Tag Archives: Health

Rape: A Rough Path to Walk

Visit Women Against Violence Against Women

Interactive Visual procedure.

It is never your fault. Nobody deserves to be raped. Nothing you have done means that you caused the rape.

•    Get to a safe place. It is important that your safety is your number one priority.

•    Tell someone you trust what happened. This person may be asked to support your evidence in court, and is known as the ‘first report witness’. If the first person you tell is a stranger, try to write down their details, and remember their name.This way the police will be able to contact them.

•    If you have to change your clothes, put your clothing in a paper bag. A paper bag keeps the evidence intact, whereas a plastic bag will affect evidence.

•    If you are going to report your rape, do not wash yourself even if you really want to. At  the health facility they will collect evidence from your body, which could assist the investigation.

•    Try not to eat or drink if your mouth has come into contact with the alleged perpetrator’s body or penis.

•    Even if you are drunk or under the influence of drugs, you still have a right to report the rape. Do not let this stop you from accessing help.

Reporting the rape to the police

You don’t have to decide if you are going to report the rape to the police straight away. It is your right to report up to twenty years after the event.

But, evidence is most able to be collected soon after the rape (within three days). Reporting within three days also increases the chances that the police are able to catch the alleged perpetrator.

Go to a health centre for care

•    If you are injured, go straight to a health facility (hospital, your doctor, community health centre) for treatment.

•    If you are at a police station, they can call an ambulance for you to take you to the health care facility.

•    Tell the health care worker that you have been raped, and they will assist you with getting medication that can prevent the transmission of HIV if you are currently HIV negative. These medicines are only effective within 72 hours of exposure to HIV, and are most effective within eight hours of the rape, so it is important that you try to visit a health care facility as soon as possible.

•    They will also treat any injuries you have. If you decide to report the rape, the health care worker can call the police to the health care facility.

Get medical attention

To prevent infection from any injuries, and to issue medication to prevent HIV transmission and Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) transmission

·         To prevent possible pregnancy

·         To collect evidence

Reporting the rape to the police can be scary for both women and men. It is a good idea to go to a health facility first to get your injuries treated, and to get Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) to prevent HIV transmission. The sooner a doctor examines you, the sooner they will be able to find proof of the rape (for example hair, skin cells, and semen from the alleged rapist).

You also have the option of going straight to police station first. See Part 3 of the series for more information.

If you are at a health care centre and want to report

·         If possible, call a friend or family member to come and be with you whilst waiting to be examined and afterwards. Ask if they can bring some spare clean clothes for you.

·         The health care worker can call a police officer to come to the health facility. If you decide to report, at the health facility they will also collect forensic evidence from your body. It is your right to ask questions, and to be treated with respect.

·         If you need to go to the bathroom or are having your period, keep any toilet paper, sanitary towels, or tampons as they may contain evidence. These should be placed in an envelope or paper packet when dry.

·         If you think you have been drugged, tell the health care worker and s/he will test your urine and blood for evidence.

·         If you have eaten or drunk anything after the rape, tell the doctor so that s/he is aware of this when you are examined. If you were not raped orally, tell the doctor so that you can take medication against infection.

The forensic examination

·         At the health care facility the doctor (district surgeon) will conduct what is known as the forensic examination. This examination is for the purpose of looking for evidence of the rape on your body including in your hair, and genital and anal regions. The doctor should inform you of what they are going to do to you.

·         The doctor will ask you about your medical history, and about what happened during the rape.

·         Your clothes will also be taken from you in order to collect evidence from them as well. It is important that if you have taken off your clothes that you have put them in a paper bag, or wrapped them in newspaper.

·         After the examination you will have the opportunity to bath or shower, brush your teeth, and eat something. If the police officer has come to the health facility, s/he will ask you questions ideally in a private room.
After you have visited the health facility it is important to listen to information about when you should return for a check up, and to collect more PEP medication if you are HIV negative.

Talking to the police: You have the option of reporting a rape, or reporting a rape and laying a charge.

You have the right to speak to a female police officer. Sometimes special detectives who deal with reports of sexual offences are not based at every station and may take some time to arrive.

Delays in reporting cannot be used against you in court, but the sooner you report the rape, the easier it is to collect evidence, and catch the perpetrator.

Reporting without laying a charge

If you decide to report without laying a charge the police officer must record the report in the occurrence book and give you an occurrence book number (OB number).

Reporting and laying a charge

Ideally your statement should be taken in a private room by an officer of the same gender as you. If you are very upset, are drunk or drugged, or are injured, they make take a preliminary statement and then take a second statement when you are feeling better.

•    If you decide to report the rape to the police, you must go to the station nearest to where the rape happened. Take a friend or family member with you for support.

•    Ideally take a notebook with you to write down the details and telephone numbers of those who assisted you, as well as your case number. If you are afraid that the alleged rapist(s) will come after you, tell the police this. This may make it less likely that the alleged rapist(s) is allowed out on bail after being arrested.

•    The police will ask you details about what happened to you and will write this all down. It is your right to do so in your home language, and the police should get someone to assist you with this. Do not sign your statement until you are happy with it, and that it says exactly what you have said.

•    It is your right to get a copy of any statements you make from the police.

•    When giving details of the rape it is important to tell the police if you were drunk or under the influence of drugs. This will not be used against you. If you are drunk or on drugs you cannot consent to sex.

•    You have the right to ask that the alleged rapist be tested for HIV at the state’s expense if he is caught. Remember to take PEP medicine as the doctor prescribed it, even if the test comes back negative.

•    If the police say you cannot report your rape, do not give up. It is your right to report, even if the rape happened a long time ago. If they still refuse, go to another station and explain what happened. You can then make a complaint about this.

When a case has been opened

•    An investigating officer (IO) will take over your case. The police should give you the IO’s contact details.

•    If the perpetrator is arrested, the IO has a responsibility to inform you.

•    If bail is granted, the IO has a responsibility to inform you.

•    If you have to identify the perpetrator, you should be made to feel safe by the police. This may happen in an identity parade if you can recognise the perpetrator, or via mug shots or an identikit if you don’t know them.

If you would like to find out more about the process of reporting a rape, watch the virtual tour of the criminal justice system here.

 

Advertisements

Sant Maam

 Of the rare moments my writer’s vein is waking up 🙂 most of the times is falling asleep just waiting for a change the next morning 😉

Qué te importa que te ame,
si tú no me quieres ya?
El amor que ya ha pasado
no se debe recordar

How many times a day a fresh face cleans up the mirrors so they stay spotless not staining the reflecting image..I hadn’t realized I was not paying attention to any mirrors,just passing by them quickly looking usually the other way.I hadn’t realized how many years had gone by until a unsuspected moment of the day I discovered a couple of old photos.Me smiling,me with friends,me careless,me with more flesh and life in me than what I have right now.

I hadn’t realized how why people were saying I was pretty.I used to think that I was having a horrible aspect.I took some distance from the photographic paper,taking looks at both images,the Before and the After ones.
I was ,let’s say, whatever nature made me with an expressive smile.I became quite skinny with a lifeless smile.
I was aspiring with high hopes,I became a hopeless individual grateful for making it through the day.
I was active,I remain active not to leave space for thoughts.
I was loving life,now I am scared I might lose my life

 

 

*coffee break*

Fui la ilusión de tu vida
un día lejano ya,
Hoy represento al pasado,
no me puedo conformar.

Thanks

I couldn’t care less,now I care less than less.
I wasn’t putting my trust on anyone,now I am easily convinced by sprinkled lies.
I was believing that all wrong is paid back in this life,now I believe in a vindictive Never Never Land
I was breathing, now I need a respiration tube and mechanical support.
I was feeling I could touch the sky,now my ego has shrank.
It’s a personal comparison between faded images of the past and the bright colored ones of the present.I feel no need to apologize to anyone for my own mess.I feel no need to say I am sorry for a silent tear that fell on the keyboard.Anyhow the world is so silent right now I could scream and be heard to the end of the universe.I don’t write lyrics as I am awfull with words.I am better in silence.I can’t express my own feelings even if I am dieing to.
And guess what,that’s the only thing in common between the two pieces of photographic paper.The world has always been so silent but full of faces.Now it’s silent and lonely.

In fact it is totally devastated like the war zone after the bombing.Full of holes everywhere like open mouths releasing sounds unheard.
*Coffee break again*

Thanks
How many times did the word “Silence” and its’ derivatives repeated themselves? As I use to say,there is nothing new under the sun.
Suffer and Pain isn’t my favorite game.Crying on my pillow either.I am not familiar with the term “depression” I never lost my self control.Yet lately I tend to believe all that could relief the burden of my soul and makes me wonder.. When did I change so much.Worse than that,Why did I feel the need to change so much?
On the other hand,I couldn’t care less..

Obviously I look like a pathetic desperate undefined being.I can totally understand as I have been through the young years of Arrogance and the Ignorance of the Immortal Bodies.There is no such thing unfortunately,the death wishes don’t correspond to the reality.One thing I learned until now: whoever seeks death,death will get.
Not my game either.Subcategory of Suffering and Pain.I was born to live even with crippled days and sleepless nights.I only wish I had this knowledge when I was younger: Nobody and Nothing ,Absolutely nothing is worth a lost life.Possibly as I lost mine not by physical death, the worst way to depart from this world and wander to the eternity:
A dead spirit inside the scull.
Wrong decisions taken under real pressure,on the move,constant rush building up a mountain of mistakes so tall that the peak is out of sight.A labyrinth of seconds and minutes embroided randomly on the wrong pattern.
Sometimes nothing makes sense.
I guess I don’t make sense either.
On the other hand I couldn’t care less.

Starting over :
How many times a day a fresh face cleans up the mirrors so they stay spotless not staining the reflecting image..I hadn’t realized I was not paying attention to any mirrors,just passing by them quickly looking usually the other way.I hadn’t realized how many years had gone by until a unsuspected moment of the day I discovered a couple of old photos.Me smiling,me with friends,me careless,me with more flesh and life in me than what I have right now…………………………………………………………………….. blabla blaaaaaaa

3am ,the alarm clock rings,I don’t want to get up shivering in the cold but the bed is colder than the entire ambient,hands come out of the mattress  the hands that have haunted it ,pushing me out of the covers  like frozen stalactites like a cave trying to absorb me to consume  me in a last desperate effort,the  cushions whispering deceitfully to my ears “I love you,I always had and I always will” mixing the voices and blurring the memories.

The implanted guilts push me down the staircase screaming ” You never loved me” as I land on the last step trying to figure out why ,still confused from the repetition of the same scene  I put the pieces of my past together  trying to make the first coffee of the night before it turns into a painful day.

Si las cosas que uno quiere
se pudieran alcanzar,
tú me quisieras lo mismo
que veinte años atrás.

Con qué tristeza miramos
un amor que se nos va
Es un pedazo del alma
que se arranca sin piedad

“You lied to me” A deep voice comes from inside the chimney  as the fire wood rolls at my feet crying “ I trusted you”.The window opens wide fiercely and  the handle whines” You were the love of my life”   forcing me to step back frozen by the wind  stumbling upon the grieving coffee table “ You hurt me so deeply”.

The entrance door vanishes in front of my awakening eyes,revealing a misty appealing landscape urging me to lose myself into the semi lit woods  while the lachrymose walls  bend begging “Don’t go please”

But I do want to go,I have been gone since a long time ago as I walk backwards to the tangled branches looking back at the dismantled figures and distorted faces .

“You can’t reach me” I whisper  almost petrified  the shape of me  dissolving with the rain.

“You will always be a part of me” the voices fade away as I fend off finding myself in an unknown place an ideal place,a quiet place almost serene  out of time,out of the present out of any known dimension.No gravity. No remorses.No walls.

Absolutely nothing.

Absolute Freedom.

“I loved you  but I don’t love you anymore. “

My voice echoed in the room.

The palm of my hand ran over the warm mattress ,the covers feeling so warm and my gaze fixed at the bedroom door.

Nobody.

“ I should write a book some day” my thoughts mumbled as they fell asleep again

Looking back seems that I was so fortunate to have been loved by everybody in my life.I wonder if it is so,why II still have this bitter taste in my mouth,maybe I am the one who can’t distinct love from hatred or maybe the love I was provided with was disguised hatred.

‘ I love you but I want to hurt you’ is one of the loving phrases still echoing in my heart,not even in my mind.I really embraced that phrase.Contains all the alleged love I  received in a  soul damaging mode.

Speaking of which,I was put on a stand by mode without me noticing:

I love you but I don’t like your attitude.

Pause

I love you but I don’t like your outfit

Pause

I love you but those shoes……… well

Pause

I love you but I don’t feel comfortable with your friends

Pause

I love you but……

Pause,rewind and stop pressed.Silence from the speakers.

The significant other inquires really concerned

Something’s wrong?

How on earth could something be wrong!Everything is really rolling in our non relationship.

 And all of the sudden,an expected flashback hits the brain cells:

You are late,where were you?

Don’t you know? At work?

How  do I know?

What do you mean?

You are seeing someone else,don’t you.

Smiling victoriously at the court when the judge announces the court order but with the heart ripped off.One more failure in the list.

Supposingly moving on.Of course,it is exactly what all human beings should do,the only difference is that I moved on in circles,Just like Ursula Buendia was saying in Marquez’s book,One Hundred Years of Solitude.

*Inner thought* Maybe I could reach a life of one hundred years in absolute solitude.

* Flashback*

A shot of Absolute vodka somewhere in the States and the Absolute  list is getting longer.

One more failure,who cares,I will yes maybe probably I will get over him,well don’t worry about me,of course I am fine I could’t ever be better,oh please who do you think I am,I know how to face situations *phone chats,meetings with concerned friends a hurt look from my mother.

I told you many times it’s my life!

I think if you were changing your outfit maybe you would be having more luck……

Meaning?

 Even if you quit asking the same question.

Okay mom,maybe you should be wearing high heels again when you can hardly walk?

Back on the airplane ,one more failure,at the other side of the ocean plenty of failures,regressing like walking on ice,sliding  from day to day and from year to year.

New horizonts wide open in front of me:

Lovely quiet candle lit nights, maybe the  quest was worth it.A new found land.

Wrong again.

But I do love you.

But I don’t.

But I love you with all my heart.

Thanks but I don’t.

Moving on as all human beings are supposed to.Mayor’s office on a dull Sunday morning,nothing really important.One happy month. The second one , one more failure.

Why?

I really don’t know.

How can you possibly not know!

I am really sorry I mean I really am sorry.

You aren’t sorry at all.But why  her?

I honestly don’t know.I wouldn’t lie to you.

*Sorry,but you lied already*

Moving on as I should do this time.

I love you.

Why me?

But I do,I can’t explain it.

I can’t either.

The unexplained remains unexplained and one more failure .Moving on as only I should do to maintain my clarity and possibly my sanity too.With flashbacks and with no final decisions,not cutting bridges with  the failures the contrary,keeping them all so alive I could even touch their hand.Trapped in a dead end with an obvious exit and me faking a smile.

Dark days arrived ,they asked to stay for a couple of days and they stayed for a couple of years.

I don’t know what’s wrong with me!

I will always be here.

I don’t know what’s wrong with me.

I am sorry for what happened in the past.

Anyone of you two has a tissue or something? Please?

Both handed me just a band aid .For once in my life I had  something to hold on to,a band aid. But none was there  as loud as I called their names.Confusing my days with mixed signals sent from the core  meeting my own ones half way  creating a wonderful  colorful blizzard  pouring stars on us.

I  want us back together.

Too late,sorry.I don’t like your attitude and your shoes.

Rewinding but never moving on.I am fine,thanks for asking.

i love Africa. love The culture. love anything that has to do with this world.

my problem is that this world doesnt love my countries..
Beats me why. But yall take care and love each other as no one would ever do


Criminal Big Pharma: They Paid Off Your Doc To Poison You

New UK data finds prescription drugs 62,000 times more likely to kill than supplements

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 by: Tony Isaacs [source]

 

(NaturalNews) According to data just released by the UK-based Alliance for Natural Health International(ANH-Intl), pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times more likely to kill you than supplements. In fact, the data collected by ANH-Intl demonstrates that food supplements are the safest substances regularly consumed by UK citizens even though they are the target of increasingly restrictive European legislation aimed at ‘protecting consumers.’

The newly released data found that pharmaceutical drugs were also 7,750 times more likely to result in death than herbal remedies. Both food supplements and herbal remedies were placed in the ‘supersafe’ category of individual risk – with a less than one in ten million risk of death.

The stark contrast between the safety of supplements and mainstream medicine

By contrast, being admitted to a UK hospital or taking prescription drugs exposes a person to one of the greatest preventable risks in society. Overall, preventable medical injuries in UK hospitals expose patients to the same risk of death as being deployed on military service to Afghanistan – both of which are around 300,000 times greater than the risk of death from taking natural health products.

ANH-Intl executive and scientific director, Dr. Robert Verkerk, PhD, hailed the figures as shedding new light on the question of natural healthcare’s safety. “These figures tell us not only what activities an individual is most or least likely to die from, but also what the relative risks of various activities are to society as a whole. It puts some real perspective on the actual risk of death posed by food supplements and herbal remedies at a time when governments are clamping down because they tell us they’re dangerous.”

Verkerk added, “When compared with the risk of taking food supplements, an individual is around 900 times more likely to die from food poisoning and nearly 300,000 times more likely to die from a preventable medical injury during a spell in a UK hospital. The latter is on a par with the risk of death from active military service in Iraq or Afghanistan.”

According to Dr. Verkerk, the new figures should put pressure on UK and European authorities to reduce regulatory burdens on natural health products. “Governments justify the increasingly elaborate and restrictive new laws affecting natural health products on grounds of public safety,” said Verkerk. “They argue that reducing consumer access to food supplements and herbal remedies, with the consequent negative impacts on small businesses manufacturing, distributing and selling such products, is in society’s interest. But the evidence is simply not there – where are the bodies?”

Among other key points presented in the data were:

* Pharmaceutical drugs pose nearly double the risk of death than motorcycle accidents on UK roads

* While herbal medicines can both be regarded as ‘supersafe,’ preventable medical injuries in UK hospitals are in the ‘Dangerous’ category, with a risk of death greater than 1 in 1,000.

About that bone scan and the meds that follow…

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 by: Craig Stellpflug

(NaturalNews) Bone scans can be useful to find out bone density status, but most MD’s use bone scans to sell more bone scans and bone meds. Oh sure, they can tell you that your bones are thin with their technology, but what happens after the diagnosis is a real problem: prescriptions, procedures, worsening bone brittleness and more cancer. If we just assume that we need to be concerned about bone health and treat our bones naturally, there would be no need for bone scans.

The scoop on bone meds

Long-term use of bone meds like Actonel, Boniva, Fosamax and Reclast have been linked to femur fractures. One study found bones on these meds turning brittle at four years. Two studies found an increased risk of fracture at five years on these meds in healthy, active women. These bad drugs are linked to esophageal cancer, necrosis of the jaw, heartburn, abdominal pain, fever, bone and muscle pain, low energy and low levels of calcium in the blood.

The treatment with the drug Infuse for bone growth, causes the overall cancer risk (including pancreatic) to shoot up by more than 250 percent in one year and 500 percent by three years. Infuse also gives about 50 percent of patients the “side effects” of infection, male sterility, pain, bone loss, and unwanted bone growth.

The most damning vaccination study not publically disclosed to date

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 by: Paul Fassa

(NaturalNews) There have been reports from epidemiological studies confirming suspicions that those who are vaccinated often don’t do as well with long-term health as those who are vaccination free.Those epidemiological studies (statistical surveys) have shown that bad health is more common among the vaccinated who survive without serious injury than children not vaccinated.But how and why has not come under controlled animal lab studies until Japan’s Kobe Universityanimal lab study of 2009.This study was reported and peer reviewed in the PLOS One Open Journalat the end of 2009, but has not received much if any public attention. It was brought to public’s attention very recently by homoeopathist and health writer Heidi Stevenson’s article on her Gaia Health blog. (Source below)

Japanese study summary

Here’s the conclusion quoted from the Kobe University study’s journal report:

“Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organize criticality.” (Emphasis added.)

The initial purpose of this independently funded study was to understand how autoimmune diseases develop from autoimmunity. It was not an effort to prove vaccination safety or danger.

The researchers used mice that were bred to avoid autoimmune diseases and injected them with solutions that contain antigens. Antigens generate antibodies to protect against invading disease pathogens. Antibodies can turn against the host if they become self generated, causing autoimmune diseases.

A vaccination injects cultured vaccine antigens of weakened or dead viruses to create an immune response of antibodies to that antigen, supposedly for creating immunity to that particular disease.

It’s not very unusual for cytokine storms (immune system overreactions) to overwhelm one who has been vaccinated. Vaccine adverse reactions have caused injuries of permanent disability, autism spectrum disorders, or death more often than publicly disclosed.

The Kobe researchers injected the mice that were bred to not develop autoimmune diseases repeatedly with antigens, much like vaccinations are administered to infants and children, to study how an immune system could turn on itself to create autoimmune diseases.

They were pushing the mice’s immune systems to see if and when they would no longer bend, but break. They used Staphylococcus entertoxin B (SEB) as their injected antigens.

The study report did not mention including any toxic adjuvants or preservatives such as mercury, aluminum, or formaldehyde used in vaccines. Antigens were used without the toxic additives normally used in vaccinations.

After seven injections the mice recovered each time with their immune systems intact. But after the eighth injection, problems with key immunity cells began arising.

Damaged cells were observed microscopically and showed signs of early autoimmunity. Their immune systems had started to self generate antibodies for autoimmune reactions after repeated antigen inoculations. (Source below)

FDA drug reviewer: ‘one manager threatened my children’

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 by: Jon Rappoport

(NaturalNews) In a stunning interview with Truthout’s Martha Rosenberg, former FDA drug reviewer, Ronald Cavanaugh, exposes the FDA as a relentless criminal mafia protecting its client, Big Pharma, with a host of mob strategies.http://truth-out.orgCavanaugh: “…widespread racketeering, including witness tampering and witness retaliation.””I was threatened with prison.””One [FDA] manager threatened my children… I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”Cavanaugh reviewed new drug applications made to the FDA by pharmaceutical companies. He was one of the holdouts at the Agency who insisted that the drugs had to be safe and effective before being released to the public.

But honest appraisal wasn’t part of the FDA culture, and Cavanaugh swam against the tide, until he realized his life and the life of his children was on the line.

What was his secret task at the FDA? “Drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.” In other words, rubber stamp them. Say the drugs were safe and effective when they were not.

Cavanaugh’s revelations are astonishing. He recalls a meeting where a drug-company representative flat-out stated that his company had paid the FDA for a new-drug approval. Paid for it. As in bribe.

He remarks that the drug pyridostigmine, given to US troops to prevent the later effects of nerve gas, “actually increased the lethality” of certain nerve agents.

Cavanaugh recalls being given records of safety data on a drug—and then his bosses told him which sections not to read. Obviously, they knew the drug was dangerous and they knew exactly where, in the reports, that fact would be revealed.

Read the entire landmark interview for yourself and see what the FDA really is. We are not dealing with isolated incidents of cheating and lying. We are not dealing with a few isolated bought-off FDA employees. The situation at the FDA isn’t correctable with a few firings. This is an ongoing criminal enterprise, and any government official, serving in any capacity, who has become aware of it and has not taken action, is an accessory to mass poisoning of the population.

Twelve years ago, the cat was let out of the bag. Dr. Barbara Starfield, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, on July 26, 2000, in a review titled, “Is US health really the best in the world,” exposed the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans per year.

Eli Lilly admits to more than $200 million dollars worth of doctor payoffs

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 by: Willow Tohi

(NaturalNews) Prozac. Cialis. Cymbalta. If you have a television or read magazines, you’ve heard of their drugs. Eli Lilly, out of Indiana, makes billions of dollars every year off the sale of their patented chemicals, which are used to suppress the symptoms of disease in the human body. Founded by a chemist in the late 19th century; today the pharmaceutical giant has offices in 18 countries, and its products are sold in 125 countries, with revenues exceeding $20 billion annually.Most of their arsenal is available in other countries for much less money than it is here in the United States, as is the case with most prescription medication. The reason, the pharmaceutical industry claims, is that the health care systems of other countries demands affordable medication, and they need somebody somewhere to foot the research bill, so they can get the next patents lined up before others expire, allowing generic versions of their drugs to become available on the market. That leaves us Americans, with our broken healthcare system, footing the bill of their continued financial success.We’re not only footing the bill, we have to deal with how the pharmaceutical machine warps the medical system. While historically a trade secret, it is standard operating procedure for pharmaceutical giants to pay doctors and other healthcare professionals to promote their drugs. Seducing doctors into becoming mouthpieces for a share of their bottom line is where it begins, but it ends up dictating your options.

A history of questionable ethics

Beginning in 2012, all drug and medical device companies will be required to report their promotional expenditure numbers to the federal government, but several companies started disclosing their information in 2009. According to the disclosed information, last year Eli Lilly paid out more than $200 million in payments to doctors and healthcare providers for promoting their drugs. ProPublica.org’s Dollars for Docs database is tracking 11 other companies’ disclosures as well.

The reason this information has been disclosed in Eli Lilly’s case is because Eli Lilly was involved in a criminal settlement, and was ordered to disclose these payments, since 2009. They agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle criminal and civil allegations of promoting drugs for unapproved uses. An official from the FDA testified in a court of law that Eli Lilly concealed the risks of its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa from U.S. officials, knowing the serious health risks it caused. They defrauded Medicare/Medicaid and blatantly put profit over the concern of the consumer.

The disclosure documents say the payments were for speaking, consulting, and research, as well as travel and meal reimbursement. You can look up the breakdown of the payments; how much was paid into your state, if your doctor was among those paid. The data provides insights into how firms adapt their strategies over time, even though complete analysis has proved challenging. So few companies report their data, and the data that is reported is inconsistent in both content and format. Its unclear exactly how much money is being spent where, and by whom. Needless to say, there will be more on this story in the future.

The transparency of the newly required disclosures has some companies reevaluating the current strategy. Most of the pharmaceutical giants have begun to reduce their promotional expenditures, since they started disclosing the figures. Most of them offer explanations such as, “normal year-to-year fluctuations.” Experts predict physicians will begin backing away from these arrangements as well, as the increased scrutiny of the pharmaceutical sales practices also exposes their names and pay. Some doctors are raking in a quarter of a million dollars, but actually claim they “wouldn’t want the appearance of being influenced by anything the company gave” them. Interesting choice of words, huh? [read more]

 


Steere’s Documentation part I [ Europe]

 

Allen Steere is the author of both CDC standards, the 1990 standard and the 1994 Dearborn standard. For the fake standard – the current CDC Dearborn standard – Allen Steere went to Europe alone in 1992
with bogus high-passage strains and recombinant OspA-B with no lipid attached and therefore little immunogenicity (means, “produces antibodies”) to leave OspA and B out of the standard. Osp A in the diagnostic test, when the antigen is also the vaccine, invalidates the test. One never tests for vaccine efficacy with the same antigen as the vaccine. Steere also falsely claimed that his pool of Dressler/Steere neurologic Lyme patients must have proteins or cells in the CSF, when it was known that at least half of neurologic Lyme victims do not have antibodies in their CSF or is an “aseptic meningitis.” So, all of Dressler/Steere was deliberate scientific fraud. Steere had previously proposed that we perform sequential Western Blots to diagnose Lyme.

FAIRY-ALERT!! “The Non-Stalking of Allen Steere – the TRUE story of my interview with David Grann of the NYT Magazine.”

NINDS’ MS Group Leader, Roland Martin, went back home to Germany after not exactly discovering that autoimmune T cells are the result of Lyme infection:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17060473

Studies of Lyme arthritis and chronic neuroborreliosis suggest that spirochete-specific T cells cross-reacting with self-antigens may be at least partly responsible for autoimmune mechanisms possibly leading to chronic disease manifestations (8, 12, 25).

Cross-recognition of self-antigens by B. burgdorferi-specific CD4+ T cells has been implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic manifestations of the disease. Patients with treatment-resistant Lyme arthritis, but not other forms of arthritis, expressing the rheumatoid arthritis-associated MHC allele HLA-DRB1*0401 [STEERE’s DEARBORN HAPLOTYPE] generated clonal responses to both the immunodominant borrelial outer surface protein A and the human leukocyte function-associated antigen 1, which was tested as a candidate autoantigen (8). In a patient with chronic NB expressing the MS-associated HLA-DRB1*1501 [MARTIN’s “LYME RESULTS IN MS” HAPLOTYPE] allele, we previously showed that a single TCC preferentially recognizes different borrelial peptides but also responds to human autoantigenic mimics (12). Our data clearly indicate that degenerate antigen recognition that includes pathogen-derived and self-epitopes is not restricted to chronic and treatment-resistant manifestations of the disease. Molecular mimicry alone is thus not sufficient to induce chronic Lyme disease, and other genetic, environmental, and infectious factors must be involved. Probably the best risk-conferring candidate is the HLA haplotype, since both of the aforementioned studies were performed with patients who expressed HLA class II alleles associated with autoimmunity in the affected organ compartment. However, studies investigating the association between HLA haplotypes and chronic Lyme disease have up until now been lacking, and a clear association between certain HLA alleles and organ involvement other than the joints, e.g., the brain and/or spinal cord, has not yet been documented.

Apparently, NINDS’ Roland Martin did not hear about the other, secret, Mark Klempner’s, MS haplotype (HLA-DQB1*0602): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPn_T9qy4C0&mode=related&search=

Or maybe he did, and that’s the reason he went home to Germany.

I point out that brains are somewhat more significant than knees except to Yale staff, who have suggested (literally) that the brain should be thrown out.

Comparison between the Western Blots of 1) people who have Steere’s haplotypes or a genetic link to having a hypersensitivity or allergy reaction to Borrelial antigens (Lyme arthritis or acrodermatitis) and 2) normal people. You have to actually look at this graphic, and then the whole cryme will be clear to you.

http://alpha1.mpk.med.uni-muenchen.de/bak/nrz-borrelia/miq-lyme/Frame-MiQ-microbiological53.html

Introduction-
Ya wanna go to the USDOJ “reading room” (although there not be evidence that the US Attorney’s read anything other than Woman’s Day, or People, or Soap Opera Digest, due to the influence of eunuch-fication of the DOJ by the likes of the fairy-ass, girly-man-gossip and evil twerp, Karl Rove) and read about what is the nature of a “false claim” against the United States, because that’s what “Lyme Disease” is, as will be shown in this chapter.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00921.htm
921 False Claims

[Allen Steere’s Strains Shenanigans in Europe to create the bogus Lyme Disease diagnostic standard; Lyme is simply part of the Relapsing Fever Group. “To know Relapsing Fever is to know medicine.”]
Title 18, United States Code, section 287–the false claims statute–provides in part:

Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years . . . .

See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 309-32 (1995)(discussing § 287). There is also a companion conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 286.

In 1863 Congress enacted a false claims and statements statute “in the wake of a spate of frauds upon the government.” United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503, 504 (1955). As originally enacted the statute penalized presentment “for payment or approval” of false claims upon or against the Government. . .” (Bramblett, 348 U.S. at 504) as well as false statements made “for the purpose of obtaining, or aiding in obtaining, the approval or payment of such claim.” On June 25, 1948, the statute was divided into 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001, respectively. 62 Stat. 749.

The Section 287 statute is designed to “protect the government against those who would cheat or mislead it in the administration of its programs” (United States v. White, 27 F.3d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir. 1994)), and it has been employed to combat fraudulent claims filed under numerous Federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. White (Medicare claims by a chiropractor); United States v. Hooshmand, 931 F.2d 725, 733 (11th Cir. 1991)(Medicare claims for tests); see also United States v. Abud-Sanchez, 973 F.2d 835, 836 (10th Cir. 1992)(Medicare and Medicaid claims); United States v. Siddiqi, 959 F.2d 1167, 1171-72 (2d Cir. 1992)(physician submitted Medicare claims for a period when he was out of the country); United States v. Nazon, 940 F.2d 255, 258, 261 (7th Cir. 1991)(Medicaid claims for lab work not done); United States v. Beasley, 550 F.2d 261, 263-64 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 863 (1977)(claims for costs of clinics never built).

=========================================

Recent Slam-o-Grams to the Steere cabal:

SUNY’s Volkman calls UConn’s Feder/Zemel liars over the seronegative Lyme assay

MEDLINE LINK: Allen Steere using the T-cell assay over which Volkman is furious at Zemel/Feder to determine that nearly half his lab workers had inhaled spirochetes

Steere treats his kind of Lyme disease with long term antibiotics:
http://groups.google.com/group/scilyme2/browse_thread/thread/4ee5cac02971ab0d

Czech Republic: “US Research (Yale and UConn) on Borreliosis is incomprehensible and stupid” (translation: We’re furious that we’ve been hoodwinked over CDC bullshit)

UConn’s Zemel and Feder deliberately harm Czech children

Jemzek rebuttal to Zemel/Feder: “scientific fraud”

http://www.afpmb.org/pubs/dveps/haiti.pdf ← US Army tells soldiers to be careful not to inhale desiccated spirochetes, LOL (page 13 of the .pdf):

Chapter 3 of Cryme Disease ;

Chapter 3, The Scientific Fraud Crime Committed by Allen Steere in Europe
to facilitate the bogus definition of “Lyme Disease” as an autoimmune bad knee (whoring for BigPharma), needing no intravenous IV treatment (whoring for Kaiser-Permanente, et al).

Previous Chp 2, McSweegan and Goldwater
Subsequent Chp 4, What happed at the Jan 2001 LYMErix Hearing

CDC “officer” Allen Steere went to Europe to set up the FALSE CLAIM that his method (we call it simply “Dearborn,” the two-tiered ELISA/Western Blot schema) to diagnose a “case” of “Lyme Disease” was scientifically valid, and the resultant RICO or monopoly on grants, vaccines, tests, and test kits for vector-borne diseases (an “enterprise” called the http://www.aldf.com ), in cahoots with Kaiser-Permanente. Kaiser bailed out the financially floundering New York Medical College, and is still there, training MDs who are provided to the New York State Medical Board as “experts” against the realists.

What Allen Steere did in Europe in 1992-3, revealed in this chapter, resulted in the 1994 CDC Dearborn, MI, farce of a conference and the bogus testing which facilitated the intended monopoly. OspA or the LYMErix “vaccine,” is the key to the “controversy.”

Compare what Allen Steere did (discussed in this chapter) at the same time, 1992, to what Fikrig and Magnarelli were doing as regards enhancing a flagellin method, in 1992, discussed in CHAPTER 1.

The CDC apparently thinks we can’t see that the 1986-Steere roll-out of “10-11 bands that occur over months to years” is not equal to the 1993-Steere or the 1994 Dearborn version: “most of the 10-11 bands occur together in first few months of Lyme infection and we don’t know what happens after that, since we’re only talking about EARLY LYME diagnosis.”

If Lyme is a Relapsing Fever organism, then some aspect of it gave it that name. That something was the spirochetes’ chronic production of new surface antigens, rendering previously made antibodies, useless. This is the same process by which Alan Barbour “selects” “mutants.” Barbour (or anyone) can grow some spirochetes in a dish with the antibodies specific to the surface antigens he wants to pharm out of the bug. In a chronically infected mammal, there will always be spirochetes producing new surface antigens that are changing all the time. Whenever new antigen is produced, new antibodies are produced, and those new antibodies are IgM type. If Alan Barbour selects mutants, and antibodies do no good, then a vaccine is impossible, especially if it is true as Yale’s veterinarian Stephen Bartold (and all the older, pre-Steere literature) says, that these spirochetes are coated in a slime layer which keeps them protected from immunological attack (REF):

“He finds that during the early stages of infection, B. burgdorferi avoids immune detection by decreasing its expression of surface proteins or cloaking its expressed surface proteins under a layer of slime. “It’s using some sort of stealth-bomber-type mechanism,” he says. Or, using another diversionary tactic called blebbing, the spirochete can pinch off bits of its membrane in order to release its surface proteins. Explains Barbour: “It’s like a bacterial Star Wars defense program,” in which released surface proteins might intercept incoming host antibodies keeping the spirochetes safe from immunological attack.”
— 1996, The Crooks.

We, the victims of these crimes and incompetence, are aware that the specific Lyme Disease cabal established itself at New York Medical College in 1990, after the publication of the 1989 Reviews of Infectious Diseases (the former journal of the Infectious Diseases Society of America) special supplement on spirochetal disease (Supplement 6). Allen Steere began publishing obvious research garbage about “Chronic Lyme” disease around that time. Anyone following these sequence of events in the crime would find it hard to believe that the crime of “Lyme Disease and LYMErix®” was any accident or the result of research stupidity. It is research fraud.

The overall driving force behind these crimes was to TAKE all the funding money and OWN and GRAB all the DNA and LIE and TRASH the Lyme victims and DESTROY all the Lyme treaters with a ferocity never seen before or imagined. The behavior of the Lyme disease criminals knows no unethical limits. They will and did cross every red line. The evil here is insidious and large, and very, very deliberate.

DEARBORN and the 1986- and 1993- versions of Allen Steere:

The current (2006-2007) CDC-sanctioned testing for hard-tick Relapsing Fever had been changed by the perpetrators into the non-existent entity “Lyme Disease” in 1994 at the CDC’s Dearborn, MI, meeting with some goofball labs- standards entity which is apparently brainless and powerless.

The CDC’s 1994 Dearborn “two-tiered” testing criteria is meant for the diagnosis of “early Lyme,” or within the second month of illness to less than six months into illness.

“Two tiered” testing means: First, one has an ELISA test or a general, or slop-o-metric, screening test to detect the concentration of antibodies in the blood to see if the victim has late stage chronic severe arthritis in a knee with the very, very high antibody concentration. (Steere’s kind of autoimmune Lyme is a genetically-linked hypersensitivity reaction, like asthma or Type 1 diabetes).

If one has a positive ELISA result, one may then proceed to Western Blotting, but the problem is that the ELISA screens out all but the extraordinary cases of a loud, red, swollen arthritis in a knee and misses all of the neurologic or regular Lyme cases.

That is, in order to have “Early Lyme,” one must first have “Late Lyme Arthritis in a knee,” according to Allen Steere and the ALDF.com cabal and is now the CDC’s accepted testing protocol.

We don’t know of any more highly regulated testing anywhere in the US. If you, the lab owner, decided to perform actually scientifically valid testing for Lyme, the CDC will come after you and try to shut you down. You will recall from the Hartford Courant interview with Yale’s Durland Fish:

“He proceeds down the list, name by name: “Totally bogus.” “He killed one of his patients.” “They tried to shut him down.” Words like “crackpot,” “wacko,” “buffoon” and “fraud” pepper his discourse.

The two tiered testing schema was designed to SCREEN OUT all the neurologic cases of Lyme with the first test. Some insurance companies even state that they won’t pay for a Western Blot if the ELISA is negative. This is scientific fraud with intent to cause harm since Lyme progresses into all sorts of very severe neurological diseases and death.

The Lyme ELISA only detects late Lyme arthritis, with a full-blown swollen knee. Late Lyme arthritis in a knee is caused by a hypersensitivity or allergy reaction or too many antibodies to OspA. The too-many-antibodies against OspA allegedly cross reacted with knee tissue, but now Allen Steere’s mob say that OspA is a superantigen for certain persons. That is, people with a certain genetic background will super-bind the OspA antigen into their HLA molecules, causing an almost toxic level of antibodies (chronic stimulation) or the antibodies exist as a free, toxic immune complex (antibody is bound to the free antigen), and suffer the associated immune response (downstream mechanisms after antibody production that is tissue-damaging). Other researchers counter that if the Steere superantigen model was true, the phenomenon would not be limited to a knee.

Again, if a Lyme victim passes that test, the ELISA, and has a late Lyme arthritis in a knee, they may graduate on to having a Lyme Western Blot test. As explained in the first few chapters, one does not validate a test by saying, for example, “Only 7 ton elephants may be diagnosed as elephants, and that 200 pound baby elephants may not diagnosed and treated as elephants.” You can still see the baby elephant and know it is an elephant by its specific features, and know it is there (that being the point of “diagnosis” or “identification” of the offending organism).

And this is where these evil-and-viciousness-related stupid Lyme criminals are really scary- Lyme is a bioweapon in the “stealth disabler” class, causing immune-suppression-related and/or immune-dysregulation-related outcomes as we will see in the Plum Island and OspA Chapters. Thankfully we can’t sneeze it on each other (but spirochetes can be inhaled as we will see).

We will see in later chapters that the pathology associated with the presence of spirochetes is hardly limited to the production of cross-reacting antibodies. In other words, no one cares if they have “too many OspA antibodies,” they only care to know if what is making them sick is something treatable with something so simple as antibiotics.

Again, 5 of the of the 10-11 early-Lyme, pre-1987-Steere, antibodies which occur “over months to years” must now – after 1994 and after the bogus CDC Dearborn MI conference – occur within the first ~6 months of infection in order to be a case of “Lyme Disease,” since that’s what CDC-type conferences are about.

That is, where once Lyme was thought to be a Relapsing Fever, characterized by “changing and expanding IgM antibodies that occurred over a fairly long time and represented persisting infection,” it suddenly has been changed to: “5 of 10 IgG bands have to all occur at once” for a person to be able to have a diagnosable (treatable) case of “Lyme Disease.”

When the CDC’s 1994 Dearborn conference was proposed and announced, some labs thought it was about standardizing the method and not to create a new interpretative platform. That is, to any real scientist, to “standardize a method” means, 1) Everyone uses the same equipment and concentration of components in the electrophoretic gel, 2) the standard should be the same (use low passage strains of SPECIFIC organisms; Borrelia that express OspA, B, C, Borrelia-specific flagellin and other specific known antigens that produce antibodies in most humans), 3) Everyone should agree that the assay of the proposed analytes is a method that does not co-elute more than one analyte. The method should be validated in that the concentration of one analyte is not erroneously added to at the same retention time or kilodalton apparent molecular weight by another (masked) analyte.

The following is the publication of the self-alleged results of the CDC’s Dearborn, MI, self-alleged conference:

Notice to Readers Recommendations for Test Performance and Interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease

The Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards cosponsored the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease held October 27-29, 1994. Conference recommendations were grouped into four categories: 1) serologic test performance and interpretation, 2) quality-assurance practices, 3) new test evaluation and clearance, and 4) communication of developments in Lyme disease (LD) testing. This report presents recommendations for serologic test performance and interpretation, which included substantial changes in the recommended tests and their interpretation for the serodiagnosis of LD.

A two-test approach for active disease and for previous infection using a sensitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) or immunofluorescent assay (IFA) followed by a Western immunoblot was the algorithm of choice. All specimens positive or equivocal by a sensitive EIA or IFA should be tested by a standardized Western immunoblot. Specimens negative by a sensitive EIA or IFA need not be tested further. When Western immunoblot is used during the first 4 weeks of disease onset (early LD), both immuno- globulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) procedures should be performed. A positive IgM test result alone is not recommended for use in determining active disease in persons with illness greater than 1 month’s duration because the likelihood of a false-positive test result for a current infection is high for these persons. If a patient with suspected early LD has a negative serology, serologic evidence of infection is best obtained by testing of paired acute- and convalescent-phase serum samples. Serum samples from persons with disseminated or late-stage LD almost always have a strong IgG response to Borrelia burgdorferi antigens.

It was recommended that an IgM immunoblot be considered positive if two of the following three bands are present: 24 kDa (OspC) * , 39 kDa (BmpA), and 41 kDa (Fla) (1). It was further recommended that an that IgG immunoblot be considered positive if five of the following 10 bands are present: 18 kDa, 21 kDa (OspC) *, 28 kDa, 30 kDa, 39 kDa (BmpA), 41 kDa (Fla), 45 kDa, 58 kDa (not GroEL), 66 kDa, and 93 kDa (2).

The details of both plenary sessions and the work group deliberations are included in the publication of the proceedings, which is available from the Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors; telephone (202) 822-5227.

References

Engstrom SM, Shoop E, Johnson RC. Immunoblot interpretation criteria for serodiagnosis of early Lyme disease. J Clin Microbiol 1995;33:419-22.

Dressler F, Whelan JA, Reinhart BN, Steere AC. Western blotting in the serodiagnosis of Lyme disease. J Infect Dis 1993;167:392-400.

The apparent molecular mass of OspC is dependent on the strain of B. burgdorferi being tested. The 24 kDa and 21 kDa proteins referred to are the same.

Disclaimer All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables. An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402-9371; telephone: (202) 512-1800. Contact GPO for current prices.

**Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mmwrq@cdc.gov.

================

The CDC apparently thinks we can’t see that the 1986-Steere roll-out of “10-11 bands that occur over months to years” is not equal to the 1994 Dearborn version: “most of the 10-11 bands occur together in first few months of Lyme infection and we don’t know what happens after that, since we’re only talking about EARLY LYME diagnosis.”

This is Steere’s first, 1986, standard/observation of serology set

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=3531237 full text link

J Clin Invest. 1986 Oct;78(4):934-9. Links

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]

As an aside, Mark Klempner, CDC “officer,” and now a Boston University apprentice provost, alleges that the meaning of: “only 78 out of 1800 (4%) persons” who are “Chronic Lyme” victims, and who all have been treated before with antibiotics – yet still have the CDC bogus positive early Lyme/late Lyme IgG blood testing criteria of Allen Steere – means that the probability that a person who claims to have Chronic Lyme “is 96% likely to be a kook.” An antibiomaniac. A Munchauser. A Lyme paranoiac. No one knows what kind of victims Klempner captured and abused in his “Chronic Lyme is imaginary but cured by the placebo effect of antibiotics ‘study,'” since the Steere early Lyme/Late Lyme criteria for a “positive case of Lyme,” has never been studied, much less validated for late, treated, chronic Lyme. The victims or class of people Mark Klempner claimed to have assessed for antibiotic efficacy, should have been “seronegative,” due to the host adaptation of their own particular spirochetes and the immune suppression caused by chronic infection and the chronic blebbing.

Amazing as it is to believe, few people realize that the CDC IgG method to diagnose “Lyme Disease” is only to be used in the first few months after infection, but that also, “IgG means past infection and not a treatable case,” according to Imugen Labs (Norwood, MA).

That is, the 1994 Dearborn (Dressler/Steere) early Lyme criteria to be used to diagnose early Lyme comes from an imaginary standard that was revealed (to Allen Steere) as a series of antibodies developed against antigens “over months to years,” but IgG means old or previous infectious, so most people will not have a treatable case of Lyme no matter what the circumstances. IgG means past infection. And no treatment. IgM means current. But almost no IgM bands may be identified and reported towards a positive test. Which means no treatment.

DANGEROUSLY SERONEGATIVE

Most MDs don’t realize that this bogus testing standard is to not be used for persons who have been sick for more than a year because the spirochetes become “host adapted.” That is, spirochetes that arrive into a person fresh from a tick are expressing different surface antigens than those spirochetes which have been cohabitating with their human victims for years. Therefore, the long-infected person produces different antibodies than the newly-infected.

Not only are these later, host-adapted antibodies not predictable, not detectable, and not occurring early in the disease (and thus will yield a negative test result), but due to the immune suppression cause by these shed Osps (CHAPTER 15 RELATED PLUM ISLAND GOODIES) – the Alan Barbour “Star Wars blebbing” – has the effect desensitizing its human victims or tolerizing the immune system to them, with the result that antibodies are not produced. The antigen presenting molecules or HLA molecules are down-regulated. If the blebs or the surface antigens can not be presented (presented to B cells, which make antibodies) because the HLA (human leukocyte presenting antigen) molecules have been removed, fewer antibodies will be produced. This is also important because the blebs were made into “vaccines,” one of the patents for which was owned by Alan Barbour (ImmuLyme), who said of them (besides the “rich vein of gold from which to mine virulence determinants” comment),
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v390/n6660/full/390553a0.html

“One of the lipoproteins, OspA, has already been crystallized and structurally characterized5, and it is undergoing human field trials as a vaccine against Lyme disease, although no one yet knows what it does.” – because the adverse events were deliberately not reported to the FDA.

These late, undetectable, antibodies are not detectable or become not detectable because 1) everyone has their own special collection of spirochetes’ antibodies (which have become host-adapted and are constantly undergoing antigenic variation), 2) everyone has their own genetically-determined tendency to find certain kinds of antigens irritating (HLA differences), although there are clearly clusters or genetic histories are shared by peoples (see the “race-specific bioweapons” comment in the Israeli’s PNAC document), 3) many people, especially the sickest- usually “seronegative (seronegative to the imaginary Steere Dearborn criteria case)” – are likely to be multiply-infected with the other immune suppressing organisms, Babesia and Ehrlichia (ref Dave Persing), and have the neurologic kind of Lyme [since only the knee-kind tests Steere/Dearborn positive; only the knee-kind of Lyme people make sufficient antibodies and “may even be called immune-competent,” according to Vijay Sikand, MD (East, Lyme, Connecticut, at the 1998 LYMErix FDA meeting)], and 4), there is now an identified mechanism of immune suppression, the tolerization to these spirochetal antigens, turning off the immune system to these types (triacyl Palmitoyl 3 Cys lipopeptides like OspA, the vaccines), rendering some people perhaps permanently seronegative and SERONEGATIVE to or TOLERANT TO or CAN’T FIGHT OFF OTHER INFECTIONS that bear the same type of antigens.

We will see in the Biomarkers chapter that it was known in 1992, that the lymphocytes of chronic Lyme victims look like Epstein-Barr transformed or mutated cells. That’s yet another can of worms which we think is co-related to LYMErix outcomes and cancer. Again, the pathological outcomes of Lyme have all been subjected to the Negative Data Rule: Don’t look for or fund the research into information you don’t want to discover or want revealed. The most well-known sufferers of the Negative Data Rule are the Gulf War Illness Veterans. Naturally, the keeper of this fraud is the British psychiatrist Simon Wessely. Whether or not these Lyme crimes are bioweapons-related or just evil, profiteering frauds tripping over their own dicks may be resolved by looking deeper into Simon Wessely’s history. One thing we will find out about Simon Wessely is that he knows absolute zero about ethics or integrity, but his counterparts in the USA will be subject to the same scrutiny.

Some of the other infections which bear these same type of antigens as LYMErix or the shed Osps are HIV, Foot and Mouth Disease, Tuberculosis, mycobacteria, and mycoplasma.

A huge can of worms.

Maybe the AMA can tell us about it.

Maybe not.

.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm mycoplasma associated with arthritis and immune suppression outcomes.

Related to the immune suppression/dysregulation outcomes and according to CDC’s bioweapons officer Alan Barbour in his US Patent 6,719,983,

http://patft1.uspto.gov/6,719,983

2.1 Methods of Treatment

“An important aspect of the invention is the recognition that Borrelia VMP-like sequences recombine at the vls site, with the result that antigenic variation is virtually limitless. Multiclonal populations therefore can exist in an infected patient so that immunological defenses are severely tested if not totally overwhelmed.”

TRANSLATION: “The Lyme infected person’s immune system could be completely overwhelmed by their chronic infection with multiple ‘clones’ of spirochetes, all of which continuously undergo antigenic variation (negating the validity of the term “clone”) creating seventy five bahzillion different antibodies which overwhelm the immune system. But everyone who says they’re chronically ill, but who don’t have Dearborn Lyme, is a hypochondriac and please read my totally unreferenced book entitled, ‘Lyme Disease, the Cause, the Cure and the Controversy,’ and never mind the fact that I am a CDC clone lying profiteer, since there are no other CDC officer species.”

–Homo bovis excrementii; CDC Officer Alan Barbour

Therefore, due to antigenic variation and likely being infected with multiple types of spirochetes (burgdorferi, or barbouri, or wormserii, or popeyei, etc) and over the longer term, becoming immune-suppressed/dysregulated, the only way to see if a chronically infected person is chronically infected using an antibody method, is to capture some spirochetes from said chronically infected person, grow a few, and use that current-human-spirochete-slurry to Western Blot the same infected person and see if they have antibodies against their own spirochetes. (But they might not, due to the effect of OspA or Pam3Cys-related immune suppression.)

We could only expect such stupid science from the Steere camp. We know that if they performed such a stupid science experiment, the Steere camp would still try to tell the patient from whom spirochetes were extracted that their antibodies were only IgG antibodies, and that that meant that the patient only has past-Lyme disease or is therefore no longer infected and does not need treatment.

‘Since no one ever needs treatment. ‘That being the part about Kaiser-Permanente rescuing the financially failing New York Medical College in return for the opportunity to train the New York Office of Medical Conduct’s “experts” on “Lyme disease” in preparation for the Bush Senior-Karl Rove-esque harassment of Lyme treaters and establishing the racketeering cabal, the “American Lyme Disease Foundation.”

The entire point of the erroneous and criminal final solution dictated to us from Dearborn “conference,” is that “We should look for 5 of 10 IgG bands and ignore most of the IgM bands, because the presence of IgM bands is a phenomenon that demonstrates persisting infections, according to the 1986 version of Allen Steere.” If every single iota of medical malarkey from the Steere camp were an H2O molecule, we’d all have wished we built arks and captured pairs of animal species (not ticks).

Examples of explanations of host-adapted spirochetes or the proof that late neurologic Lyme will never test positive to the CDC Dearborn method (and these are repeated in the PRIMERSHELLGAME chapter, since the fraud in testing by antibody is related to the fraud in testing using DNA and RNA methods):

1) Pachner and Brains, 1990 “The plasmid content of N40Br was different from that of the infecting strain implying either a highly selective process during infection or DNA rearrangement in the organism in vivo. ”

2) NIH’s Dave Doward on TRAINING SPIROCHETES TO BE CERTAIN TISSUE TROPIC:
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/full/69/3/1428?view=long&pmid=11179308

“By repeatedly coincubating spirochetes with primary mouse lymphocytes that were immobilized by adherence to immunomagnetic beads, we were able to preferentially enrich cultures for or against bacteria with constitutive affinity for murine B and T cells.”

3) Using monoclonal antibodies “to select “mutants” in vitro- Barbour

4) Antibody selection: Fikrig discussing OspA’s uselessness
http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/63/5/1658?view=long&pmid=7729870

5) “New antigen milieu” from Fikrig re brains
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/26/15953

If Fikrig claims there is new antigen expression over time as the spirochetes host-adapt, and the Yale OspA vaccine was to be given annually due to the fact that the IgG antibody concentration fades (this was probably due to the immune suppression it caused, as revealed in the Plum Island chapter), and if Steere claims that only people with his genetic HLA relation to Lyme arthritis maintain a high IgG antibody concentration for “months to years,” why does Fikrig not make a public announcement that the new antigen-antibody milieu negates the Dearborn criteria?

The usual case of a chronic Lyme victim is that they have had chronic fatigue and neurologic/brain signs for several years before finding their way to a specialist who understands that the blood testing schema proposed by the 1993 version of Allen Steere, fraudulently accepted by the Centers for Disease Confabulation and accepted by the American Medical Kool-Aid Drunkards Association, is an elaborate concoction of nonsense intended to set up a monopoly on testing for “Lyme Disease” around the OspA vaccine.

Keeping in mind that the ALDF.com camp are interested only in the profit in vector borne diseases and not in anyone’s better health outcome, “Lyme Borreliosis” – the serologic definition previously established by Allen Steere and the CDC as a Relapsing Fever organism, the diagnosis of which was to be in the performance of serial Western Blots in order to look for “changing and expanding IgM and IgG antibodies” – was spun into “Lyme Disease.”

Time hardly flies when you’re chronically sick; imagine you’re Christ on the cross with the dislocated shoulder; imagine the agony of never having a good day and all of these YEARS have gone by where none of the people whose job it was to investigate and prosecute these crimes, did so, despite being given the evidence. And so I say:

Way, way back about a hundred years ago in 1992, Allen Steere went to Europe with an illegal high-passage strain of Borrelia- strain G39/40 from Guilford, Connecticut:

Says Alien Steere, from Europe: “Supernatants from sonicated lysates of whole spirochetes were prepared as described (20). The group 1 strain of B. burgdorferi, G39/40, used in this study and in the previous study of US patients was isolated from an Ixodes damini tick in Guilford, Connecticut 921). The group 2 strain, FRG [Federal Republic of Germany], was isolated from Ixodes ricinus near Cologne (21). The group 3 strain, IP3, was isolated from Ixodes persulcatus near Leningrad (23). All three strains used in this study were high passage isolates, which were classified by Richard Marconi (Rocky Mountain Laboratory, Hamilton, MT) using 16S ribosomal RNA sequence determination as described (11, 24). The recombinant preparations of OspA and OspB used in this study were purified maltose-binding protein-Osp fusion proteins derived from group 1 strain B31 (25). The fusion proteins contained the full-length OspA or OspB sequence without the lipid moiety or the signal sequence.”

So, Steere did not find too many antibodies to the B31-associated recombinant Osps A and B in people in Europe, using G39/40 and FRG, as we will later see. We think these shenanigans with strains and recombinants were the reason Steere went to Europe to perform this crazy nonsense for two reasons: European journal articles might not be reprinted full-text online such that American researchers could see what he had done (and they were not, I had to go to the Yale Medical Library to get them), and Frank Dressler was a young, innocent, inexperienced lab rat.

It makes no sense to have done this, when Steere previously (1986) worked this all out, no matter how you look at it. There was no reason to go to Europe to come up with a new antibody panel/immune response profile. There was no reason for Americans to have accepted this from Europe, secondly, because the CDC simultaneously claims they lend European researchers no credibility whatsoever.

The CDC CLAIMS that whatever happens elsewhere does not exist… (why then did we end up with Willy Burgdorfer from Switzerland and the German scientist, Roland Martin?)… except for this crazy nonsense by Steere in Europe.

The OspA is/does:

The electronegative core in between the lipid ends and the water-soluble protein end, is what is hyperstimulative about OspA or the Osps. Without the lipid end, this would not be such a wild, immunostimulatory lipoprotein. Remember, to a chemist, and now to you the reader, what a chemical compound is, is what it does. The crooks discovered, but kept secret, the fact that OspA in it’s native form was too stimulatory. This experience with OspA led to its later modification by David Persing at Corixa, who tried to sell an entirely new class of lipopeptides or glycolipids or similar-looking compounds as vaccine adjuvants.

The following are graphics of the structure of OspA (by Mass-Spec, since you can’t recrystalize a lipid). You can see the highly densely lipidated end (water-insoluble) is combined to the protein end (water-soluble), by a highly electronegative cysteine core (molecules speak to you visually; chemistry is sort of like hieroglyphics or Chinese):
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=259838&blobtype=pdf

and from a Korean journal:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PAM3CYS_LYME_HIV.htm

~OspA stuck on an HIV vaccine:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=525594&blobtype=pdf

Here is Dave Persing (Lyme testing RICO patent owner) Corixa’s “We modified OspA for use to sell in our adjuvant business because the real OspA is too awful” advertisement which has since been taken off the web, and Corixa has since been purchased by SmithKline: EMBASSIES_CORIXA_TLR_13_JULY_06.htm

And here is Dave Persing of Corixa talking about how the native OspA proteins are too awful to be used alone as a vaccine in another patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/6,800,613

“While not wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that the efficacy of the prophylactic and therapeutic applications described above are based at least in part on the involvement of the mono- and disaccharide compounds in the modulation of Toll-like receptor activity. In particular, Toll-like receptors Tlr2, Tlr4, and others, are believed to be specifically activated, competitively inhibited or otherwise affected by the non-toxic LPS derivatives and mimetics disclosed herein. Accordingly, the methods of the invention provide a powerful and selective approach for modulating the innate immune response pathways in animals without giving rise to the toxicities often associated with the native bacterial components that normally stimulate those pathways.”

In this instance they are talking about a polysaccharide in place of the protein, but it’s the union and the opposing solubilities that are toxic or immunostimulatory or “too immunostimulatory in the native form.”

Note that one of the claims for this modified OspA vaccine as an adjuvant or immune-booster is that this could be used for:
7. A method in accordance with claim 2, wherein said infectious disease is a chronic infection.

I don’t know of any “chronic infectious diseases,” do you?

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm (Tully, bioweaponeer on mycoplasmas and immune suppression.)

==========

Returning to the issue of Allen Steere’s fraudulent experiments in Europe to invent his new idea of what a “positive” blood test for “Lyme Disease” should be:

“High-passage” is almost exactly like George W. Bush. Too much inbreeding leads to incompetent strains.

The National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Labs recommended not using high passage strains to diagnose “Lyme Disease” because they drop plasmid expression or drop the expression of specific diagnostic antigens (or fewer bands will show up in a Western Blot). You can’t see the antibodies in the blot even if they’re in the blood because they’re not in the Western Blot antigen mix for the antibodies to bind to and be detected.

Spirochete cultures that have been passed many times in vitro without being pharmed back into ticks and rodents start growing populations which have lost the ability to infect, because they have lost the code for the surface antigens – the speckles or the Osps or the Vmps or the Vsps – which they use to bind surface molecules on the cells of their hosts. In other words, they clone themselves badly. They’re, like, couch-potato spirochetes. Wimpy.

With fewer of the surface antigens spirochetes use to invade tissue and penetrate or adhere to cells, these spirochetes can cause less damage. Spirochetes are parasites and must take something from the host in order to survive. The surface antigens encoded on the plasmids help the spirochetes find nice delicious cells to invade and steal metabolic goodies. They do worse things like destroy cells, too, but for all intents and purposes, they would probably not be as harmful were it not for the immune response. This we know from the histology studies in monkeys (non-human primates, a term that should not be limited to the hairier guys who walk around on their knuckles, as we’ve learned from exposure to Lyme crooks in addition to spirochetes). The monkey nerve damage studies will be included in the Biomarkers section, which is associated with the 1989 IDSA REVIEWS section, since the topic of how sick we are as a result of this scam is too extensive to include with this one really incredible topic, What Allen Steere Did in Europe.

If the surface antigens are dropped, we can surmise that they’re less invasive.

Logically, one would want to look at what is the makeup of spirochetes, since that would suggest what are its metabolic needs. However, these Borreliae spirochetes can apparently adapt to any environment, any mammalian environment, any tissue type as we have previously seen from the David Dorward Rocky Mountain Lab tissue-tropism studies. Forward advancing studies as to what spirochetes actually do to cause us damage has been inhibited by the Lyme criminals who spend all their energy and our tax-supported grant money on telling us we have no disease for which OspA was their vaccine.

NIH Rocky Mountain Labs, including Willy Burgdorfer, say to use low passage strains to Western Blot because high passage strains drop plasmids- yet high passage strains, G39/40 and FRG were used by Steere to concoct the Dearborn standard: http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/56/8/1831?view=long&pmid=3397175


 

 

Here is Dave Persing (Lyme testing RICO patent owner) Corixa’s “We modified OspA for use to sell in our adjuvant business because the real OspA is too awful” advertisement which has since been taken off the web, and Corixa has since been purchased by SmithKline:  EMBASSIES_CORIXA_TLR_13_JULY_06.htm

And here is Dave Persing of Corixa talking about how the native OspA proteins are too awful to be used alone as a vaccine in another patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/6,800,613

“While not wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that the efficacy of the prophylactic and therapeutic applications described above are based at least in part on the involvement of the mono- and disaccharide compounds in the modulation of Toll-like receptor activity. In particular, Toll-like receptors Tlr2, Tlr4, and others, are believed to be specifically activated, competitively inhibited or otherwise affected by the non-toxic LPS derivatives and mimetics disclosed herein. Accordingly, the methods of the invention provide a powerful and selective approach for modulating the innate immune response pathways in animals without giving rise to the toxicities often associated with the native bacterial components that normally stimulate those pathways.”

 

In this instance they are talking about a polysaccharide in place of the protein, but it’s the union and the opposing solubilities that are toxic or immunostimulatory or “too immunostimulatory in the native form.”

Note that one of the claims for this modified OspA vaccine as an adjuvant or immune-booster is that this could be used for:
7. A method in accordance with claim 2, wherein said infectious disease is a chronic infection.

 

I don’t know of any “chronic infectious diseases,” do you?

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no1/baseman.htm  (Tully, bioweaponeer on mycoplasmas and immune suppression.)

 

==========

Returning to the issue of Allen Steere’s fraudulent experiments in Europe to invent his new idea of what a “positive” blood test for “Lyme Disease” should be:

“High-passage” is almost exactly like George W. Bush.  Too much inbreeding leads to incompetent strains.

The National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Labs recommended not using high passage strains to diagnose “Lyme Disease” because they drop plasmid expression or drop the expression of specific diagnostic antigens (or fewer bands will show up in a Western Blot).  You can’t see the antibodies in the blot even if they’re in the blood because they’re not in the Western Blot antigen mix for the antibodies to bind to and be detected.

Spirochete cultures that have been passed many times in vitro without being pharmed back into ticks and rodents start growing populations which have lost the ability to infect, because they have lost the code for the surface antigens – the speckles or the Osps or the Vmps or the Vsps – which they use to bind surface molecules on the cells of their hosts.  In other words, they clone themselves badly.  They’re, like, couch-potato spirochetes.  Wimpy.

With fewer of the surface antigens spirochetes use to invade tissue and penetrate or adhere to cells, these spirochetes can cause less damage.  Spirochetes are parasites and must take something from the host in order to survive.  The surface antigens encoded on the plasmids help the spirochetes find nice delicious cells to invade and steal metabolic goodies.  They do worse things like destroy cells, too, but for all intents and purposes, they would probably not be as harmful were it not for the immune response.  This we know from the histology studies in monkeys (non-human primates, a term that should not be limited to the hairier guys who walk around on their knuckles, as we’ve learned from exposure to Lyme crooks in addition to spirochetes).  The monkey nerve damage studies will be included in the Biomarkers section, which is associated with the 1989 IDSA REVIEWS section, since the topic of how sick we are as a result of this scam is too extensive to include with this one really incredible topic, What Allen Steere Did in Europe.

If the surface antigens are dropped, we can surmise that they’re less invasive.

Logically, one would want to look at what is the makeup of spirochetes, since that would suggest what are its metabolic needs.  However, these Borreliae spirochetes can apparently adapt to any environment, any mammalian environment, any tissue type as we have previously seen from the David Dorward Rocky Mountain Lab tissue-tropism studies.  Forward advancing studies as to what spirochetes actually do to cause us damage has been inhibited by the Lyme criminals who spend all their energy and our tax-supported grant money on telling us we have no disease for which OspA was their vaccine.

NIH Rocky Mountain Labs, including Willy Burgdorfer, say to use low passage strains to Western Blot because high passage strains drop plasmids- yet high passage strains, G39/40 and FRG were used by Steere to concoct the Dearborn standard:  http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/56/8/1831?view=long&pmid=3397175

 

The CDC’s diagnostic standard in 1990, before Steere went to Europe, was based on Steere’s own original 1986 observations that Lyme was a Relapsing Fever organism and that the antibody profile for Lyme would change over time, producing new (IgM) antibodies when viewed via Western Blotting.  Under the pretense of “standardizing” all the US testing for Lyme in America, in 1994, the CDC sent out invitations to numerous labs across the country, inviting them to “contribute to the proceedings.”  However, apparently the decision had already been made that the CDC would adopt the new Steere method- the one he developed in Europe with bogus strains that dropped plasmids, and thus, likely, the expression of the OspA-B plasmid- a plasmid replaced with the “American protypical B31 strain’s OspA and B recombinant antigens,” against which EUROPEANS were blotted.  This would have the effect of creating a new bogus profile from among Steere’s victims that resulted in the current bogus CDC IgG criteria for a positive case of “Lyme Disease” that left OspA and B antibodies (band 31 and 34) out of the standard. 

 

What the labs invited to the farcical CDC 1994 Dearborn, MI, conference determined, in regard to Steere’s new proposal for an IgG standard were:

1)      Gary Wormser at New York Medical College, “Steere’s method detected 9/59 or only 15% of all cases”

 

Read carefully what Wormser says in this report:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=266355&blobtype=pdf

He says he is assessing the accuracy of what was later to be called the Dearborn Method, the Dressler/Steere proposal, in the field, and he found that the IgG method detected only 9/59 of the Wormser cases.

2)      Imugen’s Dearborn submission: “Steere’s method detected 14% of the cases”

 

[CAPTION] You can see from that graphic where I circled the 14% for the January 31, 2001 FDA Vaccine Committee Hearing (CHAPTER 4), that Imugen was assessing the accuracy of the Steere/Dressler IgG proposal, but that Imugen thought that their antigen-antibody complex capture method was more accurate, or detected more cases.

 

3)      Igenex, “Steere’s IgG detected 8% of the cases” or misses 92% of the cases.

 

4)      Wisconsin,  “Steere’s method was 15% accurate” or misses 85% of the cases.

 

5)      The University of Child Abuse –  Larry Zemel was referring to Lyme as comparable to juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.  Recommended adding band 50 for children’s blots.

 

 
6)      Roche,  “28% were positive for every Steere band.”

 

7)      Wadsworth had some different scoring system; did not report on accuracy of Steere

 

8)      Ontario Ministry of Health

 

9)      Lutheran Hospital,  “22 % were accurate by Steere’s IgG”

 

 

Lutheran Hospital said it would be better to standardize the method before standardizing the interpretation of results.  Lutheran Hospital clearly believed this nonsense about Steere’s “area curves” (the elephant rule, or the Steere idea that happens to be the reverse of Limit of Detection or Limit of Quantitation as a parameter that is supposed to suggest to those creating and validating analytical methods and the companies who try to sell us very sophisticated and SENSITIVE equipment that we want to detect the LOWEST concentration of stuff, always), made Steere’s proposal INSENSITIVE, or would be inappropriate for use on humans or would not detect as many cases of Lyme as possible.

Note that the only place in the entire world, at the current time in history, where you hear anything about how we could improve the testing for Lyme, is on ActionLyme.  It’s a repeat or a rebroadcast of the crooks’ work from the early 1990s.  Think about what that means in terms of the integrity and competence of your MD or any MD you know.  Not a single MD in America felt obliged to look at this data and our complaints and report this crime to the proper authorities.

 

The above is the very essential graphic for interpreting Steere’s Elephant Diagnostics Rule.  He tried to assert that the higher the antibody concentration, the more “valid” the test, falsely claiming that by “narrowing the number of persons who will test positive,” that makes his test more SPECIFIC, and claimed that “the higher the concentration of antibodies in the blood makes the test more SENSITIVE,” when as we know, SENSITIVITY is a function of LIMIT of DETECTION or the ability of the test to detect very low concentrations of analyte.  

The new Steere fantasy term “receiver operating characteristic” is not a criterion for the validation of an analytical method.  It means the opposite of sensitivity or the goal of detecting increasingly lower quantities of analyte.

Cross apply that to what you know from Chapter One on Chromatography Methods Development and Validation.  No one in their right mind would buy a chromatography detector that detects less than what you can see with your own eyeball.  No one goes hunting for viruses with a magnifying glass.  We know from Chapter One, that by 1991, Yale’s Erol Fikrig already made the most common band to ALL CASES OF LYME, band 41, SPECIFIC by pharming sections of the DNA from Bb flagellin into E. coli, producing a protein fragment, and comparing the antibodies from the blood of people infected with known spirochetal or flagellated infections and found that he had captured a fragment of recombinant flagellin that was SPECIFIC to Borrelia burgdorferi, or only detected Lyme-infected patients. 

Yale also claims that their recombinant vaccine, OspA or LYMErix, was SPECIFIC enough to prevent Lyme, so why isn’t one specific antibody specific enough to detect Lyme?  Why was OspA left out of the diagnostic standard, if to have that antibody from a vaccine, that was supposedly specific enough to PREVENT “Lyme Disease?”

You can see how silly Dressler/Steere is on its face.  You need 5 out of 10 band in order to be diagnosed with a case of Lyme, but you only needed one antibody, band 31, to be PROTECTED against Lyme, according to these loonies and accepted as a truism by the American Medical Association and all of their related incompetent MDs..

The reality is that each antibody band is as ACCURATE for diagnosis as its assigned percent specificity.  If we had Steere at the helm, detecting Anthrax during the Mossadesque Anthrax-mailing stunt in October, 2001, well, nobody would be too happy.

 

10)  MarDx Labs – recommended adding bands 31 and 34, but were given Steere-Dressler  positive / arthritis-positive blood samples to qualify their test strips.  MarDx was contracted to provide blot strips for both the ImmuLyme OspA vaccine trails and the LYMErix OspA trials.  The ImmuLyme trial started in March of 1994 before Dearborn had taken place, but the trial administrators claimed they were using the Steere-Dressler proposal for the interpretation of a “positive” result (or vaccine failure).

Later we learned the same perpetrators of the ImmuLyme trial who were using MarDx blot strips admitted that they could not read their Western Blots in OspA-vaccinated people:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/313920

Sigal:  “Hmm.  How amazing.  The Western Blots are unreadable in OspA-vaccinated people, even though I reported that ImmuLyme was 92% “safe and effective” two years ago, heh, heh, I hope nobody notices…” 
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/339/4/216 = ImmuLyme Trial

 

11)  CDC Atlanta, at their own conference, talked about mouse antibodies and not human antibodies.  The mouse criteria was 2 out of three from OspC, 16 kD, 17.9 kD.

 

Says the CDC, “DON’T MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS after which we intend to blow you all off!!  heh, heh”

 

 

So, who was there and who said we would adopt this Steere in Europe method?

From the Dearborn booklet:

 

CDC officer Alan Barbour, owner of the ImmuLyme patent, a clear conflict of interest
Ray Dattwyler who said we should perform serial Western Blots to assess OspA outcomes.

 

 

Arthur Weinstein, member of the ALDF.com Kaiser cabal
Edward McSweegan, who initiated the RICO cabal by trashing the US Navy for his good buddy Durland Fish
CDC officer Allen Steere, formerly at Yale (owner of the LYMErix patent) – clearly to approve his own nonsense, perhaps due to his relationship with Imugen, one of the two main RICO labs, L2 Diagnostics being the other
Russell Johnson, formerly an advisor to the cabal and who knew more about spirochetes than probably anyone, edited the 1976 textbook, Biology of Parasitic Spirochetes, and who claimed in the very first patent for a Lyme vaccine that Lyme was chronic due to persisting infection and he mentioned congenital Lyme deaths in that patent.  In other words, it made no sense at all for Russell Johnson to be hanging out with these crooks.
Raymond Ryan at the University of Child Abuse, who published that strain B31 expresses little or no OspC.

 

The reason Steere’s Dressler/Steere Western Blotting recommendations performed so poorly was because Steere decided that “Lyme disease” would be a genetically-linked autoimmune arthritis in knee.  Because Lyme disease is not a genetically linked autoimmune arthritis in a knee, LYMErix was not a vaccine and came off the market.

 

The following is an excerpt from the Dressler/Steere report where Steere used high passage strain G39/40 with the recombinant antigen Borrelia burgdorferi strain B31 (no OspC in it, which means the OspC response below was from the FRG and G39/40) bands 31 (OspA) and 34 (OspB) to leave OspA and B out of the diagnostic standard:

 

 

 

[CAPTION] 1993 Dressler, Steere report where OspA and B were left out of the diagnostic standard by using a high passage strain G39/40 (but comparing European blood to the Osps A and B to American strain B31) and is the basis for the current CDC IgG standard criteria to have a diagnosis of “Lyme Disease.”   This is part of the submission by Kathleen M. Dickson of southern Connecticut to the FDA Vaccine Committee on January 31. 2001.  It is part of the public record. 

As you can see, the one band that most people had, even in the hands of Allen Steere, was band 41, in both IgM and IgG.  Allen Steere did not care, ever, about patient outcomes, as we will see in an exclusive report on Allen Steere’s abuse of the psychiatrist Michael A. Schwartz.  

The Psychoanalysis of Allen Steere, in summary form: “DSM IV : THE EVIL, ABUSIVE BASTARD, ALLEN STEERE, CAUSES LYME RAGE;  as in ‘If I see that bastard again I am going to punch him right in the face.'”

 

The following snippet comes out of the other Steere in Europe report (Antibody in European Lyme Borreliosis), where you can clearly see that each manifestation of the disease has a very different antibody panel. We claim that it is absurd to create a standard that knowingly leaves people out of the detection ranges.  We think it is absurd to even begin to thinkof creating a test for which only the people with a hypersensitivity response are allowed to be diagnosed as positive.  At Dearborn, almost all of the IgM bands that were accepted for IgG bands were left out of the potential contribution to identifying a case of Lyme.  (Let’s face it- Lyme meningitis is the most awful case of Lyme.)  We claim that an ELISA or a titer is not only obsolete, but not appropriate for an immune-suppressing disease, and that you only need one specific antibody and it could be specific band 41.  At this time, by 1992-1993, Steere had already acknowledged that there was an MS form of Lyme, and JJ Halperin has already proven there was a Lou Gehrig’s Disease form of Lyme:

 

 

From the report submitted by JJ Halperin in September 1989 on what the paired serum (blood) and spinal fluid Western Blots (the faint pencil lines are mine) of people with the Lou Gehrig’s Disease version of “Lyme Disease”:

 

 

[CAPTION] These ALS patients look like they only have bands 41 and maybe 93, and I bet they now would test negative to Steere’s Dearborn Lyme, which will be the central homicide charge against Allen Steere and whoever claims the Dearborn method is either valid, accurate or sensitive, to include claims that the “ELISA is sensitive.”

“Of 19 unselected patients with the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) living in Suffolk County, New York (an area of high Lyme disease prevalence), 9 had serologic evidence of exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi.”

So, there is no question that Lyme is deadly, that JJ Halperin knew it was deadly, and that the Steere/Dearborn method would not detect these people until it was too late and they were on their way to dead.

 

DELIBERATE RESEARCH FRAUD?

It is possible – check, VERY LIKELY – that by using a bogus “high passage” strain, Steere actually created the low percentage of patients with OspA antibodies intentionally.  Ask yourselves a question:  What in the world would be the reason for using high passage strains, if not to change the proposed antibody panel?

The profile Steere “developed” would not be accurate or scientifically sound no matter how you look at it.  In this Dressler/Steere table (above; given to the FDA Vaccine Committee and is part of public record), antibodies to OspA (band 31 kD) and OspB (34 kilodaltons) suddenly are not as prominent as Steere first observed and reported in 1986 where he said A and B bound prominently to antibodies in Lyme arthritis.

We suspect that that was because they knew they were going to have an OspA vaccine trial, and that blots were unreadable in vaccinated persons unless Western Blotted with a strain of Bb that had no OspA-B plasmid in it,  especially since the Phase I and II trials were underway in 1993.  One would suspect that somewhere along the way in the early, Phase I and II, human trials, someone would have Western Blotted the blood of a vaccinated human and discovered the blot-smudging David Persing and Robert Schoen reported in 1996 and David Persing and Lenny Sigal in 2000. 

We think they knew about the blot smudging earlier than 1996.

There is no other explanation for why Steere went to Europe with bogus high passage strains in the first place, and why in the second place, he would have developed a test that conveniently allowed for the RICO labs (later chapters) to be the only people allowed to Western Blot OspA-vaccinated people (the 1996 patent developed by David Persing of Corixa and Yale’s Robert Schoen) – a monopoly on blood and all the patentable goodies in it.  The most obvious question of all is why they thought they should have a vaccine against “Lyme Disease” that Steere and Dressler tried to allege is barely relevant to the infection, OspA, as this truly “bogus article,” the Steere/Dressler panel, asserts.  It looks to be due to narrowing the disease definition to just the Steere-alleged Aspirin disease (OspA autoimmunity) because of Steere’s and the ALDF.com cabal’s association to BigInsurance – Kaiser at New York Medical College (autoimmune knee-diseases do not require intravenous ceftriaxone).  It is also rather routine and rather obvious that one would assess any vaccine outcome by using a different antigen than the vaccine, if the disease is detected by an antibody test.

It wasn’t until two years after LYMErix was approved that we learned that none of the Western Blots were readable when using a regular normal spirochete with the OspA-B plasmid in it. 

The 2000  “Whoops we can’t read our Western Blots in LYMErix vaccinated people” report was published by the same author- David Persing, owner of the 1996 RICO monopoly patent (the RICO monopoly patent, in 1996, 6,045,804), and he was re-reporting the same “unreadable blots” phenomenon that Persing reported 4 years earlier, in 1996.  Note that in between, in December 1998, the FDA approved LYMErix and it was put on the market the following spring.  These crooks never told the FDA that they had no way to validly assess whether or not LYMErix or ImmuLyme prevented Lyme, but they reported 76 and 92% “safe and effective” vaccines anyway, in the journals in 1998.

 

Note, and this is extremely important:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6859726

Ann Intern Med. 1983 Jul;99(1):76-82.

The early clinical manifestations of Lyme disease.

Steere AC, Bartenhagen NH, Craft JE, Hutchinson GJ, Newman JH, Rahn DW, Sigal LH,
Spieler PN, Stenn KS, Malawista SE.

Lyme disease, caused by a tick-transmitted spirochete, typically begins with a
unique skin lesion, erythema chronicum migrans. Of 314 patients with this skin
lesion, almost half developed multiple annular secondary lesions; some patients
had evanescent red blotches or circles, malar or urticarial rash, conjunctivitis,
periorbital edema, or diffuse erythema. Skin manifestations were often
accompanied by malaise and fatigue, headache, fever and chills, generalized
achiness, and regional lymphadenopathy. In addition, patients sometimes had
evidence of meningeal irritation, mild encephalopathy, migratory musculoskeletal
pain, hepatitis, generalized lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly, sore throat,
nonproductive cough, or testicular swelling.
These signs and symptoms were
typically intermittent and changing during a period of several weeks. The
commonest nonspecific laboratory abnormalities were a high sedimentation rate, an
elevated serum IgM level, or an increased aspartate transaminase level. Early
Lyme disease can be diagnosed by its dermatologic manifestations, rapidly
changing system involvement, and if necessary, by serologic testing.

PMID: 6859726 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Steere first said Lyme Borreliosis was a systemic disease and acknowledged neurologic outcomes.  Then he said in 1986, when developing his first set of formal antibody observations, that first, band 41 (flagellin) showed up, then next, when focusing on the arthritis cases,

 

 

You can see from this early Steere report that Steere did not initially believe a person needed to have 5 of 10 bands early in the disease, but that he did acknowledge that his preferred type of patients (arthritis patients, people who need aspirin and not antibiotics for central nervous system infections), continued to have a hypersensitivity response.  AND he said, a person would have antibodies earliest in the disease against band 41, that these patients would be seronegative to the ELISA cutoff, and that he could tell the difference between Lyme and people with syphilis or Relapsing Fever (not that it really matters).

Clearly his perceptions changed drastically.  Anyone with Lyme Borreliosis knows the crooks discount completely the band 41 or anti-flagellar antibody.

In 1990, the CDC accepted Steere’s first, 1986, interpretive criteria, based on this very report.  Labs were to perform serial or sequential Western Blots to look for new IgM antibodies, because that meant the organism was still alive and not killed by antibiotics:

 

 

[CAPTION] As you can see with your own eyeballs, the first, CDC, published, diagnostic standard for Lyme Disease was to perform serial Western blots to look for any CHANGE in the antibody profile, especially new IgM type, regardless of treatment status. New IgM meant the bug was still alive, regardless of treatment (or vaccination) status.

 

Nowadays (2006-7), Steere says he sees antibodies against OspA as frequently as he sees antibodies against OspC.   That’s sort of amazing since these bad guys say the prototypical strain for “Lyme Disease” – Steere’s Knees-Only Disease – is B31, which expresses little or no OspC or the brain invasion antigen.  These criminals call Lyme victims insane, when none of us are so demented that we would could have come up with such a bizarre story as Steere’s saga with “Lyme Disease,” and expect people to believe it. 

The bottom line is that in America, no one is allowed to have neurologic Lyme disease since that requires expensive antibiotic treatment, therefore, strain B31- the one with low or no OspC in it – is “the American prototypical strain.” 

B31 is for “No brains allowed.”

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal at the time of this writing (Nov 2007) would like to know what is these Lyme crooks’ association to BigInsurance and BigPharma, although he and the United States Department of Justice, District of Connecticut, US Attorney Kevin O’Connor were in the fall of 2003 already provided with the Kaiser-Permanente-New York Medical College – SmithKline-CDC,  Incorporated, hard evidence.  B31 is also for “US Attorney, District of Corrupticut” and that will be discussed in one of the other pornography chapters.  (The first pornography chapter is CHAPTER 2, McSweegan and Fish’s pornography.)  I do not have the benefit of that RICO data now still in the US Attorney’s office collecting dust in New Haven to cite the Kaiser-Permanente / www.CastleConolly.com references but I know what’s there.)

Lots of phallic symbolism for everyone, here.  Not because it sells, but because it has been rammed down our throats as an excuse for science and healthcare.

For the 1994 CDC Dearborn Farce, Outer Surface protein A, once thought to be the cause of Lyme Disease (autoimmune arthritis in a knee), was left out of the diagnostic standard.  That was because it was going to be a vaccine, and in most cases of vaccination, the vaccine antigen itself is not used to diagnose vaccine failure for logical reasons.

Here, in 1994, the vaccine was going to design the disease, the disease was going to be arthritis only, and as a result of this Dearborn conference and Steere in Europe, there came a test for the newly defined disease that leaves out the vaccine antigen to facilitate the Yale (vaccine and post-vaccine test) RICO enterprise. 

What’s different here is that there came a “controversy,” (Think Big Tobacco or fraud or crime) over what “Lyme Disease” was, ever since the publication of the Infectious Disease Reviews Supplement 6 on Lyme and Spirochetal Diseases,  in 1989.  The 1989, Sup 6 ID Reviews (CHAPTER 8) had pretty much established that Lyme was a chronic parasitic spirochetal infection, like all the rest of the chronic parasitic spirochetal infections.

Kaiser-Permanente pounced on the unsuspecting priests at the Catholic Medical School, New York Medical College, in Valhalla, New York, less than a year later, in 1990.

 

 

All Lyme victims should memorize three things:

1) “Lyme Disease” was redefined by Allen Steere at the Dearborn Conference to an autoimmune arthritis in a knee where antibodies against OspA result in an autoimmune arthritis in a knee because OspA was intended to be the “vaccine.”

2) No one is allowed to have “Lyme Disease,” unless they have an autoimmune arthritis in a knee – an arthritis that is so obvious that it doesn’t even need a blood test (red, raised, hot, painful).  It is usually restricted to one joint. This disease does not need antibiotic treatment, even though Allen Steere and Arthur Weinstein treat this autoimmune arthritis with long term antibiotics, including ceftriaxone which is for brain diseases, but that violates the “IDSA guidelines,” which are themselves in violation of the American Psychiatric Association’s guidelines on the treatment of diseases that need ceftriaxone. 

 

Read the Rest of The Article

 

 


Fed With LIES::The distribution of African swine fever virus isolated from Ornithodoros moubata in Zambia.[doc]


Big Pharma Vaccines: Brain Damaged Children

 

SOURCE

 

Why don’t we know why Tb is so hard to treat and why is there no vaccine for it?

Because MYCObacteria tuberculosis is a fungal type infection, bearing the same antigens as LYMErix (TLR2 agonists), which did not prevent Lyme, but gave people an immuno suppression – like AIDS – outcome, just like Lyme.

Yale and UConn lied about the definition of Lyme and they lied about the outcome of LYMErix. (And now they have been defunded by the NIH.)

See more about how Yale and UConn lost all their funding, but the university that employs the man who discovered all mechanisms/outcomes of Lyme and LYMErix (arthritis to enhancing opportunistics like Epstein-Barr and CMV) was given a 65 million dollar grant to “translate” this research,… further down on this homepage.

We’d like to thank the Wall Street Journal for bringing this fiasco to the world’s attention.

Why don’t we know why infections like MRSA, Tb, and Lyme are so tough to treat?

What are the mechanisms of the reactivation of latent viruses?

Why is there no HIV, Tuberculosis or “Lyme” (real name, Relapsing Fever) vaccine?

Why did all the vaccines for these – Tb, Lyme, and HIV – all fail?

What happens to the immune system with chronic exposure to fungal antigens like the chronic shedding of Osps by Borreliae (known as blebs) in their typical Relapsing Fever-like mechanisms of relapse?

Why did all those vaccines end up to be the same thing and no one knew they all were the same thing and especially that they all failed in the same way?

[Because Yale and UConn lied about the outcome of LYMErix and the definition of Lyme to the FDA in 1994 and again in 1998. And they are lying still.]

But why does everyone at the CDC, NIH, Yale and IDSociety.org still say they don’t know what OspA is?

Maybe they refuse to admit what OspA is because that info betrays the mechanisms of vaccines-induced brain damage.

The reasons there are no Lyme, HIV, and TB fungal “vaccines” are the same reasons childhood immunizations fail and end up giving children the very viruses the vaccines were intended to prevent.

The CDC staff has recently been detected going around to the colleges recruiting from the chemistry and biochemistry undergraduates.

It’s too late. Because of this crime, USA has no competitive technoglobal edge. The whole world looks at this crime. Brazilian scientists flat out make fun of Americans and “Lyme Disease.”

The Tuberculosis global fiasco is a headline article in the Wall Street Journal – not a rag usually associated with moral issues. Clue. USA lost its technoglobal edge. American biotech and Pharma companies are sucking global wind.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LETTER OF COMPLAINT ABOUT THE INCOMPETENCE OF IDSA AND THE NIH, (See more at 101016.htm, or the Immunology of Epstein-OspA-Borreliosis).

This is evidence that it is known why children acquire the brain damage we call Autism and the mechanisms by which that damage occurs is similar to Lyme- and LYMErix-Disease:

To: sr393d@nih.gov, francis.collins@nih.gov, AllenM1@mail.nih.gov, zach_dann@blumenthal.senate.gov, francis.collins@nih.gov, ras8@cdc.gov, olib@od.nih.gov, afauci@niaid.nih.gov, joseph.breen@nih.gov, michael.greenwood@yale.edu, richard.horton@lancet.com, astrid.james@lancet.com, m.zecevic@lancet.com, ideditorial@lancet.com, Lawrence.Tabak@nih.gov, pgauwaerter@gmail.com
Cc: spinlyme@yahoogroups.com

Subject: A 5-points rule on fungal vaccines and brain-damaged children (failed TB and Lyme fungal vaccines notwithstanding)
Date: May 1, 2012 6:00 AM

Greetings,

I would like to propose a rule on fungal antigens and vaccines
which is related to the OspA outcomes:

1) “Finally, there is the risk that the virus may not be fully or completely inactivated or attenuated and thus, the vaccine may actually cause disease.”
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7%2C632%2C510.PN.&OS=PN%2F7%2C632%2C510&RS=PN%2F7%2C632%2C510

2) Measles, Mumps, and Rubella — Vaccine Use and Strategies for Elimination of Measles, Rubella, and Congenital Rubella Syndrome and Control of Mumps: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053391.htm

“Updated information on adverse events and contraindications, particularly for persons with severe HIV infection, persons with a history of egg allergy or gelatin allergy, persons with a history of thrombocytopenia, and persons receiving steroid therapy [are immunosuppressed- KMD].”

3) CDC: Human Exposure to Brucella abortus Strain RB51 — Kansas, 1997
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051495.htm

An ^^^ immunosuppressed pregnant cow was given a Brucella (LYMErix-like) “live attenuated” vaccine and the baby cow ended up with the disease, which then was transferred to the humans handling the cow and her dead baby. This parallels what is happening to children who are vaccinated while immunosuppressed, or who receive mycoplasmally (LYMErix-like) contaminated vaccines.

4) in the case of pandemic MRSA, as we have seen, the vaccine didn’t work because TLR2 agonists (lipoproteins) suppress the immune system. We also learned from the MRSA vaccine patent, that:

“Several established vaccines consist of live attenuated organisms where ***the risk of reversion to the virulent wild-type strain exists. In particular in immunocompromised hosts this can be a live threatening scenario.*** Alternatively, vaccines are administered as a combination of pathogen-derived antigens together with compounds that induce or enhance immune responses against these antigens (these compounds are commonly termed adjuvant), since these subunit vaccines on their own are generally not effective.”
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,771,728.PN.&OS=PN/7,771,728&RS=PN/7,771,728

5) The effect of exogenous corticosterone on West Nile virus infection in Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) http://7thspace.com/headlines/410671/the_effect_of_exogenous_corticosterone_on_west_nile_virus_…

Do not ^^ cause immunosuppression/stress as
it causes increased mortality from existing
infections and especially do not cause stress to
humans by treating them to *ABUSE* instead
of medicine when they don’t the special “controversial”
disease that fits the commercial (unknown) vaccine model:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20466055

Because ^^ that – the abuse – activates Epstein-Barr.

———————————

RULE: Don’t give immunosuppressed mammals live attenuated vaccines, and especially don’t give them vaccines that contain fungal or mycoplasmal antigens like LYMErix or OspA.

What do you say? Do you like that rule?
Especially if we added the OspA/MS/Roland Martin
“Immunosuppression>> MS Outcome of Lyme” data
to that data set?

What about if we added the 1918 Spanish
Flu data to the rule: “People with strong
(Steere-HLA-like, Dearborn definition-like)
immune responses are likelier to choke to death
on the pneumonia (fungal) that follows the influenza,
whereas immunosuppressed people won’t produce a
hyperinflammatory response and thereby survive the
pandemic.”

We haven’t had any new Rules in a while.

All we ever hear is that “Lyme causes nothing”
and “no disease outcomes happen from Lyme”
and “nothing causes anything” and “Lyme victims
are looney” and “Lyme victims have paranoid
delusional wannabee diseases” and the latest:
“Lyme victims are terrorists !!!”:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21867956

“But get the mysterious unknown OspA vaccine.”

– – – – – – –

??

What do you think?

How about that for a rule?

You might have to find out what OspA is, first.

No hurry. It was ordered removed by the FDA
in Feb, 2002 for producing “chronic Lyme-like”
illness (clue).

And that was the last time Uncle Sam said
anything *TRUE* about “Lyme Disease.”

10 years….

Kathleen M. Dickson
former Pfizer Analytical Methods Development
and VALIDATION chemist

 


The “Big Pharma” Blueprint Behind The CDC’s Disastrous Lyme Disease Policies?

“So now we have… a pandemic fueled by political motives coupled with a consummate disregard for public health, and a pandemic which, when the sources, motives, and actions that led to the … pandemic come to light, will be incomprehensible in its amorality and foolishness.”

SOURCE

– Medical doctor
(personally requested anonymity, for fear of reprisal)

Could a vaccine agenda, under the pretext of biowarfare defense, explain why the EIS, and its point-man Allen Steere, were so heavily involved in controlling the non-response to the Lyme Epidemic, which started just outside a biowarfare lab?

It is certainly feasible that a two-step program was put into place with respect to a vaccine development and marketing agenda for Lyme disease.

Step-I would involve the leaking of the pathogen into the public,[i] with associated treatment-prevention and cover-up techniques subsequently employed by pharmaceutical companies using their influence over the CDC and other regulatory agencies. This would keep the public ignorant about the nature and extent of the disease, so that well-connected researchers (conveniently doubling as pharmaceuticals consultants and military biowarfare experts) could monitor the immune response of the disease in untreated controls. This information could then be exploited to develop a vaccine.

Once this phase was complete, and a candidate vaccine developed, would come Step-II. The vaccine could be tested under the secrecy and human experimentation privileges afforded by the covert biowarfare research infrastructure, which has conducted decades of destructive experiments with impunity. The health crisis created through the “treatment-denial phase” of the vaccine-development experiment could then be used to generate demand and justify implementing the vaccine, despite predictable side-effects.

“The most serious and disappointing circumstance was when I caught the CDC red-handed trying to… masquerade opinion as data supported by objective and provable facts.”

–Dr. Ed Masters, Lyme researcher

The otherwise inexplicable policies of the Steere camp, which are more geared toward perpetuating the epidemic than halting it, can be viewed as implementing such a strategy. The Steere camp has created an environment conducive to developing and testing vaccines and also one for marketing them!

Such a strategy is not as far out as it may seem. The parameters that would lead to a favorable market for Lyme vaccines were outlined in a blunt CDC paper on the cost-effectiveness of a Lyme disease vaccine. According to the conclusions of the paper (published in 1999), vaccines against Lyme disease would only be cost-effective if the probability of contracting Lyme disease was increased significantly from the existing levels.[ii]

As Emma Hitt explained in Nature Medicine,[iii] the cost-effectiveness argument for a vaccine (“savings per case averted”) only made sense if nearly an order of magnitude increase in infection rates took place:

• “A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Lyme disease vaccine by the CDC indicates that the use of Lymerix vaccine is justified only in areas in which the incidence of Lyme disease is high.

• They found that the mean net savings of vaccination per case averted is $3,377 if the probability of contracting Lyme disease is estimated at 0.03. However, the probability of contracting Lyme disease is, in all but a few areas, less than 0.005.”

The CDC vaccine-marketability authors found that, within parameter values estimated to be accurate at the time when the first Lyme vaccine was being marketed, increasing the probability of Lyme disease to 1%-3% would make the vaccine appear cost-effective. The problem was that, except for a few isolated areas, this proposed probability of contracting Lyme was far higher than actual infection rates.

• Were CDC policies put into place to correct this?

• Were CDC-trained epidemiologists (EIS), such as Allen Steere, put in place to justify disastrous policies to make the vaccine cost-effective, as outlined in this CDC-authored publication?

• Does this explain the decades of outrageous CDC policies to the detriment of the public, allowing Lyme disease to spread generally and its effects to worsen individually beyond what they would have with proper treatment so that a vaccine could be justified from a financial standpoint?

“In recent years, drug companies have perfected a new and highly effective method to expand their markets. Instead of promoting drugs to treat diseases, they have begun to promote diseases to fit their drugs.”

–Marcia Angell, New York Review of Books

The CDC vaccine-marketability study spells out how the “cost-savings of vaccination” against Lyme disease can be computed by examining “the effect of combinations of six inputs”:

cost of vaccination
annual probability of contracting Lyme disease
costs of successfully treating either early symptoms of Lyme disease or one of three sequelae
probability of diagnosing and treating early symptoms
probability of sequelae due to early infection
probability of sequelae due to late, disseminated infection

Thus, this article reveals how a business case could be made to offset the costs of an expensive Lyme disease vaccine for each of these parameters, if

the probability of contracting the disease increases
the cost of treating Lyme disease increases
the probability of correctly diagnosing it decreases
the probability of effectively treating it decreases; and, correspondingly,
the probability of developing short- and long-term complications (sequelae) from Lyme disease increases

I propose that this CDC article provides insight into the overarching principles behind the Steere camp’s “Lyme Disease Cartel” (managed largely by CDC epidemiologists), and therefore provides a blueprint of the real goals behind decades of disastrous CDC Lyme disease policies.[iv]

Indeed, with this article as a backdrop, it should be obvious that the policies advocated by the Steere-camp pharmaceutical consultants that have resulted in abject misery for Lyme victims represent gain for vaccine interests.

The article explains:

The perpetuation of mythologies (variations of the “hard to catch, easy to cure” myth) that allow the epidemic to spread more readily (the “easy to catch, hard to cure” reality) while keeping the public and the medical community in the dark as to the true nature and extent of the disease

» This increases the “probability of contracting Lyme disease”

The promotion of notoriously inaccurate test methodologies over more effective ones, while grossly underplaying the effect this has on the burgeoning epidemic

» This decreases the “probability of diagnosing and treating early symptoms” (while the epidemic is building)

The promotion of ineffective, short-term antibiotic regimens over more effective, long-term antibiotic regimens that have been developed through years of careful, empirical research

» This increases the “probability of sequelae due to early infection; probability of sequelae due to late, disseminated infection”

The systematic harassment of physicians who learn how to diagnose and treat the disease effectively by using these antibiotic treatments

» This both decreases the probability of effectively treating Lyme disease and increases the probability of generating short- and long-term disease symptoms, the expensive treatments for which make a vaccine look cost-effective by comparison

The denial of the role of active infection in sustaining long-term or chronic Lyme disease and the associated symptoms

» This also decreases the probability of effectively treating Lyme disease at the source and increases the probability of generating long-term Lyme disease symptoms

» The downplaying of chronic or asymptomatic infections ultimately causing long-term symptoms also makes the vaccine trials easier to conduct (allows a shorter surveillance time with a shorter list of symptoms to monitor)[v]

Indeed, the Lyme “vaccine marketability” argument could also explain other controversial tenets long held by the Steere camp, including the following:

The overemphasis of the relatively fast-developing Bull’s-Eye rash symptom (Erythema migrans) as an indicator of Lyme disease, when this occurs in only half (or less) of Lyme victims[vi]

The restricting of Lyme disease to an arthritic disease, while absurdly denying that numerous, debilitating symptoms (both short- and long-term) such as cognitive and cardiac problems are routinely induced by the disease.[vii]

Overemphasizing the prevalence of the Bull’s-Eye rash and arthritis in Lyme disease cases has major benefits for vaccine development. By concentrating on only one or two of the “protean manifestations” of Lyme disease, a vaccine can be made to appear more effective by emphasizing short-term conditions and ignoring long-term ones. Additionally, the difficult and costly problem of running vaccine trials can be made much more manageable. This is because, in addition to helping spread the infection for reasons described above, the insistence that Lyme disease is characterized by a fast-forming and easily recognized Bull’s-Eye rash along with arthritis symptoms drastically shortens the surveillance time (and thus the required FDA approval time) in vaccine trials and eases the “surveillance criteria” defining a positive case of Lyme disease following experimental vaccination.

Indeed, according to the authors of one Lyme vaccine study, the long lead-time, late-stage disease manifestations of Lyme disease presented unique and significant problems[viii] for vaccine trials, since they required longer and therefore more expensive monitoring periods:

“Late-stage disease, which can occur weeks to years following infection, may cause complex rheumatologic, neurological and cardiac manifestations. These variable manifestations can make definitive diagnosis problematic and present difficulties in determining case definitions for use in vaccine efficacy trials. The long latency period for the appearance of symptoms also has implications for a trial, since prolonged surveillance must be employed.” [emphasis added]

Thus, by ignoring symptoms that form over periods of months to years and which are difficult and expensive to diagnose and, by emphasizing symptoms that are easy to diagnose and monitor, the ability to make experimental vaccine trials look more successful is enhanced.

This was the course taken in the trials for the first commercial vaccine against Lyme disease. In spite of the fact that researchers associated with SmithKline Beecham admitted the size of the vaccine trials “will not be sufficient to determine vaccine efficacy against rare manifestations of LD with comfortable precision,”[ix] an IDSA meeting was used to make ridiculously overoptimistic statements regarding the vaccine’s effectiveness against so-called asymptomatic manifestations. According to one optimistic synopsis of the vaccine trials:

“A study with Lymerix®, manufactured by SmithKline Beecham Biologicals, presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) meeting in Philadelphia, showed that after three doses, Lymerix reduced the risk of asymptomatic Lyme disease infection by 100 percent.” [x]

Such absurd vaccine marketing claims may also explain why Steere himself has made so many statements trivializing these non-arthritic symptoms over the years, and has recently claimed that these asymptomatic cases are not only rare in American infections,[xi] but form over a period short enough to have been monitored[xii] in his vaccine trial.

“The pharmaceutical companies depend upon a lot of their profits for drugs and so on to treat chronic illnesses. These are patients they think they are going to have for the rest of their lives. So it’s a big profit center for them. … They don’t really like solutions to these illnesses because it cuts into their profits, long-term profits. So in that regard, they have not been our best friends.”

–Dr. Garth Nicholson, former David Bruton Jr. chair in cancer research,
Department of Tumor Biology, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

The Unrivaled Destructive Power of “Big Pharma”

Is there a power center capable of manipulating the definition and treatment of a disease for such a nefarious agenda? If so, how does it work?

The pharmaceuticals industry certainly has the money and infrastructure to carry out such an agenda. They also have a history rife with such large-scale doings.[xiii]

This vaccine-friendly agenda is largely accomplished by manufacturing thought-leaders[xiv] out of compliant academics and keeping them on retainer as consultants to write pharma-friendly treatment guidelines and publish pharma-friendly articles in pharma-dominated medical journals. Such thought leaders are also kept on retainer to serve as “expert witnesses” when doctors who buck the system are put on trial. [xv]

The rotating door between the pharmaceuticals industry, private medical societies and government health agencies facilitates the implementation of a vaccine-friendly agenda. This was no more evident than when former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding was recently selected to head Merck’s vaccines division:

“As a pre-eminent authority in public health, infectious diseases and vaccines, Dr. Gerberding is the ideal choice to lead Merck’s engagement with organizations around the world that share our commitment to the use of vaccines to prevent disease and save lives.”[xvi]

Additionally, Dr. Carol Baker, past president of IDSA and head of the Lyme disease definition panel (hearing panel) on IDSA Lyme guidelines was appointed head of CDC advisory committee on vaccines. Conveniently “the 2009 IDSA international meeting focused on Lyme vaccine development.”[xvii]

These developments are consistent with the thesis of this article that personnel are being rotated through government health and military agencies (CDC), private medical societies (IDSA) and private pharmaceuticals companies (Merck and others) to carry out dangerous, vaccine-friendly human experimentation policies under the hidden agenda of biowarfare defense.

Also consistent with this hypothesis is a development reported by Dr. Merle Nass, who has been following the military’s deadly anthrax experimentation on the public. Nass reports that in addition to hiring directors from the CDC, Merck has hired a high-level military vaccine expert to help market vaccines. According to Nass, “retired Colonel John Grabenstein, Ph.D., who led the military anthrax vaccine program from 1999 through 2006, supervised multiple poorly conducted studies of anthrax vaccine safety, then moved to Merck Vaccine as a VP.”[xviii]

Of course all of this orchestration takes lots of money, planning, lobbying and media censorship. The pharmaceuticals industry has unrivaled power in this regard. It is the most profitable business on earth[xix] and correspondingly has the most expensive,[xx] extensive[xxi] and effective[xxii] lobby in the U.S. Its lobbying is so successful[xxiii] that it routinely engages in illicit behavior, knowing the profits will far exceed any fines it is eventually hit with (which often set records). These fines are merely factored into the cost of doing business.[xxiv]

Conflicts of interest abound, with respect to pharmaceuticals’ company influence over government regulatory agencies[xxv]—including the FDA,[xxvi] NIH [xxvii] and the CDC.[xxviii] Other media outlets have reported that members of Congress own pharmaceutical stocks.[xxix]

Alarmingly, the pharmaceuticals industry [xxx] has historically played a pivotal role in running the American biological warfare program.

This role would give the industry the ability to create pathogens for which profitable symptom treatments could be sold in perpetuity. Since the pharmaceutical industry dominates the CDC, medical education,[xxxi] medical press [xxxii] [xxxiii] and mass media,[xxxiv] the industry is not likely to be held accountable for disseminating pathogens for which their well-placed consultants could ghost-write self-serving treatment guidelines[xxxv] [xxxvi] (bolstered by ghost-written studies[xxxvii] [xxxviii]), and help intimidate doctors into compliance with them,[xxxix] [xl] to keep the profitable circle going.[xli] The elite medical press has all but given up on preventing such profit-oriented conflicts of interest.[xlii]

“Replacing medical education with industry promotion in the guise of scholarship causes demonstrable harm to trainees, the public and the profession.”[xliii]

–Dr. Amy C. Brodkey

Would pharmaceutical companies perpetuate research with deadly, “sham antibiotics regimens” (such as those short-term antibiotic regimens with ineffective drugs and doses typically recommended for Lyme disease) to make competing treatments that are a threat to corporate profits look less effective by deliberately under-dosing them?

Pfizer is accused of doing exactly this. It was sued in Nigeria for conducting a deadly, unethical drug experiment on children, without the permission of their parents.[xliv] According to an article in the Independent:

The suit further contends that the researchers gave the other half a comparison drug made by Pfizer’s competitor Hoffman-La Roche, but deliberately underdosed them to make their own product look better. Pfizer and its doctors “agreed to do an illegal act,” the suit says, “in a manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life”.[xlv]

The fact that Lyme disease under-treatment has been surrounded by so many researchers with biowarfare connections explains why their deliberately ineffective treatment regimens (using the wrong drug at the wrong dose for the wrong period of time to give the illusion of treatment while preventing it, as was done in the Tuskegee Study[xlvi]) have not been widely exposed.

Unfortunately, this situation is only getting worse.

Sherwood Ross has reported on the increased collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and academia in America’s resurgent biowarfare program:

“In case you didn’t know it, the White House since 9/11 has called for spending $44 billion on biological warfare research, a sum unprecedented in world history, and an obliging Congress has authorized it. Thus, some of the deadliest pathogens known to humankind are being rekindled in hundreds of labs in pharmaceutical houses, university biology departments and on military bases.

…Besides the big pharmaceutical houses, the biowarfare buildup is getting an enthusiastic response from academia, which sees new funds flowing from Washington’s horn of plenty.” According to Francis Boyle, an international law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign… ’American universities have a long history of willingly permitting their research agenda, researchers, institutes and laboratories to be co-opted, corrupted and perverted by the Pentagon and the CIA.’[xlvii]

Lyme Disease: The Stuff Dreams Are Made Of?

The Lyme disease epidemic has proved to be a lucrative opportunity for the biowarfare-connected corporate-linked academics who made their careers pretending to investigate and treat it. Perhaps this explains their reported excitement when the disease first broke out.

Polly Murray, the pioneer Lyme investigator who bore the brunt of the arrogance of the medical establishment that misdiagnosed her and her family,[xlviii] records that the doctors present at her initial meeting with Steere at Yale were strangely enthusiastic about the burgeoning epidemic that was devastating her community. She records one doctor’s strange comments on the newly discovered illness: “Isn’t this exciting?”

The tell-tale rash that signaled the coming onset of symptoms associated with Lyme disease caused Steere camp “experts” as far back as the mid-1970s to view Lyme disease as a model form of experimental arthritis. Stephen Malawista, who oversaw Steere’s initial investigation into the cause of Lyme arthritis, saw the Bull’s-eye rash as “the stuff that rheumatologists’ dreams are made of.”

As summarized by Jonathan Edlow, since “Lyme arthritis had a definable onset, marked by the rash, rheumatologists could study the joint inflammation in a way that they could not for, say, rheumatoid arthritis or lupus.” (The fact that the disease was also caused by an infectious agent that could be modified for use in a vaccine was another plus.) Such considerations would also play into the ease with which post-vaccination rates of infections in experimental populations could supposedly be monitored in vaccine trials. [xlix]

No doubt Steere’s knowledge of the immune response to Lyme disease, gained from his “study of 25 untreated patients monitored longitudinally throughout the course of Lyme disease” came in handy when he was put in charge of an experimental Lyme vaccine trial, while working at Tufts University.[l] This trial was based on the vaccine agent that was licensed to SmithKlineBeecham by Steere’s former employer (Yale). (The study was funded jointly by SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals and the CDC.)

In fact, scientists from the vaccine manufacturer credited Steere with advising them on reducing the background noise of adverse reactions (something he could claim to be an expert at, having carefully monitored the excruciating symptoms in numerous untreated patients throughout the course of their untreated disease).

Steere played a pivotal role in bringing the disastrous vaccine to market. As the “coordinating investigator,” he “coordinated and monitored all laboratory activities, including assay validation, sample testing, and the reporting of results.” He also advised the vaccine researchers on adverse reactions, “especially the serious adverse events.” Steere’s assistance in this matter was essential due to the fact that ”the number of adverse events was so large that it could otherwise have been considered ‘too much background noise.’” [li]

“We the people” need to ask this question: Did reducing this “background noise” involve suppressing negative findings in the form of “adverse events”?[lii] Curiously, Steere’s experimental vaccine, the world’s first vaccine to prevent Lyme disease, was quickly pulled from the market in the face of multiple lawsuits once the public figured out that adverse reactions were inducing symptoms of the disease instead of preventing them.[liii]

Summary

The institutionalized Steere camp philosophy that Lyme disease is overdiagnosed and overtreated[liv] has been an epic disaster for Lyme patient victims.[lv]

The New York Times quoted Murray, the woman who conducted the first investigation of Lyme disease in Connecticut (until Steere took it over[lvi] and ran it into the ground), summarizing Steere’s philosophy of denying the existence of chronic Lyme disease and the benefits of long-term antibiotic treatment:

”I am dismayed about Dr. Steere’s position. He feels that it’s overdiagnosed and overtreated, but I see people in the area who are having a real struggle with getting over Lyme disease. And some of them have responded to longer-term treatment.’‘

Murray has provided us an illuminating glimpse into Steere’s early investigation of Lyme disease. Her story, as one of the first victims unfortunate enough to fall under Steere’s dismissive care (her husband was given the Tuskegee “aspirin therapy” [lvii] by Steere, et al at Yale), vividly illustrates the ongoing struggle with the arrogant Yale/CDC/IDSA aristocracy that has plagued the Lyme community from the beginning.[lviii] This arrogance was described by a Navy doctor named William Mast who early on tried to inform Steere that antibiotics could be effective against Lyme disease:

“Allen [Steere] at that time was very adamant about antibiotics having absolutely no role in the disease. We left with some feelings of animosity at that point. And the academic people made us feel like we obviously didn’t know what we were doing. And we knew from our observations that we did.”

Murray, who at first naively trusted Steere, has given us a succinct summary of the “widening gulf” between reality and Steere’s deadly myth:

“There was a widening gulf between what the patients were experiencing and what most of the medical literature was reporting that Lyme disease should be like. Patients were becoming confused and frustrated by the dilemmas in diagnosis. Dr. Steere seemed to be less receptive to what patients were describing, and I felt it more difficult to understand his position on diagnosis, treatment, re-infection and sero-negative patients.”

Dr. Ed Masters, a Lyme doctor from Missouri who more recently caught the CDC red-handed conducting a fraudulent investigation to justify denying the existence and necessity of treatment of Lyme disease in the Southeast, gave a blunter summary of the establishment’s disastrous-yet-strident positions on the nature of Lyme disease:

“First off, they said it was a new disease, which it wasn’t. Then it was thought to be viral, but it isn’t. Then it was thought that sero-negativity didn’t exist, which it does. They thought it was easily treated by short courses of antibiotics, which sometimes it isn’t. Then it was only the Ixodes dammini tick, which we now know is not even a separate valid tick species. If you look throughout the history, almost every time a major dogmatic statement has been made about what we ‘know’ about this disease, it was subsequently proven wrong or underwent major modifications.”

The Steere camp experts have indeed been wrong along. Why should we believe anything they now say about the profitable Lyme Epidemic they created under the pretext of biowarfare-related vaccine research? Why should doctors be hamstrung by the treatment guidelines Steere’s clones have created to perpetuate the epidemic under the pretext of treating it?[lix]

Was the CDC’s Steere camp “less receptive to what patients were describing” because they were being rewarded with perpetual research grants to develop predetermined policies consistent with disease-perpetuation for vaccine development and marketing?

Given the source of Lyme disease, and the people behind the denial of treatment, it is my opinion that we are in the midst of another phase of the CDC Tuskegee Experiment and twin epidemics of disinformation and disease.

For victims of the disease and concerned members of the public, knowledge of the situation must be our own Phase I. But knowledge without action is fruitless. It us up to us to wage Phase II: alerting members of Congress and other officials and demanding action.

And we cannot stop until implementation of Phase III: Making sure our demands are heard and acted on by turning the Lyme Epidemic into the Lyme Solution. This entails protection for doctors who know how to treat Lyme and informing other doctors and the public at large about the nature of the epidemic and who is behind its perpetuation. To this end,

President Obama must extend the mission of his Presidential Commission, formed in the wake of recent revelations on the expanding scope of the Tuskegee Experiment,[lx] to specifically investigate the CDC’s role in Lyme disease treatment-denial.

Lyme disease is not my problem, it is not the Lyme community’s problem. It is not an American problem. It is now an international problem. And it is up to you, to all of you, to solve it.

Let the haunting words of Joseph Mengele, conductor of Nazi medical experiments,[lxi] ring from the past into the present: “The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.’’

Footnotes:

[i] For those who are skeptical that the government would expose the public to deadly pathogens like Lyme disease, please see my articles on the history of the government funding of cancer researchers who systematically injected “tumor transplants” into human subjects: “Cancer Man: The Government-Funded Cancer Injection Experiments of Chester M. Southam”: http://www.winstonsmith.net/cancerman.htm

[ii] “Since few communities have average annual incidences of Lyme disease >0.005, economic benefits will be greatest when vaccination is used on the basis of individual risk, specifically, in persons whose probability of contracting Lyme disease is >0.01.” Martin I. Meltzer, David T. Dennis, and Kathleen A. Orloski (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), “The Cost Effectiveness of Vaccinating Against Lyme Disease,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 5, No. 3, May-June 1999.

[iii] Emma Hitt, “Poor sales trigger vaccine withdrawal,” Nature Medicine, 8, 311 – 312 (2002).

[iv] Cold-blooded vaccine marketing economics and subsequent politics may indeed explain the otherwise incomprehensible disinformation campaign perpetuated by the Steere camp, which first denied that antibiotics were effective at all and then switched positions to claim they were so fantastically effective as to be used in miraculously short courses.

[v] Increasing the infection rate of Lyme not only increases the marketability of a vaccine against it but it also facilitates associated vaccine trials. This is because the “sample size” (number of test subjects) required for Lyme vaccine trials is inversely proportional to the rate of infection of a given area. The higher the infection rate, the fewer people would be required for vaccine trials. With fewer people required, the trials would be more manageable and cost-effective. Identifying enough areas with suitable infection rates (“The high incidence in some areas facilitated selection of sites.”) was a concern to the vaccine researchers, due to the variability in rates from one region to another:

“As in most vaccine trials, identifying the population at risk is a critical component. As far as LD is concerned, defining this population is particularly challenging because of several factors, including considerable variation in attack rates, even within areas of endemicity; seasonal transmission; year-to-year variability in incidence; and the need for outdoor exposure by subjects.”

This variability in infection rates made it difficult for researchers to settle on a sample size for the phase III trials:

“In addition to affecting site selection, the variation in reported rate and the estimation of the true incidence of the disease made it difficult to determine the appropriate sample size. With reported seasonal attack rates that vary in most publications from 0.1% to 4.0%, the sample size required to detect vaccine efficacy would vary significantly. It was decided the sample size and power calculations on a conservative estimate of an LD seasonal attack rate of 0.5%.”

Francois Meurice, Dennis Parenti, Darrick Fu and David S. Krause, “Specific Issues in the Design and Implementation of an Efficacy Trial for a Lyme Disease Vaccine,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1997;25(Suppl 1):S71–5, 1997.

[vi] Steere camp researchers estimate that EM occurs in approximately 90% of Lyme victims. ILADS doctors estimate it occurs in 50% or less. Bull’sEye, p. 205.

[vii] The IDSA Lyme disease treatment guidelines, published by the New England Journal of Medicine, deliberately created this false view of Lyme disease. In a summary table in the article, it labeled widespread and well-document cardiac and neurological manifestations of Lyme disease as “rare” and “extremely rare.”

[viii] The authors of one vaccine study acknowledged the difficulties that Lyme disease presented for vaccine trials:

“Initiating this pivotal trial presented a formidable challenge because of a large number of issues not usually encountered in vaccine trials.”

Francois Meurice, Dennis Parenti, Darrick Fu and David S. Krause, “Specific Issues in the Design and Implementation of an Efficacy Trial for a Lyme Disease Vaccine,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1997;25(Suppl 1):S71–5, 1997.

[ix] The occurrence of “rare manifestations” of Lyme disease infection would greatly complicate vaccine trials by requiring a larger number of vaccine recipients to be tracked and tested to evaluate the vaccine’s effectiveness against these manifestations. Such calculations resulted in SmithKline Beecham scientists conducting a phase III clinical trial for their Lymerix vaccine using eight thousand subjects to test against the “primary endpoint analysis” (arthritis). According to SmithKlineBeecham scientists:

“Eight thousand subjects (4,000 per group) would provide ample power for the primary endpoint analysis. While this number of subjects should provide reasonably tight confidence intervals, it will not be sufficient to determine vaccine efficacy against rare manifestations of LD with comfortable precision. The cost and feasibility of conducting a trial involving a huge number of subjects must be balanced against the potential statistical shortcomings.”

Francois Meurice, Dennis Parenti, Darrick Fu and David S. Krause, “Specific Issues in the Design and Implementation of an Efficacy Trial for a Lyme Disease Vaccine,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1997;25(Suppl 1):S71–5, 1997.

[x] The vaccine was falsely portrayed as 100% effective against asymptomatic Lyme, the source of the slow-forming and difficult-to-diagnose aspect of Lyme disease at a 1995 IDSA meeting. According to one summary:

“For every four cases of Lyme disease with the characteristic skin rash, there is one case of asymptomatic infection. Asymptomatic infection is significant because it may be the source for onset of late-stage Lyme disease, which is more difficult to diagnose and more difficult to treat,” said Dr. Vijay K. Sikand, adjunct assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine and lead author of the study. “The findings presented at IDSA confirm that Lymerix prevents asymptomatic infection, thus possibly avoiding the risk of late-stage disease.”

“IDSA: Vaccine Lymerix 100% Effective Against Asymptomatic Lyme Disease,” Doctor’s Guide, Nov. 19, 1995.

[xi] “We show that infection with B. burgdorferi may be asymptomatic but that asymptomatic infection is unusual in the United States.”

Allen C. Steere, Vijay K. Sikand, Robert T. Schoen and John Nowakowski, “Asymptomatic Infection with Borrelia burgdorferi,” July 30, 2003. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2003;37:528–532.

[xii] Steere is still claiming that such asymptomatic cases are nearly always preceded by arthritis symptoms, which would have developed within the scope of his vaccine trial observations.

“In a previous study of 55 untreated patients with erythema migrans who were followed up for 4–8 years, 6 (11%) developed neuroborreliosis and 2 (4%) had carditis within weeks after the skin lesion appeared, and 34 (62%) subsequently had Lyme arthritis. Joint involvement developed within 6 months after disease onset in one-half of the cases and within 2 years in all cases. Therefore, in the vaccine study, the period without treatment and the duration of follow-up were probably long enough for identification of most of the patients who would have developed later manifestations of the infection.”

[xiii] Pharmaceutical companies are certainly capable of engaging in activities on this scale. As Dr. Forcades has summarized:

• “In the brief period from 2000 to 2003, almost all the large pharmaceutical companies went before state tribunals in the U.S., A, accused of fraudulent practices. Eight of these firms were fined over 2.2 billion dollars.

• Four of these eight companies — TAP Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, AstraZeneca and Bayer — admitted criminal responsibility for activities that put the lives and health of thousands of people at risk.”

A Senate Finance Committee summary related the following with respect to criminal activities of the pharmaceuticals industry:

• In recent years, pharmaceutical companies have committed acts that forced them to pay the largest criminal fines in American history.

• In cases involving Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb and four other drug companies, these fines and penalties have totaled over $7 billion since May 2004.

• In particular, Pfizer has been fined multiple times in the past 6 years for illegal off-label promotion of their drugs. In its latest plea agreement, which took place last September, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in fines and penalties for off-label promotion of Bextra. This settlement was the largest criminal fine in U.S. history.’

Senate Finance Committee “Staff Report on GlaxoSmithKline And the Diabetes Drug Avandia,” (Max Baucus, chairman, January 2010)

[xiv] Marcia Angell has written on the key role played by manufactured thought-leaders in carrying out the pharmaceuticals’ agenda across the multidisciplinary worlds of academia, research, publishing treatment guidelines-authorship and regulatory agencies,:

“Since drug companies don’t have direct access to human subjects, they need to outsource their clinical trials to medical schools … mainly because it gives them access to highly influential faculty physicians—referred to by the industry as “thought-leaders” or “key opinion leaders” (KOLs). These are the people who write textbooks and medical journal papers, issue practice guidelines (treatment recommendations), sit on FDA and other governmental advisory panels, head professional societies, and speak at the innumerable meetings and dinners that take place every year to teach clinicians about prescription drugs.”

[xv] Dr. Joseph Burrascano described the undue influence of a handful of academics over the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease as follows: “There is a core group of university-based Lyme disease researchers and physicians whose opinions carry a great deal of weight. Unfortunately, many of them act unscientifically and unethically. They adhere to outdated, self-serving views and attempt to personally discredit those whose opinions differ from their own.” As he predicted, Burrascano was brought up on charges after he made these statements at a Congressional hearing.

[xvi] “Former CDC Director Gerberding to Lead Merck Vaccines,” John George, Philadelphia Business Journal, Dec. 21, 2009

[xvii] The IDSA, the chief medical society pushing vaccine-friendly Lyme policies, is dominated by vaccine interests. According to the California Lyme Disease Association: “50% of the 272 speakers at the October 2009 IDSA annual meeting who disclosed conflicts had ties to one or more of the five leading vaccine companies: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, Wyeth and Novartis.” Anatomy of IDSA annual meeting: Vaccine Financial Ties, http://www.lymedisease.org/news/lymepolicywonk/270.html.

[xviii] Dr. Merle Nass, who has been following the politics behind the government’s disastrous anthrax policies, has recently warned that the government is planning to test the deadly vaccine in children. “Let’s Test Anthrax Vaccine in Children/ Bio Prep Watch,” http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2011/05/lets-test-anthrax-vaccine-in-children.html

[xix] According to Dr. Forcades:.

‘In 2002, the total earnings of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies exceeded the combined earnings of the other 490 companies listed in Fortune’s top 500 most profitable companies … The gross profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry range from 70% to 90% and its net income rate is the highest of all industries. In spite of these extraordinary profits, the tax rate imposed on pharmaceutical companies is remarkably below average, standing at 16.2% versus the 27.3% average rate imposed on other large industries.’

[xx] “The pharmaceutical industry spends more on lobbying — $855 million between 1998 and 2006 — than any other industry in the United States, according to the Center for Public Integrity.”

David Gutierrez, “Senators who protected Big Pharma received millions of dollars from drug companies,” NewsTarget.com, Nov. 19, 2007.

[xxi] Dr. Forcades again:

“In 2002, 26 of the 675 pharmaceutical lobbyists on payroll were former members of Congress, and 342 of them were former employees of Congress (20 of whom had held management roles). Each lawmaker has assigned to her/him one or more lobbyists who have the time and financial backing to study their psychological profile, personal and employment history, and their weaknesses.”

[xxii] The New York Times reports one staggering study of how pharma lobbyists were able to get Congress to parrot their talking points:

“Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies. …The lobbyists … were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.” Robert Pear, “Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists,” New York Times, Nov. 14, 2009.

[xxiii] Dr. Forcades relates: “Disproportionate privileges that the pharmaceutical industry is enjoying in the form of tax breaks and advantageous laws and agreements show clearly that the industry’s current power and wealth are not the result of a “free market” but rather of a deliberate policy designed to protect an industry that is as politically strategic to the U.S. as the petroleum industry.”

[xxiv] “Since 2004, the pharmaceutical industry has paid $9 billion to settle thousands of criminal and civil complaints related to the illegal marketing of drugs that kill or injure a million Americans EVERY YEAR from adverse drug reactions (ADRs)…. Although the Justice Department routinely pursues cases like this, the fact that a company like Astra Zeneca can pay a $520 million fine for the illegal marketing of a drug that generates $4 billion a year smacks of arrangements once made between small town mayors, their appointed police chiefs and local madams. And unlike drug cartels that are shut down and kingpins that are jailed, U.S. drug companies are typically allowed to pay fines, avoid jail sentences and raise drug prices to offset fines. These companies could not do this without the support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).” Office of Medical and Scientific Justice, “FDA Complicit in Drug Fatalities,” http://www.omsj.org/corruption/fda-complicit-in-drug-fatalities

[xxv] Sam Wells has summarized the influence that corporations tend to have over the agencies that are supposed to regulate them:

· ‘… Many of the regulatory personnel come from the industry itself. The agency is soon captured, one way or another, to benefit the vested interests in the industry.

· “. . . It is so much easier and, above all, more stable to seize the legal and administrative apparatus than to fight it, turning government agencies into licensors of private monopolies and co-conspirators against the people. . . .”

[xxvi] According to the New York Times, recent legislation to reform the FDA (presumably to control pharmaceutical influence over it) was actually designed to push the FDA into “even greater reliance on user fees from the pharmaceutical companies to finance its drug review activities.” The New York Times warned of “a dangerous dependency that distorts how the agency allocates money and staff and how fast it reviews drugs.” Barry Meier, “Narcotic Maker Guilty of Deceit Over Marketing,” New York Times, May 11, 2007; Daniel Carlet, “Diagnosis: Conflict of Interest,” New York Times, June 13, 2007.

[xxvii] “For the last decade, government scientists at the NIH have quietly been allowed to consult for biomedical companies under policies that defenders have said helped attract talented personnel to the agency. …Hundreds of scientists took millions of dollars in fees and stock from industry. Most of the payments were hidden from public view, raising questions about the scientists’ impartiality in overseeing clinical trials and in making recommendations to doctors for treating patients.” “NIH to Ban Deals With Drug Firms,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 1, 2005.

[xxviii] “As numerous medicines have been pulled from the market in recent years, worries have grown that experts may be recommending medical products — even ones they know to be unsafe — in part because manufacturers are paying them.

…Congress tightened the rules on outside consulting after similar conflicts were found among members of advisory panels to the Food and Drug Administration. But little attention has been paid to the potential conflicts of advisers to the CDC, even though that agency’s committees have significant influence over what vaccines are sold in the United States, what tests are performed to detect cancer and how coal miners are protected.” Gardiner Harris, “Advisers on Vaccines Often Have Conflicts, Report Says,” New York Times, Dec. 17, 2009

[xxix] “During a year when prescription drug prices and benefits are among the hottest political topics, dozens of members of Congress have another reason to keep their eyes on pharmaceutical companies.

These senators, House members and their families own tens of millions of dollars in stock in drug manufacturers, whose profits could rise or fall depending on what Congress does about the soaring prices of medicine and the push for Medicare drug benefits.

The legislators’ stock holdings are legal but create appearances that trouble some congressional watchdogs and public policy experts.”

Greg Gordon and Andrew Donahue, “Members of Congress Face Conflict of Interest When it Comes to Drug Companies” McClatchy Newspapers, Sept. 29, 2000.

[xxx] The Henry L. Stimson Center has provided a brief overview of the role that George Merck played in the development of the U.S. biological warfare program:

· August 1942: George Merck, president of the Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company, accepts the position as head of the newly created War Research Service (WRS), the coordinating agency that joins government and private institution resources to carry out the U.S. biological warfare program.

· October 1944: Stimson creates the Biological War Committee as a replacement for the WRS. Merck is appointed chairman.

· April to November 1956: Interested in determining whether insects can serve as disseminators of biological weapons agents such as yellow fever, the Chemical Corps releases uninfected mosquitoes around Savannah, Georgia, and then canvasses residents to determine the number of people bitten. Similar tests were later conducted in Florida.

· June 1960: Established the previous year by Defense Secretary McElroy, the Biological and Chemical Defense Planning Board issues a report recommending greater emphasis on biological warfare retaliatory and defensive programs. The board includes scientists, engineers, and research and development experts from industry, academia, and government.

Henry L. Stimson Center: “History of the US Offensive Biological Warfare Program (1941-1973)”

[xxxi] Marcia Angell has documented the sway that pharmaceutical companies have over medical schools and research: “A recent survey found that about two-thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution. A study of medical school department chairs found that two-thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three-fifths received personal income. In the 1980s medical schools began to issue guidelines governing faculty conflicts of interest but they are highly variable, generally quite permissive, and loosely enforced.” Marcia Angell, Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

[xxxii] Lawrence Altman reported how the leading medical journals are becoming increasingly secretive about the amount of their profits, which are being increasingly funded by the pharmaceutical industry:

“Leading medical journals, once scholarly publications meant to help doctors keep abreast of scientific advances and share information on new remedies, have increasingly become cash cows for medical societies and companies that own them, with annual profits in tens of millions of dollars, largely from drug company advertisements.”

“The Doctor’s World; Inside Medical Journals, A Rising Quest for Profits Published,” New York Times, Aug. 24, 1999.

[xxxiii] The online medical journal PLoS reported that “as a crucial part of their business model, many medical journals rely on revenue from prescription drug advertisements.”

This practice is prominent in the more prestigious journals, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):

“In 2004, JAMA and NEJM, the two largest and most influential U.S. journals, had the highest revenues from advertising and the cheapest advertising rates…” Fugh-Berman A, Alladin K, Chow J (2006) “Advertising in Medical Journals: Should Current Practices Change?,” PLoS Med 3(6). http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030130

[xxxiv] According to a summary by Health Care No:

“A recent FAIR study of nine major media corporations … found connections to six different insurance companies. The study also found crossover between these media corporations and several large pharmaceutical companies, such as Eli Lilly, Merck and Novartis…. In fact, save for CBS, every media corporation had board connections to either an insurance or pharmaceutical company.”

Kate Murphy, “Single-Payer & Interlocking Directorates: The corporate ties between insurers and media companies,” Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, August 2009. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3845

[xxxv] The New York Times has revealed the pharmaceutical industry’s influence over the practice of writing treatment guidelines: “The survey, in this week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, sought the opinions of 192 medical experts who participated in writing 44 sets of practice guidelines covering treatment for asthma, coronary artery disease, depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, pneumonia and other ailments.

Of the 100 who responded, roughly 9 out of 10 had some type of financial relationship with a drug manufacturer, including research financing and speaking, travel or consulting fees.
About 6 out of 10 had financial ties to companies whose drugs were either considered or recommended in the guidelines they wrote.
Eleven of the 44 practice guidelines were underwritten by pharmaceutical companies and carried declarations stating so. But of the 44 guidelines, just one reported a potential conflict of interest.”

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Study Says Clinical Guides Often Hide Ties of Doctors,” New York Times, Feb. 6, 2002.

[xxxvi] Amy Brodky summarized the manner in which industry influences research, publishing and treatment guidelines authorship: “The nondeclaration of industry sponsorship among writers of clinical practice guidelines, the often relaxed regulation of financial ties between faculty members and industry by medical schools, and the withholding of unfavorable clinical trial data by industry are other examples where financial interest potentially contravenes scientific objectivity.” Dr. Amy C. Brodkey, “The Role of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Teaching Psychopharmacology: A Growing Problem,” Academic Psychiatry 29:222-229, June 2005.

[xxxvii] According to Dr. Lindsey Berkson, writing on ghost-written studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“For example, since 1997 nearly half the articles evaluating drugs in the New England Journal of Medicine were written by scientists who worked as paid advisers to drugmakers or received major research funding from them.” Dr. Lindsey Berkson, Hormone Deception, p. 28.

[xxxviii] “A comparison of agency-authored and traditionally authored publications …showed that … ghostwritten studies outnumbered traditional studies, were published in more prestigious journals by more published authors and were cited by other researchers at a much higher rate. Such practices enable industry to formulate the appearance of ‘scientific consensus’.” Dr. Amy C. Brodkey, “The Role of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Teaching Psychopharmacology: A Growing Problem,” Academic Psychiatry 29:222-229, June 2005.

[xxxix] “For the past 4 years, the staff of the Senate Committee on Finance (Committee) has been examining allegations that pharmaceutical companies attempt to manipulate science to improve the marketability of drugs, potentially at the expense of public safety.

“These allegations include intimidating scientists, ghostwriting studies for academic researchers, suppressing studies that may show that a drug could be dangerous and selecting data to publish results that favor one product over another.” Senate Finance Committee “Staff Report on GlaxoSmithKline And the Diabetes Drug Avandia,” (Max Baucus, chairman, January 2010)

[xl] An article in the Australian revealed the tactics discussed at Merck,to intimidate doctors who criticized the company’s drug policy:

“An international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be “neutralised” or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.

“Staff at Merck & Co emailed each other about the list of doctors – mainly researchers and academics – who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.

“The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words “neutralise”, “neutralised” or “discredit” against some of the doctors’ names.

“It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.

‘We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,’ a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.”

Milanda Rout, “Viox Maker Merck and Co Drew Up Hit List of Doctors,” the Australian, April 1, 2009. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25272600-2702,00.html

[xli] Carl Elliott has summarized the whole process: “Academic physicians are still taking paychecks from pharma to sign onto ghostwritten articles; medical schools are still bringing in pharma-funded speakers … and peer-reviewed medical journals are still publishing pharma-funded editorials, review articles and journal supplements. Although the AMA developed clear, well-publicized guidelines governing gifts to physicians many years ago, the guidelines have been widely ignored, perhaps because the pharmaceutical industry funds the AMA itself.” Carl Elliott, “Pharma Goes to the Laundry: Public Relations and the Business of Medical Education,” Hastings Center Report, Posted Nov. 11, 2004..

[xlii] We cannot trust the NEJM to police the pharmaceutical industry ties of its authors. Nathan Newman warned in the Nation:

“In June [2002], the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.”

In 2006, the Journal of the American Medical Association announced a similar policy. As reported by NewsTarget:

“The Journal of the American Medical Association said that it would not ban authors who fail to disclose financial ties to drug companies, because such an action might bring antitrust lawsuits.”

[xliii] Dr. Amy C. Brodkey, “The Role of the Pharmaceutical Industry in Teaching Psychopharmacology: A Growing Problem,” Academic Psychiatry 29:222-229, June 2005.

[xliv] Pfizer has been slapped with criminal charges in Nigeria over a notorious clinical trial it conducted on children during a meningitis epidemic a decade ago. Patients became unwitting guinea pigs for a new, untested antibiotic and many of them either died or were left with permanent disabilities. The Nigerian authorities say Pfizer researchers selected 200 children and infants from a crowded epidemic camp in Kano in 1996 and gave about half of them an untested antibiotic called Trovan. The lawsuit alleges that the researchers did not obtain consent from the children’s families even though they knew from their own research that Trovan might have life-threatening side effects and was “unfit for human use.”

[xlv] Andrew Gumbel, “Drugs Giant Faces Criminal Charges Over Clinical Trial Thursday,” the Independent/UK, May 31, 2007.

[xlvi] ‘To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day – bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury – but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with “pink medicine” – aspirin.’ Borgna Brunner, “The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010486/posts

[xlvii] Sherwood Ross, “Biowarfare Research: The Deadliest Secret of Corporate America,” June 23, 2007.

[xlviii] In what would be a prologue to the way Lyme victims would later be treated en masse, Murray was treated dismissively and arrogantly by the clueless doctors who saw her during her quest to get to the bottom of what was causing the epidemic in her town. They prescribed aspirin and antidepressants for her symptoms and suggested she was a hypochondriac, or worse. One doctor told her:

“Mrs. Murray, how can I convince you to stop this anxious search…. Please, please, accept the fact that everything has been done, and forget this fruitless search for a label. Nothing at all has shown up on tests. We can do no more. I personally think you are a case of a wounded intellect and you are obsessed with making a case for a disease that exists most likely only in your own mind.”

Unfortunately, this attitude is still all too characteristic of a medical system that continues to be dismissive of thousands of Lyme victims. Polly Murray, The Widening Circle, pp. 58, 100. (St. Martin’s Press: New York, 1996)

[xlix] Bull’s-Eye, p. 144.

[l] “As chief of the rheumatology and immunology department at Tufts School of Medicine, Dr. Steere led the research effort on Lymerix, the preventive Lyme vaccine, which first hit the market in January. The research took four years, covered 10 states and involved 11,000 patients and 31 scientists.” “Scientist At Work,” New York Times

[li] The vaccine company thanked Dr. Steere in one paper summarizing the results: “In this regard we are indebted to the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) and Dr. Steere, whose advice on evaluating the adverse events and especially the serious adverse events has been invaluable. Dr. Steere has also coordinated and monitored all laboratory activities, including assay validation, sample testing” and the reporting of results.” http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v25nS1/jy05_71/jy05_71.web.pdf

[lii] According to Julia Porter Liebeskind: “A growing body of evidence, much of it focused on faculty members involved in drug trials, suggests that consulting may significantly influence the reporting of research findings. It appears that faculty members may suppress negative findings if they fear that reporting such evidence will reduce their chances of obtaining more remunerative work in the future.” Could this explain why the vaccine made it through the trials even after it was known to induce the very symptoms it was supposed to prevent? “Risky Business: Universities and Intellectual Property.”

[liii] The vaccine was somehow released to the public despite a list of concerns about its safety and usefulness. The New York Times quoted Patricia L. Ferrieri, the committee chairwoman of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (which approved the vaccine): ”It’s rare that a vaccine is voted on with such ambivalence and such a stack of provisos.”

[liv] Steere was a consultant to the insurance industry and has advocated treatment policies that are favorable to it. As summarized by the New York Times:

“Writing in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993, Dr. Steere said the disease was overdiagnosed and overtreated — a statement that utterly balkanized groups of sufferers, scientists and clinicians into squabbling factions. …Meanwhile, as a result of Dr. Steere’s influence, insurance companies have sometimes refused to pay for continuing treatments for Lyme. This, in turn, has provoked patients to heckle and even picket Dr. Steere.”

[lv] Unfortunately, the policies of CDC-associated personnel that have dominated the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease have set the agenda on “treating” the epidemic no matter how consistently wrong these policies have been.

[lvi] Elena Cook summarized how Polly Murray’s investigation was taken over by the CDC’s EIS and Steere:

“When Polly Murray made her now-famous call to the Connecticut Health Department to report the strange epidemic among children and adults in her town, her initial reception was lukewarm. However, some weeks later, she got an unexpected call from a Dr. David Snydman, of the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), who was very interested. He arranged for fellow EIS officer Dr. Allen Steere to get involved. By the time Mrs. Murray turned up for her appointment at Yale, the doctor she had expected to see had been relegated to the role of an onlooker. Allen Steere had taken charge – and his views were to shape the course of Lyme medicine for the next thirty years, up till today.”

[lvii] The Tuskegee victims were at first given token syphilis medications to create the illusion they were being treated without actually improving their health. This soon changed and “all syphilis treatment was replaced with ‘pink medicine’ – aspirin.” Borgna Brunner, “The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment,” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010486/posts

[lviii] Joe Dowhan, the biologist who provided Steere with the evidence that Ixodid ticks were causing the outbreak of Lyme disease, was not provided antibiotics at the time (he was also given the “Tuskegee aspirin-therapy”): “I was never treated with antibiotics because they didn’t have a clue back in 1976 what it was. All I took was aspirin.” He would later develop severely disabling fatigue, as well as neurological and psychological symptoms of long-term, untreated Lyme disease. Bull’s-Eye, pp. 197-198.

[lix] These treatment guidelines are taught in continuing education classes by the same handful of EIS agents who authored the guidelines. This “third-party strategy” of pharmaceutical consultants using Medical Education Communication Companies (MECCs) to launder their self-serving agenda has been referred to by Carl Elliot as “advertisements with the appearance of objectivity”:

“By laundering its message through the MECCS, pharma gives up some control, but the pay-off is even better: advertisements with the appearance of objectivity. PR practitioners call this a “third-party” strategy.” Carl Elliott, “Pharma Goes to the Laundry: Public Relations and the Business of Medical Education,” Hastings Center Report, Posted Nov. 11, 2004. .

[lx] President Obama formed the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to investigate the extent of experimental abuses:

Recently, we discovered that the U.S. Public Health Service conducted research on sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948 involving the intentional infection of vulnerable human populations. The research was clearly unethical. In light of this revelation, I want to be assured that current rules for research participants protect people from harm or unethical treatment, domestically as well as internationally. “I ask you, as the Chair of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, to convene a panel to conduct, beginning in January 2011, a thorough review of human subjects protection to determine if Federal regulations and international standards adequately guard the health and well-being of participants in scientific studies supported by the Federal Government.” “Presidential Memorandum–Review of Human Subjects Protection,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/24/presidential-memorandum-review-human-subjects-protection

[lxi] The Plum Island tick research lab, a likely source of multiple pathogens (including a pathogenic form of a naturally existing Borrelia) which have become epidemics in recent years, was set up by a former Nazi biowarfare scientist, Erich Traub:

“He worked directly for Heinrich Himmler, head of the Schutzstaffel (SS), as the lab chief of the Nazi’s leading bio-weapons facility on Riems Island. Traub was rescued from the Soviet zone of Germany after World War II and brought to the United States in 1949 under the auspices of the United States government program Operation Paperclip, meant to exploit scientific knowledge gained during Nazi rule in Germany. …Traub dis­cussed work done at the Reich Research Institute for Virus Diseases of Animals on Riems Island dur­ing World War II for the Nazis, and work done after the war there for the Russians. Traub gave a detailed expla­na­tion of the secret oper­a­tion at the Institute, and his activ­i­ties there. This information provided the ground work for Fort Detrick’s off­shore germ war­fare ani­mal dis­eased lab on Plum Island.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Traub