According to Mary Beth Pfeiffer, an investigative journalist writing the book, “The First Epidemic,” which is about ticks and the diseases they carry, scientific debate on tick borne illness is tightly controlled by a cabal – most of which work at the CDC.
For patients, patient advocates, and medical practitioners trained by ILADS (The International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) this is nothing new.
However, now Sin Lee, a pathologist and scientist who directs Milford Molecular Diagnostics, is speaking out about it as he has received numerous publication rejections when he attempted to rebut the oft repeated dogma that has ruled the medical world for decades regarding tick borne illness.
Lee believes the current standard advises doctors to take a “wait and see” approach and postpone treatment in patients until diagnosis can be confirmed by serologic tests.
True to form, Paul Mead of the CDC, denies, denies, denies this.
The specific article Lee rebuts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27976670 makes it crystal clear that a positive test is “required” without the rash, which the CDC’s website states happens in 60-80% of cases, but other sources and my own personal experience as an advocate claim is much less. In fact, research shows those getting the EM rash to be highly variable – anywhere from 25%-80%. In this first ever patient sample, only a quarter got the rash: 1976circularletterpdf https://www.lymedisease.org/lymepolicywonk-how-many-of-those-with-lyme-disease-have-the-rash-estimates-range-from-27-80-2/
The Steere article which advocates a positive test before treating also says that in days to weeks spirochetes can spread everywhere.
Even the CDC website states patients have symptoms before it has disseminated.
In other words, you win the lotto if you get the rash. If you don’t, well……
Running it to ground, Lee wrote that Steere, Mead, and colleagues “glossed over” the currently accepted testing that, “by design misses early cases” and requires patients to be tested twice, wasting valuable time. Lee says DNA sequencing that has published science behind it, should be used instead. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20231610 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21040573. Lee went to international journals and was published after the U.S. Cabal’s rejection.
Lee isn’t alone.
Marcia Herman, Giddens, adjunct professor at Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina states,
“There has never been a well-designed study to examine this issue,” in regard to 80% getting the EM rash.
Christian Perronne, physician on the infectious diseases faculty at the University of Versailles-St Quentin, France, states,
“If you try to publish a little bit different from the guidelines, it’s anti-science.”
And, Lyme literate physician Raphael Stricker goes on record,
“The primer propagates one of the biggest myths about Lyme disease diagnosis instead of acknowledging the dreadful state of 30-year-old Lyme serology and the need for better testing.”
It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
But wait – yes it does.
Benjamin Luft, one of the physicians who wrote the original Lyme guidelines in 2000 admitted that he now agrees that Lyme disease can persist making it infinitely more difficult to treat as time progresses and that The Cabal’s continual emphasis on “false positives” is a red herring – and that early treatment has great benefit.
And lastly, Pffeifer spoke with Raymond Dattwyler, a 1994 CDC panelist that helped write the LD guidelines, who stated,
“Twenty years ago I would’ve said they’re fine. Now I say, ‘oh shit, we were wrong.’ It doesn’t look as good as we thought it was.”