Johns Hopkins: “The Path to Better Diagnostic Tests is Through Innovative Research”
MAY 23, 2020 —
For those who are as outraged as I am over the 40-year avoidance of direct detection tests for Lyme disease, Ben Beard’s email address is: email@example.com
Email addresses for Health and Human Services employees are public record:
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Cc: (98 Undisclosed recipients)
Date: May 23, 2020 at 9:16 AM
Subject: Johns Hopkins: “The Path to Better Diagnostic Tests is Through Innovative Research”
May 23, 2020
National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta GA 30329-4027 USA
Attn: Ben Beard, PhD Chief, Bacterial Diseases Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, NCEZID
Please take a moment and listen to Dr. John Aucott’s 4min video regarding direct diagnostic tests for Lyme disease……
May 21, 2020 By JOHNS HOPKINS LYME DISEASE RESEARCH CENTER
The Path to Better Diagnostic Tests is Through Innovative Research
https://www.hopkinslyme.org/lyme-disease-awareness/the-path-to-better-diagnostic-tests-is-through-innovative-research/ (Great Video Here)
Quote from Aucott’s video:
“The COVID pandemic underscores the importance of having a direct diagnostic test for an infectious disease.”
It’s been four decades since Lyme was discovered so what was the motivation for the delay Dr. Beard? Direct diagnostic tests for Lyme disease have the capability to overturn the long-established dogma that persistent infection after antibiotic treatment does not exist.
A supporter of my petition forwarded your communication regarding the status of Direct Detection Tests for Lyme Disease and you replied with the following:
Statement from Ben Beard of the CDC: “CDC is not primarily an agency that funds extramural research as does several of our sister federal agencies.”
I would like to point out that the CDC has given Dr. Gary Wormser of New York Medical College an open checkbook using grant# RO1 CK 000152 which continues to be used today.
Here is a screenshot from NIH RePORTER:
That 1.5 million dollar grant was used to focus on the acute stage of disease after early treatment intentionally avoiding the horribly disabled Lyme patient population as exposed in the “Under our Skin” documentary.  The conclusion of that study: Lyme is no big deal and nothing more than the “aches and pains of daily living.” 
Wormser continues to use funding source RO1 CK 000152 for his propaganda.
Dr. Beard…… It appears that the CDC has its own department for direct detection of infections:
Office of Advanced Molecular Detection
Focus: To bring advanced technologies, including next-generation sequencing and bioinformatics, into the US public health system in order to more effectively prevent and respond to important public health threats.
Some key activities:
-Improve pathogen identification and characterization of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other pathogens using next-generation sequencing and other advanced molecular technologies.
-Catalyze the adoption of next-generation sequencing at CDC and in state and local health departments.
-Build staff capacity in genomic sequencing, bioinformatics, and molecular epidemiology at CDC and state public health laboratories.
-Establish enhanced, sustainable, and integrated laboratory information systems.
-Develop tools for prediction, modeling, and early recognition of emerging infections.
So why isn’t Lyme disease a priority for the Office of Advanced Molecular Detection for developing a more accurate Lyme test Dr. Beard?? It appears that you are providing lip service with no intention of insuring that direct detection methods for Lyme are brought to market. One might think that the CDC is colluding to hide the severity of Lyme because the truth about the devastating effects of chronic Lyme would finally be exposed.
A response to this inquiry is requested. (But will most likely be avoided as usual)
Lyme Endemic Hudson, NH
Cc: Rima Khabbaz, MD, Director, NCEZID
 Under our Skin 5min extended trailer
 Feb 4, 2020 complaint regarding the misuse of taxpayer dollars
Tuttle asks a great question and one that deserves an answer. Antibody testing for Lyme and the other coinfections is abysmal. We desperately need direct testing, but there has been a concerted effort by authorities against direct testing:
- There is a current lawsuit due to this suppression: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/05/15/news-release-on-57-1-million-lyme-disease-lawsuit-filed-against-cdc/
- This article also reveals how Lida Mattman’s Gold Standard Culture Method has disappeared thanks to this concerted suppression: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/04/02/transmission-of-lyme-disease-lida-mattman-phd/
- There is NO foolproof diagnostic device or test for Lyme/MSIDS, but there IS a validated questionnaire that doctors should be utilizing: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/09/05/empirical-validation-of-the-horowitz-questionnaire-for-suspected-lyme-disease/
Never forget that the very folks at the table making decisions for patients have their hands in pharmaceutical coffers with patents on testing for Lyme: ConflictReport
According to Professor Laane; however, microscopy is considered the Golden Standard in diagnostics for Syphilis, and would be the ideal test for Lyme.
Dr. Aucott states the PCR is a direct test and is being used for COVID-19. Unfortunately, it’s accuracy has been called into question as well: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ The creator of the PCR is quite clear it was never intended and shouldn’t be used to diagnose patients. Another expert states he doubts the PCR test is ever true. Then there’s the president of Tanzania sending in samples from goats, fruit, and motor oil, giving them human names, and having half return positive from the WHO PCR test: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/13/president-of-tanzania-punks-who-sending-samples-of-fruit-goats-sheep-even-motor-oil-for-covid-testing-nearly-half-come-back-positive/ I think we can safely say the PCR is not working for COVID-19.