more 'mainstream' journals, I'm
betting we COULD get it published in the Journal of Tickborne and
Spirochetal Diseases....

And if SKB is dragging their heels, then we oughta take the initiative
at this point--although I don't think it is in any way to criticize the
LDF for not having done so already, I do think that we should take
whatever steps are necessary to do it now.

I'd be willing to help with data analysis and writing.


Feb 16, 2001, 10:45:15 AM2/16/01
Yada, Yada, Yada, Karen,
Why don't you get off your high horse and be honest enough to admit you and/or
the LDF have and will continue to accept $$$$$ from (the now) GlaxoSmithKline
Pharm. and there is NO way in hell you would take the vaccine, especially
because you know of the adverse events even though you have chosen for almost 3
years NOT to disclose this PUBLIC info so the $$$$ keeps rolling in! This is
getting OLD. If you are not sick anymore go get the Lymerix vaccine and THEN
you tell the public if it's good or bad! Until then you have NO say!


Feb 16, 2001, 11:12:57 AM2/16/01
LOL! Yeah, you could just call steere or SKB about ALL that fraudulent info.
they have, but would you be foolish enough to believe it unless NEW testing was
done? They (SKB) lost all that info. about my husbands participation! What
makes you think they haven't already thrown it away?


Feb 16, 2001, 11:40:08 PM2/16/01
Dear Lynn:

Did you miss the presentation?

I said I would not take the vaccine. And, I stated the major reasons of
concern. And, the reasons that the current studies do not remove that concern.
I discussed the conflicts of interest that are in the vaccine approval process
and how they affect the public health.

I disclosed the LDF has received funds from a PRIOR matching grant program.
And, that matching grant was a promise to the public via the USA Today and
Wall Street Journal. This grant does not involve the LDF performing in any

Since I discussed problems with the science behind the vaccine, it proves we
were not influenced by GSK. And, I presented to the FDA documents from various
FOI's and research that support the concerns. Much of this material was
recently obtained.

As I have mentioned, we have had both sides of the science involving the
vaccine discussed at our conferences, published this in the JSTD (which I do
not have any editorial control of), and have material stating concerns on the
LDF website.

I also called you to tell you about the FDA meeting so you could have your
chance to speak. I told you I had listened to you and kept digging and FOI'ing.
You had said you were pleased and glad we had never given up looking at the

You also had a chance to hear Attorney Sheller explain to you that the
challenges of your lawsuit was not a reflection on your lawyer, but other
factors. He explained to you the other factors.

Since we have exchanged several good phone calls and met and talked at the FDA
meeting, I am at a loss to understand this recent post. Unless, someone is
winding you up, or it is not Lynn Lane but someone imitating her.


Feb 22, 2001, 11:38:24 AM2/22/01
Yes alot of things irritate me!

>Did you miss the presentation?

No, in fact I did not! But have to say I was not moved by it either.

>At the vaccine mtg the night before the FDA review comm.mtg., you entered
quite late and interrupted our present conversation. The attention you took
away from the original discussion never came back around. I don't think you
understand! Just because you squeak when you choose to does not mean you get
any of MY grease!
You refer to your helping disclose the fact that this mtg was happening as if
NO ONE besides you knew! I did not go because you THINK you told me about it.
I already knew and had been asked by others who were concerned because of the
ADVERSE effects they too have now experienced! You said a lot to me in our
phone conversations about people who you were paying for to go speak, I saw
none there. What was that? Didn't you hear my presentation? My concern about
the Lymerix vaccine has not stopped OR changed in 5 years, yours on the other
hand, has. To jump on the band wagon is one thing, but to take all the damn
credit is another! I and others like me are the ONLY non-profit group out
here. Sorry to disappoint you, but you get no pats on the back from me. When
I was originally worried about this vaccine you did not want to hear it. Now
you want praise? I don't think so. As far as your referrence to my lawyer, I
don't recall EVER discussing with you anything about the matter, ever! I think
you hear what you want to hear. It is funny though, that my lawyer was/is on
the board of the LDF! Running scared, is what it looks like to me.
Good luck to you,
Lynn Lane

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages