Why Is Protecting COVID-19 Origin Narrative so Important?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

Dr. Meryl Nass is a physician in Ellsworth, Maine, who in previous interviews has helped us understand the unforeseen consequences of mass vaccination — consequences that could end up impacting public health in a very negative way. Here, she discusses what she’s been working on for decades, and how it relates to this current pandemic.

An outspoken supporter of health freedom, Nass provided scientifically referenced testimony to the Massachusetts legislature, December 3, 2019, when it was considering legislation to eliminate the religious vaccine exemption. This is now more relevant than ever, considering there is talk, worldwide, about implementing more or less mandatory vaccination against COVID-19. In her December 2019 testimony, Nass pointed out that:1

There is no crisis (no epidemic of deaths or disabilities) from infectious diseases caused by lack of vaccinations … The elephant in the auditorium today is Pharma profits …

The pharmaceutical industry has undertaken a very ambitious campaign to legislate away vaccine exemptions in the United States and Canada. France, Italy and Germany have rescinded vaccine exemptions too, suggesting the campaign is worldwide …

It has been claimed that vaccines are, by nature, extremely safe. Yet vaccines are usually injected, bypassing all the body’s natural barriers. Even minute contamination or inadequate microbial inactivation can maim or kill … Vaccines have caused many autoimmune disorders, from Guillain-Barre syndrome to narcolepsy …

Vaccines appear safe because the immediate side effects are usually mild and temporary. Serious vaccine side effects often take weeks or months to surface, and by then it is difficult to know what caused them …

A 2009 European swine flu vaccine (GSK’s Pandemrix) caused over 1,300 cases of severe narcolepsy, mostly in adolescents. This vaccine was linked to narcolepsy because 15 times the usual number of narcolepsy cases suddenly appeared in clinics …

It should be apparent, but isn’t: Government waivers of vaccine liability discourage manufacturers from ensuring that the vaccines they sell are as safe and effective as possible.

The removal of vaccine exemptions, combined with liability waivers for vaccine side effects and recently loosened standards for licensing vaccines, create a highly toxic mix.”

Nass goes on to cite statistics showing why the claim that draconian laws are required to control the “crisis” of vaccine-preventable diseases is false. She also points out that:

The bedrock expectation of medical ethics is that patients must give informed consent2for all medical procedures, including vaccines. Informed consent means that patients must be informed about the procedure, have the right to refuse, and may not be coerced to accept it.

Isn’t withholding an education an extreme form of coercion? Without any discussion of its moral or ethical dimensions by media, medical societies or government officials, the requirement for informed consent for medical procedures, including vaccinations, vanishes in the blink of an eye when patients are not allowed the right to refuse.”


In 1992, Nass published a paper3 identifying the 1978-1980 Zimbabwe anthrax outbreak as a case of biological warfare. In 2011, I also interviewed her about the 2001 false flag anthrax attack in the U.S., on the heels of 9/11, and the dangers of the anthrax vaccine.

That manufactured crisis initiated the PATRIOT Act, one of the most severe compromises of our personal freedoms up to that point. Now, it appears they’re using the COVID-19 pandemic to take away even more freedoms.

There’s strong evidence that this is precisely what’s going on. Early in the interview, Nass summarizes our earlier discussion about the anthrax attack, so for a refresher, listen to the interview or read through the transcript. That attack, however, is also what allowed government funds to be allocated toward even more biological warfare research. She explains:

Congress appropriated a lot of money for bio-terrorism, which is conjoined with pandemic planning. So, the same pot of money that goes into pandemics goes into Biological Defense. Much of it is duly used for research performed in high containment, BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs.

We don’t call it biological warfare, but when you’re designing pathogens to be more virulent than the originals in nature … essentially biological warfare research gets done. Things are called biological warfare if the intent is to create a weapon. It’s called biological defense if the intent is to design a bad bug so you can come up with defenses against that bug.

What has happened is that a lot of money was spent to develop new high containment labs — many, many more high containment labs … about $6.5 billion a year since 2001 has been designated for this biodefense. So, what we wound up with is hundreds of biodefense labs that have to be used and thousands, possibly 15,000, newly trained bio-defense researchers.

So, now we have cadres of people who are experts in coronaviruses or avian flu viruses, Ebola, Lassa, et cetera. And what most of that money … has been spent on, has been researching these pathogens. Even though the money was supposed to be spent on developing countermeasures and stockpiling countermeasures, to a great extent that did not happen …

As a result, we know a lot about highly virulent coronaviruses that have been created in labs around the world as well as in the U.S. and China, and we have absolutely no countermeasures that have been developed for coronavirus.”

Where Did SARS-CoV-2 Originate?

“Like everybody else, I wondered whether this was a natural jump from a bat or some other animal to humans and scratched my head about it,” Nass says. While she’s not a virologist, she does have a three-decade background in biological warfare and is aware of what’s been created in the past, what it takes, where they may be made, and how it has been done.

“So, I remained curious. Then on February 19 online, and in the March 7 print edition, a group of scientists had a “Correspondence” published in The Lancet, and it was a very curious piece to me. It didn’t make sense.

And these were very prominent signatories, including the former head of the National Science Foundation, one of the former top people at CDC, the director of the Wellcome Trust, coronavirus researchers and funders, and other prominent people.

What they said is, ‘We need to quash the rumors that this came from a lab. That is a conspiracy theory and we need to get rid of it. They wrote:

The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.’ 4

So, what this group was doing, in a very short, less than a page-long letter, was calling the possibility that SARS-2 might have come from a lab a conspiracy theory, and conflating any consideration of this possibility with threatening “transparent sharing of data” with China. And we couldn’t interfere with that because we need to work with China to fight the coronavirus …

A couple of weeks later, an article came out in Nature Medicine, which said, ‘Here we have the scientific proof that this did not come from a lab’ …

And this second paper talked about the two things that have been identified by others as the most problematic new genetic segments on SARS-CoV-2 — two sites on the spike RNA, which seem to enhance the tropism and the binding/entry, so it makes it easier for the virus to get into human cells and expands the range of cell types the virus can enter.

And the Nature Medicine authors took these two regions and said: ‘Look, these mutations that are found in the new CoV-2 virus, which are not seen in any of the other coronaviruses anywhere near it genetically, must have come from the wild because these weren’t created in the ways that we virologists would have chosen to create them.’

They said, ‘We already have ways to create these mutations that would leave a lab signature, but there is no lab signature. And furthermore, we decided that based on computer modeling, the receptor binding domain did not use the ideal formulation we predicted. If a geneticist, a virologist, was doing this, they would have used our computer model. They didn’t, and therefore this must have come from the wild.’

Well, that was a really odd argument because it didn’t make any scientific sense. The authors did a lot of hand-waving, but failed to consider that other techniques could have been used to create this virus. Nor did the authors explain how such a virus, so ideally adapted to humans, could have developed in wildlife.

We should understand that those were two highly virulent and surprising mutations that could well have been added to a preexisting coronavirus, by a variety of techniques, including the old passage technique, still used today, which is what Louis Pasteur used to create the first live, attenuated rabies vaccine in 1885.

If you passage a virus through multiple human tissue cultures, or mice that contain, for example, humanized lung tissue, you force the virus to develop mutations that adapt it better and better to the new tissue. If the current coronavirus, as claimed by some scientists and seems borne out clinically, is better adapted to binding to the human ACE-2 receptor than to all known animal ACE-2 receptors, then it either:

1) mutated that way by jumping from wildlife to humans long ago, subsequently optimizing its ACE-2 receptor for humans over a prolonged period of time, or

2) was genetically engineered in a lab to do so, or

3) was passaged through cells with human ACE-2 receptors in order to accumulate the mutations that made it most virulent to humans. 

I believe the same argument holds for the second unique coronavirus mutation, the addition of four amino acids to form a furin (polybasic) cleavage site. This site takes advantage of the human furin enzyme present intra- and extracellularly, which enhances viral entry into human cells and might convey other advantages to the virus.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the first hypothesis, that this virus has been circulating in humans for years. Thus, we are left with hypotheses 2 and 3: Each requires the human hand, only differing by the technique used. In my opinion, it is likely that both techniques (genetic engineering and serial passage) were used to produce the SARS-2 coronavirus, or its laboratory progenitors.”

We Absolutely Have the Know-How to Create SARS-CoV-2

Nass countered Nature Medicine’s narrative in a March 26, 2020, blog post,5 and again in an April 2, 2020, post, in which she wrote:6

“Why are some of the U.S.’ top scientists making a specious argument about the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2? … Prior to genetic engineering techniques being developed (1973) and widely used (since late 1970s), more ‘primitive’ means of causing mutations, with the intention of developing biological weapons, were employed …

They resulted in biological weapons that were tested, well-described, and in some cases, used … These methods can result in biowarfare agents that lack the identifiable signature of a microbial agent constructed in a lab from known RNA or DNA sequences.

In fact, it would be desirable to produce such agents, since it would be difficult to prove they were deliberately constructed in a lab. Here are just a few possibilities for how one might create new, virulent mutants:

  • Exposing microorganisms to chemical or radiological agents that cause high mutation rates and selecting for desired characteristics
  • Passaging virus through a number of lab animals or tissue cultures
  • Mixing viruses together and seeking recombinants with a new mix of virulence factors”

Why Is Protecting the Narrative so Important?

Nass believes the old technique of passage is a likely candidate here. According to Nass, if you take viruses that are ill adapted to the human ACE-2 receptor but are adapted to another animal’s ACE-2 inhibitor, and then passage them in human tissue culture with the human ACE-2 receptor, over time, the viruses will develop improved receptor binding.

“It’s a likely way that this coronavirus might have been produced,” she says. “Anyway, I read that article and I said, ‘This is complete nonsense. I can’t believe Nature Medicine published it.’ And the two groups of authors, the group from The Lancet and the group from Nature Medicine, have consistently referred to each other as they’ve been interviewed since.

Science Magazine did a short piece on The Lancet article. USA Today did a piece on the Nature of Medicine article. And then the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, Tony Fauci’s boss, wrote a blog post (or somebody wrote it for him) about the spurious Nature Medicine article.

He stated, ‘Now we have the scientific answer. This article in Nature Medicine has put to rest any thoughts that this could be a lab construct. That’s a conspiracy theory. We have no room for conspiracy theories. This is the end of the discussion’ …

Now, the first thing I thought about the Nature Medicine article was, ‘Did these authors actually write it?’ Because it’s such a piece of scientific nonsense than any real scientist reading it, if you can read the language, would not accept it, would dismiss it out of hand. Many other scientists have said exactly this, subsequently.

So, were the Nature Medicine authors asked to place their names on a piece of junk science in order to get it into a high impact journal and create this smoke screen — that “the science proves” (but only to the scientifically illiterate) this is a naturally occurring coronavirus?

There were five authors. I know of a couple of them. One was a virologist named Robert Garry, who I have had some interactions with over the last 22 years, another one was Ian Lipkin. Garry and coauthor Kristian Andersen both worked in Sierra Leone during the Ebola epidemic. 

Garry was principal investigator for a project in Kenema, Sierra Leone before the outbreak started. Ian Lipkin’s group at Columbia University claimed, just last year, to have finally found a bat in west Africa carrying Ebola virus; in other words, this Nature Medicine coauthor’s group produced the long-sought evidence for a natural origin of west Africa’s Ebola epidemic.7

I happened to show the Nature Medicine article to a friend of mine, Ed Hooper, who wrote a well-known book called, ‘The River,’ about the origin of AIDS: How did AIDS jump from monkeys into the human population?

Although many claim that it’s due to Africans eating bush meat (from monkeys), Ed makes a very strong case that HIV made the species jump via oral polio vaccines that were prepared locally, in the Belgian Congo, from the kidneys of various types of monkeys that were locally caught. The vaccine was designed by Hilary Koprowski in the U.S., and given to millions of Africans.

Ed Hooper has put out additional evidence in the intervening 20-plus years since he wrote ‘The River,’ that it’s much more likely that the jump into humans occurred because the oral polio vaccine grown on monkey kidneys was contaminated by monkey viruses, and that those monkey kidneys probably contained the precursor to HIV.

Interestingly, three of these Nature Medicine authors had challenged him on his AIDS origin theory about two decades ago, and now they’re challenging the coronavirus origin theory, which made me wonder, ‘Are these five Nature Medicine authors … repeatedly trotted out by the political medical establishment to try to push false narratives that are politically desirable?

Compelling Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Is a Lab Creation

May 19, 2020, I reviewed evidence presented in a Medium article8 written by Yuri Deigin, as well as a video presentation of this evidence done by Chris Martenson, Ph.D. If you missed “The Smoking Gun Proving SARS-CoV-2 Is an Engineered Virus,” you may want to review it after you’re done with Nass’ interview.

Both sources go into great scientific depth, explaining why SARS-CoV-2 cannot be the result of a natural mutation. Deigin doesn’t actually suggest that it is manmade, but provides strong evidence that one needs to consider before coming to the conclusion that it’s of natural origin. Nass comments on Deigin’s work:

“[Deigin] did his own research and published a massive discussion of all the coronavirus research that has gone on since 1999 that is relevant to SARS-CoV-2, and he particularly discusses these two mutations: One, the furin cleavage site and the other is the receptor binding area.

He talks about all the research that’s been done on coronaviruses, the different ways you can make these changes, and how changes like what we’re seeing now have in fact been created by coronavirus researchers over the past 20 years. And he analyzes everything very, very finely. It’s like Ed Hooper’s book. He goes in and out and around and discusses every aspect.

When you finish reading that article, you are convinced that it’s almost certain that these two mutations were put there deliberately.

Whether they were done by passage, whether they were done by CRISPR or whether another method was used, scientists did know the implications, in terms of increasing virulence, of both of these mutations. So, I invite you to read that piece.”

Many Nations Funded ‘Gain of Function’ Coronavirus Research

We now know that the National Institutes of Health, under Fauci’s leadership, funded gain-of-function research, or research on how to increase the virulence of pathogens, with coronaviruses for about two decades.

When the White House temporarily suspended U.S. government funding for that kind of research for MERS, SARS and avian flu in 2014, some work may have shifted over to the Wuhan Virology Institute in China and continued anyway. Other similar research, such as Ralph Baric’s at UNC, was given special permission to continue despite the temporary suspension. The funding ban was lifted in 2017. Nass weighs in:

“Coronavirus research, including gain-of-function research over the last 20 years, has been done in many countries in Europe, in many labs in the U.S., in Japan, Singapore, China, Australia and probably other places. And it has often been funded by multiple countries.

So, funders have included the Australian government, different branches of NIH, but primarily Fauci’s NIAID, the National Science Foundation and USAID — surprising because you would think USAID is an aid agency.

There have also been organizations like the EcoHealth Alliance, which have served as pass-throughs for the funding. The NIAID or USAID would give money to the EcoHealth Alliance and then EcoHealth Alliance would dole it out to the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan and other places and would participate with them in research.

Most of the most prominent researchers have worked in multiple countries’ labs, along with foreign colleagues. It’s very complicated. There’s a lot of back and forth. Europe has funded this research too.

So, Dr. Zhengli Shi has worked in the United States and our researchers have worked in China. Nature Medicine coauthor Ian Lipkin has a post in China, and he was an expert who advised the Saudis on MERS, which is a cousin of SARS, and advised the Chinese on the 2003 SARS. He is affiliated with EcoHealth Alliance too.

He was over in China at the beginning of this SARS-2 pandemic. Ed Holmes, a coauthor of the Nature Medicine article, is an evolutionary biologist at Sydney University who also holds a position in China. So, these people work together, and … the Chinese, the Australians, the Europeans and the Americans fund all this work … Some of this research is funded by five different institutes from three or four different countries.

Gain-of-function research has been controversial since it started being openly discussed. In 2014, in the United States, there was a pause on U.S. government funding of gain-of-function research, but only for three organisms: MERS, SARS and avian flu.

Probably this occurred because researchers announced success in creating lethal avian flu viruses that had gained the ability to spread via aerosol. And because, at the same time, there was widespread media reporting on lab accidents in the U.S., especially at CDC’s, NIH’s and the Army’s high containment labs. These accidents had exposed workers at CDC and over 100 other labs to live anthrax spores and live avian flu.

There was a lot of controversy in the scientific literature over gain-of-function. However, even though about 20 research projects were initially paused in 2014, seven were given special permission to continue. Here is what U.S. government scientists wrote about this in 2015:

‘The recent safety lapses at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH that could have resulted in exposure to anthrax and smallpox, respectively, have diminished public confidence in the ability of even high-containment laboratories to mitigate the risk of accidental release of pathogens of potential harm … public tolerance of that risk may be the ultimate determinant of what types of research are allowed to proceed.

… ‘As recent lapses at high profile laboratories have illustrated, there remains the potential that bacterial and viral strains can escape even the most secure environments.’9

At the end of 2017, the pause was removed, new guidelines were issued but not made mandatory, and everybody was allowed to go back and do whatever gain-of-function research they wanted.”

Nass on Mikovits Retrovirus Hypothesis

I recently interviewed Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist who suspects SARS-CoV-2 isn’t the actual or sole cause of COVID-19. Rather, she believes the illness is a coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 with a preexisting XMRV gamma retrovirus infection.

One possibility she has raised is that SARS-CoV-2 activates this underlying, latent infection. She supports this thesis with the fact that the cytokine storm signature of COVID-19 is inconsistent with coronavirus, but very consistent with the gamma retrovirus infections she studied.

“What she says is very interesting,” Nass says. “Some of it I think is incorrect and some of it is correct, and there’s so much of it that it’s very hard to separate … Even though she says coronaviruses don’t do X, Y and Z, this is a very new coronavirus. It has some unique features.

What we’ve talked about so far is only relevant to the spike protein, which is only 13% of the genome. We haven’t even begun to explore changes that may have occurred in the rest of the genome. So, I don’t think we have the evidence yet to say that this coronavirus alone can’t do what it seems to be doing …

Some people are saying there are two, three or four small, six to 10 amino acid segments that look like bits of HIV, and they’re inserted in different places. They may have effects on the immune response. I don’t know. I think that information will gradually appear … I think I’ve got to read her book [‘Plague of Corruption’] … and see what the data show …

In my own research, I have found Anthony Fauci to be a hypocritical fraud, who pretends he knows nothing about coronaviruses, [yet] he’s funded over $100 million of coronavirus research out of NIAID. He looks so gentle and he doesn’t give you any details about anything, but he knows a lot of details. So, I hope she confirms my suspicions about Fauci.”

Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Dangers

As discussed in “Fast-Tracked COVID-19 Vaccine — What Could Go Wrong?” COVID-19 vaccines are being fast-tracked, eliminating animal trials and going straight to human trials.

Speaking of Fauci, Moderna was granted a fast-track designation for its mRNA-1273 vaccine by the FDA on May 12, 2020.10,11 This vaccine is sponsored by Fauci’s NIAID, who, echoing Bill Gates’ edicts, has been calling for social distancing and other lockdown measures until a vaccine becomes available. Moderna is currently preparing to enter Phase 2 trials. No results from Phase 1 have been published as of this writing.

“They’re doing human trials of at least two vaccines in the U.S. now. So, I’ll tell you what I know. First of all, the Moderna is an mRNA vaccine. We haven’t had an mRNA vaccine before, so we don’t know what that’s going to do in people.

Therefore, it seems unconscionable to give it to people before you test it in animals, so that you can at least have some idea what the side effects might be …

There [have also been] many [experimental coronavirus vaccines in the past], not just the trials at Galveston with Peter Hotez, where four different types of vaccines against coronaviruses all failed. There have been other vaccine platforms attempted for coronaviruses that also failed.”

In one such study, discussed in my recent interview above with Robert Kennedy Jr., ferrets showed an extraordinary good serological antibody response to the vaccine, but when the animals were then exposed to the wild virus, they were overtaken by a cytokine storm response, now known as “paradoxical immune enhancement.” In at least one trial, all the ferrets died.

“Hotez [has stated that] in their animal experiments, the vaccinated animals fared worse when they were exposed to the disease than if they had not gotten the vaccine,” Nass says.

“[In] experiments done in the 1960s, an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine [Editor’s note: RSV is similar to coronavirus] … was given to children. Several of the children died — again, with this same cytokine storm problem arising. So, I think this is a vaccine you should tread very lightly with, and it should never have been given to people before it was given to animals.”

COVID-19 Vaccine — Global Experiment Without Precedent

Nass also addresses the issue of how human trials are done, and warns people about joining them without being fully informed about the potential risks. This is particularly pertinent for COVID-19 vaccine trials, considering the lethal failures of such vaccines in the past.

You also need to understand that when you participate in a trial, you are not eligible to receive compensation for any injuries you sustain. As for taking the vaccine once it becomes publicly available, Nass says:

“I’ll just point out that Ralph Baric, the top coronavirus researcher in the United States, at the University of North Carolina, said himself in an interview a couple months ago that vaccines aren’t going to work in the older population for which this disease is most risky

Having dealt with many people who’ve died or developed chronic illnesses, all sorts of terrible complications from anthrax vaccine and smallpox vaccine, and sometimes other vaccines, I try to do a careful risk-benefit analysis before recommending a vaccine to any patient.

Sometimes I think it makes sense for people to be vaccinated, but their own situation, where they live, their age group, who they’re exposed to, where they’re traveling to are all important factors that would help you to formulate that risk-benefit assessment. And I don’t think vaccines should be looked on as risk-free. They’re clearly not risk-free. Medical interventions should be done thoughtfully …

Another problem … on the FDA website,12,13 there is a page that talks about the problem of growing vaccines in cells14 that may have oncogenes or cancer causing viruses in them, and what research FDA is trying to do to deal with this. So, the FDA acknowledges this serious potential risk from some vaccines… on the FDA website.”

Level 3 and 4 Biosafety Labs Pose Severe Risk to Human Health

The map below was published in the journal Science15 in 2007 and reprinted in Asia Times16 April 6, 2020, showing the proliferation of high-containment labs in the U.S. A USA Today investigation published in 2015 put the number of BSL 3 and 4 labs in the U.S. around 200,17 and Boyle estimates there are about 400 worldwide.18

US biodefense program

In closing, Nass points out there have been many accidental leaks from BSL 3 and 4 labs, causing many deaths. Improperly inactivated vaccines have also claimed many lives.

“Thirty years ago when I was writing papers about the potential risks of biological defense research we had a lot less biological defense research going on. And the risks were significant. Everybody agrees that these labs leak.

I told you there were maybe 600 or more BSL-3s in the United States19 and hundreds of others around the world. There are about 200 reports of lab accidents, mostly exposures of lab personnel to pathogens, in the high-containment labs in the U.S., yearly.20

So, let me actually give you a few examples from a paper by Martin Furmanski, a physician who wrote about lab escapes.21

He pointed out a lab in England. There were several smallpox escapes from that lab to a room below. Two people died. After the second escape happened, I think it was around 1980, the lab director killed himself.

There were huge outbreaks of Venezuelan equine encephalitis. Thousands and thousands of animals and people [were affected] in Latin America, and it turned out to be due to improperly inactivated vaccines. So, the disease they were vaccinating all these livestock for was actually giving them the disease and giving it to humans also. You don’t hear about that.

He points out that the worldwide 1977 H1N1 outbreak … started in China or Russia, probably from long-frozen virus that had been thawed, because that particular strain, H1N1, had not circulated in the world for 21 years, and genetically it looked almost identical to the strains that were around in the late ’40s and 1950s, early ’50s. So that worldwide 1977 flu pandemic was due to a lab escape. 

And Furmanski postulates that the reason the virus was thawed was to do vaccine research because of the fear, in the U.S. in 1976-77, that a deadly swine influenza pandemic might occur … leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. But fortunately, the virus that circulated was much less deadly than the feared 1918 strain.

[The U.S. government] began a swine flu vaccine program in 1976 after one soldier died at Fort Dix in 1976 of a unique swine flu strain. Frightened that a scenario like the 1918 flu pandemic might emerge, the United States public health agencies got together with the U.S. vaccine manufacturers to create, very rapidly, a swine flu vaccine to save the United States. It was an abysmal failure.

As things progressed, the manufacturers refused to produce vaccine unless the government gave them a waiver of liability for possible vaccine injuries. This they received.

First of all, there was no outbreak. The virus had stopped circulating and disappeared. Had the people at the CDC and HHS been honest with the American public, they would have told them, ‘Hey, there’s no outbreak. We’re just going to cancel the vaccine program. We don’t need it.’ But the vaccine program had developed a life of its own.

Harvey Fineberg co-authored a wonderful book [‘The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Slope’22,23] about the vaccine program, for the National Academy of Sciences, which the subsequent DHHS (then HEW) Secretary, Joseph Califano, had requested.

I recommend it. It’s a fabulous read because Fineberg was working under the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so he was able to interview everybody involved in government who had been part of the program.

He tells you the inside story of what went on during that year. All the infighting, all the different reasons why a vaccine was made for a disease that didn’t exist. And then, [after the vaccine was] given to 45 million Americans, [it was] found to cause Guillain-Barre syndrome, about 30 people died and 4,000 people applied for damages from the federal government.

This was the first time the government gave a liability waiver to vaccine manufacturers. And I think it was what gave them the idea that in the future they could get liability waivers for all their vaccines.”

You can download a free PDF copy of “The Swine Flu Affair” on The National Academies of Sciences website.24 You can also learn more about the failed 1977 swine flu vaccination campaign in “How Does COVID-19 Compare to Spanish Flu?

(For Sources Scroll down)


For more:

– Sources and References

Potential Patient-Reported Toxicities With Disulfiram Treatment in Late Disseminated Lyme Disease

Alain Trautmann1*, Hugues Gascan2 and Raouf Ghozzi3*
  • 1Université de Paris, Institut Cochin, INSERM U1016, CNRS UMR8104, Paris, France
  • 2Institut de Génétique et Développement de Rennes (IGDR), Rennes, France
  • 3Centre Hospitalier de Lannemezan, Lannemezan, France

Recently, disulfiram has been proposed as a promising treatment for people suffering from persistent symptoms of Lyme Disease. Disulfiram has several distinct molecular targets. The most well-known is alcohol dehydrogenase, a key enzyme for detoxifying the organism after alcohol ingestion. Other targets and modes of action of disulfiram, that may present problematic side effects, are less commonly mentioned. The French Federation against Tick Borne Diseases (French acronym, FFMVT), which associates three main Lyme patient organizations, MDs and PhDs, has recently been alerted to severe and persistent toxic events in a patient suffering from a late disseminated form of Lyme Disease following disulfiram intake. FFMVT reacted by launching a national call to examine whether other patients in France following a similar treatment could be identified, and what benefits, or side effects could be reported. The statements of 16 patients taking disulfiram have been collected and are presented here. Thirteen out of 16 patients reported toxic events, and seven out of 16 reported benefits for at least part of their symptoms. Based on the collected observations, it seems too early to promote disulfiram as a promising new treatment until the reasons underlying the reported toxicities have been explored, and the results of a well-conducted double blind clinical trial published. The importance of taking into account patient-reported outcomes in Lyme Disease is underlined by the present study.


Each year, in the USA, about one person out of 1,000 develops Lyme Disease as declared by the general practitioners, which leads to a total of around 300,000 annual cases (1). Similar frequencies have been reported in Europe, in particular in France (2) and in Germany (3). The patients usually take antibiotics for a few weeks, and in most of cases they recover. However, after several months or even years, a fraction of these properly treated patients, will develop a post-treatment Lyme Disease syndrome (PTLDS) linked to pathogens injected by the tick, usually Borrelia bacteria, often associated with other bacteria like Bartonella, parasites like Babesia, or even viruses. Another group of patients develops a late disseminated form of the disease without having noticed any initial event, like the pathognomonic cutaneous erythema migrans, rendering more difficult the Lyme Disease diagnosis.

There is no consensus for the optimal treatment of these late forms of disease. The major difficulties in their diagnosis and in their treatment are reflected in the number of different names they have been given: late Lyme Disease, persistent Lyme Disease, chronic Lyme Disease, PTLDS, and in France SPPT for “sémiologie persistante polymorphe après morsure de tique” according to the new French government guidelines.

In such a context, there is a desperate need for many people to receive the optimal treatment. Recently, a new treatment has been reported, and many patients are currently trying it despite the fact that the main active compound, disulfiram (DSF), has never been clinically evaluated in the context of a chronic infection, either alone or in combination with antibiotics. In the present work, to try to answer this pressing issue, we have analyzed the scientific literature on DSF and collected patient-reported results in order to inform patients suffering from late forms of Lyme Disease of the potential risks or benefits of DSF treatment.


After an alert in October 2019 from a patient presenting severe and persistent symptoms after taking DSF, the FFMVT (French Federation against Tick Borne Diseases) decided to launch two actions. One was a thorough analysis of the scientific literature, in order to try to understand the possible causes of such an apparent toxicity. The other one was to collect reported-outcomes from Lyme Disease patients having taken DSF. Three associations of patients, France Lyme, Lympact, Relais de Lyme, sent a standardized questionnaire, prepared by the authors, to their members suffering from PTLDS as described, among others, by J. Aucott (4), or from SPPT, the term used in France by Haute Autorité de Santé (High Health Authority) ( and in a case law of the French Council of State (

Concerned patients who were willing to contribute to this enquiry sent back the appropriate information on their clinical status and disease. Information requested included age, sex, health state, dosage and duration of the DSF treatment, concomitant medications, self-reported health improvements and potential toxicities. The answers were collected over a 2-weeks period, and anonymously transferred from patient associations to the authors of the present paper, before being tabulated and analyzed, as presented in Table 1. Note that the Research Integrity Specialist of Frontiers asked us to omit the gender information, and not to indicate the precise age, to reduce the risk for the patients to be indirectly identifiable.


www.frontiersin.orgTable 1. Responses of 16 patients to DSF treatment (France, July–November 2019).

This enquiry allowed us to rapidly collect the appropriate information for evaluating whether or not reported severe adverse events in a first patient were exceptional or not. However, no definite conclusion can be drawn under such conditions, taking into account the sample size, the different doses of DSF used, and different combinations of concomitant medications used.


The first part of this section will present potential reasons why toxicity is expected in patients taking DSF, and not exclusively following alcohol ingestion. The second part will concern the analysis of 16 patient-reported outcomes collected in November 2019 in France.

DSF, an ALDH Inhibitor

DSF has been clinically used for nearly 70 years, essentially for treating alcohol dependence. DSF inhibits an enzyme that is required for full alcohol degradation, preventing the detoxification that should follow alcohol drinking. This leads to severe nausea and discomfort in DSF-treated patients when they drink alcohol. This induced association between alcohol and severe discomfort is the basis of DSF use for the treatment of alcohol-dependent patients. More than 3,000 scientific publications mention DSF in their title, and most of them are related to alcohol consumption.

After ingestion, alcohol (ethanol) is degraded in two steps:

                                         ADH                                            ALDHEthanol(CH3.CH2.OH)Acetaldehyde(CH3.CHO)Acetate(CH3.COO)

The first reaction is catalyzed by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), the second one by aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH). The final product, acetate, has no toxicity. By contrast, acetaldehyde (AcH), also known as ethanal, is much more toxic than ethanol. Ethanal is quite volatile, and at low concentration gives off a pleasant smell of green apple, whereas at higher concentrations, its smell becomes pungent. Acute AcH toxicity may involve in particular the nervous system (5). In long term exposure, AcH is also a carcinogen (6). Note that ALDH is only weakly expressed in 30–40% of Asian, individuals, preventing them from properly eliminating alcohol, which explains why many of them have a low tolerance to alcohol.

The potent DSF-induced ALDH inhibition is copper-dependent (7). In vivo, DSF is cleaved, giving rise to diethyldithiocarbamate, an efficient copper chelator (8). Through this mechanism, DSF inhibits copper-dependent enzymes, such as ALDH, abundant in the liver (9), or dopamine β-hydroxylase in the brain (10). The best described effect of DSF, but not the only one, is its toxicity in the presence of alcohol, and sometimes even in its absence, as discussed below.

There are two main places in the organism where the enzymes ADH and ALDH allow the degradation of alcohol to acetate. The first is the ALDH-rich liver, which plays a key role after alcohol drinking. The second, which is seldom mentioned but nevertheless quite important, is the microbiota of the digestive tract, with its billions of bacteria and fungi particularly abundant in the mouth and the large intestine. In some bacteria, the ADH enzymatic activity is significantly stronger than the ALDH one. As a result, in the presence of alcohol, such bacteria, including the commensal ones, trigger an increase in the concentration of toxic AcH (11). This might contribute to a higher frequency of mouth and throat cancers in alcohol-dependent patients (12).

In addition, some anaerobic bacteria and yeasts are able to convert glucose into ethanol (this “alcoholic fermentation” is the basis for the manufacturing of alcoholic beverages). Under certain culture conditions, it is possible, when supplying some of these microorganisms only with glucose, to generate alcohol and then AcH. Thus, the yeast Candida albicans is capable of producing high levels of toxic AcH, after glucose fermentation (11). It can thus be predicted that the toxicity of DSF should be particularly marked in people suffering from candidiasis.

Finally, other bacterial families, such as Lactobacillus, have an ALDH activity larger than that of ADH, which makes them good detoxifiers, by preventing the accumulation of AcH (6).

Other Modes of Action of DSF

Although the DSF toxic effects occurring in the treatment of alcohol-dependent patients have been known for a long time, additional effects have been described more recently. It has been shown in particular that, in vitro, DSF can be cytotoxic for cancer cells (13). These results prompted the launch of three clinical trials including DSF in the treatment in prostate, pancreas and glioblastoma cancers ( None of these trials, started in 2016 and 2017, has yet given rise to publication.

It was initially thought that these newly discovered effects were also due to the inhibition of ALDH, but this is not always true, and several other DSF targets have been identified. Thus, the protein NLP4, which is necessary for the cellular response to various stresses, is inhibited by DSF-copper complexes (13, 14). In addition, DSF can block an intracellular detoxifying pathway. It can inhibit the proteasome (15), a multi-protein complex required for the elimination of improperly folded proteins. DSF can also block the activation of NF-κB (15, 16), a key molecule in inflammatory stresses, known for inhibiting apoptosis.

In vitro, DSF can neutralize a DNA methyltransferase involved in DNA repair (17). It may also inhibit P-gp, a multidrug pump responsible for the extrusion of toxic molecules, which contributes to cellular resistance to many cytotoxic molecules (18). The effect of DSF on NF-kB, DNA repair, and P-gp may all contribute to the in vitroeffects of DSF against tumor cell lines. The effect of DSF on P-gp has been more particularly studied in fungi and yeasts, offering a possible explanation for the antifungal effect of DSF (19). However, some authors have attributed DSF anti-fungal properties to its capacity to elicit oxidative stress in yeasts (20). Still in vitro, DSF also displayed toxic effect against Plasmodium falciparum, the causative agent of malaria (21), and also against some bacteria (22).

As mentioned previously, DSF can act as a copper chelator, thus inhibiting copper-dependent enzymes. Some bacteria express such enzymes, rendering them sensitive to DSF. However, it is unclear whether the anti-bacterial effect of DSF is due to copper depletion or to direct effects of copper complexation inside bacteria (8, 23).

Most demonstrations of an antibacterial effect of DSF were performed in vitro (24, 25), at concentrations not always compatible with its in vivo use. For instance, one study claims that DSF is toxic to Mycobacterium tuberculosis, including the dormant form, both in vitro and in vivo (24). In fact, the experimental protocol allowed the evaluation of the effect of DSF on the global bacterial load, but showed nothing on in vivo bacterial dormancy. In this study, the efficient dose of DSF would have been equivalent to 1,100 mg of DSF / day for a human of 70 kg, well above the dose tolerated by Lyme Disease patients (see below). Thus, the conclusions of this study still remain to be validated.

In summary, DSF is a pleiotropic drug with multiple targets, without specificity for one molecule or a single pathogen. Most of the reported anti-bacterial effects of DSF have been obtained in vitro, making it difficult to extrapolate for its in vivo use, especially when used in combination with antibiotics.

A Clinical Trial With DSF for Treating Lyme Disease

In March 2019, Pr. Brian Fallon started a clinical trial using DSF and including 24 Lyme Disease patients ( The results of Professor Fallon’s study should provide important information in the near future. On the website, the Study Description indicates that DSF is active against Borrelia’s dormant form. However, evidence to support this claim is not provided. The clinical trial document refers to three previous articles (22, 26, 27). In 2016, Pothineni et al. published an in vitrohigh-throughput screening of more than 4,300 drug candidates, against Borrelia burgdorferi grown to its stationary-phase (26). DSF appeared to be a very efficient bactericidal molecule for Borrelia in vitro, but no in vivo results have been reported yet. In 2017, Dr. Long has shown that, in vitro, DSF is cytostatic for Gram-positive bacteria, such as Staphylococcus or Streptococcus, but not for Gram-negative species (22). Finally, in 2019, Dr. Liegner reported three cases of patients who had been treated with DSF after a Lyme Disease that had lasted for several years with heavy treatments (27). For instance, at one point, one patient simultaneously took amoxicillin, clarithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, metronidazole, atovaquone / proguanil, and amitriptyline. After 9 years of illness he took DSF for 3 months: the symptoms of the Lyme Disease seem to have disappeared but the patient had a temporary psychiatric hospitalization. The second patient was on DSF for 6 weeks. The symptoms of the Lyme Disease improved but the treatment was stopped following a syncope, which resulted in a concussion and required hospitalization. In summary, the Liegner study reports three cases in which DSF seems to have been effective against late Lyme Disease, but in two of them neurological problems occurred during the treatment. These three cases have attracted considerable attention and raised great hopes in the Lyme Disease patient communities. However, in a recent talk at the 2019 ILADS Symposium, Dr. Liegner presented data on 30 Lyme Disease patients that he had treated with DSF. In 18 of them, DSF provoked either peripheral neuropathies or psychiatric problems, or both.

DSF Neuronal Toxicity ?

For tens of years, it has been known that DSF can cause occasional and sometimes severe neuropathies (28). In optic neuropathies, with a partial loss of vision, recovery took about 6 months after stopping DSF (29). When DSF is used to treat alcohol dependence, the incidence of undesirable neuropathies has been estimated as 1/15,000 (30). As for the totality of the undesirable effects caused by the DSF, their frequency has been evaluated at 1 per 200–2,000 patients (9).

Are DSF associated neurological disorders (neuropathies or psychiatric problems) related to DSF anti-ALDH activity leading to AcH synthesis? It has been demonstrated that, in vitro, AcH can have an acute toxicity on neurons due to an increase of reactive oxygen species, but this observation has not been extended in vivo (5).

An AcH increased toxicity could theoretically occur even in the absence of alcohol intake, for example in patients with Candida infections, or harboring a high load of microorganisms capable of alcoholic fermentation. Alcoholic fermentation, typically performed by yeasts, should be distinguished from lactic fermentation, more common in anaerobic bacteria. A few cases have been reported of people suffering from Gut Fermentation Syndrome (31, 32). Such patients had up to 2 g/L of alcohol in their blood, without any alcohol intake. This alcohol was produced by fermentation by large colonies of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae in their intestine.

Another DSF target is dopamine β-hydroxylase, a copper-dependent enzyme, responsible for converting dopamine (DA) to norepinephrine (NE) in noradrenergic neurons. This enzyme is mostly expressed in the brain, adrenal gland and liver ( By inhibiting dopamine β-hydroxylase, DSF simultaneously reduces NE and elevates DA in these tissues. A link has been established between psychosis and DSF-induced increase of DA in the mesolimbic system (10, 33). Dopamine β-hydroxylase is also expressed in some peripheral sensory neurons and it has been suggested that neurotoxic products of catecholamines metabolism in nociceptors can cause neuronal dysfunction underlying neuropathic pain (34).

Patient-Reported Outcomes

We have recently received from French associations of Lyme patients the results of an enquiry sent to their members suffering from persistent Lyme Disease. The main questions were: have you taken DSF as a treatment for your disease? Which benefits or side effects did you experience? 16 patients have answered.

The clinical features most frequently reported were major fatigue, articular pain and cognition complaints mainly involving memory, whether or not patients were seropositive for Borrelia. The results are presented in Table 1. The conclusions are: 13 out of 16 patients experienced DSF-induced toxic or side effects, mainly concerning the nervous system (neuropathies, headaches, dizziness, difficulty of concentration and expression, sleep disturbance, general pain increase, increase in general fatigue). Several patients reported a more specific increase in their osteo-articular pains, nausea or intestinal disorders.

When taking DSF, some patients simultaneously experienced both negative effects on some symptoms and improvement of others. All in all, 7 out of 16 patients perceived benefits mainly on fatigue and pain, especially after stopping DSF. Others could not differentiate whether partial improvements were due to DSF or to the antibiotics taken during the same period.

Some of DSF toxic effects observed in Lyme patients could be due in part to high initial DSF doses, similar to those used for alcohol-dependent patients. On the other hand, some of these effects could have been due to Jarisch Herxheimer reactions triggered by DSF-induced death of Borrelia. However, some patients, who had already experienced Jarisch Herxheimer reactions before, reported that some of the reactions encountered with DSF treatment were clearly of a different nature. Collectively, these observations suggest that patients with persistent Lyme Disease are more sensitive to the toxicity of DSF than people who have been treated for alcohol dependence, and that in these patients, DSF-induced toxicities are not all related to Jarish Herxeimer reactions.


Published scientific articles allow us to draw the conclusion that, in vitro, DSF can undoubtedly kill certain bacteria strains, and that in vivo, DSF can be toxic to both bacteria and the human body. These toxicities can be both acute and long-term.

One can propose different hypotheses to explain these toxicities. They might be mediated by the inhibition of copper-dependent enzymes, such as ALDH or dopamine β-hydroxylase, or the blocking of the NLP4 molecule, or through an oxidative molecule increase, and possibly through yet unidentified mechanisms. Part of these toxicities may also depend on the microbiota, in which some bacterial or yeasts species have a propensity to produce fermentation-derived toxic AcH. It would be worth testing if any intake of bacteria such as Lactobacillus, which have a high ALDH activity, could be used to counter the DSF-induced toxicities.

On the other hand, many studies have reported that patients with PTLDS have an increased sensitivity to pain, which can affect vision, hearing, touch, and even smell, as reviewed by Batheja et al. (35). These chronic pains can be related multiple to chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome, in which the pain sensitivity is modified as well, as reported in Gulf war veterans (36). There is increasing evidence for abnormal sensory processing in these syndromes, with a low “unpleasantness threshold” for multiple types of sensory stimuli (37).

The differences observed for effective concentrations of DSF between alcohol-dependent patients and those suffering from PTDLS or SPPT could also be linked to a such central sensitization often observed in patients suffering from borreliosis (35).

It is necessary to understand why DSF toxicity appears particularly severe and frequent in patients with Lyme Disease, and to rapidly explore the reasons for such DSF toxicity in Lyme Disease animal models. Until we have the first answers to this question, it would be premature to consider DSF as the new miracle molecule for patients suffering from late disseminated Lyme Disease.

Basic Science vs. Social Networks

Case reports are a very useful approach for drawing attention to the possible effectiveness of a new treatment. Undoubtedly, the case report published by Liegner (27) has played such a role. However, the next logical step should have been to examine the potential toxicity of DSF for Lyme patients. This could have been achieved first by using animal models, and then within a standardized clinical trial. These steps were rapidly short-circuited, due to the strong social demand for Lyme Disease treatments. This pressure is exerted largely by social networks, emphasizing their speed and efficiency, but at the same time a lack of analysis and scientific rigor.

Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Following the rapid spread of the idea that DSF could be a major improvement for the treatment of late Lyme Disease, hundreds of patients began using DSF in the hope of treating their disease. At this point, it is important to require, as we do here, on rapid feedback from the patients themselves. No one knows better than patients the severity and importance of secondary toxicities from treatment. They know themselves better than physicians, who sometimes tend to overestimate the benefit/risk ratios (38, 39).

The limitation of the present study is linked to the small number of included patients. This highlights the need for follow-up studies with a larger number of patients to specify the risk/benefit of DSF in late Lyme Disease. The results and experiences reported by the patients should be included in these studies to determine how many of them have truly benefited from DSF treatment. Aiming at distinguishing Jarish Herxheimer reactions due to bacterial die-off and toxic side effects of the drug will be an important issue. More generally, a patient survey will have to be designed to evaluate how many patients have benefited of DSF and how many have not. A long term follow up of the DSF treated patients using an online patient feedback tool will be necessary to determine if they have any relapse or stable remission. All this information is necessary to determine the risk/benefit ratio of DSF for Lyme Disease. This will require a close collaboration between patients, doctors and researchers.

Data Availability Statement

All datasets generated for this study are included in the article/supplementary material.

Ethics Statement

An ethical review process was not required according to national legislation and institutional requirements for the present study. Patient treatment was decided by their physician independently of the study. Patients associations were asked by the authors to collect patient-reported outcomes, which have been transferred anonymously to the authors. All patients that participated to this enquiry were volunteers and have given a written agreement to participate in this study.

21 patients had initially sent a patient-reported outcome. Following your recommendation, they were all asked to give their agreement to participate to this study. No one refused, but five of them did not answer. Therefore, the revised manuscript only presents the 16 cases of patients who sent their written consent.

Author’s Note

AT and HG are members of the scientific council of Fédération Française contre les Maladies Vectorielles à Tiques (FFMVT), and RG is president of FFMVT.

Author Contributions

AT: analysis of the literature. HG, RG, and AT: synthesis and analysis of the patient-reported outcomes. RG: medical advice. AT and HG: writing the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

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


We thank Nathalie Torres, Anne Colin, and Pierre Hecker, and the three associations of patients (France Lyme, Lympact, and Relais de Lyme) federated in FFMVT for their invaluable contribution in the collection of patient-reported outcomes. We thank the members of the scientific council of FFMVT for discussion on DSF treatment in late Lyme Disease, and Philippe Ascher, and Boris Barbour for improving the English of the manuscript.


1. Tick-borne Disease Working group. 2018 Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at: (accessed March 24, 2020).

2. Borreliose de Lyme. Surveillance des cas diagnostiqués en médecine générale, 2009–2018, Santé Publique France. Available online at: March 24, 2020).

3. Lyme-Borreliose. RKI-Ratgeber. Robert Koch Institute (2019). Available online at:

4. Rebman AW, Bechtold KT, Yang T, Mihm EA, Soloski MJ, Novak CB, et al. The clinical, symptom, and quality-of-life characterization of a well-defined group of patients with posttreatment lyme disease syndrome. Front Med. (2017) 4:224. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2017.00224

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Cui J, Liu Y, Chang X, Gou W, Zhou X, Liu Z, et al. Acetaldehyde induces neurotoxicity in vitro via oxidative stress- and Ca2+ imbalance-mediated endoplasmic reticulum stress. Oxid Med Cell Longev. (2019) 2019:2593742. doi: 10.1155/2019/2593742

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Salaspuro MP. Acetaldehyde, microbes, and cancer of the digestive tract. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. (2003) 40:183–208. doi: 10.1080/713609333

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Shen ML, Lipsky JJ, Naylor S. Role of disulfiram in the in vitro inhibition of rat liver mitochondrial aldehyde dehydrogenase. Biochem Pharmacol. (2000) 60:947–953. doi: 10.1016/s0006-2952(00)00435-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Dalecki AG, Haeili M, Shah S, Speer A, Niederweis M, Kutsch O, et al. Disulfiram and copper ions kill Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a synergistic manner. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. (2015) 59:4835–44. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00692-15

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Barth KS, Malcolm RJ. Disulfiram: an old therapeutic with new applications. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets. (2010) 9:5–12. doi: 10.2174/187152710790966678

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Spiegel DR, McCroskey A, Puaa K, Meeker G, Hartman L, Hudson J, et al. A case of disulfiram-induced psychosis in a previously asymptomatic patient maintained on mixed amphetamine salts: a review of the literature and possible pathophysiological explanations. Clin Neuropharmacol. (2016) 39:272–5. doi: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000166

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Moritani K, Takeshita T, Shibata Y, Ninomiya T, Kiyohara Y, Yamashita Y. Acetaldehyde production by major oral microbes. Oral Dis. (2015) 21:748–54. doi: 10.1111/odi.12341

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Goldstein BY, Chang S-C, Hashibe M, La Vecchia C, Zhang Z-F. Alcohol consumption and cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx from 1988 to 2009: an update. Eur J Cancer Prev Off J Eur Cancer Prev Organ ECP. (2010) 19:431–65. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32833d936d

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Skrott Z, Mistrik M, Andersen KK, Friis S, Majera D, Gursky J, et al. Alcohol-abuse drug disulfiram targets cancer via p97 segregase adaptor NPL4. Nature. (2017) 552:194–9. doi: 10.1038/nature25016

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Zhang X, Hu P, Ding S-Y, Sun T, Liu L, Han S, et al. Induction of autophagy-dependent apoptosis in cancer cells through activation of ER stress: an uncovered anti-cancer mechanism by anti-alcoholism drug disulfiram. Am J Cancer Res. (2019) 9:1266–81.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

15. Lövborg H, Oberg F, Rickardson L, Gullbo J, Nygren P, Larsson R. Inhibition of proteasome activity, nuclear factor-KappaB translocation and cell survival by the antialcoholism drug disulfiram. Int J Cancer. (2006) 118:1577–80. doi: 10.1002/ijc.21534

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Yip NC, Fombon IS, Liu P, Brown S, Kannappan V, Armesilla AL, et al. Disulfiram modulated ROS-MAPK and NFκB pathways and targeted breast cancer cells with cancer stem cell-like properties. Br J Cancer. (2011) 104:1564–74. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.126

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Paranjpe A, Zhang R, Ali-Osman F, Bobustuc GC, Srivenugopal KS. Disulfiram is a direct and potent inhibitor of human O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) in brain tumor cells and mouse brain and markedly increases the alkylating DNA damage. Carcinogenesis.(2014) 35:692–702. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgt366

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Sauna ZE, Peng X-H, Nandigama K, Tekle S, Ambudkar SV. The molecular basis of the action of disulfiram as a modulator of the multidrug resistance-linked ATP binding cassette transporters MDR1 (ABCB1) and MRP1 (ABCC1). Mol Pharmacol. (2004) 65:675–84. doi: 10.1124/mol.65.3.675

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Khan S, Singhal S, Mathur T, Upadhyay DJ, Rattan A. Antifungal potential of disulfiram. Nihon Ishinkin Gakkai Zasshi Jpn J Med Mycol.(2007) 48:109–13. doi: 10.3314/jjmm.48.109

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Kwolek-Mirek M, Zadrag-Tecza R, Bartosz G. Ascorbate and thiol antioxidants abolish sensitivity of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to disulfiram. Cell Biol Toxicol. (2012) 28:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10565-011-9200-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Scheibel LW, Adler A, Trager W. Tetraethylthiuram disulfide (Antabuse) inhibits the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (1979) 76:5303–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.10.5303

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Long TE. Repurposing thiram and disulfiram as antibacterial agents for multidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. (2017) 61:e00898-17. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00898-17

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Haeili M, Moore C, Davis CJC, Cochran JB, Shah S, Shrestha TB, et al. Copper complexation screen reveals compounds with potent antibiotic properties against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. (2014) 58:3727–36. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02316-13

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Horita Y, Takii T, Yagi T, Ogawa K, Fujiwara N, Inagaki E, et al. Antitubercular activity of disulfiram, an antialcoholism drug, against multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. (2012) 56:4140–5. doi: 10.1128/AAC.06445-11

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Thakare R, Shukla M, Kaul G, Dasgupta A, Chopra S. Repurposing disulfiram for treatment of Staphylococcus aureus infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. (2019) 53:709–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2019.03.024

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Pothineni VR, Wagh D, Babar MM, Inayathullah M, Solow-Cordero D, Kim K-M, et al. Identification of new drug candidates against Borrelia burgdorferi using high-throughput screening. Drug Des Devel Ther. (2016) 10:1307–22. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S101486

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Liegner KB. Disulfiram (Tetraethylthiuram Disulfide) in the treatment of lyme disease and babesiosis: report of experience in three cases. Antibiot Basel Switz. (2019) 8:72. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics8020072

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Frisoni GB, Di Monda V. Disulfiram neuropathy: a review (1971-1988) and report of a case. Alcohol Alcohol Oxf Oxfs. (1989) 24:429–37.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

29. Bessero A-C, Daeppen J-B, Borruat F-X. Optic neuropathy while taking disulfiram. J Fr Ophtalmol. (2006) 29:924–8. doi: 10.1016/s0181-5512(06)70114-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Behan C, Lane A, Clarke M. Disulfiram induced peripheral neuropathy: between the devil and the deep blue sea. Ir J Psychol Med. (2007) 24:115–6. doi: 10.1017/S0790966700010454

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Cordell B, McCarthy J. A case study of gut fermentation syndrome (auto-brewery) with Saccharomyces cerevisiae as the causative organism. Int J Clin Med. (2013) 4:309–12. doi: 10.4236/ijcm.2013.47054

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Malik F, Wickremesinghe P, Saverimuttu J. Case report and literature review of auto-brewery syndrome: probably an underdiagnosed medical condition. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. (2019) 6:e000325. doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2019-000325

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Mohapatra S, Rath NR. Disulfiram induced psychosis. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci Off Sci J Korean Coll Neuropsychopharmacol.(2017) 15:68–9. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2017.15.1.68

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Dina OA, Khasar SG, Alessandri-Haber N, Bogen O, Chen X, Green PG, et al. Neurotoxic catecholamine metabolite in nociceptors contributes to painful peripheral neuropathy. Eur J Neurosci. (2008) 28:1180–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06425.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Batheja S, Nields JA, Landa A, Fallon BA. Post-treatment lyme syndrome and central sensitization. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. (2013) 25:176–86. doi: 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.12090223

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Reid S, Hotopf M, Hull L, Ismail K, Unwin C, Wessely S. Multiple chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome in British Gulf War veterans. Am J Epidemiol. (2001) 153:604–9. doi: 10.1093/aje/153.6.604

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Clauw DJ. Potential mechanisms in chemical intolerance and related conditions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2001) 933:235–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05828.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Gravis G, Marino P, Joly F, Oudard S, Priou F, Esterni B, et al. Patients’ self-assessment versus investigators’ evaluation in a phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15). Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl. (2014) 50:953–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.11.034

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl NB, Piccirillo MC, Daniele G, Nuzzo F, et al. Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. (2015) 33:910–5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9334


Citation: Trautmann A, Gascan H and Ghozzi R (2020) Potential Patient-Reported Toxicities With Disulfiram Treatment in Late Disseminated Lyme Disease. Front. Med. 7:133. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00133

Received: 10 December 2019; Accepted: 27 March 2020;
Published: 20 April 2020.

Edited by:

Ying Zhang, Johns Hopkins University, United States

Reviewed by:

Monica E. Embers, Tulane University, United States
John Lambert, University College Dublin, Ireland

Copyright © 2020 Trautmann, Gascan and Ghozzi. 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: Alain Trautmann,; Raouf Ghozzi,


For more:

 Approx. 2 Min

CDC Goes Door to Door For COVID-19 Antibody Testing

The CDC is not to be trusted with anything, let alone your personal DNA. You have no idea how this could be used against you.  The second issue is that testing is completely worthless and not to be trusted:

For More: This Chinese study showed: “nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives.”

Top International Immunologist Trashes CV-19 Lockdown & Masks

Written by John O’Sullivan

No scientist is more qualified to give advice on the pandemic than esteemed award-winning, Irish immunologist, Professor Dolores Cahill.

As a world-leading expert, she debunks the misguided mainstream narrative and explains how lockdown and mask wearing has been the worst possible approach against COVID-19.

The stupidity of mass quarantining any healthy population is that is unnecessarily weakens society’s immune system, according to Professor Cahill and a great many of her fellow professionals.

To combat the risk of  COVID-19 and any infection she urges everyone to pursue the protective benefits of Vitamins C, D and Zinc. In addition, she explains why Hydroxychloroquine is being used successfully to defeat the disease. It is also posted here.

Video: Dolores Cahill And Del Bigtree On The Covid19 Fraud

Watch the 35-minute video interview.

  • Around 11 mins Prof.Cahill says the virus isn’t as dangerous as is claimed and that in 10 days, it’s out of your system for ever.
  • At 20 minutes she references  HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE.
  • At 35 mins, Prof.Cahill says there is NO NEED FOR SOCIAL DISTANCING OR A VACCINE.

In The Event The Above Video Link Is Removed From Youtube It May Be Viewed Instead At: Https://

About Professor Cahill:

Professor Dolores Cahill has degree is in molecular genetics and her PhD is in immunology where she was using antibodies and making libraries to try and improve the outcomes in cancer. She also spent eight years in the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin, where she led a group and developed technology that could look the specificity of antibodies and different diagnostic assays to diagnose autoimmune diseases. And, for example, with virus patients look at whether they were exposed to a virus or not.

Her team back in the 90s looked at published antibodies and found that a lot of what was published was not necessarily correct. They were involved in correcting a lot of published research. Her research was quite disruptive at the time, and she quickly got awards from the German Minister for science and then was on the German Advisory Science Council, advising funding agencies the BAE and AF and still does 20 years later, and on the Advisory Science Council here for the Strategy for Science Technology and Innovation (Ireland).

She was nominated to represent Ireland on the Scientific Committee for the Innovative Medicines Initiative in the European Union and since 2016 became vice chair. She was also involved in developing the meningitis B vaccine for Africa. She also worked in a class 4 bio lab. She has been working with a doctor who is advising the White House particularly on protocols for prevention and treatment such as hydroxychloroquine.

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 



Cahill is looking at legal action against the Irish government for making policy that is harming people.  She states that there should be a public debate which includes not only those making policy but scientists who thinks like she does to hold authorities accountable.  We should do the same.

Most importantly she states we should make sure that this NEVER happens again.  I concur.  Get a copy of “Virus Mania,” and you will see that there has been a historical trend which rose to a fever-pitch draconian policy with COVID-19, but it’s been done many times before. Our grandmas were right: A virus just runs its course.

On the other hand, we should demand that bioweapon labs be shut down and scientists prosecuted:

For more:  Research on face masks within.

BTW: the attack on HCQ continues unabated.






Do Lockdowns Work? Mounting Evidence Says No

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

The coerced economic “shutdowns” – enforced with fines, arrests, and revoked business licenses – are not the natural outgrowth of a pandemic. They are the result of policy decisions taken by politicians who have suspended constitutional institutions and legal recognition of basic human rights. These politicians have instead imposed a new form of central planning based on an unproven, theoretical set of ideas about police-enforced “social distancing.”

Suspending the rule of law and civil rights will have enormous consequences in terms of human life counted in suicides, drug overdoses, and other grave health problems resulting from unemploymentdenial of “elective” medical care, and social isolation. (See link for article)



Again, only the sick should be quarantined, which makes logical sense and has historical precedent.

Important quote:

In a new study titled “Full Lockdown Policies in Western Europe Countries Have No Evident Impacts on the COVID-19 Epidemic,” author Thomas Meunier writes, “total deaths numbers using pre-lockdown trends suggest that no lives were saved by this strategy, in comparison with pre-lockdown, less restrictive, social distancing policies.”

The article points out that nearly 75 percent of COVID deaths occur in patients over sixty-five years of age, of which 90% have other conditions.

Knowing this, it’s easy to see why New York is in the mess it’s in.  Governor Cuomo mandated that nursing homes accept new residents directly from the hospital who had been ill.

The article goes through numerous studies all coming to the same conclusion. Similarly to the history of vaccines, lockdown areas had already experienced a downward trend in deaths before these effects could be seen or showed the same trend as the previous year.  Similar to vaccine proponents taking credit for trends already occurring before vaccines were given, lock-down proponents are taking credit for trends already observed before lockdowns were enforced.

The author of the article gives us a reminder that is helpful for Lyme patients as well:

With economic output crashing worldwide and unemployment soaring to Great Depression levels, governments are already looking for a way out. Don’t expect to hear any mea culpas from politicians.

Saying they got it wrong just isn’t in the cards for politicians.

For more:

FREE: The Lyme Times For Lyme Awareness Month in May

In honor of Lyme Disease Awareness Month, the COVID-19 Issue is open access – freely available to all. The hope is you will enjoy and share these issues with your family and friends. Without you, Lyme Disease Organization would not be where they are today, and they’re so thankful for all of your support.  (Click on link for access)