Salon and Phil Baker's latest hysteria (Oct 4-5, 2008)

[Mort Zuckerman]

To: emcsw...@nasw.org, zerh...@od.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com,
dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com,
illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com,
jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, FalN...@aol.com,
brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us,
freet...@charter.net, scott....@po.state.ct.us,
govern...@po.state.ct.us, attorney...@po.state.ct.us,
randall...@usdoj.gov
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, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, harol...@yale.edu,
richar...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu

Subject: Salon and Phil Baker's latest hysteria.

Date: Oct 5, 2008 6:55 PM

Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese.

IDSA has no data. If they had data, if they were not
criminally insane, they would first of all, not have
refused to answer AG Blumenthal's subpoena for a year
and a half, and secondly, they never would have agreed
to rewrite their "guidelines."
http://www.actionlyme.org/080430_RICO_CABAL_CAVES.htm

They could have simply turned over all the evidence
that they never agreed with Dearborn and they're playing
a shell game re treatment outcomes:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMSERSHELLGAME.htm

If you want to see how many times IDSA/ALDF demonstrated
treatment failure, feast your eyes:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAIN_PERMANENT.htm

Or, how about this one:
http://www.actionlyme.org/RICOCHRON.htm
CDC officer Alan Barbour says to treat syphilis with
relapsing fever, since antibiotics don't work.

Read all about IDSA in 1989:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CHP_9_IDSA_REVIEWS.htm

'180s degrees opposed to what they say now, with
no new data (Klempner was an example of how the NEJM
is now an ad agency:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MKLEMPNER.htm

You can see that they're grasping at straws because
we have them, surrounded, so to speak. There is not
a single lie I missed exposing. There is no falsehood
they can hang onto:
http://www.actionlyme.org/0000000000.htm

They can scream and carry on all they want. The people
who matter, the people who count, foreign nations,
that is, are all over this. There's no way out than
to admit what they did was crime.

"Lyme Disease" is bad knees. We're not talking about
that. We're talking about the New Great Imitator
and the immune damage that results in ALS, Cancer,
MS, etc. All those immune suppression outcomes.

As I demonstrated, there are 18 published reports
about what OspA (Pam3Cys) does. The same is found
in Brucella:
http://www.actionlyme.org (on the homepage):

9) BRUCELLA and Pam3Cys causing immune suppression:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17984211


You know what it is, *they* can't even believe they
were that stupid and messed up research in EVERY serious
disease for the last 15 years.

Fags.


Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.relapsingfever.org

============================================
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/2657/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2201017
http://www.slate.com/id/2201017/

Subject: Salon Debate with Phil Baker
Date: Oct 5, 2008 5:06 PM
Re: Still in the Lyme Light
by Kris Newby
10/04/2008, 4:22 PM #
Reply
In response to Dr. Baker's statement, "It's appalling how people who
know absolutely nothing about the details of this study can make such
false statements,"
I point out that "the people" don't know all the details of the study
because they have not been fully disclosed to the public.

Read this excerpt from "Cure Unknown" (pg 274), describing undisclosed
findings associated with the Klempner Report:

"...the NIH agreed to make the rhesus monkey treatment regimen exactly
the
same as the treatment regimen used by Klempner on his human patients--
except that
instead of relying exclusively on [indirect] tests like Western blots
for antibodies
and PCR for DNA, they would also sacrifice the monkeys and look for
the spirochetes
themselves. Thus, Philipp would be performing a sort of fact-check of
Klempner's
works... While Philipp is mum on the results pending publication, as
this book goes
to press, word from a number of academic insiders is that he's
replicated in
monkeys the mouse studies done by Barthold at Davis and the dog
studies done by
Straubinger at Cornell, posing a challenge to the NIH conclusions that
have determined
patient care for years... Increasingly evidence suggests that low-
level infection
in some patients can cause the kind of "pro-inflammation" that may be
at the root of the pain and fatigue that chronic patients report."

Dr. Baker, I respectfully ask, why has it taken the NIH over ten years
to publish
the mirror-study monkey evidence that shows that six weeks of IV
antibiotics doesn't
eradicate Lyme bacteria from a primate's brain, and that these
bacteria may
go on to cause chronic disease? Why is the existence of chronic Lyme
such an "inconvenient
truth" for the NIH and the CDC?

Report abuse
Re: Still in the Lyme Light
by pjbaker
10/04/2008, 7:48 PM #
Reply

During the 12 years that I was Program Officer for the Lyme disease
Program, I can
tell you that the NIH never made any attempt to suppress the findings
obtained by
any of its grantees. Grantees are entirely free to publish the results
of their
studies without prior approval by the NIH. So, the charges that you
are making are
entirely false. If you don't believe me, just ask Mario Philipp and
Dave Barthold
yourself.

I am quite familiar with the work that they have done. However,
because it is confidential
information and their intellectual property, it would be unethical for
me to reveal
it. That is for them to do, not me. Most likely, it will be submitted
for publication
when they feel it is ready to be submitted.

Borreliosis in animal models is quite different than that seen in
humans. For example,
mice are a natural host to Borrelia and an be heavily infected and
show no signs
of illness. An uninfected tick can take a blood meal from any part of
the body of
an infected mouse and then become infected. That is not the case for
humans, where
the only place one can isolate the bacterium is from the edge of an EM
lesion.

It is true, as Bockenstadt and others have shown, that Borrelia can be
detected
in mice for days or weeks after antibiotic therapy. However, the
residual Borrelia
found lack the plasmids that make them infectious; they are unable to
produce infection
when transferred to healthy mice. Consequently, the clinical
significance of these
plasmid-deficient Borrelia, which in time disappear, is unclear. The
same can be
said for the Staubinger studies in dogs.

In a well-established non-human primate model of neuroborreliosis,
Pachner showed
that monkeys must first be put on immunosuppressive drugs inorder to
initiate an
infection of the CNS. When the immunosuppressive drugs are withdrawn,
those monkeys
mount a vigorous antibody response and the Borrelia are rapidly
cleared -- without
antibiotic therapy. Since it would be unethical to do similar studies
in humans,
one can not say that the same situation also applies in humans, and
that the human
immune system likewise is able to cope successfully with such an
infection in the
absence of antibiotics. Nevertheless, these studies do illustrate the
hazards of
making sweeping generalizations about human disease from the results
of animal studies.
Aimal studies -- at best-- provide clues that require further
examination in humans
if possible and ethical to do.

To date, extended antibiotic therapy for "chronic Lyme disease" is an
unproven approach. There is no evidence, derived from placebo-
controlled clinical
trials to indicate that is beneficial and the result of 4 NIH-
supported studies
provide evidence to the contrary. If the 4 NIH-supported studies that
failed to
show efficacy are "flawed" as you say they are, then it is incumbent
upon
those advocating such an approach to demonstarte that it is indeed
efficacious.
That's all that I have to say on the subject.
Report abuse
Re: Still in the Lyme Light
by rstricker
10/04/2008, 9:01 PM #
Reply

In reply to the comment that extended antibiotic therapy for chronic
Lyme disease
is an "unproven approach", absence of proof is not proof of absence,
especially
if the proof is suppressed. First, you have admitted that the flawed
studies sponsored
by the NIH fail to prove your point of view, and there is ample
clinical evidence
in humans that extended antibiotic therapy is beneficial in chronic
Lyme disease.
Second, we have waited seven years for the results of a publicly-
funded animal study
that have not been published presumably because they support
persistent infection
and the need for extended antibiotics in chronic Lyme patients. If
this is not suppression
of data by publicly funded researchers, I don't know what is. I
challenge you,
Dr. Baker, to get that study published before you make any more
statements about
what further hoops we need to jump through to get meaningful data
about Lyme disease
treatment.

Clinical science is built on animal models of disease, and these
models are valid
for a multitude of human illnesses. It is outrageous that a former NIH
official
is arguing that these models are not valid for Lyme disease because
the results
don't suit you. How biased can you be?
Report abuse
Re: Still in the Lyme Light
by pjbaker
10/05/2008, 8:24 AM #
Reply

There has been no attempt on the part of me or the NIH to "suppress"
the
results obtained by Mario Philipp or Dave Barthold in their animal
studies. The
data belong to them, not the NIH, and they are free to publish them
whenever they
please, without permission or review by the NIH. If you don't believe
me, why
don't you ask them why they have not yet published their findings.
They also
will tell you that I have been very supportive of their studies and
have assisted
them in getting additional funding to enhance their work. Your charges
of "suppression"
are completely without foundation and patently false.

Once again, I challenge you and/or your colleagues to design and
conduct the perfect
placebo-controlled study -- based on observations derived from animal
experiments--
that extended antibiotoic therapy is beneficial for the treatment of
"chronic
Lyme disease". Show us all how to do it right and the results that you
get.
Are you not up to the task, or are you afraid that you will be proven
to be wrong
? Even Brian Fallon admits that the modest and short-term benefits of
extended antibiotic
therapy do not justify the risks he has documented and now advocates
pursuing other
less risky procedures (Neurology 70: 992-1003, 2008). At least he had
the courage
to do the hard work to test the validity of his hypothesis. And while
your at it,
why don't you call Brian and ask him if I have been helpful to him in
his work.
You might be surprised.


Report abuse
Re: Still in the Lyme Light
by rstricker
10/05/2008, 1:46 PM #
Reply

You are ignoring the old expression, "Money talks". Taxpayers funded
the
Philipp study through NIH, and that gives taxpayers and NIH the right
to demand
that those results be published. You are hiding behind a technicality,
and it makes
you look guilty of suppressing data. I am willing to accept that you
did not do
what Pam Weintraub claims in "Cure Unknown", but only if I can see the
data. Where is it? Taxpayers who funded the NIH study have a right to
know.

As for the "perfect" study of treatment for chronic Lyme disease, why
bother if you will suppress the results like you are doing with the
monkey study
from 2001? Brian Fallon went as far as he could, working within a
tainted system
that is corrupted by you and other "Lyme denialists". First we need to
clean house, then we can talk about "perfect" Lyme studies.

And by the way, this is not my view. It comes from Rep. Chris Smith, a
congressman
who is a staunch advocate of Lyme research. You can watch it on CSPAN:

<link>
Report abuse
Re: Still in the Lyme Light
by pjbaker
10/05/2008, 2:38 PM #
Reply
There's no deep dark conspiracy here. As I said before, the data
belong to the
investigators, not to the government, and the investigators are
completely free
to publish it when they feel the work is complete and they are ready
to do so. Why
don't you ask them when they are going to submit it for publication?