https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins’-announces-25-million-initiative-fight-lyme-disease

Senator Collins Announces $25 Million Initiative to Fight Lyme Disease

Last year, Senator Collins authored a new law that provides $150 million over five years to fight tick-borne illnesses.

Washington, D.C.— U.S. Senator Susan Collins, a member of the Health Committee, announced the launch of LymeX, a new $25 million effort to fight tick-borne diseases.  LymeX is the largest public-private partnership to combat Lyme disease in history and will provide awards to improve data about tick-borne diseases; raise awareness; and accelerate the discovery of diagnostic tools, testing, and implementation.  Senator Collins, the author of the Kay Hagan Tick Act that became law last year, received a call today from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan, who shared this positive development.

LymeX is being led by HHS and the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation and will be housed within the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the coordinating agency developing the National Strategy to fight tick-borne diseases that was required by Senator Collins’ Tick Act.  LymeX augments the Tick Act law and reinforces the federal focus on this priority.

“This partnership is an exciting and promising development in our fight against tick-borne illnesses such as Lyme disease that affect hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.  As the largest public-private partnership to combat Lyme disease in history, this initiative builds on the bipartisan TICK Act I authored and demonstrates that the federal government is focused on eradicating this public health threat,” said Senator Collins.  “I remain committed to slowing the spread of these devastating diseases, and I will continue my efforts to protect Mainers’ health.”

Specifically, LymeX will advance tick-borne disease innovation by incentivizing the development of next-generation diagnostics through a series of multi-million-dollar grand prize challenges. The first LymeX diagnostics prize will launch in 2021. These prizes will be open to U.S. universities, non-profit organizations, private-sector companies, and domestic organizations to improve diagnostics at all stages of Lyme disease.

The initiative will also engage stakeholders to facilitate patient-centered innovations to address tick-borne diseases and increase education to raise awareness about risk and prevention.

The incidence of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases has exploded over the past 15 years.  In 2003, Lyme disease infected around 30,000 Americans.  The latest estimates show there are nearly half a million Americans suffering from Lyme.  In Maine, there were a record 2,167 newly reported cases of Lyme disease last year, nearly triple the number of cases in 2010.  Other tick-borne diseases are also on the rise – in Maine, for example, Anaplasmosis and Babesiosis have increased several-fold in this same period.

LymeX will complement the three-pronged approach created by Senator Collins’ Tick Act law, which:

  1. Requires HHS to develop a National Strategy.  This will help expand research, improve testing and treatment, and coordinate common efforts across federal agencies including with DOD, USDA, EPA, the VA, and the Departments of Interior and Homeland Security
  2. Reauthorizes Regional Centers of Excellence in Vector-Borne Disease for five years at $10 million per year.  These Centers have led the scientific response against tick-borne diseases, which now make up 75 percent of vector-borne diseases in the U.S.
  3. Authorizes CDC Grants at $20 million per year for State Health Departments to improve data collection and analysis, support early detection and diagnosis, improve treatment, and raise awareness.  These awards will help states build a public health infrastructure for Lyme and other tick and vector-borne diseases and amplify their initiatives through public-private partnerships.

______________________

**Comment**

Involving the HHS will almost certainly doom this project.  We should learn from history.  The anti-patient bias is clear and has remained unchanged:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/02/11/anti-patient-bias-embedded-in-tickborne-disease-working-group-and-its-subcommittees/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/11/cdcs-recommendations-for-lyme-epitomize-institutional-bias/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/19/letter-to-chronic-lyme-denialists-from-a-microbiologist/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/persistent-lyme-a-sticking-point-for-tbd-working-group/

Excerpt:

Remarks made after the vote made it clear that the abstainers felt they had defeated the measure, because “yes” votes didn’t comprise a majority of panel members. But, oops, guess what? Abstentions don’t count one way or the other. So, the recommendation passed, 5-3.

As that reality sank in, pandemonium broke out. Panelist Scott Commins stoutly announced that he wanted to change his abstaining vote to “no.” He was told that Robert’s Rules of Order don’t allow you to change your vote after the fact.

Things then got very bizarre very fast, with many people talking at once. Some wanted to vote on the original question again. Others didn’t. Some wanted to re-open discussion, others didn’t. It was confusing to the listener at home.

However, the five abstainers sure gave the impression they had been trying to game the system—to gain a “no” vote without having to publicly own up to it. When that ploy didn’t work, they scrambled to recoup their original objective— to deep-six the proposal regarding persistent Lyme disease.

It is truly time for a CDC/NIH/IDSA/HHS walkout movement. Our public health ‘authorities’ have vested interests which interfere with doing what is right for patients. We’ve tried working with them for over 40 years.  How many times are you going to get behind a horse that kicks you?

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/01/it-is-time-to-reboot-public-health-time-for-a-cdc-niaid-fda-walk-away-movement/  Although Weiler is discussing how ‘authorities’ have handled COVID, the exact same things could be said about how they’ve handled Lyme/MSIDS. 

Public ‘authorities’ should not be allowed to own patents on things that interfere with their ability to make public health decisions.

For more: ConflictReport

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2020.567252/full

OPINION ARTICLE

Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 07 October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.567252

Mechanisms of Dysregulated Antibody Response in Lyme Disease

  • 1Global Lyme Alliance, Inc., Stamford, CT, United States
  • 2Edge Bioscience Communications, Sherborn, MA, United States

Introduction

Lyme disease (LD), caused by the spirochetal bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, is transmitted by the black-legged tick Ixodes scapularis (Hu, 2016). LD is the fastest growing global tick-borne disease and annually affects >300,000 people in the U.S. alone (Steere et al., 2016). The economic impact is a staggering $1.3 billion dollars per year (Adrion et al., 2015). LD can cause long-term, debilitating symptoms, including arthritis, carditis, and neurological complications (Hu, 2016; Steere et al., 2016). A longstanding question is why antibodies produced during primary infection are not able to completely clear spirochetes or confer protective immunity (Barbour et al., 2008). Antibody titers can remain for years in some LD patients while in others, they wane over time or never develop at all (Kalish et al., 2001). Herein, we describe animal studies that reveal mechanisms behind dysregulated development of adaptive immunity and provide insights that may be relevant to human immunity to B. burgdorferi infection.

Role of Lymphocytes and Antibodies in Lyme Disease Pathogenesis

Antibodies produced through B and T cell interactions either within or outside germinal centers are termed T cell-dependent (TD) whereas those produced without the aid of T cells are T cell-independent (TI). One mechanism whereby B. burgdorferi attempt to evade adaptive immunity is by continuously changing the sequence of a unique surface protein called variable major protein-like sequence (VlsE) (Norris, 2015). Such sequence variation generates a large repertoire of antigenically-distinct spirochetes that become unrecognizable to the antibodies that are mounted against a previous version of this protein. This may allow B. burgdorferi to persist for months or years if not effectively cleared through innate immune response and/or early diagnosis and treatment with antibiotics. Another defensive strategy relies on switching which immunogenic proteins are surface expressed [e.g., Outer Surface Protein A (OspA) and OspC], as spirochetes transit from one environment to another. OspA and OspC are predominately expressed when spirochetes are in the tick vs. the mammalian host, respectively. Notably, whole-proteome microarray analysis revealed that while relatively few B. burgdorferi open reading frames (~15%) encode immunogens, those that do elicit the same detectable antibodies in naturally infected humans and wild white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus), the predominant maintenance reservoir for B. burgdorferi (Barbour et al., 2008). Interestingly, a spectrum of disease severity has been observed in different mouse strains, reflecting their unique genetic composition, which controls the magnitude of humoral responses during B. burgdorferi infection (Weis et al., 1999).

Despite strong antibody responses in animals experimentally-infected with B. burgdorferi and in many LD patients, this does not translate to robust disease-resolving and long-term immunity (Barthold and Bockenstedt, 1993; Aguero-Rosenfeld et al., 1996). In order to explore the mechanisms through which B. burgdorferi infection impacts the immune system and gain an understanding of the role of B and T cells in LD pathogenesis, researchers have conducted studies in mice lacking either or both of these lymphocyte populations.

Pathologies associated with B. burgdorferi infection of mice often spontaneously resolve, although animals may never completely clear spirochetes. In contrast, after infection with B. burgdorferi, severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) and recombination activating gene (RAG)-deficient mice, both of which lack B and T cells, developed severe, persistent arthritis that remained unresolved (Hastey et al., 2012). While B cells regulate disease progression and resolution in wild-type mice (McKisic and Barthold, 2000), adoptive transfer of CD4+ T cells into RAG-deficient mice prior to B. burgdorferi infection increased arthritis and carditis severity (unless B cells were co-transferred), and CD8+ T cell transfer increased arthritis severity (McKisic et al., 2000). Conversely, adoptive transfer of serum from immunocompetent B. burgdorferi-infected mice into SCID mice ameliorated both arthritis and carditis (Barthold et al., 1997; McKisic and Barthold, 2000). Transfer of immune serum into naive recipient mice either prior to or at the time of inoculation also prevented B. burgdorferi infection (Barthold et al., 1997). Immunization of mice with late-stage LD patient sera that demonstrated strong antibody reactivity to several B. burgdorferi proteins, including OspA and B, provided partial protection against B. burgdorferi challenge (Fikrig et al., 1994). These findings reveal that humoral immune responses generated in experimentally-infected mice and LD patients play an important role in the resolution of some of the most commonly reported clinical manifestations (arthritis and carditis), which are driven principally by activation of inflammatory T cells and release of potent inflammatory mediators.

Researchers found unusually strong and persistent TD and TI IgM antibody production in lymph nodes during early infection and in bone marrow later on in the course of murine infection (Hastey et al., 2012; Richards et al., 2015). IgG-secreting plasma cells, on the other hand, accumulate slowly in the bone marrow. Only about 50% of the IgG response is clearly TD and, coupled with IgM, is thought to contribute to the reduction but not elimination of B. burgdorferi from tissues (Hodzic et al., 2003). This TD repertoire of IgG contributes minimally to long-term antibody-mediated immunity, unlike the typical humoral response to bacterial pathogens (Hastey et al., 2012; Tracy and Baumgarth, 2017).

Mechanism(s) of Immune Dysfunction in Lyme Disease

To dissect the mechanisms behind this dysregulated response, Hastey et al. (2012) elucidated distinct stages of altered immune response using a mouse model of LD. In the first phase of infection, B cells accumulated in lymph nodes and induced antibodies in a TI manner and in the absence of germinal centers. In other infectious diseases, such as mumps and HIV, swollen lymph nodes are a frequent early symptom of infection. Normally, the areas in which T and B cells are found in lymph nodes are well-defined. However, in B. burgdorferi-infected mice, this typical architecture was disrupted, with loss of organized B cell follicles and T cell zones (Tunev et al., 2011). Deterioration of B cell follicles, between days 5 and 10 post-infection occurred together with the presence of spirochetes within the lymph nodes (Hastey et al., 2014). In addition, B cells began to accumulate in large numbers, reaching over 70% in some instances and disrupting normal T/B cell ratios (Hastey et al., 2012).

In the second phase, roughly 2–3 weeks later, short-lived germinal centers developed in lymph nodes. These germinal centers gave rise to relatively few antibody-producing plasma cells within bone marrow, leading to a third phase in which plasma cells only slowly accumulated. Lymph node germinal centers disappeared about 1 month after infection, despite the continued presence of bacteria at these sites. Curiously, B cell accumulation occurred after, not before, destructive changes in lymph node morphology. This suggests that the Borrelia infection, not B cell accumulation, somehow drives lymphoid tissue atrophy (Hastey et al., 2014).

So, while B. burgdorferi infection prompts strong serum antibody levels, and titers increase over the course of infection, the antibody response is ultimately ineffective in completely eradicating spirochetes and/or establishing long-term immunity (Tunev et al., 2011; Hastey et al., 2012; Elsner et al., 2015). B. burgdorferi benefits from this maladaptive immune response. This premise is corroborated by a study of antibiotic-treated human LD patients, which included patients who had persistent symptomatology and those who had returned to health within 6 months after diagnosis and treatment (Blum et al., 2018). The researchers focused on plasmablasts, activated B cells that mature into plasma cells within germinal centers. They found that patients who ultimately recovered their health, as compared to those with persistent symptoms, had significantly more plasmablasts during early infection. The researchers determined this by comparing the percentage of plasmablasts as a total of all B cells at the initial clinic visit, during early infection (even before beginning Doxycycline therapy). In addition, patients who ultimately returned to health had significantly higher titers of antibodies to a diverse array of B. burgdorferi proteins (Blum et al., 2018). Taken together, this is evidence that B. burgdorferi infection redirects the adaptive immune system away from a long-term protective antibody response and toward a less efficacious, rapid and strong, though short-lived antibody response (Richards et al., 2015).

Interestingly, Hastey et al. (2014) also provided evidence that Borrelia infection itself may have broader immunosuppressive effects. They tested this by using influenza virus vaccination as a tool to study TD antibody responses. Two groups of mice were influenza-vaccinated, with one group being infected with B. burgdorferi while the other was not. For the first 3 weeks, both groups of mice produced similar amounts of influenza-specific IgG. However, by 4 weeks, and until the study ended at 26 weeks, the B. burgdorferi-infected animals made significantly less influenza-specific IgG than the uninfected mice. By 9 weeks post-infection, there were far fewer influenza-specific antibody-secreting cells in the bone marrow of the Borrelia-infected animals compared to uninfected influenza-vaccinated mice (Elsner et al., 2015). This finding engenders an intriguing question about whether LD might negatively impact vaccination efficacy.

Implications for Diagnostics

There is more to be done in exploring these mechanisms of dysregulated antibody response in LD patients and there are clear implications for development of improved diagnostic tests. Physicians often follow the CDC-recommended two-tiered testing algorithm to detect B. burgdorferi-specific antibodies in patients suspected of having LD (Marques, 2015). The first-tier test is an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay or ELISA, and if results are positive or borderline, a confirmatory second-tier test is done; a Western immunoblot analysis to detect IgM and IgG antibodies that are specific for B. burgdorferi proteins. In theory, this test determines if a B. burgdorferi infection is active (Marques, 2015). However, this CDC-recommended serodiagnosis may be misleading. In a small study of 79 patients who no longer had symptoms, but had a history of LD with and without arthritis 10–20 years ago, researchers examined antibody titers using the CDC two-tiered test (Kalish et al., 2001). They found that 10 individuals (13%) currently had IgM responses (reflecting initial exposure) to B. burgdorferi and 34 (43%) had IgG reactivity (reflecting longer term exposure) to B. burgdorferi. Antibody titers were even higher for patients who had LD with arthritis (but were currently asymptomatic), as six of 39 (15%) currently had IgM responses and 24 of 39 (62%) had IgG reactivity. This trend also is seen in infected mice, where IgM antibody levels do not wane but stay relatively high along with the increased IgG response (Hastey et al., 2012).

Theoretically, it would be expected that all recovered patients would lack evidence of IgM and many or all would continue to have circulating IgG. The presence of IgM in 13% of patients would be cause for confusion for physicians as the presence of this class of antibody typically wanes with clearance of the pathogen and recovery from infection. Larger studies need to be done to confirm and to explain the reasons for the continued presence of IgM. Another consideration is that high antibody levels, as discussed, may only offer transient protection, with alterations in germinal center architecture and defective production of long-lived plasma cells and memory cells leading to poor immunoprotection in the long-term (Hastey et al., 2012; Elsner et al., 2015).

Future efforts in Lyme disease diagnosis need to focus on distinguishing between active and inactive infection and improving sensitivity in detecting early disease while maintaining high specificity. Diagnosis would be greatly enhanced with the development and broad adoption of point-of-care testing, and simplified diagnosis. Addition of antigen targets expressed very early in LD (e.g., VlsE1 and pepC10) to current antibody-based diagnostic testing procedures have enhanced performance of the diagnostic assays (Porwancher et al., 2011; Marques, 2015). Additionally, direct detection of B. burgdorferi antigens or nucleic acid rather than antibody testing may eventually be possible with the development of advanced technologies (Branda et al., 2018). Not only might direct detection of spirochetal components be indicative of active infection, but the presence of nucleic acids and certain antigens coincides with the earliest stage of infection, when B. burgdorferi-specific antibodies have yet to be produced. Examples include B. burgdorferi DNA detected using PCR (Mosel et al., 2019) and antigens such as OspC (Ohnishi et al., 2001) or peptidoglycan (Jutras et al., 2019). OspC is expressed on spirochetes as they transit from tick to mammalian host (Ohnishi et al., 2001) while peptidoglycan has been shown to persist in patients long after antibiotic treatment has ceased and patients are theoretically cured of active infection (Jutras et al., 2019).

The latter observation strongly supports the notion of persistence of B. burgdorferi after antibiotic treatment as peptidoglycan is only produced by metabolically-active spirochetes.

Discussion

There has been significant progress in deciphering the mechanistic foundation of B. burgdorferi’s impact on the adaptive immune response, specifically the B cell response and antibody production. While B. burgdorferi initially elicits a strong immune response, the end result is a failure by the immune system to clear the infection. This could set the stage for B. burgdorferi’s persistence (Tracy and Baumgarth, 2017), which may underlie chronic symptoms such as arthritis, carditis, and skin and neurological complications. The many animal studies conducted to date reveal that B. burgdorferi relies upon multiple strategies to evade and disrupt the normal functioning of the immune system. The end results are inhibition of effective B cell responses, disruption of the formation of stable germinal centers, and dampening the production of optimally protective antibodies and establishment of long-term memory cell populations. Importantly, many of these same evasion strategies appear to be employed by B. burgdorferi in LD patients, particularly those suffering from persistent or chronic disease. These intriguing observations provide an excellent foundation and springboard for further animal and human studies, with the goal of increased understanding of LD pathogenesis, better diagnostics, and ultimately novel and more effective therapeutic options for long-suffering patients.

Author Contributions

DB and TS contributed to the writing of this manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding: Publication of this manuscript was financially supported by Global Lyme Alliance, Inc.

Conflict of Interest

DB is the owner of Edge Bioscience Communications, a freelance, contract scientific/medical writing and consulting company.

The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Drs. Mayla Hsu and Nicole Baumgarth for thoughtful review of this manuscript prior to its submission for review.

References

Adrion, E. R., Aucott, J., Lemke, K. W., and Weiner, J. P. (2015). Health care costs, utilization and patterns of care following Lyme disease. PLoS ONE 10:e0116767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116767  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aguero-Rosenfeld, M. E., Nowakowski, J., Bittker, S., Cooper, D., Nadelman, R. B., and Wormser, G. P. (1996). Evolution of the serologic response to Borrelia burgdorferi in treated patients with culture-confirmed erythema migrans. J. Clin. Microbiol. 34, 1–9.  PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Barbour, A. G., Jasinskas, A., Kayala, M. A., Davies, D. H., Steere, A. C., Baldi, P., et al. (2008). A genome-wide proteome array reveals a limited set of immunogens in natural infections of humans and white-footed mice with Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect. Immun. 76, 3374–3389. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00048-08  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barthold, S. W., and Bockenstedt, L. K. (1993). Passive immunizing activity of sera from mice infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect. Immun. 61, 4696–4702.  Google Scholar

Barthold, S. W., Feng, S., Bockenstedt, L. K., Fikrig, E., and Feen, K. (1997). Protective and arthritis-resolving activity in sera of mice infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. Clin. Infect. Dis. 25, S9–S17.  PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Blum, L. K., Adamska, J. Z., Martin, D. S., Rebman, A. W., Elliott, S. E., Cao, R. R. L., et al. (2018). Robust B cell responses predict rapid resolution of Lyme disease. Front. Immunol. 9:1634. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01634  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Branda, J. A., Body, B. A., Boyle, J., Branson, B. M., Dattwyler, R. J., Fikrig, E., et al. (2018). Advances in serodiagnostic testing for Lyme disease are at hand. Clin. Infect. Dis. 66, 1133–1139. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix943  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Elsner, R. A., Hastey, C. J., Olsen, K. J., and Baumgarth, N. (2015). Suppression of long-lived humoral immunity following Borrelia burgdorferi infection. PLoS Pathog. 11:e1004976. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004976  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fikrig, E., Bockenstedt, L. K., Barthold, S. W., Chen, M., Tao, H., Ali-Salaam, P., et al. (1994). Sera from patients with chronic Lyme disease protect mice from Lyme borreliosis. J. Infect. Dis. 169, 568–574.  PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Hastey, C. J., Elsner, R. A., Barthold, S. W., and Baumgarth, N. (2012). Delays and diversions mark the development of B cell responses to Borrelia burgdorferi infection. J. Immunol. 188, 5612–5622. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1103735  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hastey, C. J., Ochoa, J., Olsen, K. J., Barthold, S. W., and Baumgarth, N. (2014). MyD88- and TRIF-independent induction of type I interferon drives naive B cell accumulation but not loss of lymph node architecture in Lyme disease. Infect. Immun. 82, 1548–1558. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00969-13  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hodzic, E., Feng, S., Freet, K. J., and Barthold, S. W. (2003). Borrelia burgdorferi population dynamics and prototype gene expression during infection of immunocompetent and immunodeficient mice. Infect. Immun. 71, 5042–5055. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.9.5042-5055.2003  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hu, L. T. (2016). Lyme disease. Ann. Intern. Med. 165:677. doi: 10.7326/L16-0409  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jutras, B. L., Lochhead, R. B., Kloos, Z. A., Biboy, J., Strle, K., Booth, C. J., et al. (2019). Borrelia burgdorferi peptidoglycan is a persistent antigen in patients with Lyme arthritis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 13498–13507. doi: 10.1073/pnas.190417011  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kalish, R. A., McHugh, G., Granquist, J., Shea, B., Ruthazer, R., Steere, A. C., et al. (2001). Persistence of immunoglobulin M or immunoglobulin G antibody responses to Borrelia burgdorferi 10-20 years after active Lyme disease. Clin. Infect. Dis. 33, 780–785. doi: 10.1086/322669  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marques, A. R. (2015). Laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease: advances and challenges. Infect. Dis. Clin. North Am. 29, 295–307. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.005  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McKisic, M. D., and Barthold, S. W. (2000). T-cell-independent responses to Borrelia burgdorferi are critical for protective immunity and resolution of lyme disease. Infect. Immun. 68, 5190–5197.  PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

McKisic, M. D., Redmond, W. L., and Barthold, S. W. (2000). Cutting edge: T cell-mediated pathology in murine Lyme borreliosis. J. Immunol. 164, 6096–6099. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.12.6096  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mosel, M. R., Carolan, H. E., Rebman, A. W., Castro, S., Massire, C., Ecker, D. J., et al. (2019). Molecular testing of serial blood specimens from patients with early Lyme disease during treatment reveals changing coinfection with mixtures of Borrelia burgdorferi genotypes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 63:e00237-19. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00237-19  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Norris S. (2015). “vls antigenic variation systems of lyme disease Borrelia: eluding host immunity through both random, segmental gene conversion and framework heterogeneity,” in Mobile DNA III, eds N. Craig, M. Chandler, M. Gellert, A. Lambowitz, P. Rice, and S. Sandmeyer (Washington, DC: ASM Press), 471–489. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.MDNA3-0038-2014  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ohnishi, J., Piesman, J., and de Silva, A. M. (2001). Antigenic and genetic heterogeneity of Borrelia burgdorferi populations transmitted by ticks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 670–675. doi: 10.1073/pnas.98.2.670  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Porwancher, R. B., Hagerty, C. G., Fan, J., Landsberg, L., Johnson, B. J., Kopnitsky, M., et al. (2011). Multiplex immunoassay for Lyme disease using VlsE1-IgG and pepC10-IgM antibodies: improving test performance through bioinformatics. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 18, 851–859. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00409-10  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Richards, K. A., Chaves, F. A., and Sant, A. J. (2015). CD4+ T cells promote antibody production but not sustained affinity maturation during Borrelia burgdorferi infection. Infect. Immun. 83, 48–56. doi: 10.1128/IAI.02471-14  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steere, A. C., Strle, F., Wormser, G. P., Hu, L. T., Branda, J. A., Hovius, J. W. R., et al. (2016). Lyme borreliosis. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2:16090. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2016.90  CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tracy, K. E., and Baumgarth, N. (2017). Borrelia burgdorferi manipulates innate and adaptive immunity to establish persistence in rodent reservoir hosts. Front. Immunol. 8:116. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00116  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tunev, S. S., Hastey, C. J., Hodzic, E., Feng, S., Barthold, S. W., and Baumgarth, N. (2011). Lymphoadenopathy during lyme borreliosis is caused by spirochete migration-induced specific B cell activation. PLoS Pathog. 7:e1002066. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002066  PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Weis, J. J., McCracken, B. A., Ma, Y., Fairbairn, D., Roper, R. J., Morrison, T. B., et al. (1999). Identification of quantitative trait loci governing arthritis severity and humoral responses in the murine model of Lyme disease. J. Immunol. 162, 948–956.  PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Citation: Sellati TJ and Barberio DM (2020) Mechanisms of Dysregulated Antibody Response in Lyme Disease. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 10:567252. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.567252

Received: 29 May 2020; Accepted: 02 September 2020;
Published: 07 October 2020.

Edited by:  John M. Leong, Tufts University School of Medicine, United States

Reviewed by:  Rachel Maurie Gerstein, University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States, Ronald Mark Wooten, University of Toledo, United States

Copyright © 2020 Sellati and Barberio. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Timothy J. Sellati, timothy.sellati@globallymealliance.org

____________________

For more:

http://  Approx. 8 Min

Media Continues to Undermine Science

October 15, 2020

By Ivor Cummins

Let the facts and the data speak for themselves – after the shocking intro piece, I supply some of those for you. Don’t worry – science still lives, albeit under attack. Please everyone sign the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s one way of fighting back:   https://gbdeclaration.org/

NOTE: My extensive research and interviewing / video/sound editing and much more does require support – please consider helping if you can at my Patreon Link: https://www.patreon.com/IvorCummins For monthly donation to support me directly, or one-off payment – simply use the following link: https://www.tinyurl.com/IvorCummins

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/17/massive-lawsuit-launches-against-covid-19-lockdowns/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/20/politicians-could-have-known-covid-facts-since-april-but-they-dont-care-about-facts/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/16/israeli-study-reveals-covid19-lockdown-was-pointless/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/12/top-who-official-to-world-leaders-stop-using-lockdowns-to-control-covid-terrible-ghastly-global-catastrophe/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/15/over-30000-health-experts-sign-declaration-against-covid-19-lockdowns/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/23/we-are-infectious-disease-experts-its-time-to-lift-the-covid-19-lockdowns/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/17/thousands-of-doctors-write-letter-covid-panic-and-restrictions-a-mass-casualty-incident-sign-here/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/10/07/current-covid-19-data-no-reason-for-lockdowns/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/24/do-lockdowns-work-mounting-evidence-says-no/

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/airlines-proof-of-immunity-commonpass/

OCTOBER 13, 2020

Airlines Test ‘Proof-of-Immunity’ Technology, Privacy Watchdogs Call It ‘Troubling’

By Jeremy Loffredo

At least two airlines are testing CommonPass, a new technology designed to let passengers prove they’ve tested negative for COVID-19 before they fly.

Proponents tout the CommonPass technology as a panacea for global travel in a pandemic world. They hope that a public weary of COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions — but still fearful of the virus — will embrace it.

But civil rights and privacy groups warn against any technology that monitors individuals’ movements and activities. That includes any digital health pass, like CommonPass, that can be adapted to provide proof of vaccination.

Here’s how CommonPass works. An individual takes a COVID-19 test at an approved lab, then uploads the results to a smartphone. At the airport, airline staff and border officials scan a QR code from the phone, which certifies that the passenger is COVID-19 free.

The groups behind CommonPass — Common Project Foundation and the World Economic Forum — say the technology has the potential to create a universal digital platform for COVID-19 testing that, if adopted across all governments, could hasten the reopening of international borders.

As it stands now, each government determines its own rules and procedures for quarantines and border entry. That’s unacceptable, according to the World Economic Forum’s head of mobility, Christoph Wolff. In a statement, Wolff said: “Individual national responses will not be sufficient to address this global crisis.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for civil liberties in a digital world, takes a different view. In May, the group stated its opposition to any type of “immunity passport” that would require “people to present supposed proof of immunity to COVID-19 in order to access public spaces, work sites, airports, school or other venues.”

Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that such technology threatens privacy and “would be a significant step toward a system of national digital identification that can be used to collect and store our personal information and track our location.”

The American Civil Liberties Union similarly warned against “immunity surveillance infrastructure” and “conditioning travel on COVID-19 immunity.”

Still, proponents like Dr. Bradley Perkins, former chief strategy and innovation officer at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and now chief medical officer for Common Project Foundation — argue that proof-of-immunity technology is the solution to opening up borders. Perkins told the travel magazine, Afar:

Without the ability to trust COVID-19 tests — and eventually vaccine records — across international borders, many countries will feel compelled to retain full travel bans and mandatory quarantines for as long as the pandemic persists.”

With suicides, clinical depression, domestic violence and small business closures on the rise during COVID-19 lockdowns and travel restrictions, will a public hungry for a “return to normal” side with civil liberties groups? Or will they see CommonPass as a reasonable trade-off for increased mobility and perceived safety?

We’ll soon find out. On Oct. 8, two airlines launched trial runs. United Airlines tested CommonPass with volunteers flying between New York and London. Cathay Pacific did the same for passengers flying between Hong Kong and Singapore. The U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention observed the process.

CommonPass said in a press release that after the trials it plans to expand to more airlines and routes across the globe. Right now it’s limited to certifying negative COVID-19 tests. But in the future, CommonPass will be able to certify proof of vaccination, the company said. This means that even if a future COVID-19 vaccine is not mandated globally, airlines could require CommonPass for anyone wishing to travel, domestically or internationally.

“The hope is that the CommonPass will ultimately help reduce or eliminate […] quarantine requirements,” according to the article in Afar.

The idea of deploying digital health technology on a global scale isn’t new. As far back as 2010, The Rockefeller Foundation — whose president, Rajiv Shah, once ran the vaccine financing operation for the Gates Foundation — simulated a series of plausible “scenario narratives” that might unfold in response to a pandemic.

The foundation described one of these scenarios as a “world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership.” The foundation lists biometric IDs as one element of this “more controlled world” where “citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty — and their privacy.”

The Rockefeller Foundation, which has ties to Big Pharma, has provided funding for Common Project Foundation, including through a $300,000 grant in 2019 and a $500,000 grant in 2020.

Common Project Foundation markets itself as “beholden to no one government.” Yet the project has deep ties to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, who will inevitably benefit if their products are mandated in order for people to travel across borders. The foundation partners directly with the Pfizer Foundation and Novartis Foundation, both founded by pharmaceutical manufacturers that have COVID-19 vaccines in development.

Common Project Foundation also works in partnership with the CARIN Alliance, a digital healthcare group affiliated with Pfizer.

Pfizer CEO Henry McKinell once hailed Klaus Schwab, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum, as “a person dedicated to a truly noble cause.”

In his book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” Schwab echoes Bill Gates’ sentiment that “a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available.” Schwab also writes, “The next hurdle is the political challenge of vaccinating enough people worldwide with a high enough compliance rate despite the rise of anti-vaxxers.”

Jeremy Loffredo is a reporter for Children’s Health Defense.

 

“© [10/13/20] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

__________________

**Comment**

I find it interesting that former CDC’s Dr. Perkins, now the chief medical officer for Common Project Foundation, states that the reason for proof of immunity technology is needed due to inaccurate COVID tests.  The reason we have such poor COVID testing is due to the CDC!  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/27/cdcs-deadly-testing-fiasco-centralization-of-public-health-authority-a-threat-to-national-security/

Lyme disease testing has remained abysmal for over 40 years but still remains the ‘gold standard’!  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/01/study-cdcs-2-tier-lyme-testing-inaccurate-in-more-than-70-of-cases/

There are numerous reasons for this but in a nutshell, the CDC directly competes with the private sector and maligns anything that competes with their own lucrative products, including but not limited to testing:  

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/26/cdc-playbook-learning-from-lyme/

One other concerning issue being mentioned repeatedly is the desire for a ‘centralized’ ‘global’ response.  This is newspeak for control and censorship, which is already occurring at unprecedented levels:

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/28/health-passport-scandal-uk/

 
 
 
Patent #WO2020060606, which is described as a “Cryptocurrency System Using Body Activity Data,” senses body activity of the user.
Human body activity associated with a task provided to a user(1) may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server(2). A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device(3) of the user may sense body activity of the user. Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system(4), and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified.”(5)  https://operation-nation.com/bill-gates-microsoft-file-patent-for-dystopian-body-activity-data-implants/
The patent states that “conditions set by the cryptocurrency system” can be awarded cryptocurrency to the user.  In other words, if you are a good boy or girl you get points.  What happens if you aren’t a good boy or girl?
Apple already has an app for all of this:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/18/coronavirus-covid-19-antibody-tests-do-you-really-want-one-think-hard-about-it-maybe-not/  It doesn’t matter if it’s the antibody test or the PCR.  They are both worthless and shouldn’t be used for diagnosis, let alone for quarantining people.
 

https://zoom.us/webinar/register/

68c9bc61-f9e4-404f-afee-1662b8afc25e

Effective and Affordable Testing for Chronic Vector-borne Diseases

Join Vibrant and Amy Offutt MD for an introduction and discussion of Vibrant’s new expanded tickborne and infections panels, including additional Lyme and TBRF markers, added coinfections, and now with opportunistic infections commonly missed alongside Lyme and coinfections.
Time:  6:00 PM CT (US and Canada)

Date:  Oct 22, 2020

Webinar logo
Dr. Amy Offutt is a director on the ILADS board, and the medical director and co-owner of Heart & Soul Integrative Health and Yoga located in Marble Falls, Texas. She completed her undergraduate studies at Abilene Christian University, medical school at The University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, and a residency in Family Medicine at Christus Health. She also has a Master’s Degree in Integrative Medicine from George Washington University and has completed a fellowship in Integrative Medicine. Her calling to look for the cause of disease, in addition to how to manage symptoms, led to her appointment by Governor Greg Abbott to the Pediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome Advisory Council in the summer of 2019. She has been married to her high school sweetheart, Brad, for 30 years, and they have 3 children, ages 19, 17, and 12. They enjoy family time, being on the lake, traveling, and healthy living.