iu-18

Ontario Public Health Officials Called Out on Shoddy, Biased Research Utilizing An Erroneous ‘Climate Change’ Model To Program a Futuristic Tick Problem

The following comment by independent Canadian tick researcher John Scott on the article by Schillberg, E., et al; “Distribution of Ixodes scapularis in Northwestern Ontario: Results From Active and Passive Surveillance Activities in the Northwestern Health Unit Catchment Area,” is a fantastic example of why we as patients should care about where and how research dollars are being spent.

Research article found here:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30314334.  Comment  here: Scott, 2019, 3 errata, comments on Schillberg et al., 2018

Scott outlines three important corrections (errata) on the research article on various ticks in northwestern Ontario.  Please refer to the Scott link above for the full details, but I highlight the major issues below:

1.  Correction #1 has to do with shoddy research. Scott points out that important details are completely omitted from the study about the proper identification of ticks making one wonder if it’s even true. There are no details on history of travel, collection data, life stage, identification method, and who identified it. There was no molecular analysis (i.e. DNA barcoding) which is important on a foreign tick found in a place it shouldn’t be situated. For example, the Amblyomma cajennense tick has been divided into 6 separate tick species. Then there’s the issue of five years lapsing between tick collection until publication.

2.  Correction #2 has to do with research bias. Researchers always cite previous research that pertains to their work and either correct or build upon it. Schillberg, et al. purposely left out previous published work outlining important history on tick movement, infection rate, ecology, and epidemiology. Then, they go on to state more research is needed when it’s’ already been done, making the reader seriously wonder if they are just looking for further research funding. They underplay the problem by only citing five tick species, when there are nine, eight of which are positive for Lyme disease, and five of which  bite humans. Of particular note and importance to patients, Scott provided key information on the pathological and neurological manifestations of Lyme disease for health care providers. By not citing this work, Schillberg, et al., which are all public officials, are clearly using research bias by flat out ignoring previous work that doesn’t fit their paradigm. It just simply doesn’t fit with what they want people to believe.

3.  Correction #3 has to do with creating an erroneous climate change model to fit their bias. Schillberg, et al., cited references that were hypothetical computer models that had erroneous baseline maps. They completely ignore and dismiss previous published work and instead create their own reality to show a gradual tick expansion northward due to supposed climate change.  The problem is tick populations already existed in those locations. Scott’s most telling statement for patients to be aware of regarding research on climate change and ticks is this theory would,

“explain to the public a reason for not tackling this serious health care issue earlier. The tick problem was programmed for the future. Thus, ill-founded statistical analyses culminated in fabricated erroneous data and, ultimately, resulted in a series of maps that turned out to be flawed science.”

Scott also states the authors’ hypothesis on temperature increase is based on the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change Computer forecasts that have been consistently wrong. And yet, articles & books continue to be pumped out stating that warmer winters mean more ticks, when in fact, Scott has shown that overwinter survival of ticks dropped to 33% when the snow melted in late winter exposing black legged ticks to sudden drops in overnight temperature. This has been substantiated by other researchers as well.  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/11/07/ticks-on-the-move-due-to-migrating-birds-and-photoperiod-not-climate-change/

4.  Lastly, if I had a dollar for every article and book that came across my desk pushing this “warmer winters mean more ticks” mantra due to ‘climate change’, I’d be a millionaire. More research under this false pretense is being done by the minute.

How much does that cost? How many research dollars are being diverted from important issues patients and the doctors treating them really need answers to?

Even well-meaning Lyme advocates/journalists write books on Lyme being a disease driven by climate change.

Meanwhile, in the real world, thousands upon thousands of patients continue to be misdiagnosed with everything from medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), to depression, to MS and fibromyalgia. They are flat-out denied treatment and are told, “It’s all in your head.” The subset of patients (30%-40% of us) that are undiagnosed and untreated for months to years continue to be ignored by research and mainstream medicine. We have no new research on potential modes of transmission, good diagnostics, and effective treatments.

There were 53 troubling points noted throughout this research article.

Schillberg et al., 2018 was created by public officials so desperate to keep their jobs that they will literally fabricate a paradigm and create an alternate reality.

Speak up in your sphere of influence, and insist that your tax dollars go towards research that will help sick people – not line the pockets of dishonest researchers and public officials.

For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/08/13/study-shows-lyme-not-propelled-by-climate-change/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/11/17/uw-madison-phd-in-ecological-climatology-climate-change-computer-models-fudged-except-russian-model/  Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.

Political games surrounding Lyme/MSIDS have gone on long enough. Do research on important issues that will help patients.